Minutes of a Regular Meeting
July 15, 1999
Town
of Los Altos Hills
City
Council Regular Meeting
Thursday, July
15, 1999, 6:00 P.M.
Council
Chambers, 26379 Fremont Road
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
Mayor Dauber
called the Regular Meeting of the City Council to order at 6:00 p.m. in the
Council Chambers at Town Hall.
Present: Mayor
Dauber and Councilmembers Casey, Finn, Johnson and Siegel
Absent: None
Staff: City Manager
William Norton, City Attorney Sandy Sloan,
Planning Director Curtis Williams, Public Works Manager
Jim Rasp and City Clerk Pat Dowd
Press: Wendy
Marinaccio, Los Altos Town Crier
Dauber asked
that the following two items be added to the agenda as urgency items:
Proclamation stating August 15, 1999 as Republic of Korea Independence Day and
a proposal for upgrades for Council Chambers.
MOTION SECONDED
AND CARRIED: Moved by Johnson, seconded by Siegel and passed unanimously to add
a proclamation on Korean Independence Day to the Consent Calendar and to add a
proposal for upgrades for the Council Chambers to Old Business.
2. APPOINTMENTS
AND PRESENTATIONS
2.1
Interview
and Appointment to the Planning Commission
Charles Wong, 14250 Miranda, commented on
his interest in serving on the Planning Commission. He stated that he now had more time and wanted to contribute to
the community. He also wanted to be
part of the process and believed the fast track decision was a step forward in
the changing environment of the Town.
Mr. Wong also commented that he was Asian American and wanted to be a
role model in the community.
It was noted that this completed the
interviews for the vacancy on the Planning Commission. At the last meeting Harry Emerzian, Fred
Fallah and Sandra Humphries had been interviewed.
MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by
Casey, seconded by Siegel and passed unanimously to appoint Charles Wong to the
Planning Commission for a four year term.
3.
PLANNING
COMMISSION REPORT
The Planning Director reported that the
following applications were discussed at the 7/14/99 Planning Commission
Meeting: Lands of Burger, 25850 Westwind Way: approved request for a site
development permit for a new residence and a variance to exceed the maximum
development area permitted; Lands of Quinn and Panofsky, 25671 and 25691 Chapin
Road, approved request for a lot line adjustment; Lands of Quinn, 25671 Chapin
Road: approved request for a conditional development permit and a site
development permit for a new residence and variances to exceed the allowable
maximum development area and maximum floor area and to allow required parking
within the setback; Lands of Wythe & Vitu, 13828 Moon Lane: approved
request for a site development permit for a new residence; and Lands of Windy
Hill, 12780 Camino Medio Lane: approved request for a site development permit
for a new residence, pool and spa.
Casey appealed the decision on Lands of Quinn. This public hearing will be set for the next Council Meeting on September 2, 1999.
Casey strongly urged Councilmembers to attend Planning Commission Meetings particularly as the fast track ordinance was being put into place. She had attended the meetings and was quite pleased at the Chairman's handling of the meetings. Casey did think that it was important and would be productive for the Council and Commission to have a joint meeting to further define the fast track ordinance. However, Casey expressed her surprise that Commissioner Schreiner stepped down from the Commission on the Wythe/Vitu application but proceeded to speak to this application from the floor. Casey did not think this was ethically correct and further believed it was not right that Commissioners should be allowed to so influence their peers. She noted meetings at which Councilmembers had stepped down from hearing applications but had not addressed the Council with their opinions. Casey asked that if indeed this action was not technically illegal that the Council agendize the matter for discussion. She believed a Council policy should be in place not allowing such activity.
Dauber stated that there were issues and it could be something that may affect you such as the house next door. She did not think they wanted to be unable to speak out if there was something.
The City Attorney responded that she would check the Conflict of Interest laws but she did not believe it was appropriate for Commissioners to step down and then speak to applications.
Dot Schreiner, Planning Commissioner, stated that she had specfically asked the Planning Director if she could speak to this application and was advised that she could. She stated that she had spoken on this application in the past and had spoken in a factual manner.
