Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-05-1973 City Council Minutes MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL TIME: Wednesday, December 5, 1973 - 7:30 P.M.l PLACE: Saratoga City Council Chambers, 13777 F~uitvale Ave., Saratoga, California TYPE: Regular Meeting ~ " I. ORGANIZATION A. ROLL CALL Present: Councilmen Bridges, Dirid~n~ Dwyer, Kraus, and Smith Absent: None B. MINUTES ~ Correction: Page 3, MAYOR, Item 2, 'Re: Voting Structure of P.P.C. Modificahion to reflect that a discussion was held; however no motion It was moved by Councilman Dwyer and seconded by Counci%man Bridges that the minutes of November 21, 1973, be app~oved as amended. The motion was carried. II. BIDS AND CONTRACTS A. SARATOGA-LOS GATOS WALKWAY BETWEEN ALOHA AND OAK STREETS The City Manager asked that the Director of Public Works explain the final ~- design plan for the proposed walkway'. He commented that it ~s~the City's intent not to destroy the wa~l and a~so that one of the goals in constructing this pathway is to improve site distance. He explained that thiscrevised plan reflects a pathway on topof the existing wail, having very little impact on~~j~d,~t,r'~e Planning Director has filed a negative declaration ~! on this pro~ect. Mr. Shook, Director of Public W~rks, indicated that the original plaps for the walkway call for some repo~.Xval of% the wall; however, the revised plan does not call- for <fb'i~ ~i~re~t~l~i~a~Uld"~'l~c~~ of f[~ e~l~. He fdr[h~ indi~'E~[~'p[g~o~ng to construct a safety barrier or guard rail and behind that ~ fence to screen.the walkway from the residential properties. There was some concern expressed by the Council as to the feasibility of an asphalt walkway to the Village·tibrary Site. There was also some question as to the design of the guard rail. Following a discussion by the Council and staff, it was moved by Councilman Dwyer and seconded by Councilman Bridges~that the final plans be approved for the walkway, subject to ~co~d~'~f6~and review by the Design__~/~Review Committee of the Planning Com'missi~7!k~b~fff~'~VTr-~S'~g~, and' ~"~ st~'f~b~e~th~ri~'~d'FS~'d~ee~ei-~fp~'~i~ ~pon ~omplet.ion 'of this r~vi~eW~Th~~ do~i-of'Q~s-~arried-, -' ~ .- ---- ..... ~ '-~---~- The City Manager requested that.consideration of the agreement between the ~ity and Our Lady of Fatima be delayed to the next regular City Council Meeting in order that the City AttorDey and attorney for Our Lady of Fatima can meet to discuss the agreement, This was acceptableLwith the CoUncil. III. PETITIONS, ORDINANCES, AND FORMAL RESOLUTIONS A., ORDINANCE NO, 38.12,4 (Second Reading) (~rd~f'~he'dity ~~_A~_~nding Art~ VI of Chapter 4 of the Sa~f~FC{~y Code Re: ~he Granting of ~r~hises for Cable Television ~_~.Systems in Said City. The City Manager explained that this ordinance was introduced at the previous City Council Meeting, at.'which time he ~ad indicated some minor changes. He then proceeded to summarize some of these changes; fpr instance: Section 4-202, which pertains to uses which are allowed over the cable system; Section 4-204, ~'_'~FFnge being that it splits cable television service into two parts -- Basic Services and Non-Basic Services; Section 4-204(c), which deals with subscriber complaints; Section 4-205, pertaining ~o the duration of the license, and 'allowing an addi'tional five years to the previousl~brf~h'~'d~f-ifteen-year duration; Section 4-206 modified to. reflect three ~gc~(3%)'%f the ba'sic subscriber receipts as well as non= basic subscriber receipts; Section'4-209 modified to reflect the added timetable required by the F.C.C__.~.in"~i~h?~the applicant is required submit specific documents;'Se~ion.4~209(~) to~i'd~that the~'~'~e~_has the option to use the utility company's conduits; Section 4-209(g) gives clari- fication with regard to undergrou~d~n~,d' overhead installation of lines; Section 4-210(b), modified to provid~ the option of another company taking over the franchise upon termination of the present franchise; Section 4-218, two paragraphs taken out which reiterated what has already been stated earlier in the document. u~lman Dwyer asked ~h_ow~?the proposed ..company_~(~Ians to connect the ~nter- near~ section o'F~san ~Sse ~d how the q~al{ty of~ pe~for~ma~fe~d.'