CITY OF ORINDA by yantingting

VIEWS: 9 PAGES: 32

									                                  CITY OF ORINDA
                                        MINUTES

                                       JUNE 19, 2001


A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ORINDA CITY COUNCIL WAS HELD ON THE ABOVE
DATE IN THE COMMUNITY CENTER AUDITORIUM, 26 ORINDA WAY, ORINDA,
CALIFORNIA, MAYOR AMY WORTH PRESIDING.

A.   CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Worth called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.

B.   ROLL CALL

     COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Laura Abrams, Allan Tabor, Amy Worth.

     COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: Joyce Hawkins, excused; Gregg Wheatland, recused
     until 8:27 p.m.

C.   PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG led by Mayor Worth.

D.   ADOPTION OF AGENDA
     MOTION:       By Councilmember Tabor, seconded by Councilmember Abrams, adopting
     the agenda. The motion passed by a vote of three ayes, two absent (Mayor Pro Tem
     Wheatland and Councilmember Hawkins, excused).

E.   ITEMS FOR THE GOOD OF THE CITY (None)

F.   PUBLIC FORUM

     Roger Cesvet, 7 El Campanero, stated that many roads in Orinda are in need of repair.
     There has been no maintenance on his private road for over 20 years. He felt that residents
     should receive some benefits for the taxes they have paid. He wanted to know the City’s
     position on road maintenance.

     City Manager Bill Lindsay replied that he would be happy to meet with Mr. Cesvet at his
     convenience to discuss the subject in more detail. He reported that between now and
     December 31, the City will have spent $2.6 million on various road projects, including
     the reconstruction of Rheem Boulevard and El Toyonal, and the City’s annual pavement
     management program. The City puts all of its Measure C return-to-source funds and
     100% of its gas tax funds into its annual pavement management program. It also puts
     100% of its solid waste franchise fees into road maintenance. Such funding maintains
     roads in their current condition, while the City tries to catch-up on the maintenance of
     roads it gained when the City incorporated. It is customary for municipalities to not
     maintain private roads because they do not maintain private property. The City would not
     accept a road that is already in a deteriorating condition, since it would mean taking
      public funds away from other roads. Councilmember Tabor commented that, with
      respect to the new library and auditorium being built, no funds designated for road
      improvement have been used.

      Clyde Vaughn, 59 Donna Maria Way, asked if the City plans to put up signs on Don
      Gabriel, Valencia, and LaCresta Streets warning of the existence of speed humps (if they
      are installed). Speed bumps can cause a driver to lose control of his car, and the primary
      concern is to avoid any injury to people or property. The City should avoid potential
      liability claims for accidents resulting from speed bumps. In closing, Mr.Vaughn stated
      that he strongly supported the idea of vertical curbs along the sidewalk or path along Don
      Gabriel. A resident told him she was concerned about drivers parking on sidewalks with
      sloping curbs which defeats the whole idea of providing sidewalks for student use and
      protection. Mr. Lindsay responded that the City has not designed the speed humps yet, so
      many of the details are not available. All the projects in the south Orinda area around the
      school campuses will return to the Council for specific design review approval.

G.    CITY MANAGER'S REPORT (None)

H.    PUBLIC HEARINGS

      H-1.   Continuation of a General Plan Amendment request by Kirk Haley to change a
             General Plan land use designation on a 0.75-acre parcel located on Rio Vista
             Road (APN: 265-034-001) from “Utility” to “Residential: Low Density.”

      Planning Director Emmanuel Ursu reported that staff met with the applicant when he
      proposed the idea of merging his parcel and the subject parcel and constructing a second
      dwelling unit on the EBMUD portion of the merged parcels. Yesterday, he informed staff
      that it would not financially work out for him based on the purchase price of the property;
      and it is no longer a viable option that he wants to pursue.

      Staff has looked into other options that the Council could pursue:

      1) Defer discussion until the applicant can present a specific residential project and come
         back to the Council with a specific project on the property;
      2) Grant the General Plan Amendment subject to the lot merger restricting the use to a
         second dwelling unit on the EBMUD portion of the property;
      3) Grant the General Plan Amendment subject to other conditions of approval;
      4) Deny the request.

      In response to Councilmember Abrams’ question, Mr. Ursu confirmed that Option 2 was the
      option that the applicant no longer wanted to consider.

      City Attorney Linda Roodhouse stated that if the Council decided that they wanted to allow
      the building of a second unit, there is sufficient nexus for the Council to require that the
      second unit go through Design Review because it is within the scenic corridor. In addition,
      the Council may wish to consider some limitations on any structure (second unit or


Orinda City Council Minutes                     2                          June 19, 2001
      residence) that go beyond the requirements in Chapter 30 because it is in the scenic corridor.
       Because this is not a typical request for development permit, but a General Plan
      Amendment, the Council has greater latitude to add conditions and restrictions on what they
      decide to do. If they decide to deny the GPA request, the City Attorney could provide
      additional findings to the Council.

      Mr. Ursu added that he had provided the Council a calculation of maximum rents that could
      be charged for a unit that is deed restricted to very low, low and moderate income
      households. Those numbers are based on a family size of four, so the actual numbers would
      be less.

      Mayor Worth reported that during the course of the discussions, she had had two phone
      conversations with the applicant, Kirk Haley. In the first discussion, he had indicated that
      this was an EBMUD bidding process and there was a back-up offer. In the second
      discussion, he asked for sufficient time to make his presentation before the Council. The
      Mayor asked if the Council wished to allow Mr. Haley to speak longer than the standard
      three minutes.

      MOTION: By Councilmember Abrams, seconded by Councilmember Tabor, to grant
      applicant Kirk Haley ten minutes to make his presentation before the Council. The motion
      passed by a vote of three ayes, and two absent (Mayor Pro Tem Wheatland and
      Councilmember Hawkins, excused).

      Applicant Kirk Haley said that during an informal brainstorming meeting with Planning
      Department staff, he considered merging lots and creating a second dwelling. However, he
      was surprised to read it in the staff report because it had not been his intent to proceed. He
      apologized to the Council if it appeared he had had a change of thought. He said such an
      option wasn’t feasible because it doesn’t make sense to purchase land which is basically for
      a single residence and to build another structure on it, because no one could afford to rent it
      out at that price.

      Mr. Haley provided the Council with a written report from which he read:

      Sheet 0. - APPLICATION TO AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN

      Fact:
                 Requested Amendment: Change the General Plan use of “Utility” to
                 “Residential” [Mr. Haley stressed that this is an application for a change in use
                 and not for a home at this time.]

      Benefit:
                 Purpose of the Request: To change the use of the land to an appropriate and
                 beneficial use for the community




Orinda City Council Minutes                     3                             June 19, 2001
      Sheet 1 - 1987 GENERAL PLAN

      Fact:
                   “Utility” use designation is out dated
                   Not a part of EBMUD’s managed water shed
                   EBMUD Board of Directors voted to excess the property in 1996
                   City of Orinda approved the sale in 1996, and turned down option to purchase
                   the land
                   No known need or plan for utility usage
                   “Utility” use is inappropriate for area

      Benefit:
              •    Utilize the land for its best use
              •    Avoid exposing city to a legal challenge from a use designation not having merit

      Sheet 2 - ZONING

      Fact:
               •   Current zoning is residential
               •   Zoning is consistent with adjoining residential uses
                      5 abutting residences
                      Access
                      Grade or elevation
                      Visibility
               •   “R-20” is consistent with land area requirements
                      20,000 sf min. area required
                      34,433 sf meets criteria
      Benefits:
              •    Grouping similar uses provides harmony, safety and quality

      Sheet 3 – RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

      Facts:
               •   Conceptual design meets requirements
                      Set-backs
                      Lot area
                      Floor area ratio
                      Height
               •   No variances required

      Benefits:
              •    Assures City’s goals for a “semi-rural character”
                      Small in relation to their lots
                      Heavy tree cover and other vegetation dominating most lots
                      Limited grading and disturbance of existing land contours
                      Diversity of house placement


Orinda City Council Minutes                      4                           June 19, 2001
                      Visible vacant land within and adjacent to residential areas
                      Winding streets with limited traffic
                      Few sidewalks and streetlights

      Sheet 4 – SAFETY

      Facts:
               •   Undeveloped property is not required to follow Preventive Fire Protection
                   Requirements
               •   Land is located in a “Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone” at the base of El
                   Toyonal residential area
               •   Orinda Fire Ordinance 93-2 has compared the Oakland/Berkeley hills fire storm
                   to the same characteristics that exist in Orinda
               •   History of theft, vandalism, underage drinking and other illegal activities

      Benefits:
              •    Developed property will fall under the Fire Prevention Regulations and reduce
                   existing fire hazard
               •   The presence of residence at end of Rio Vista will deter crime

      Sheet 5 & 6 - ENVIRONMENT

      Facts:
               •   CEQA – Negative Declaration as determined by staff is appropriate for he .75
                   acre change to residential
               •   Current hillside is scoured by surface drainage as evident by bare soil on slopes
                   and open trenches
               •   Used to dump debris
                      Clippings
                      Oil barrels
                      Cans
                      Garbage

      Benefits:
              •    Drainage improvements will mitigate erosion and reduce silt into creeks and
                   lakes
               •   Reduce land slide risk
               •   A full time resident will discourage littering
               •   Clean-up existing site

      Sheet 7 – CAMINO PABLO SCENIC CORRIDOR

      Facts:
               •   Natural existing vegetation screens site
               •   Village Grove – dominant natural mass screens property
               •   Visual elevation difference between Camino Pablo Road and building pad


Orinda City Council Minutes                      5                           June 19, 2001
               •   Visual “alley” can be mitigated with building sited placement behind trees and
                   landscape screening as determined during the design and application process

      Benefits:
              •    Preserve the scenic corridor
              •    Improve natural landscaping with development and maintenance

      Sheet 8 – DESIGN AND APPLICATION PROCESS

      Facts:
               •   Conduct surveys
                      Topographical
                      Geotechnical
               •   Application process
                      Additional CEQA review for a specific residence
                      City of Orinda’s General Plan
                      Design review standards
                      Tree management regulations
                      Planning and Engineering staff reviews
                      Planning Commission approval
                      Public hearings
               •   County building inspections
               •   Final City approval

      Benefits:
              •    Assurance that City’s General Plan and goals are maintained
              •    Fees and tax revenues
                                  th
      Sheet 9 – RESPONSE TO JUNE 5 CITY COUNCIL MEETING REQUEST

         Regulatory tools available to the City if zoned to the PS District:

               Statement 1:   Maintain the dominance of wooded and open ridges and hillsides.