4. CONSENT
CALENDAR
Item Removed: 4.4 (City Manager)
MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by
Johnson, seconded by Siegel and passed unanimously to approve the balance of
the Consent Calendar, specifically:
4.1 Approved
Minutes: July 1, 1999
(Regular Meeting)
4.2 Approved
Warrants: $292,592.34 (6/23/99 -- 6/30/99)
4.3 Adopted
Ordinance #401 amending Title 8 of Municipal Code to
adopt
by reference the 1998 California Building Standards Code,
including
Uniform Building, Mechanical, Electrical, Plumbing and
Fire
Codes, and the 1995 edition of the Cabo one and two family
Dwelling
code, with amendments, and adoption of a negative declaration
4.5
Accepted agreement for sanitary sewer
easement, Lands of Ayyar,
12121 Oak Park Court -- Reso #46-99
4.6
Accepted agreement for sanitary sewer
easement, Prime Home
Development, Inc., 12125 Oak Park Court
-- Reso #47-99
4.7 Issued
Proclamation: Republic of Korea
Independence Day --
August 15, 1999
Item Removed:
4.4
Award of contract for Pavement Management
and Storm Drain Improvement
CIP 98-99 and amending the 1998-99
Capital Budget to include Santa Clara
County's Measure B Pavement Management
Program Funds and additional
Funding for the Town's Pavement
Management CIP Project --
Resolutions #____
The City Manager stated that he had
removed this item from the Consent Calendar for two reasons: 1) a protest had
been received from another bidder, O'Grady Paving, because they said Granite
Construction (low bidder) had not listed its subcontractors; and 2) additional
specifications and design work which could be done in the field was needed and
an additional $10,000 needed to be added to the project cost. The City Attorney had reviewed the protest
from O'Grady and had found no fault with Granite's bid.
MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by
Johnson, seconded by Siegel and passed unanimously to adopt Resolution #48-99
awarding a contract to Granite Construction for the construction of the
Pavement Management Project FY98-99 and Resolution #49-99 amending the 1998-99
Capital Budget to include Santa Clara County's Measure B Pavement Management
Program Funds, and additional funding for the Town's Pavement Management CIP
Project, as amended to include an additional $10,000.
5.
UNFINISHED
BUSINESS
5.1
Proposals
for cosmetic upgrades to the Council Chambers
Ethel Blank, Exhibit Curator, presented
two proposals to the Council for consideration. The first concerned the chairs in Chambers and included a $5,200
estimate to recover the existing chairs and a $13,000 proposal to replace
them. At this time, after several
people at this meeting had sat in the sample chair, she was withdrawing this
request for new chairs. They were not
sturdy nor comfortable. The other
proposal was for $19,000. This included
electrical work, new ceilings, painting, new doors, etc.
The City Manager reported that by
September he should have the estimates for structural repairs to Town Hall and
the Council Chambers. At that time
there should be a clearer understanding of whether it was more effective to
rebuild or arrange for upgrades to the buildings.
PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To continue this
item pending additional information.
6.
NEW BUSINESS
6.1 Resolution authorizing grant of easement to Pacific Bell on Town
Land for
installation of an underground vault, and letter
of agreement -- Reso #__
Council had several questions about this
issue including: how many homes would be served?; how much should they pay the
Town?; and where would their trucks park when working?
PASSED BY CONSENSUS: Since a
representative was not present from Pacific Bell, it was agreed to continue
this item to the September 2nd Council Meeting. It was further agreed that this request should be given to the Utility and
Information Systems Committee for review and comment.
7.
REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES, SUB-COMMITTEES, AND COUNCILMEMBERS ON OUTSIDE AGENCIES
7.1
Report on
newly established subcommittee on airport noise (continued from
the July 1, 1999 Council Meeting)
Dauber reported that Jim Abraham,
Marjorie Evans and Ken Schroeder had agreed to serve on an airport noise task
force committee with Jim serving as the chairman. This committee would keep the Council advised on airport noise
issues and recommend actions that the Council should take.
7.2 Report from subcommittee (Casey and Dauber) on review of design
guidelines (continued from the July 1, 1999 Council Meeting)
Dauber reported that she and
Councilmember Casey, the Design Guidelines Subcommittee, had met and while in
agreement on some issues, needed Council direction on what architectural
features were limited by the fast track ordinance. The fast track ordinance referred to four specific design
elements that the site development authority was no longer authorized to
regulate: architectural style, chimneys, window treatment and skylights. The question under discussion was what other
architectural design features should be on the list. Casey believed the issue was how the design guidelines fit in
with the fast track ordinance. She
recommended a joint meeting of the Council and Planning Commission in September
to discuss this issue. She believed it
would help to have another month of experience in dealing with the
implementation of the fast track ordinance.
Siegel and Johnson believed that they should see how this fast track
ordinance works for a while. They noted
that rewriting the design guidelines would be a major task. Finn did not believe design guidelines
should be used at all.
MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by
Dauber, seconded by Siegel and passed by the following roll call vote to
schedule a joint meeting of the Council and Commission in September to discuss
this issue and in the meantime to limit the design guidelines to those
specifically stated in the ordinance.