~' City ~a~age~"~h~i~ed a verbal presentation in detail of what is being proposed, and he has'asked Mr. Nishimura, President of CommunicAtions Systems Corporation, to put. this in writing to become an exhibit for ~he-ordinance granting the franchise, He explained, however,.that the reason Mr. Nishimura is considering the above approach is to enable him to bring in signals f~om outside of the area~'~Fi~ marTly Sacramento. H~he t~ree A'lternRtives w~f[h~e ~ppl{cant is 'rpresently considering: 1) Buy the signals from Gill Cable Co. or some other cpmpany and put them in over our system. This would involve picking the signals up at the end of a main trunk line and piping them to a signal or head-end in Saratoga, 2) Bring a trunk directly from the Gill system wherever that micro- .wave system is. '3)~ave the applicant put up a microwave tower in Saratoga and' still buy the signals from Gill and still put them through a head end. Following additional discussion pert{nent to connection of~f~ to · In ham addre se ~g~ - the proposed system, Mr. Harvey g ' s d the Council, ~i~fi he would like to comment regarding the proposed ordinance under discussion. His first comment was directed toward Section 4-203, which indicated .to him that once the CATV syste~ is buil*t,'it could not be changed. The City Manager explained that what ,the modification to this section does is to provide that the system i~ constructed under an exist'ing set of criteria and the City will not come along later and make changes, except . those which would provide for the movement of lines for public works projects, etc. Mr. Ingham then referred to. Section'4l-2~8 which in essence says that no changes can be made unless mutuaily agreed to, ~ich says'to him that the franchise does not have.to make changes unless it elects to do so. Howeve~ the City Manager 'pointed that the frahchise gives the City the control to 2 - ORDINANCE NO. 38.12.4 (Cont'd.) terminate the franchise if they are not meeting the requirements of-tie ordinance, so this would protect the-City in this regard. Mr. Ingham was of the ~eeling that ehe enabling ordinance in its pre~nt form would be attractive to other operators,and suggested that the Council get some other views before adopting this ordinance. Also, he felt the enabling ordinance should be very specifih 'in.stating whether or not the applicant should be allowed to buy signals from another company and also those sections in ehe Performance Standards which are imperative. Following further discussion of some of t~e points=mentioned by Mr. Ingham as weI1 as some of the modifications as outlined by th~ City.Manager, it was moved by Councilman Dwyer and seconded by Councilman Bridges'that Ordinance No. 38.12.4 be adoRted. The motion was carried. B. ~RDINANCE NO. 38.54 Ordinance Granting a Franchise to Communications Systems Corporation co · Construct, Operate~ and Maintain a Cable Television 8~stem within the City of.Saratoga. The City Manager advised that he ha~ discussed this Ordinance with the applicant several times during the past'week and ha~ asked him to submit his proposal to the City. This should be forthcoming in the next week and will be presented a~ the meeting on December'19th. It was suggested the ordinance be di'scussed at the Committee of the Whole Meeting on December llt~ and then re'-agendized fo~ the Regurar. Meeting on December 19. This was acceptable with the Council and the staff. C. ORDINANCE NO. 38.49.1 (Second Reading) Ordinance of the City of Saratoga Amending the Saratoga Cit~ Code by Adding. Article V to Chapter 8 Thereof, Rela~ing to the Control of Noise Levels. There were no additional comments r~garding-.~he o~dinanc~. It wasthere- fore moved by Councilman Kraus and ~e~onded by Councilman Diridon that Ordinance No. 38.49.1 be adopted and the reading be waived. The'motion was carried. D. PETITION REQUESTING AN ORDINANCE AGAINST PARKING, MAINTAINING, SERVICING, AND OPERATION OF HEAVY TRUCKS AND STORAGE OF LARGE TRUCKING VANS WITHIN RESID~NTIALLY ZONED AREA OF SARATOGA'. The City Manager explained that there is also an item on the agenda which is a referral from the Planning Commission making a recommendation to the Council to Adopt~an ~mergency ~rdinance= to regulate this sort of action. He indicated the staff is in the process of drafting the proposed ordinance, and he would a~ticipate having this to present at the next regular meeting. Dr.~Jarne~t_~s resident in the neighborhood where these trucks' are being _park~"commented that several of th& residents have written letters com- plaining about this situation, and the City~s Code Enforcement Officer has been out several times, however, with hoeresults. (Dr. Barnett furthe%~ commented that it seems very obvious th ~ndxvxdual at the resxdence on ~'_Q~i~6'Rd'.and Marshall Lane is using this.as a business location. The City Manager indicated that in an~ effort to resolve the problem, the City has followed up this complaint a~d found that the person using this truck drives it to and from work each day and parks it at this residence when he comes home. He further indicated ~he C'iY~'h~I~dhabI~e to obtain any proof that there is a business' b~i~"co~dh~d ~u~of.