               Response:      This statement will not fully restrict the installation of utilities or
                              other uses since a design could be developed to meet the intent of this
                              policy.

               Statement 2:   Support preservation of EBMUD watershed lands.

               Response:      City’s action to date has been contrary to this policy. EBMUD has
                              made it clear that there are no utility needs.



      Councilmember Tabor asked the applicant to explain how the City’s action to date has been


Orinda City Council Minutes                      6                             June 19, 2001
      contrary to the policy of supporting the preservation of EBMUD’s watershed lands. Mr.
      Haley replied that in 1996, EBMUD notified the City that they were going to sell the
      property, and the City approved that sale. Later, EBMUD approached the City and asked
      them if they were interested in purchasing the land; and there was no interest at that time.
      Mr. Haley said he did not believe there had been any additional communication with the
      City as to what the future of this property would be. Councilmember Tabor asked if the City
      couldn’t support preservation of the property without buying it, but by keeping it within the
      General Plan as designated watershed land. Mr. Haley replied he wasn’t convinced that the
      City could legally do that over the course of time.

      Mr. Haley continued to read from his report:

              Statement 3:    Seek cooperation of PG&E and EBMUD in managing landholdings
                              to maximize community benefit and visual attractiveness, consistent
                              with utility needs.

              Response:       This opens the door for development of utility usage. [Mr. Haley said
                              he believed this statement was saying “work with utilities to make it
                              attractive but basically utilize the land for utility needs.” He said this
                              could mean anything -- a telecommunications company could come
                              in and place a sending tower with a standby generator there.]

      At this point in the proceedings, the applicant had exhausted his 15-minute time limit. At the
      Mayor’s suggestion, and with concurrence by the Council, Mr. Haley was given an
      additional two minutes to complete his report.

              Statement 4:    Scenic corridors…Camino Pablo.

              Response:       Addressed in presentation and the same can be applied to utility
                              development. [Mr. Haley stated that the scenic corridor could be
                              preserved, even with development.]

      Sheet 10 – Additional Design Constraints

          •   Building area – FAR 0.1 [Normally 0.2]
          •   Driveway entrance will be located near the northeast corner of 30 Rio Vista lot
              [which is the corner of the applicant’s lot]
          •   Maximum building height – 23 feet [Lowered from 27 feet, which will force the
              design to push the house into the contours of the land, making it less exposed]
          •   Exterior building material shall be non-combustible
          •   Exterior color shall match or blend with earth or natural vegetation tones
          •   Native trees shall be planted to provide screening from Camino Pablo
          •   A fence or physical delineation along Rio Vista shall be installed to deter dumping
              debris

      At the conclusion of his presentation, Mayor Worth thanked the applicant. The Council had


Orinda City Council Minutes                       7                              June 19, 2001
      no further questions for Mr. Haley.

      Since there were no speakers present from the audience, the Mayor closed the public
      comment portion of the hearing.

      Referring to Sheet 1 of the applicant’s report, “…not a part of EBMUD’s managed water
      shed” ; Councilmember Abrams asked if it was still a passive watershed area for the utility
      since there was no structure at present, and it has a downhill feed to the creek. City Attorney
      Roodhouse replied it has a function as a watershed, even if it is not designated as such.
      Councilmember Abrams asked if there was any way to respond to EBMUD to question the
      viability of selling off the lot, putting Mr. Haley in the position of purchasing the property in
      order to protect his residence. Ms. Roodhouse replied that the City has no authority to
      require EBMUD to do anything with respect to this property.

      In response to one of the applicant’s statements, Ms. Roodhouse replied that the City is not
      required to legislatively respond to EBMUD’s unilateral decision as to how they wish to use
      the property. The argument that the City has somehow done something is akin to someone
      who has a lot that is zoned for R-10, and they want to build an 8,000 square-foot house that
      goes way over the FAR; so they want the City to rezone it as something else so they can
      make a different use of the property. The City doesn’t have to do that.

      Referring to Sheet 1, “ ‘utility’ use is inappropriate for the area,” Councilmember Abrams
      stated that while the property is adjacent to other structures, it is also adjacent to 3,000 acres
      of EBMUD open space. Ms. Roodhouse added that there might be other utilities, besides
      EBMUD, that might want to use the property.

      Councilmember Abrams asked Planning Director Ursu if the applicant’s statement,
      “conceptual design meets requirements” referred to the site plan shown on Sheet 3 of his
      report. Mr. Ursu concurred that it did. He also stated that the applicant’s proposal had an
      FAR of 0.1, and with such an FAR, he would be allowed to construct a 3,667 square-foot
      residence (including a 400 square-foot garage).

      Councilmember Abrams stated that while the Council may not want to burden Mr. Haley by
      making him go come before the Council with a completed plan and then not allowing a
      General Plan Amendment (if the Council decides to do so), but the geotechnical work and
      topographical work hasn’t been completed. Mr. Ursu replied that the applicant had provided
      a topographical survey, but no geotechnical study.

      Councilmember Abrams asked if staff had walked the property to determine if it could be
      screened from the scenic corridor. Mr. Ursu replied that, due to the presence of poison oak,
      the staff had not walked onto the property, but did walk around the property. Mr. Ursu said
      there were two drainage areas on the property. The site that Mr. Haley had indicated would
      be an ideal location for a building pad or a home site on a north-facing slope with much
      existing vegetation available for screening. However, it would definitely be seen from the
      Village, from the areas just north of Camino Sobrante.



Orinda City Council Minutes                       8                             June 19, 2001
      Councilmember Abrams commented that on Sheet 4, “land is located in a ‘Very High Fire
      Hazard Severity Zone’ at the base of El Toyonal residential area.” In terms of protecting the
      base of the hill, that is a benefit; however, it’s adjacent to 3,000 acres of heavy density, high
      fire hazard land.

      In response to Councilmember Abrams’ inquiry regarding Sheet 5, “CEQA – Negative
      Declaration as determined by staff is appropriate for the .75 acre change to residential,”
      Mr. Ursu said that the Council has made it very clear in previous hearings on this item, that
      the initial study and the draft environmental review prepared by the staff have not been
      adequate. If the Council wishes to proceed with the amendment based on prior discussion,
      the staff would need to revise the initial study and do additional environmental review. If the
      Council feels that the CEQA done to date is adequate, then the initial study could be
      adopted. But since drainage and geology issues had been raised, some additional study
      would be necessary. If the initial study were revised, it would need to be recirculated. There
      is a 20-day recirculation time frame. City Attorney Roodhouse commented that due to the
      slope of the hill, it is likely that a second Negative Declaration will be required once a
      specific project was in the works.

      Referring to Sheet 7, “Village Grove – dominant natural mass screens property,”
      Councilmember Abrams asked if the applicant was assuming that the top of the oak trees, as
      one is driving along, helps screen it from the road. Mr. Ursu replied that some of the trees in
      the Village Grove would help screen the site, but when coming south from Camino Pablo or
      standing in the Village looking up from the base of the hill, the structure at the base of the
      hill can be seen. It is in a scenic corridor, an issue that the staff would need to further study
      before a Negative Declaration or environmental document would be adopted.
      Councilmember Abrams said she thought the applicant’s document was a useful springboard
      for their discussions.

      Referring to the “Additional Design Constraints” listed on Sheet 10, Councilmember Tabor
      asked the City Attorney to clarify that the Planning Commission could impose other design
      constraints upon the applicant during the Design Review process because the constraints that
      Mr. Haley had listed were the maximum constraints allowed, subject to the General Plan,
      resolutions and ordinances of the City. Ms. Roodhouse confirmed that Mr. Tabor was
      correct. Councilmember Tabor stated that while the applicant had graciously agreed to these
      design constraints, it was important to point out that, at the present time, these were not
      guarantees by any means. He said he wanted to be sure the Council was not putting anything
      on the record that could be considered “givens.” All of the criteria must be decided under
      the Design Review process.

      Councilmember Abrams asked how do they determine if it is in the public interest since they
      don’t have the factual information to do so. For example, there was no concrete evidence
      presented, other than visual observation, that there is erosion; so how would they determine
      that a drainage issue exists. Ms. Roodhouse replied that one could only speculate that
      building the house would improve the drainage; that’s why the prudent thing to do would be
      to not close the door completely to any development but to defer the decision until an actual
      design is available. Mr. Ursu responded that erosion control measures could also be installed


Orinda City Council Minutes                      9                             June 19, 2001
      without any other development on the property.

      Mayor Worth wanted to clarify the City’s authority over any kind of land use decision to
      purchase or sell property that EBMUD has. Ms. Roodhouse confirmed that EBMUD could
      purchase or sell property as they choose. The Mayor said she assumed that Orinda had told
      EBMUD that the City was not interested in purchasing the property in question. Ms.
      Roodhouse concurred, adding that there is probably no perceived public use of that property.
       Mayor Worth asked what kind of authority does the City have over a property owner to
      correct health and safety issues that are on vacant property. Planning Director Ursu
      responded that Title 17, Chapter 49, defines debris on a property as a public nuisance. The
      City could cite the property owner for not maintaining the property, which would go through
      the code enforcement process. Any fire hazard issue would be deferred to the Fire District,
      which could require thinning and removal of fire load as necessary.