AYES: Mayor
Dauber and Councilmembers Johnson and Siegel
NOES: Mayor
Pro Tem Finn and Councilmember Casey
7.3
Appointments to the Land Use Element Committee
PASSED BY CONSENSUS: Council made the
following appointments to the Land Use Element Committee: Emily Cheng, Doni
Hubbard, Richard Lamparter and Evan Wythe
8.
STAFF REPORTS
8.1
City Manager
8.1.1 August City Council Meeting Schedule
MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by
Johnson, seconded by Finn and passed unanimously to cancel both the August 5th
and August 19th Council
Meetings. Council also agreed to hold a
joint meeting with the Pathways Committee at 5:00 p.m. on September 2, 1999.
8.2
City Attorney
The City Attorney stated that she had
checked the Conflict of Interest Code and it appeared that Commissioners could
speak to applications when they had stepped down from the discussion. However, she noted that she would be
preparing a full report on this for the Council.
Dot Schreiner, Planning Commissioner,
reiterated that she did not have to step down legally from the discussion on
this application.
8.3
City Clerk
8.3.1 Report
on Council Correspondence
9.
COUNCIL-INITIATED ITEMS
9.1
Discussion of desirability to change the appeal ordinance from 21 to 22
days
(Mayor Dauber)
Dauber noted that with the change in
dates for the Council Meetings Council now did not see Planning Commission
approvals on their agendas. Rather they
were notified by letter from the City Clerk of approvals and the time frame in
which to appeal them. Dauber believed
it would be a more open process if these items appeared on the Council's
agendas as the public would be aware of these approvals.
MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by
Casey, seconded by Siegel and passed unanimously to direct staff to prepare an
ordinance changing the appeal period from 21 to 22 days.
9.2
Discussion of definition of 'attic' in Town
ordinances (Mayor Dauber)
Dauber raised her concerns about a
definition of 'attic'. She noted that
the only mention in the code was that 'attic spaces that measure over seven
feet from top of floor to underside of roof shall count as floor area'. She referred to recent situations which she
believed reinforced her point that this definition needed to be clarified. Council discussed this issue but did not
agree it was an area that needed clarification.
9.3
Discussion of definition of 'carport' in
Town ordinances (Mayor Dauber)
Dauber recommended that the Council adopt
a definition of 'carports'. Casey
believed this should have a staff report and be agendized for Council discussion.
PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To direct staff to
prepare a report on a definition of 'carport'.
9.4
Authorization to attend the League of California Cities Annual
Conference -
San
Jose, October 10-12, 1999
MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Siegel,
seconded by Johnson and passed unanimously to authorize attendance at the
League Conference for any Councilmember who wished to attend but not to
authorize any travel expenses since this conference was going to be held in San
Jose.
9.5 Community Health Awareness Council (Mayor Dauber)
Dauber reported that CHAC would be increasing their request to the Town for financial support by double.
9.6 Community Center for the Arts (Councilmember Johnson)
Johnson reported that this committee, on which he had represented the Town, was no longer active and had been disbanded.
9.7 Joint Volunteer Awards (Councilmember Johnson)
Johnson reported that there were two vacancies on this committee.
9.8 Meeting with Judge Manoukian (Mayor Dauber)
Dauber reported that she and the City Manager and representatives from other cities had had an interesting and informative meeting with Judge Manoukian on issues of local interest.
10.
PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR
11.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
11.1 Request for an exception to a conservation
easement to allow a hard surface
turnaround for mail delivery: Lands of
Moon Lane Development, 13824
Moon Lane
Janet
Vitu, applicant, explained to the Council their reasons for requesting this
exception. The Post Office currently
was delivering the mail for the three lots to Page Mill. Their requirements to deliver to Moon Lane
included a hard surface (not a material like grass crete) and adequate turn around area. Ms. Vitu stated that they had discussed this
matter with the Post Office and postal representatives had been to the
property. They had asked the Post
Office for a letter but to date had not received one.
Evan Wythe, applicant, stated that they
already had multiple surfaces on the property and their preference would be to
stay with pavers.
Dauber suggested that the Planning Director talk to the Post
Office and ask them to allow the most permeable surface to be used. She also asked if this was precedent setting
in that the Post Office did not usually deliver mail on private driveways.
MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Casey, seconded by Finn and
passed unanimously to approve the request for an exception to a conservation
easement to allow a paved U.S. Post Office vehicular turnaround at 13824 Moon
Lane (Parcel 3), Lands of Moon Lane Development, subject to the Planning
Commission's recommended conditions of approval and findings with the added
condition that the Town receive a letter from the Post Office stating that they
will deliver the mail to this location.