~[h'i-s'home. PETITION RE: PARKING, SERVICING OPERATION -- HEAVY TRUCKS~(Cont'd.) Mrs. Testa of Ravenwo0d Drive commented that she didn't see what the problem was in this matter and stated there'are other situations in this neighborho=od that are just as unsightly as this;,however no one has complained about these. Mrs. Woodward of Ravenwood Drive commented that'she has nothing against these people;.she just doesn't care for the unsightly conditions these trucks .present in their neighborhood.. Councilman Dwyer suggested that rather than adopt an emergency ordinance, the staff begin work on a more encompassing ordinance to help resolve this ~ecurr~ng problem. This was agreeable to those other 'members of the Council, and t~e matter was continued to the first r~gular City Council Meeting in January. IV. SUBDIVISIONS, BUiLDiNG SITES, AND ZONING REQUESTS A. SDR-1014 LAWRENCE J. GUY, SARATOGAIHILLS ROAD, 1 LOT It was moved by Councilman Dirid0n and seconded by Councilman Bridges that ' Resolution SDR-1014-1, granting Final ~uilding Site Approval, be adopted. ~he motion was carried. B. SDR-1048 ROBERT I. JACKSON, CANYONSVIEW,DRIVE, 1 LOT It was moved by Councilman Diridon and seconded by Councilman Bridges. that Resolution SDR-1048-1, granting Final Building Site Approval, be adopted. The motion was carried, 4 to 1 in favor. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS , A. ORDINANCE NO. NS-5.22 . ' !'~'I ~ ~ ~ An. Ordinance Amending OrdinanceNS-5~ the Subdivision.Ordinance, by Modifying ProviSions Regulating HillSide Developments within "R-i'! Districts and Amending Sectionsl0.3 and 'lO.6'Thereof~ ~nd Adding S~Ction 10.7 Thereto. The City Manager advised that this ordinance is the first concrete step in an approximately two-year study of the Bohlman Ro~d area. He stated that in April 1972, the Council adSpted an emergency ordinance prohibiting certain uses of certain lands and applying certain zoning regulations to certain lands in th{s area, and'this ordinance has~been extended to April 1974~ He asked Mr. Walker to give a review of what =the Planning Commission has done on this matter to date and what this ordinan'ce woulddo for the Bohlman Road area, as well a~ other hillside areas. The public hearing was opened at 9:10 P.M. Mr. Stan Walker, Director of Planning, indicated that the Bohlman Road study area was de. termined to be a portion of the unincorporated area of the city and extending beyond the city limits'into the County area. He explained that the whole concern of the mountain area began with the participation of Saratoga in the Santa Cruz Mountain Study. The Mountain Study was in progress when this concern for development on Bohlman Road became apparent, especially by the Saratoga Fire Department, becaus~ in this area there is very inadequate · water supply for fire protection, and it was felt that adequate water supply would have to be provided before development could take pla~e. As a result, the Council eventually adopted an emergency ordinance which prohibited further development in this area. As the study progressed further, the second step was the economic and technical feasibi.lity o~.~iliti~s, ~ccess, and service for this minimum-type of development~that~!was to take place~ Mr. Walker indicated that the first concrete st&p to meet the obje'cti~es of minimum development and an open space atmosphere would be to proyide a permanentizing of the slope density regulations, and this is what is proposed in the subject ordinance. Mr. Walker explained that this ordinance'is really the first step ORDINANCE NO, NS-5.22 (Cont'd.) ,, and is an outgrowth of the General Plan Review and a stddy of the S~here o£ Influence. He indicated that there has been a process proposed by the consultant in an environmental research for each hillside property in th~ Sphere of Influence, and this proces's would look at each piece of property as to whether it met the necessary criteria for development. This process would be to go through a series of check points and determining whether the property should be available for development. Some of the factors would be: 3) assets that might be affected by development. He explained that this ordinance would provide performance