      Councilmember Tabor stated that since a compelling public interest is necessary to grant a
      General Plan Amendment, he had hoped that the options of affordable housing or having a
      second-dwelling unit were feasible. He was disappointed that the proposed second-dwelling
      option had been withdrawn.           Because the applicant has worked in good faith,
      Councilmember Tabor was willing to consider deferring a decision until the applicant could
      return with a more specific plan that might meet some general goal of the General Plan, such
      as affordable housing. He pointed out that the current Council has the opportunity to deal
      with an applicant who is willing to work with the City. He hoped they would defer their
      decision to allow the applicant to return with a more specific plan; not an actual architectural
      design, but a plan that shows it will meet City rules and regulations, such as the Hillside
      Design Guidelines.

      Councilmember Abrams stated that in order for her to find it to be in the public interest, she
      would want to know how the structure would impact the scenic corridor. She didn’t know
      how that could be defined without conducting a geotechnical study. Councilmember Tabor
      responded that some decision needed to be made that evening. The applicant shouldn’t leave
      thinking that if they meet some of the requirements of the geotechnical study, it would result
      in a change to the General Plan. He said he was leading towards deferring discussion with
      the understanding that the applicant could make a finding of public interest.

      Councilmember Abrams said she couldn’t make the justification that it is in the public
      interest since much of the available information is speculative and not factual. Mayor Worth
      stated that Councilmember Hawkins was out of town, but it was her understanding that
      Councilmember Hawkins also wanted real specifics about the proposed plan. The Mayor
      said she concurred with Councilmember Abrams in that the protection of the scenic corridor
      is an important consideration. She also agreed with Councilmember Tabor that while she
      appreciated the applicant’s efforts to work closely with the City, more specific information is
      needed. Mayor Worth suggested that the City again request that EBMUD extend the
      applicant’s option to buy.


      Councilmember Tabor said that the applicant takes a risk no matter what he does. The


Orinda City Council Minutes                     10                             June 19, 2001
      applicant needs to know if a majority of the Council has seen enough to make the necessary
      findings. If they plan to deny the application because they can’t make a finding of
      compelling interest, then there isn’t anything else for the applicant to do. The Council could
      make that ruling now. But Councilmember Tabor was interested in Option One (deferring a
      decision) because he thought the applicant could move forward with respect to issues on the
      public interest. For example, the scenic corridor could be improved by planting vegetation,
      trees, etc.; and there could be reduced access to criminal activity. Councilmember Abrams
      replied that criminal activity wasn’t in evidence according to the Police, and the property is
      in a designated scenic corridor, regardless of how scenic the site visually appears to an
      individual.

      Councilmember Abrams stated that she was concerned about the time and money vested in
      taking the applicant’s proposal, changing it around, possibly shrinking it down, until the City
      has a lawsuit on its hands because the applicant has put out so much money.
      Councilmember Tabor said that the applicants would be assuming the risk, since they have
      been educated by the Council, by their own advisors and consultants, by the staff and the
      City Attorney, that there are substantial risks with respect to the requirements, even if it’s
      granted to build a particular home. The risk they are taking is, that which they wish to build
      may not be that which is granted, even if this amendment to the General Plan is granted.

      City Attorney Roodhouse concurred with the statement made by Mayor Worth that the
      Council has the authority to approve a General Plan Amendment subject to very specific
      development plan criteria, which are more strict than what is in Title 17. The Council would
      have a lot of control over what could be constructed upon the hill.

      MOTION: By Councilmember Tabor, seconded by Mayor Worth, to defer discussion
      subject to the receipt of a plan specifying use of the property in greater detail, clarifying
      those items necessary to find a public interest as discussed by the majority of the Council,
      with the understanding that all the City’s regulations will apply and the Planning
      Commission and City Council retain ultimate discretion in whatever is finally approved. In
      addition, staff is directed to further consider the Negative Declaration and request a 60-day
      extension of the applicant’s option to buy from EBMUD. The motion carried with a vote of
      two ayes (Mayor Worth, Councilmember Tabor), one no (Councilmember Abrams), and two
      absent (Councilmember Hawkins and Mayor Pro Tem Wheatland, excused).

      Mayor Pro Tem Wheatland returned to the Council discussion at 8:27 p.m.

      H-2.   Appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of a use permit application to
             allow a second dwelling unit at 15 Vallecito Lane. (Applicant Michael and
             Margaret Fields; Appellant Tom and Liz Piatt)

      Mayor Worth reported that staff had provided the Council with two additional letters
      received that day and copies were available at the back of the room. Mayor Worth reviewed
      the public hearing process for members of the audience.

      Jim Reed, 3 Altarinda Road #201, spoke as attorney for Dr. and Mrs. Piatt. He explained


Orinda City Council Minutes                     11                            June 19, 2001
      that the Piatts are the next-door neighbors to the proposed dwelling and will be most affected
      by the construction. He pointed out that this is not a typical appeal. Although the City had
      sent out proper notice, it did not result in actual notice. Due to Dr. Piatt’s heart attack and
      convalescence out of the area, he did not receive notice until it was too late to appear before
      the Planning Commission. Their presence tonight would be their first chance to present their
      point of view. Mr. Reed said that Dr. Piatt and his son Greg would provide the facts before
      the Council, and he would return to sum up.

      Greg Piatt, 2093 Buttner Road in Pleasant Hill, stated that his parents had lived at 100 El
      Toyonal for 39 years. Referencing his letter to the Council, he stated that his father was
      retiring this year and both parents were looking forward to enjoying the property and home
      that they worked hard to improve. Now they have learned that a house will be built 20-30
      feet from their bedroom; specifically a garage would be constructed as the nearest
      component of the proposed structure. The noise, exhaust, pollution and dirt from any
      construction project are inevitable, but the permanence of the garage next to their bedroom
      windows ensures that this noise, exhaust and pollution will be a permanent fixture. The
      winds prevail from the west. Cars will start, garage doors will operate, blowers will clean
      the driveway, and exhaust fumes and dirt will float downwind to the windows situated at a
      lower elevation than the proposed structure. His parents will derive no benefit from the
      proposed structure, but they will receive the maximum negative influence if the structure is
      built at the current proposed site. El Toyonal is a steep road and a dangerous curve exists at
      the proposed new driveway. Yet the owner’s access off Vallecito Lane is quiet, flat and safe
      with a driveway already in place, with slower traffic. The lot line perimeter is only 35 feet
      on the El Toyonal side, yet it’s 120 feet on the Vallecito side. Drainage is also an issue since
      there have been mudslides on the El Toyonal side. They feel strongly that the project not be
      approved; however, if it is approved, they propose that the driveway and structure be moved
      to the large, safe side of Vallecito. It will have the least negative impact on all the neighbors.
       [At this point, Mr. Piatt distributed photos to the Council.] The new owners will benefit
      from income from the new structure, but his parents will suffer from the noise, pollution and
      lack of privacy. This project should not be approved.

      Referring to the map provided (Exhibit A), Councilmember Tabor confirmed that the
      proposed home was in the upper portion of the lot; to the left is the appellant’s home (No.
      12). There is a home (No. 6) to the immediate right of the proposed home, but no home to
      the immediate right of the existing home (No. 14).

      Dr. Tom Piatt, 100 El Toyonal, spoke against the project. However, if it is approved, they are
      against having the driveway come off El Toyonal for the following reasons: (1) it is a
      narrow road, an uphill curve, and dangerous for exit and egress. Where would the
      workmen’s trucks park – on narrow El Toyonal, obstructing traffic? (2) a driveway close to
      their bedroom window would cause noise, fumes, and decreased privacy; (3) a 999 square-
      foot house including the garage with a separate driveway off El Toyonal looks like a
      separate house contrary to R-20 half-acre zoning, which would decrease the value of their
      home; (4) water runoff on their unstable hill would also be a consideration on the steep upper
      portion of the lot. Lastly, they are against the permit, but if it is allowed, they believe the
      driveway should come off Vallecito so that the rental would be part of the Field’s situation


Orinda City Council Minutes                      12                             June 19, 2001
      rather than a completely separate unit.

      Mr. Reed said there is only a 35-foot length on El Toyonal for the driveway. In the middle
      of that 35 feet, only 20-25 feet off the road is one of the most beautiful oaks in Orinda. It is
      9-feet in circumference. If a driveway will be located around that tree, it will have to take a
      very unusual route, possibly damaging the tree roots. El Toyonal is steep and curves at both
      sides, but the property where the proposed driveway would be located is a fairly steep uphill
      to El Toyonal. So from a health and safety standpoint, someone would have to almost gun
      his car to get up the hill into a location where visibility is very poor.

      Before the applicants spoke, Councilmember Tabor asked if the appellants’ had seen the
      materials handed out by the applicants. The appellants confirmed they had seen the
      information. However, the applicants had not seen the documents handed out that evening to
      the Council. They were then provided with copies.

      Applicants Michael and Margaret Fields, 15 Vallecito Lane, spoke next. Michael Fields
      stated that they had hoped to build an in-law dwelling for their immediate family. He and
      his wife are nurses and had done hospice care. After meeting with the City Engineer before
      hiring an architect, they decided that this would be a make or break situation for them. Mr.
      Gaber gave verbal approval to proceed with the project. They have lived in Orinda for a
      number of years and the community is important to them. They thought they were designing
      a quaint cottage, which would impact the community in a positive way. The unit will sit
      down and won’t be seen much from El Toyonal. They spoke to Dr. Piatt before hiring an
      architect. At that time they described the unit to him, what they intended to do with it, where
      it was, and the access off El Toyonal. His response was “that looks fine.” So in their minds
      that was positive, since their neighbors are important to them. They next had a conversation
      with Dr. Piatt at Halloween, at which time they thanked him for his support. When they
      received the architect’s sketch, they took it to a number of neighbors, including Dr. Piatt, and
      asked if they had any recommendations for its design. About a week later, Dr. Piatt
      suggested that the columns on the porch seemed too wide; and if they could be narrower, it
      might be an improvement. They thought that was a positive response. Change is inevitable;
      it is part of life. They could appreciate change.

      Mr. Fields said that they had the blessing of a lot of their neighbors including that of the
      family of the former owners of the property. They had told Dr. Piatt that they technically
      only need to have it 15 feet from the fence, but they moved it an extra five feet, trying to
      respect their privacy. Their house sits down in a way; and at that portion of the property
      where the driveway is proposed, the drop is not as steep at that portion and the driveway
      would be as close to the road as possible. It really isn’t right next to their bedroom; it sits up
      over a bit.