11.2 Proposed
amendments to Matadero Creek Subdivision Conditions of Approval,
Related to Building Coverage and Maximum
Development Area and Negative
Declaration
The
Planning Director presented background on the Matadero Creek Subdivision, a
report on his review of the development statistics and a recommendation. Upon approval of the last of the twenty
residences in the subdivision (Lot 7) in 1998, the City Council directed staff
to prepare revisions to the conditions of approval which govern allowable
development on each parcel. The
conditions were initially approved in 1981, and set limitations on development
area, building coverage, and roofline elevation for each lot, all of which were
(and are) more restrictive than the Town’s code. The conditions of approval established, for each lot, an
“unencumbered area” of land which excluded conservation and open space
easements, and then applied the Town’s criteria for development area and
building coverage to that area. Those
conditions were then also incorporated into the neighborhood’s covenants,
conditions and restrictions (CC&R’s), which form private agreements between
residents of the subdivision. In the intervening years, however, the Town’s
codes had changed, and some of the original requirements, such as building
coverage, no longer were relevant to the current regulations, and/or they were
very cumbersome to monitor. The City
Council had asked that the standards for the subdivision be simplified and
reviewed with respect to today’s regulations.
The proposed amendment would modify the subdivision conditions as follows: Delete the building coverage limitation, as it no longer exists in the Town’s Code; Retain the roofline elevation limits, as outlined in the conditions and in the CC&R’s; and Calculate the Maximum Development Area (MDA) for each lot based on the current Code formula applied to the “unencumbered” area of the lot, and using the present Code definition of “development area”, i.e., including second story floor area. In no case, however, would the MDA be reduced to less than the current conditions of approval allow, or less than the development area now existing on a lot.
The
following table summarizes the impact on the allowable maximum development area
(MDA) for each lot, showing the MDA allowed by the existing subdivision
conditions, the MDA allowed under the proposed formula, and an estimate of
current development area for each lot.
The bold numbers indicate the higher of the first two figures, which would
then be allowable for that lot. The impact of the proposed development area
condition varies substantially.
Thirteen (13) of the lots could increase development area from existing
(estimated) levels of development, and seven (7) others would be considered at
or over their limit of MDA (non-conforming).
Increases allowed would range from 4 square feet (lot 5) to 3,331 square
feet (lot 2). Only nine (9) of the
lots are currently conforming with the existing MDA conditions of the
subdivision, so that the proposed modification would
actually
decrease non-conformity for the subdivision. Staff believes that this proposal is balanced and equitable in
that it closely reflects today’s MDA standards applied to the “unencumbered”
area of each lot, without decreasing the allowable development area on any
lot.
Table 1
Matadero Creek Subdivision
Maximum Development Area (MDA)
Comparison1
|
Lot # |
Address |
Existing
Conditions of Approval |
Proposed
Formula |
Existing
Development Area2 |
|
1 |
28530 Matadero Creek Lane |
11,760 |
14,838 |
13,129 |
|
2 |
28525 Matadero Creek Lane |
11,920 |
11,259 |
8,589 |
|
3 |
28520 Matadero Creek Lane |
12,240 |
9,720 |
9,426 |
|
4 |
28515 Matadero Creek Lane |
10,980 |
8,852 |
12,059 |
|
5 |
28510 Matadero Creek Lane |
8,380 |
6,047 |
8,376 |
|
6 |
28505 Matadero Creek Lane |
8,880 |
7,297 |
10,750 |
|
7 |
28500 Matadero Creek Lane |
11,340 |
11,394 |
11,332 |
|
8 |
28600 Matadero Creek Court |
8,540 |
6,508 |
10,234 |
|
9 |
28605 Matadero Creek Court |
9,220 |
11,779 |
13,055 |
|
10 |
28610 Matadero Creek Court |
9,500 |
6,936 |
9,027 |
|
11 |
28615 Matadero Creek Court |
8,460 |
7,510 |
9,066 |
|
12 |
28620 Matadero Creek Court |
11,175 |
9,730 |
10,851 |
|
13 |
28625 Matadero Creek Court |
10,200 |
9,224 |
8,401 |
|
14 |
28628 Matadero Creek Court |
10,160 |
12,936 |
12,136 |
|
15 |
28560 Matadero Creek Lane |
12,360 |
8,537 |
13,950 |
|
16 |
28635 Matadero Creek Court |
13,040 |
14,963 |
13,118 |
|
17 |
28555 Matadero Creek Lane |
13,900 |
16,555 |
15,851 |
|
18 |
28550 Matadero Creek Lane |
15,165 |
17,506 |
15,120 |
|
19 |
28545 Matadero Creek Lane |
13,720 |
15,954 |
13,679 |
|
20 |
28540 Matadero Creek Lane |
9,030 |
10,112 |
12,984 |
1Numbers in bold would be new MDA; existing development area in excess of MDA would be legally non-conforming.