      Councilmember Tabor asked for clarification from the City Attorney if their appeal is limited
      to the driveway. Ms. Roodhouse replied that, based on the comments they had made, she
      believed their intent was to appeal the structure as a whole; and that it would be safer to give
      them the benefit of the doubt by approaching their appeal in that way.



Orinda City Council Minutes                      13                             June 19, 2001
      Mayor Pro Tem Wheatland asked the applicants to respond to some of the points brought up
      by the appellants. He asked them to address the feasibility of the proposed relocation of the
      driveway. Margaret Fields responded by saying that last September staff told them that they
      would receive their permit. They did not have an alternate location to the project. There is
      no feasibility of putting this cottage anywhere else. It has to have a short driveway for
      wheelchair access. This will be something that they are going to rent. They have parents
      with cardiac problems, with Parkinson’s. She and her husband are nurses who will take care
      of their family members. They did not represent this building as an only-parent unit since
      that would be deceitful, because family will not be living in it most of the time.

      Mayor Pro Tem Wheatland said that the applicants proposed that if the structure were placed
      in that location, that the Fields would share in the cost of a fence between the two properties.
       Mrs. Fields said that two weeks ago they promised the Piatts that they would build anything
      that they wanted. Mr. Fields said that the idea that the Piatts just found out about the project
      while Dr. Piatt suffered his heart attack was not accurate. The Piatts had given the project
      their blessing months prior.

      Mayor Pro Tem Wheatland asked the Fields what access will there be between their house
      and the cottage. Mrs. Field replied that there is an existing footpath.

      Councilmember Tabor said he wanted to clarify that he believed the appellants were not
      saying that they didn’t have prior knowledge of the project, but that they didn’t have
      knowledge of the hearing. Councilmember Abrams added that even if the Piatts had
      attended the Planning Commission meeting and the Commission had approved the plan, the
      Piatts could still have appealed the decision.

      Mrs. Fields said she had spoken to Don Barella, Assistant Planner, as well as others; and
      they had told her that, “This is a use permit; you’re totally within bounds, you’re asking for
      no variances, you’re keeping it small, etc.” El Toyonal is much closer to the Piatts’
      bedroom that the proposed garage would be. She said they have invested at least $10,000 in
      the project so far. Dr. Piatt knew they had hired a surveyor and architects. They showed
      him a copy of the architect’s sketch as soon as it was available. The beautiful oak is totally
      in the plan, completely safe. They’ve had engineers at the property who said, “this will
      work.”

      Mrs. Fields said that the day after the Planning Commission hearing, they received a call
      from Dr. Piatt. They rushed over to his home and said, “What would you like? We’ll build
      you a fence.” Mrs. Piatt was concerned about foliage; so they asked her to tell them what
      she wanted planted. They offered the Piatts thousands of dollars. They said they would do
      anything to protect their neighbors’ privacy. It’s a one-car garage, which will be totally
      insulated. It will be 35-feet from their room.

      Mr. Fields stated that they were led to believe by the Engineering Department, the Planning
      Commission, and the Piatts that as the project progressed, everything was fine and everyone
      was in agreement with it. Now, they were having to explain every aspect of the project.
      Mrs. Fields stated that the Planning Commission had complimented them on their proposed


Orinda City Council Minutes                     14                             June 19, 2001
      plan.

      Mayor Pro Tem Wheatland said he wanted to clarify a few confusing issues for the Fields.
      First, a discretionary use permit means that some judgment can be made. The staff cannot
      approve a project in that way. It has to be approved by the Zoning Administrator at a
      hearing; or in this case, it was referred to the Planning Commission and to the City Council.
      Second, although the Planning Commission did approve their request, this City Council
      hearing is considered to be de novo, which means that they are starting all over again. So the
      Fields shouldn’t be angry at the Council for asking these questions, because without these
      questions, there’s no evidence to make a decision. The Council is not looking back at the
      information that the Planning Commission took; but under the law, having to start all over
      with the questions again. That’s the only basis on which the Council can decide. Mr. Fields
      responded that they were not angry with the Council.

      Speaker Norrine Fields, 642 Mojave Avenue in Livermore, stated that she is Michael Fields’
      mother. Hopefully, one day she and her husband may be living at the cottage or perhaps her
      daughter-in-law’s father, who has Parkinson’s Disease, might live there. Her husband was
      recently diagnosed with prostate cancer; and she herself walks with a cane so her children
      are concerned with her mobility. She said that if any of the family members should move
      into the cottage, it’s unlikely that any of them will be driving; and the garage will likely be
      used for storage.

      Sally Lubben, 33 Vallecito Lane, stated that she had not seen the Piatts’ appeal before that
      night, so she wanted to address their list of issues. The Piatt’s have requested that the Fields
      use Vallecito for the driveway instead of El Toyonal. She understood they are asking for a
      200-plus-foot driveway extension coming up from Vallecito along the west, a more highly-
      sloped side of the property, instead of a 30-foot linear driveway as planned. As she sees it,
      the plan layout has less impact on landscaping, the drainage facility, and it stays away from
      the steeper slopes of the property. She would like to see construction kept away from the
      drainage facility on the west side of the property, and kept away from the steeper slopes.
      Vallecito is a privately maintained road. She would hate to see additional traffic on a private
      road at the expense of the residential homeowners, instead of coming off the public El
      Toyonal, for which the City receives taxes for building this project. There were issues
      related to traffic, noise and pollution. Their driveway and garage is about the same distance
      as El Toyonal is, and City staff has said that the noise and traffic would not substantially
      impact the Piatts’ house. She believed that the Fields’ proposal was a modest addition to the
      neighborhood, it fits the topography of the site, it minimizes the land disturbance, and
      according to City staff, does not substantially increase noise, pollution, or traffic. She said
      she saw no reason to grant the Piatts’ appeal. She would rather not have a new facility next
      to her house, but since they don’t own the Fields’ property, they should not be able to dictate
      land use that meets the City’s requirements.

      Bette Michelotti, 19 Vallecito Lane, stated that she is a homeowner whose property does not
      directly adjoin the Fields parcel, but is one lot over. Ms. Michelotti said that her property is
      between El Toyonal and Vallecito Lane, but her driveway is on Vallecito Lane. She
      attended the original Planning Commission meeting where she had explained that the


Orinda City Council Minutes                     15                             June 19, 2001
      drainage swale is a delicate drainage situation in that area. The runoff comes down El
      Toyonal, goes into a culvert underneath El Toyonal, is deposited onto the Fields’ property,
      and is maintained in this swale. The way the structure is planned now does not interrupt the
      flow of that drainage. She asked that any runoff from the structure or the driveway not
      impact that existing drainage.

      Ann McLaughlin, 8 Vallecito Lane, reported that her concern with construction of the
      building is that the property across from the Fields, across El Toyonal, has been slipping for
      years. She was concerned that this particular area is unstable, and any building will further
      destabilize that hillside. She said she is trying to save the Fields from themselves. She has
      lived through many El Ninos and the drainage problems are quite severe. She would rather
      not see the land disturbed in that area.

      Dr. Piatt returned to speak. He said he wanted to correct some of the things that the Fields
      had mentioned. The Fields did show him the handwritten structure beforehand, and he
      commented that the column was too fat. But at that time, he also asked if they could make
      the driveway come off the other side. They told him that the swale would make it difficult.
      Their driveway and garage are 15 feet from the lot line, not 25 or 35 as they said. He
      thought it would be easier to come up off of Vallecito on their present driveway and swing it
      around so that the project would be part of their unit rather than a completely separate unit.
      The Fields thought that would be too expensive. The Fields originally told the Piatts that this
      structure was for their parents, but they later found out it would be a regular open rental unit,
      which is quite a different situation.

      The Piatts’ attorney, Mr. Reed, stated that when he was retained, the appeal had already been
      filed. When his letter was sent, it was his intent to add the issues in his letter to the appeal;
      and he was specifically requesting that the use permit be denied, although the driveway is the
      biggest issue. If the Council was to deny the use permit, and the Fields were to resubmit
      plans coming into Vallecito, it’s quite likely that the Piatts would not oppose that. As far as
      the driveway coming off El Toyonal, it appears that the steepest portion of that property is
      where they are proposing the driveway to be. That steep slope not only has a magnificent
      oak located right in the middle of the property, but many other types of trees will have to be
      removed in order to install that driveway. On the other hand, there is an existing driveway
      on Vallecito Lane. An extension of that driveway to a location where the house occurs
      would not require as much removal of vegetation.

      Councilmember Abrams said she had been at that address, and she couldn’t conceive how a
      driveway from the existing driveway could possibly go up that steep slope in the backyard
      and access the proposed unit without removing every bit as much vegetation. Mr. Reed said
      he was thinking of the driveway swinging to the left around the house. He stated that the
      proposed driveway would be located off a short, straight stretch of El Toyonal that curves on
      both ends. Visibility would be poor, and it will be difficult to safely turn onto El Toyonal
      due to the slope.


      Councilmember Tabor said it appears from the map that there’s a much more restrictive view


Orinda City Council Minutes                      16                            June 19, 2001
      and line of sight where the driveway comes in on Vallecito Lane. Greg Piatt responded that
      that is where the existing driveway is now. He said they were not suggesting that the
      driveway go all the way up to the structure, but that the structure be located at the wider, flat
      end on the Vallecito side. Mr. Reed said that since El Toyonal is a much busier street,
      placing the driveway on Vallecito would be less significant from a health and safety impact.

      Councilmember Tabor asked if the Fields could reverse the floor plan and have the driveway
      moved to the other side, would that be acceptable to the Piatts? Mr. Reed replied that any
      alternate route would be preferred to coming off El Toyonal. Councilmember Abrams
      pointed out that they were still talking about coming off El Toyonal, but coming off the other
      side of the structure.

      Referring to a photograph submitted to the Council, Mr. Reed stated that the top of the flag
      was almost 16 feet and was intended to show where the top of the roof of the proposed
      structure would be. The point of view is from the Piatts’ bedroom. Greg Piatt said that his
      parents’ house is not 10-15 feet from the property line as the Fields had previously stated;
      it’s actually less. Councilmember Tabor said that the closest distance between the two
      homes is still 35 feet no matter whose property one is on. Mr. Piatt said that, in his opinion,
      the corner of the proposed structure is not 35 feet from his parents’ home.

      Mr. Reed referred to the Planning Commission staff report (May 22, 2001), under “Second
      Dwelling Unit – Development Standard and Use Restrictions,” No. 8: “The location and
      orientation on the second dwelling unit shall not materially reduce the privacy of adjoining
      parcels, obstruct significant views, or create noise constituting a nuisance.” Mayor Pro
      Tem Wheatland asked Mr. Reed to review those three elements for the Council. Mr. Reed
      responded: (1) “materially reduce the privacy…” -- the proposed driveway is virtually on
      the property line as it enters El Toyonal; (2) “obstructing significant views” -- represented
      by the pole being held up 16 feet; it is in line with the ridgeview elevation; (3) “create
      noise…” -- reflects the noise from vehicles moving along the driveway. Mayor Pro Tem
      Wheatland said that the full statement is “…create noise constituting a nuisance.” Was it
      the Piatts’ contention that the operation of a normal garage door constitutes a nuisance? The
      appellant responded that a driver would have to gun a car to get up the steep hill.

      Councilmember Tabor asked the Fields if they could reverse the floor plan and put the
      driveway on the opposite side, with the driveway being parallel to the house on the
      immediate right. Mr. Fields said they wanted to minimize the grading and stay with the
      topography. The swale is a natural runoff area on that side of the property. It’s much steeper
      on that side. The oak tree would likely have to come down in order for the driveway to be
      located there.

      Councilmember Tabor asked, with respect to the proposed driveway, could the driveway
      swerve over to the right so that it is more in front of the house, with the driveway remaining
      in place. Mr. Fields replied, “absolutely.” Mr. Fields said they had already complied with
      No. 2 of the Piatts’ appeal letter, in which the Piatts stated that if the driveway cannot be
      moved to Vallecito Lane, “…then the driveway coming off El Toyonal should not start until
      it is 15 feet from our property line…”


Orinda City Council Minutes                      17                            June 19, 2001
      Councilmember Tabor asked what is the closest distance from the driveway to the Fields’
      boundary line. Mr. Field said it is at least 15 feet. Councilmember Tabor said that the
      appellants have indicated that the driveway is right next to the boundary line. Mr. Fields
      replied that what they are seeing are survey stakes.

      Councilmember Tabor asked if the Fields would be willing to move the driveway further to
      the right up towards El Toyonal, while keeping the oak tree safe. [There was no immediate
      response while both parties reviewed a draft picture of the proposed change.]

      Mayor Worth closed the public comment portion of the hearing.

      Responding to Councilmember Abrams’s question, Planning Director Ursu said that the new
      structure is set back 15 feet from the side property line to the closest portion of the garage.
      The driveway, where it crosses the front property line, is about 10 feet from the side property
      line. The appellants may not be aware that the property line is not at the edge of the
      pavement, but is probably another 7-10 feet away from the pavement.

      Councilmember Abrams asked City Attorney Linda Roodhouse if the “Second Dwelling
      Unit Development Standards and Use Restrictions” listed on page 4 of the Planning
      Commission Staff Report (May 22, 2001) are in the form of findings or are used for
      guidance. Ms. Roodhouse replied that they are criteria, and the staff had indicated in the
      report that the applicants met all the criteria. She did not think that the Council needs to
      make these findings, other than to say that it meets the standards for a second dwelling, but
      they do need to make findings for the General Use Permit.

      In response to Councilmember Abrams question regarding a potential reduction of privacy,
      Mayor Pro Tem Wheatland stated that it was the Council’s decision, not staff’s, to make that
      determination.

      Mayor Worth asked City Engineer Andrew Gaber to provide some specific information
      about the grade and an assessment of the visibility. Mr. Gaber replied that, based on the
      elevation shown on the plans, the grade of the driveway would be about 15%. The County
      standards allow up to 20%. As to the physical location in the curve, several other driveways
      in the area have the same restrictions where they have to back in and out; they don’t have
      turnarounds. Staff thought there was adequate sight distance to make the maneuver safely.

      Mayor Worth asked if there were any geotechnical or topographical reasons why this was
      the only location for this particular unit. Mr. Gaber said there were none of which he was
      aware.

      Councilmember Abrams asked how the City Engineer could say it was safer to back out of
      El Toyonal, but not on Lombardy. Mr. Gaber replied that speeds on Lombardy were faster.

      Councilmember Abrams said that the area around the lot is very level; it would likely be
      easy and less costly to have the driveway from the edge of the property line on Vallecito


Orinda City Council Minutes                     18                            June 19, 2001
      Lane. The second-dwelling unit benefits the applicants, but to the possible detriment to the
      houses on El Toyonal.

      Councilmember Abrams asked for the City Attorney’s direction. Ms. Roodhouse referred to
      page 5 of the Planning Commission Staff Report (May 22, 2001), under General Use Permit
      Standards, No. 3, “The use will be properly related to other adjacent land uses….” She
      suggested that Councilmember Abrams might want to refer to that standard if she had
      concerns about the siting of the second unit (i.e., if she believed that particular site would not
      be properly related to the main residences because of the distance). Ms. Roodhouse pointed
      out that one of the concepts in the second-unit regulations is that the owner is on the site, that
      one of the units has to be owner-occupied. The concept is that the owner will be close
      enough to know what’s going on and to manage the noise, etc. When you have a second unit
      that is so far away, you might be able to say that the purpose is not being served; and it’s not
      properly related. Councilmember Abrams said it appeared that all the other issues are
      properly met. Ms. Roodhouse replied it only takes one to say “no.” Ms. Roodhouse said she
      agreed with Mayor Pro Tem Wheatland that No. 8 of the second-unit standards requires
      some discretion and some findings.

      Councilmember Abrams asked Mr. Ursu if she should assume that the Planning Commission
      did not take issue with No. 8 since they had voted 5-0 on this matter. Mr. Ursu replied that
      she was correct.

      Councilmember Tabor stated that in regards to No. 8, “The location and orientation on the
      second dwelling unit shall not materially reduce the privacy of adjoining parcels, obstruct
      significant views, or create noise constituting a nuisance”; he could not make that finding
      based on what he had heard that evening. With respect to the appeal, based on the evidence
      given, he is convinced that the main thrust is the noise issue, which might be considered
      under No. 8, but he thought moving the driveway over should eliminate that concern to some
      degree. He did not think that one car in a rental unit would unduly create noise causing a
      nuisance, given that distance from the home.

      Mayor Pro Tem Wheatland said it is important to state that the policy in Orinda is to favor
      the construction of in-law units. The City is looking for opportunities to provide affordable
      housing and to provide housing alternatives other than “monster” homes. Also, this proposal
      meets all the conditions of zoning and building permits that would be applicable to a
      residence without any variance. Regarding No. 8, he could not make a finding that a car
      associated with a one-car garage creates noise constituting a nuisance. He could not make a
      finding that it obstructs a significant view. He thought that the suggestion that
      Councilmember Tabor made to realign the driveway is a good one and helps reduce the
      impact on privacy. He recommended adding a condition that would require the construction
      of screening, either vegetation or legal fencing, to help increase the privacy of the adjoining
      parcel. With the realignment of the driveway and additional screening, he thought that the
      structure would not reduce the privacy of the adjoining parcel any more than the existing
      street already does. On that basis, he would be inclined to grant the use permit with the
      conditions that have been described.



Orinda City Council Minutes                      19                             June 19, 2001
      Councilmember Abrams agreed that noise did not constitute a nuisance, and she was
      interested in preserving existing vegetation; but she was unclear if the structure actually
      obstructs significant views. There is some reduction in privacy from adjoining parcels; and
      she questioned how they could justify placing the structure closer to their neighbor’s home
      than to their own home.

      Mayor Worth said it is important to provide for second units, but she was concerned about
      General Use Permit Standard No. 3 regarding location of the unit. A second unit should be
      closely linked to the existing unit, and it should not have a negative impact on the adjoining
      residences. She was concerned about the positioning of the structure and the driveway.

      Councilmember Tabor cited General Use Permit Standard No. 3, “The use will be properly
      related to other adjacent land uses….” He said that referred to adjoining land uses, not
      within a particular parcel. Councilmember Abrams said it may not currently exist, but the
      issue that a second unit should be closer to the main structure should be considered because
      it benefits the existing homeowner; and it should have some corresponding relationship to
      the existing structure. She clarified that if she decided to support the appeal, her decision
      would be based on Standard No. 8, not on her belief that it should be built nearer the
      adjacent structure. Ms. Roodhouse said that if she wanted to deny this particular project
      because the structure is too close to the Piatts’ house, she could make a finding under the
      General Use Permit Standard No. 3 that the use will not be properly related to other land
      uses because the proposed structure is too far away from the main residence.

      Mayor Worth said her primary concern with the second unit would also be Standard No. 8,
      regarding privacy, obstructed views, and noise.

      City Attorney Roodhouse told the Council that because it is a de novo hearing, they would
      need to make the findings.

      MOTION: By Councilmember Tabor, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Wheatland, to deny the
      appeal and to grant the use permit, adopting the findings of the Planning Commission’s
      Statement of Official Action - May 22, 2001), amended to include the driveway being
      moved as much to the right as possible, with maximum screening and preservation of the oak
      tree and as much existing vegetation as possible. The motion failed with a vote of two ayes
      (Mayor Pro Tem Wheatland, Councilmember Tabor), two no votes (Mayor Worth,
      Councilmember Abrams), and one absent (Councilmember Hawkins, excused).

      Councilmember Abrams stated that she would be willing to make a motion to reconsider the
      vote so that the amendments could be effective. After a brief discussion, City Attorney
      Roodhouse stated that it would be better for a Councilmember who supported the original
      motion to make the motion to reconsider.