2Staff estimates from project files; includes second floor area.
Rick and Charlie Ellinger, 25820 Matadero
Creek Lane; Bob Lefkowits, 28515 Matadero Creek Lane; Ann Ward, 27945 Via
Ventana; Bill Riffle, 28525 Matadero Creek Lane; and Gary Daichendt, 28550
Matadero Creek Lane addressed the Council and expressed their support for the
Planning Director's recommendation and report on this complicated issue. They
noted that according to this report no owner would get less development area
and there would be far less confusion.
This would be consistent for all and would bring the Matadero Creek
Subdivision in line with other Town regulations.
Mr. and Mrs. Jain, 28510 Matadero Creek
Lane, did not agree with the Planning Director's recommended report. They believed this recommendation gave the
larger lots more and the smaller lots less.
It was not equitable and lowered property values.
Council discussed the history of the
Matadero Creek Subdivision and the Planning Director's recommendation. In addition they discussed the application
of the subdivision's conditions of approval, the CC&Rs (covenants,
conditions and restrictions) and Ordinance #305. Casey questioned the fairness of this recommendation as it
applied to the Jains' lot and commented on the issue of counting or not
counting the second floor. One proposal
that was also discussed was having a 9,000 square foot minimum.
MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by
Siegel, seconded by Dauber and passed unanimously to adopt the proposed
negative declaration and to approve the revised development standards for the
Matadero Creek Subdivision (Tract No. 7187), as outlined in the following
amendment and citing the following findings:
TRACT NO. 7187
MATADERO CREEK SUBDIVISION
FILE #11-99-FM-AMEND
1.
This map
amendment modifies Condition #7B of the subdivision conditions of approval for
Tract #7187 (Matadero Creek Subdivision), related to building coverage and
development area.
2.
The Maximum
Development Area (MDA) for each lot shall be calculated based on the current
Code formula (Section 10-1.502 of the Zoning Code) applied to the
“unencumbered” area of the lot, i.e., excluding conservation easements, open
space easements, and access easements.
3.
“Development
area” shall be defined as provided in the Town of Los Altos Hills Zoning Code,
Section 10-1.502, and as may be amended from time to time.
4.
In no case,
however, shall the MDA be reduced to less than that permitted by prior Council
action (Table 1 attached), or less than the approved development area existing
on a lot, whichever is greater.
5. Building
coverage limitations shall no longer apply to the subdivision.
Findings for
APPROVAL OF Final Map Amendment
Tract NO. 7187
MATADERO CREEK SUBDIVISION
FILE #11-99-FM-AMEND
1. The
amendment assures that the improvements can be accommodated and designed with
minimal impact to neighbors, as any resultant increases in development would be
modest and would be proportional to the size and slope of the lot.
2.
The
modifications would not impose an additional burden on the present fee owners
of other properties in the subdivision, as the extent of any increases would be
modest and would result in similar development area as exists on adjacent lots.
3. The
modification does not alter any right, title, or interest in the real property
reflected on the recorded map. While
the modification may result in an increase of development area as prescribed in
the subdivision conditions, the proposed amount of development area would meet
the Town’s Zoning Code requirements.
4. The
modification would be consistent with the Town's General Plan in that the
relationship of any proposed changes in development area would relate
specifically to the size and slope of the lot, exclusive of open space and
conservation easements.
5. The
properties affected by the proposed change in development area limitations are
limited, and increases would be modest, minimizing the potential impact of the
amendment on neighboring properties and from Page Mill Road. Granting of the amendment will be consistent
with the original intent of the subdivision to maintain open space and
separation between property improvements.
6. The
proposed modification will not cause public health problems, or environmental
damage, including injury to fish or wildlife and their habitats.
7. The
proposed modification will not adversely affect any existing easements acquired
by the public at large, for access through or use of, the affected properties.
8. The
conditions of the subdivision have changed since the original approval such
that the Town’s definition of “development area” now includes second floor
area, and because “building coverage” limitations no longer exist. The proposed amendment would provide more
consistency with current Town regulations, while preserving the intent of the
original subdivision conditions.
12.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no
further new or old business to discuss, the City Council Meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Patricia Dowd
City Clerk
The minutes of
the July 15, 1999 Regular City Council Meeting were approved at the September 2, 1999 Regular City
Council Meeting.