      MOTION: By Councilmember Tabor, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Wheatland, to
      reconsider the vote. The motion passed by a vote of four ayes, one absent (Councilmember


Orinda City Council Minutes                    20                            June 19, 2001
      Hawkins, excused).

      MOTION: By Councilmember Tabor, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Wheatland, to deny the
      appeal and to grant the use permit, adopting the findings of the Planning Commission’s
      Statement of Official Action - May 22, 2001), amended to include the driveway being
      moved as much to the right as possible, with maximum screening and preservation of the oak
      tree and as much existing vegetation as possible. The motion passed by a vote of four ayes,
      one absent (Councilmember Hawkins, excused).

      The Mayor announced that the Council would take a brief break at 10:10 p.m. The meeting
      reconvened at 10:17 p.m.

      I.     POLICY MATTERS

      I-1.   Installation of speed humps on Sleepy Hollow Lane.

      Mayor Worth asked City Engineer Andrew Gaber to speak. Mr. Gaber reported that
      Associate Engineer Maria Robinson, who worked closely on this project, could not attend
      the meeting because of a sick child. He stated that several people had asked how widely
      were speed humps used. He replied that speed humps are used in most of the surrounding
      communities – Lafayette, Walnut Creek, and Pleasant Hill. Concord had removed some
      because of public opposition. They are also now in use in Orinda at Glorietta Court.

      Councilmember Abrams asked if speed humps were in close proximity of elementary
      schools in other communities. Mr. Gaber replied that he did not know.

      Mayor Pro Tem Wheatland asked how many of the requested six speed humps would the
      Engineering Department recommend. Mr. Gabor responded that the recommendation of six
      speed humps had come from Engineering, based on the recommended distance between
      them. If the speed humps are not spaced regularly, drivers will increase their speed between
      them again.

      Noting that no Moraga-Orinda Fire District representative was present, Councilmember
      Abrams asked the City Engineer if the Fire District was supportive of the speed humps. Mr.
      Gaber replied that staff’s interpretation was that the Fire District would like to see speed
      humps on half the width of the street going towards Lombardy. City Manager Lindsay
      clarified that the Fire District has routes that they take and already responds in one direction
      only. He said what they want is to not have their speed impaired when responding to an
      emergency. Councilmember Abrams said that they might have a preferred route, but it
      might change depending on the emergency conditions. Mr. Lindsay said the Fire District
      has looked at a proposal on Overhill near Glorietta School, where they had reviewed the
      notion of having speed humps on only one side of the road.


      Mayor Pro Tem Wheatland asked what would be the expected average speed after
      installation of the speed humps. Mr. Gabor replied that speed humps (generally 3-4 inches


Orinda City Council Minutes                     21                             June 19, 2001
      high and an average 12-foot wide) would reduce speeds to 20-25 mph.

      Mayor Worth asked if staff had consulted with the Lamorinda School Bus Program. Mr.
      Gaber did not know if Ms. Robinson had directly spoken to them about this location; but in
      previous discussions regarding other locations, their vehicles were going slow enough that
      it’s not that much of an issue for them.

      The Mayor asked if staff had differentiated between school days and weekends, between
      summer and the school year, in terms of speeding problems. Mr. Gaber replied that at other
      locations, they try to consider both weekends and school days; but he could not confirm what
      was done at this location.

      Councilmember Abrams asked City Attorney Roodhouse how could the Council (when
      determining speed hump policy) reconcile having neighbors who agree to accept a reduction
      of emergency vehicle response (in exchange for the safety that speed humps provide) with
      parents’ concerns for children at the nearby elementary school. Ms. Roodhouse stated that it
      may not have been considered when the policy was adopted, but it could be considered when
      the Council makes its decision.

      Mayor Worth stated that by ordinance, Sleepy Hollow Lane functionally acts as a one-way
      street; school traffic tends to be one-way. She asked if that in any way would impact the
      decision about speed humps relative to school access. The City Engineer responded that it
      was his understanding that it was the reason why it was proposed to have speed humps on
      both ways of Sleepy Hollow.

      The Mayor opened the hearing for public comments.

      Jonathan Driller, 45 Sleepy Hollow Lane, spoke in favor of speed humps on his street. He
      stated that he had gone door-to-door collecting signatures from Sleepy Hollow residents, and
      everyone he asked to sign had been ecstatic about it. (1) Many residents walk, jog, bicycle
      and play on the street. There are no sidewalks, no shoulders; so people have to deal with
      speeding vehicles; (2) This is a school zone; no child should be endangered. Two children
      have been hit already; fortunately, neither was badly hurt. Cars have continually been
      clocked at 40 mph; (3) This has been a documented known issue for years. It’s only a
      matter of time before another child is hit and the City is sued; (4) This is a family
      neighborhood. Every long-term resident that he had spoken with had lost at least one family
      pet to traffic; (5) They currently have to disclose that there is a traffic problem, decreasing
      home values. (6) They have obtained signatures from more than 70% of the neighbors. Mr.
      Driller said they were not asking drivers to go slower than the speed limit, but to obey the
      speed limit.

      Mayor Pro Tem Wheatland thanked Mr. Driller for his presentation, but clarified that the
      traffic problem that he had described was not a real estate disclosure requirement.

      Jim Brovelli, 104 Sleepy Hollow Lane, stated he was very supportive of speed humps since
      his three children will be walking to school over the next ten years. With respect to


Orinda City Council Minutes                     22                            June 19, 2001
      emergency response times, he said he could not imagine a difference of more than 30-40
      seconds for a fire truck to travel the half-mile distance over speed humps. Councilmember
      Abrams asked him how he reconciled having a 30-second delay responding to a child-related
      emergency. Mr. Brovelli responded that if the Fire District were claiming the difference in
      response time on Sleepy Hollow Lane were a life and death situation, perhaps he might
      change his opinion. But he balanced a daily clear and present danger (not just during school
      times but in evenings) versus the potential risk of seconds in emergency vehicle response
      time. Councilmember Abrams asked if the danger was greater during school times. Mr.
      Brovelli replied that it was not that simple since the 8:00 to 8:05 a.m. and the 9:00 to 9:05
      a.m. crowd is particularly acute on the uphill side; but it is just as bad on weekends and
      evenings.

      Herb Brown, P.O. Box 2200 in Orinda, said that he had spoken to the Battalion Chief and
      Engineer Maria Robinson. He stated that the Fire District was against speed humps; under a
      forced acquiescence they had agreed to have speed humps on one half of the street.
      Referring to a handout that he had provided (with copies given to the Council), he read:

             “7) Deleterious effects
                 a) Emergency vehicle response and transportation time
                    i)      According to Tonya Hoover, Fire Marshal, a speed bump delays an
                            emergency vehicle 33 seconds per axle, per bump.
                    ii)     The “window of opportunity” for a heart attack victim is 3 to 5
                            minutes.
                    iii)    Just the time required to “negotiate” the speed bumps will doom the
                            heart attack victim. Is there anyone in the room who can spell
                            lawsuit?
                    iv)     With a patient aboard, the emergency vehicle is going to have to take
                            the bumps at a snail’s pace and may still endanger the patient.
                 b) Air pollution and fuel consumption
                    i)      Research has shown on a one-mile long stretch of road with six
                            humps and a 25 mph speed limit that car exhaust has 10 times more
                            nitrogen oxide, three times more poisonous carbon monoxide, and
                            25% more carbon dioxide, linked to global warming, than vehicles
                            maintaining a constant speed. Fuel consumption rose by 26.6%.
                    ii)     Portland Main’s Stevens Avenue Experiment was terminated by
                            Federal officials because of the measured increases in pollution
                            caused by speed bumps. Increases in accidents and fuel consumption
                            were also found.
                 c) Noise pollution – Inevitably cars will be accelerating and decelerating as
                    they move from bump to bump. This will produce significantly more noise
                    than a vehicle traveling at a constant speed.
                 d) Attractive nuisance – The speed bumps could be a “playground’ for skate
                    boards and scooters.

                 e) The unsightly appearance of all the signage and road striping, all of which
                    has to be luminous….”


Orinda City Council Minutes                    23                           June 19, 2001
      Mr. Brown said that he thought the unsightly appearance of road signage would have a
      detrimental effect on property values. He didn’t understand the argument of wanting to walk
      on Sleepy Hollow Lane at night, and not expecting any problems, since the road is not lit.
      He said according to Engineer Maria Robinson, there has been no reported incident in the
      last three years involving anyone, including children. He thought that vehicle damage
      increases is a concern to the Fire District. He continued reading:

      “9) Conclusion: Any cost/benefits analysis of the installation of speed bumps would be
      negative. More than likely accidents will be increased from the current level of zero, those
      suffering from respiratory ailments would suffer, and the effectiveness of the emergency
      programs would be compromised. With ideas like this trying to ‘Save the Children,’ the
      children don’t need enemies. Last but not least, don’t forget the law of unintended
      consequences.”

      He said he wanted to correct the City Engineer. The only testing done for speeds was done
      on a Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday. It was done during non-rush hours and not done on
      a random basis. It was not done to compare the flow of traffic, with or without the school.
      The people in Sleepy Hollow Lane are asking the City to put in speed humps to save them
      from themselves. The effect on the parents driving the children to school cannot be shown
      empirically because they did not collect the data to do that.

      Gerald Perry, 49 Sleepy Hollow Lane, read a letter from him and his wife to the Council:

      “We have lived at 49 Sleepy Hollow Lane for 34 years. Our two children attended Sleepy
      Hollow School. We believe the installation of speed humps are counter productive. People
      must be held accountable for their actions. Orinda has speed laws and police officers who
      are entrusted to enforce these laws. I have never seen an officer give tickets on Sleepy
      Hollow Lane. There are leash laws that protect animals and people and property which
      must be enforced. Parents must train their children, just as they do, not to accept rides from
      strangers, to move to the curb when walking on the street and not to play on the street
      especially when the school has such a wonderful playground. Sleepy Hollow Lane already
      has many humps. Many residents, one 90 year old, use the one mile Sleepy Hollow loop to
      walk and run every day. More humps will only increase the likelihood of trip and fall
      injuries. We do not find fault with the school. We are very happy to have the school located
      where it is. Surely, parents should use the school bus if possible or car pools to reduce
      traffic. The traffic from the school has been orderly but steady at the beginning and ending
      of the school day. The school must help educate the parents with regards to speed limit as
      they do to the flow of traffic. Where we have mostly noticed speeding is sometimes in the
      early evening or late at night which cannot be attributed to the school. Speed humps would
      not slow those people down. Miner Road, Lombardy Lane, Sleepy Hollow Lane, indeed all
      residential areas are 25 mph zones. Why humps in Sleepy Hollow Lane? No indeed,
      enforcement and education are the key. We do not want Orinda to look like Berkeley with
      speed humps and bumps and barriers at every turn.”

      Chris Smith, 4 Berrybrook Hollow, stated their her street was one of five that feeds into


Orinda City Council Minutes                    24                            June 19, 2001
      Sleepy Hollow Lane, but they had not received notice about this matter until the past week.
      She thought that some people where using the school as an excuse to install speed humps.
      School traffic is only a concern 5% of the time; it occurs one way in the morning and one
      way at night (two hours per day maximum). She is not opposed to safety, but is worried
      about emergency response time. She would have to drive over all six speed humps every
      time she travels to/from her home, yet her opinion about it wasn’t sought out. The said the
      real safety issue on Sleepy Hollow Lane, that the residents don’t want to address, involves
      parking and vegetation. There are no sidewalks, there’s no clearing; and there’s parking on
      both sides of the street which the Police is not, but should be, enforcing.

      Mark Golob, 85 Sleepy Hollow Lane, asked the Council to get the facts – what they had
      heard that night was hearsay. This is not a new problem. Speed reductions would occur if
      the Police ticketed speeders on that street. He said he has lived on Sleepy Hollow for ten
      years and had never heard of an injured child. He asked who says that a first grader should
      walk to school; did they have to make streets safe for 6-year olds to walk to school by
      themselves? Last year he had taken ill, which required a 911 call. The emergency team
      arrived quickly within three minutes, but he would not have wanted to travel over speed
      humps while being taken away in an ambulance. He said he drives a Porsche, which is not
      made for driving over speed humps. He wants to drive his car at the speed limit, but wanted
      to make it very clear and on the record, that the City would be liable for any damage to his
      car or its suspension resulting from speed humps. There is no need for these speed humps;
      this is America, not Russia.

      Rebecca Lapedus, Ichabod Lane, read from the letter written by previous speaker, Herb
      Brown:

      “5) There is no problem, and if there is, the proposed speed humps will not do anything to
      solve it.
          a) The Engineering Department surveys show that, on the average, with studies that are
                certainly not statistically sound, the speed is only 33 m.p.h. at the 85th percentile.
          b) No controlled studies or evidence exists to support any value or positive effects of
                these devices.
          c) Experts in traffic control who advocate humps admit that, even with a decrease in
                volume and speed, accidents ‘do not fall to a statistically significant degree.’
                Translation: ‘do not fall to a statistically significant degree’ means ‘we wish humps
                reduced accidents but, try as we will, we can’t measure any reduction.’
          d) The vehicle du jour, SUV, is going to go over these speed bumps like toothpicks.
          e) Most “urban” car accidents occur at intersections.
          f) Most car accidents that are related to speed occur on the highway.
          g) Putting speed bumps in the middle of a residential street far removed from any
                intersection is going to do nothing to reduce accidents.
          h) There has been no accident on Sleepy Hollow Lane for at least the past three years.

      4) The fact that the surveys are done during non-commute hours would indicate that the
      problem is the residents of the street, NOT the parents driving their children to and from
      school.


Orinda City Council Minutes                     25                             June 19, 2001
         a) If the surveys were conducted on both school and non-school days, even with the
            imperfections in the methodology, a determination could be made as to the source of
            the problem. That is, if the results did not vary between school days and non-school
            days, a reasonable conclusion is that the residents of Sleepy Hollow Lane are asking
            the City of Orinda to save them from themselves…

      1) The Ordinance is Defective
         a) The idea of speed humps in a “Semi-Rural” setting is an anathema and as such is in
            violation of the City’s General Plan.
         b) When did we go from ‘Semi-Rural Orinda’ to ‘Semi-Ghetto Berkeley’?
         c) The threshold test for installation of a speed hump should require approval by 70% of
            the residents on any cul-de-sac or loop street that connects to the street proposed for
            the speed hump, and whose residence is within ½ mile of the proposed speed hump.
         d) The threshold test of ‘High presence of pedestrians and especially children’ is vague
            and ambiguous and probably unconstitutional.
         e) The ordinance should require, at least, quarterly studies to ascertain effects of a speed
            hump.
         f) Speed humps should be removed if they are determined to be unsafe or ineffective by
            the City Engineer, or for any unforeseen reason such as negative impacts that cannot
            be mitigated.
         g) Under the current ordinance, after the fact ‘observations’ and ‘surveys’ (as suggested
            on page 3 of the ‘Staff Report’) are irrelevant to Sleepy Hollow Lane because of the
            current requirements for removal…In other words, once they are in, it will be almost
            impossible to remove them, and all the post-installation data in the world is not going
            to change the minds of zealots who initially instigated the process.”

      Sarge Littlehale, 4 Carolyn Court, stated that Lafayette has had speed humps for some time,
      which are very effective. He suggested that perhaps two humps (rather than three) on each
      lane on Sleepy Hollow with proper signage could accomplish the same purpose. Overall, the
      general objective is safety. Many forms of traffic calming have been considered; and speed
      humps will calm traffic. He stated that these are capital expenditures. If approved, funding
      should come from the capital fund reserve.

      John Waldichuk, 6 Normandy Lane, stated that he’s been running around the Sleepy Hollow
      loop for 20 years. He knows to stay off it at 8:00 a.m., but around 8:20 a.m. it’s clear and
      again in the afternoon. He does not know why speed humps are needed in that area. The
      condition of the road is bad, like one giant speed hump. Besides the speed humps, they have
      proposed adding more signs. There are 47 signs around the loop; half refer to “no parking
      on this side of the road” for the safety of emergency vehicles. No one pays any attention to
      them. He suggested taking a survey of how many seniors reside along the loop, and how
      many services will they depend upon in an emergency. The Police Department has a speed
      trailer on Lombardy which says, “You are traveling so fast: ___ mph.” Why not have it on
      Sleepy Hollow and remind people what the speed limit is.

      Steven Rosenzweig, 95 Sleepy Hollow Lane, said he was in support of speed humps. There
      seems to be some confusion over speed bumps vs. speed humps. They are talking about


Orinda City Council Minutes                     26                            June 19, 2001
      speed humps. The City Engineer had said it would allow cars to travel over them by
      bringing the speed down to 20-25 miles per hour. He said he, like Mr. Golob, owned a
      Porsche, and one could drive over a speed hump at 20 miles per hour without a problem.
      This was not just a school day issue; cars routinely drive 35-40 mph on the uphill loop. He
      has two children and to say they can’t play or be in the street is ludicrous; they’re entitled to
      use the area around their house. Lastly, there are only two Police cars on duty in Orinda at
      any one time. He didn’t think that designating Police units to give out tickets would solve
      the problem, because that is only a short-term measure. He hoped that the Council would
      rule favorably on this issue of speed humps.

      For the record, Mayor Worth read some of the comments received by staff which were
      forwarded to the Council:

      John Cindery, 5 Washington Lane: “Wants to register concern over the speed humps and
      thinks the City should look at alternatives first such as increased police surveillance for
      speeders.”

      Mary Brown, Ichabod Lane: “Not in favor. First time notified. Parking in fire lane an
      issue.”

      Ian Baird, 89 Sleepy Hollow Lane: “Not in favor of humps. Does not believe they will
      work.”

      Mr. Geraldson, 21 Ichabod Lane: “Wants to register his strong opposition to the speed
      humps. (Was under the impression that they were the short, jarring type that are usually
      found in parking lots. Since his wife has a bad back, he was very concerned that they would
      have a bad effect on her. After the explanation of what they really are, he was somewhat
      mollified, but is still opposed to speed hump installation.)”

      The Mayor also paraphrased a letter from Eleanor Russell Sleeper, 129 Sleepy Hollow Lane,
      who was opposed to the speed humps close to her property and who suggested an alternative
      which would cut the speed limit to 15 mph .

      The Mayor closed the session to further public comment.

      Mayor Pro Tem Wheatland asked if speed surveys were conducted on both directions. Mr.
      Gaber replied that they had conducted two different types of speed surveys. For the Police to
      be able to enforce the speed limit, they need to do a radar survey. It was done on Tuesday,
      Wednesday, Thursday between the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. The other survey is
      where they leave out the “black squares” for 24 hours. Staff conducted such a




Orinda City Council Minutes                      27                            June 19, 2001
      survey in February, which measured traffic on both legs of the road. Results from one leg
      showed that the 85th percentile was 24.1.

      Mayor Pro Tem Wheatland asked if there has been vigorous Police enforcement; had they
      been issuing citations? Mr. Gaber said he knew that when they notify the Police that they
      are conducting surveys, the Police generally do some additional enforcement and
      observation. However, he did not know specifically who went out during the time these
      surveys were conducted.

      Councilmember Abrams commented that, with due respect to the City Engineer, it’s difficult
      to delve into the details of what has been put before the Council in the absence of Associate
      Engineer Maria Robinson. She stated that, in the past, speed humps have been placed in
      small cul de sac situations where it was easy to recognize the benefits to the homeowners
      who were impacted. But in this case, some residents are negatively impacted upon; and
      there are feeder streets with residents who had not been consulted but who were very vocal
      in their opposition tonight. Before she would consider taking action on this issue, the City
      needed to provide proper noticing to all impacted residents. She said she wanted to hear from
      the school, the Fire District, people who will be negatively impacted by emergency service
      delays, the Police, and Associate Engineer Maria Robinson.

      Mayor Pro Tem Wheatland commented that his wife’s first home was on Sleepy Hollow;
      and she had gone to Sleepy Hollow School. Seventy percent (70%) of the residents that live
      on Sleepy Hollow think there is a problem. On Sunday, he watched the traffic on Sleepy
      Hollow, and observed speeders. He said, at this stage, he was not convinced that the City
      has done all it could in the way of enforcement. He wanted to know what level of
      enforcement has been made (i.e., giving tickets); and the speed survey information on both
      parts of Sleepy Hollow in both directions.

      Councilmember Tabor stated that this was a situation where 50% of the people will be
      happy, and 50% will be unhappy. He was not convinced that speed humps were the best way
      to go given the information they received that night; as well as information he has gained by
      being a personal injury attorney. There is a lot of empirical data that shows that speed
      humps can actually cause speeding between humps to “make up time.” There are plenty of
      studies that would show that, and plenty of studies that would show they are effective. He
      wanted to see some empirical data, if available, that speed bumps “this far apart” would
      significantly reduce speeds, increase safety, and decrease severity of injury. Even if it
      decreases the amount of accidents, they may not produce the effect one is looking for, such
      as a reduction in the severity of injury. He needed to know what the effectiveness is because
      they may need to spend their money in another fashion. He also wanted to hear from the Fire
      District with respect to getting to an emergency and how will it affect the round trip for the
      person in an ambulance.

      Councilmember Abrams asked if a speed trailer could be placed on Sleepy Hollow. Mr.
      Gaber agreed to ask the Police Chief to do so. She commented that in San Francisco,
      speeders are caught on film going through red lights. She asked if the City had ever priced
      such a camera. Mr. Gaber said he had heard about them but had not considered using them.


Orinda City Council Minutes                    28                            June 19, 2001
      Councilmember Abrams suggested ticketing and publishing the names of speeders. Mayor
      Pro Tem Wheatland said that the City of San Francisco issues tickets but does not publish
      names. Councilmember Abrams said she was trying to encourage the Council to think
      “outside the box.” Councilmember Tabor said he found difficulty accepting a camera in a
      residential neighborhood. Mr. Gaber said he had heard of cameras being incorporated into a
      speed trailer. Councilmember Tabor responded that that was different -- having a camera
      aimed specifically at someone coming down the street at one specific spot and time, rather
      than having a camera “floating around neighborhoods on a pole.” Councilmember Abrams
      said she was not suggesting doing the latter.

      Mayor Pro Tem Wheatland said that Orinda has only two officers on duty, covering 96 miles
      of road. Perhaps the Council could consider funding another officer to provide Police
      enforcement.

      The Council directed staff to return at a later date when more specific information is
      available. The Fire District, Police, and Engineering should all be present at that time.
      Notification of feeder streets should also take place.

      The Mayor thanked the members of the audience for staying so late. She encouraged them
      to send letters which the Council would consider.

      MOTION: By Councilmember Tabor, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Wheatland, to defer
      Item I-4 “Review of Operating Budget for fiscal year 2001-02” to a special meeting of June
      26; and defer Item I-5 “Conflicts of Interest: An update on changes in the law and a
      recommendation for establishing procedures for investigating and reporting conflicts of
      interest” and Item I-6 “Proposed amendment to League of California Cities Bylaws for
      establishment of a Grassroots Network and related dues structure” to the regular meeting of
      July 3, 2001. The motion passed by a vote of four ayes, one absent (Councilmember
      Hawkins, excused).

      MOTION: By Councilmember Abrams, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Wheatland, to extend
      the City Council meeting to 11:30 p.m. The motion passed by a vote of four ayes, one
      absent (Councilmember Hawkins, excused).

      I-2.   Revocable encroachment permit for construction of pillars at 1 Tappan Court.

      Applicants Matthew and Wendy Larson, 1 Tappan Court, responded to Councilmembers’
      questions. Mayor Pro Tem Wheatland said he did not want a streetlight to bother the
      neighbors. He asked if the light would be left on all night. Mr. Larson replied that the light
      atop the pole would illuminate the driveway, but it is not a streetlight. The light will have a
      timer, which the Larsons could operate via a phone call.

      MOTION: By Mayor Pro Tem Wheatland, seconded by Councilmember Tabor, to approve
      the encroachment with staff recommendations and with conditions that the light be more
      subdued and not be left on all night. The motion passed by a vote of four ayes, one absent
      (Councilmember Hawkins, excused).


Orinda City Council Minutes                     29                            June 19, 2001
      I-3.   Approval of the proposed uses for the 111-acre open space area adjacent to
             Orinda Oaks Park and naming of the 111-acre site as the “Orinda Oaks Open
             Space Preserve”.

      Mayor Pro Tem Wheatland stated that he had had a good discussion with Parks &
      Recreation Director Todd Skinner, and felt comfortable recommending approval of the
      proposed uses and name for the open space area.

      MOTION: By Mayor Pro Tem Wheatland, seconded by Councilmember Tabor, approving
      the proposed uses for the 111-acre open space area adjacent to Orinda Oaks Park and naming
      of the 111-acre site as the “Orinda Oaks Open Space Preserve.” The motion passed by a
      vote of four ayes, one absent (Councilmember Hawkins, excused).

J.    CONSENT CALENDAR

      Councilmember Tabor received confirmation from staff that the revised Resolution No. 32-
      01 would be adopted if Item J-10 were approved as part of the Consent Calendar. At the
      request of Councilmember Abrams, Items J-6 and J-7 were removed from the Consent
      Calendar to be considered separately.

      MOTION: By Mayor Pro Tem Wheatland, seconded by Councilmember Abrams, to
      remove Items J-2, “Approval of City Council Minutes for the regular Council meeting of
      May 15, 2001” from the Consent Calendar to be placed on the next regular meeting agenda.
      The motion passed by a vote of four ayes, one absent (Councilmember Hawkins, excused).

      MOTION: By Mayor Pro Tem Wheatland, seconded by Councilmember Abrams,
      approving the Consent Calendar as amended. The motion passed by a vote of four ayes,
      one absent (Councilmember Hawkins, excused).

      By adoption of the Consent Calendar, the following actions were taken:

      J-1.   Approved regular warrants #5677 to #5792, payroll checks #0683 to #0703, and
             payroll vouchers #31009 to #31041.

      J-3.   Approved a stop sign on Don Gabriel Way at El Camino Moraga.

      J-4.   Established parking regulations in the vicinity of Glorietta School.

      J-5.   Approved construction plans and specifications for the reconstruction of Rheem
             Boulevard and authorized staff to obtain construction bids.

      J-8.   Accepted the Contra Costa County Clerk’s Certification of the canvass of the
             City of Orinda election results for the June 5, 2001 special election – Measure H
             (Orinda Library Parcel Tax).




Orinda City Council Minutes                   30                          June 19, 2001
      J-9.   Adopted Ordinance No. 01-02, an Ordinance adding Chapter 15.52 to the
             Orinda Municipal Code to regulate the installation of wood burning appliances
             in new construction for the purpose of reducing air pollution.

      J-10. Adopted Resolution No. 32-01, denying development plan application (DP99-
            063) for the construction of a new 7,821 gross square foot single family
            residence on a vacant 4.28 acre lot within an R-overlay district located at 37
            Parkway Court. (Applicant and appellant, Grant and Judy LaMontagne).

      J- 11. Authorized Agreement with the City of Concord Maintenance Services
             Department for maintenance and repair of Orinda police vehicles.

      J-12. Approved fiscal year 2001-02 spending limit as required by Article XIIIB of the
            California Constitution.

      J-13. Authorized City sponsorship of Fourth of July events and official closure of
            roads for parade route.

      Consent Calendar Items J-6 and J-7 were considered separately by the Council.

      J-6.   Approving the Engineer’s report for the levy of annual assessments; providing
             notice of intention to levy annual assessments; and setting hearings on the levy
             of assessments for Orinda Street Lighting and Landscaping Assessment District
             No. 1986-1 during fiscal year 2001-02.

      MOTION: By Mayor Pro Tem Wheatland, seconded by Councilmember Tabor, to adopt:
      (1) Resolution No. 26-01, approving the Engineer’s report for the levy of annual
          assessments for fiscal year 2001-02, Orinda Street Lighting and Landscaping
          Assessment District No. 1986-1; and
      (2) Resolution No. 27-01, intention to levy and collect assessments for fiscal year 2001-02
          within the Orinda Street Lighting and Landscaping Assessment District No. 1986-1.
      The motion passed with a vote of three ayes, one no (Councilmember Abrams), and one
      absent (Councilmember Hawkins, excused).

      J-7.   Award of contract for the El Toyonal reconstruction project, Federal Aid
             Project No. STPL-5444(008).

      In response to Councilmember Abrams’ question, staff confirmed that the second-lowest
      bidder, Bay Cities Paving & Grading, would be awarded the El Toyonal reconstruction
      project contract since the lowest bidder, MCK Services, Inc. was unable to obtain a Class A
      contractors license by the deadline of 5:00 p.m., June 19, 2001.

      MOTION: By Councilmember Abrams, seconded by Councilmember Tabor, to award the
      contract for the El Toyonal reconstruction project, Federal Aid Project No. STPL-5444(008)
      to Bay Cities Paving & Grading. The motion passed by a vote of four ayes, one absent
      (Councilmember Hawkins, excused).


Orinda City Council Minutes                   31                           June 19, 2001
K.    COMMUNICATIONS (None)

L.    CITY COUNCIL REPORTS

      L-1.      Councilmembers' announcements or brief reports on his/her activities.

      Mayor Worth commented that outgoing Planning Commissioners, Parks and Recreation
      Commissioners, and Historic Landmark Committee members would be recognized at a
      reception at the next regular Council meeting.

M.    ADJOURNMENT
      The meeting adjourned at 11:40 p.m.

      The next meeting of the Orinda City Council will be held on Tuesday, July 3, 2001 at 7:00
      p.m. in the Community Center Auditorium, 26 Orinda Way, Orinda, California.



                                            JUDITH A. HANSEN, CITY CLERK


      Attest:

      __________________________
      AMY WORTH, MAYOR




Orinda City Council Minutes                   32                         June 19, 2001

								
To top