standards along these lines, and this process wou~d help determine whether each specific sit~ could be developed. The ordinance further adds the requirement of desfgn review approval by the Planning Commission of the actual house design, the materials used,othe landscaping, feasibility of the slope, etc. Mrl Walker state'd that it was the staff~s recommendation, as well as that of the Planning Commission,. that this ordinance be adopted. Mr. Johnston, City Attorney, inquired what the difference was between the Couhty's slope density curve and the City's. Mr. Walker replied that the County's slope density curve is approximately the same or a little less than Saratoga~s; however, the County allows development on a lot which exceeds 40%, where this proposed ordinance Would not. There being no additional comments concerning the proposed ordinance, it was moved by Councilman Dwyer and s~conded by Councilman Kraus that the public hearing be closed. The motion was carried; public h~aring was closed at 9:25 P.M. It was moved by Councilman Dwyer and seconded by Councilman Kraus that Ordinance No. NS-5.22 be introduced. The motion was carried. B. 0~~S-3-ZC-73 Mayor Smith explained that this ordinance grew out of two controversies with the City -- one concerning single-family residences where a second story is added -- the second concerBing two-story homes in a new development. He then opened the public hearing at 9:130 P.M. The City Manager indicated that the ,present emergency ordinance pertaining to this issue will expire on February 11, 1974. He then asked Mr. Walker, Planning Director, to summarize thi~ situation. Mr. Walker indicated that this ordinance has as its purpose the protection of property owners from invasion of privacy, unreasonable interference with views, and adverse impact on aesthetic character. Mr. Walker advised that the Ordinance speaks to two types of two-story development -- one, the-entirely new sub- division development and control of ~two-story homes ~'~h~dFdiVi~ion and in relation to already-existing adjacent subdivisions. The second objective of the ordinance is to control the conversion of an already-existing single-story home to a two-story home in a basically single-story development. Mr. Walker indicated that the ordinance defines "two-story" or "multi-story" structure. Additionally, the ordinance l~kes. th'~)requirement of more setback in the rear c yard for two-story stru tures. Also, there is s maximum coverage control from 10~000 to 40,000 square feet. Mr. Walker advised that the Planning Commission has proposed control over the number of lots in a subdivision that may be two-story, ~oing up to a maximum of 50%. He added ~hat hillside developments are exempted from this require- ment, except for coverage control'and the added setback requirement. The other standards the ordinance propose~ are: 1) not allowing a two-story home opposite or contiguous to a single-story home in the same development or adjacent development; 2) the staff, lthrough a Use Permit procedure, would be allowed the authority to issue a conversion permit if the conversion of s particular home met the other required standards . He advised that the - 5 - ORDINANCE NO. NS-3-ZC-73 (Cont'd.) conversion permit, if denied or gra~ted, could be appealed to the Planning Commission. Mr. Walker explained that the ordinance also provides for the staff's ability to grant or deny a permit, in spite of the fact the application for a conversion permit does not meet the standards proposed in the ordinance. Councilman Dwyer questioned the latter point, andlcommented 'that all this really says is that any second-story addition is goin~ to be at the discretion of the Planning Director, and he couldn't see a situation where a one-story home adjacent or contiguous to another single-story home would be entitled to add a second story. He further commented that he would like ~o see the City address itself more directly to the,issue of "aeStheticS" in considering this ordinance. Mr. Jim O'Brien, represen.ting theBdild~rs Association of Santa Clara and Santa Cruz Counties, addressed the'Council and commented that he appreciate~ the difficulty the Planning Commission had in writing an ordinance-such as this. He questioned, however, the~~'~e_e ordih~nce~wh~ch stetes: 'At the discretion of the Planning C~mmission fe~e~"~an_~ bu~ ~gmo~'~'~ethan 50% the introductory part of this sentence be deleted and the provision modified to state "Not mere than 50% of thelots or sites within any subdivision . . . " Mr. O'Brien felt this re-wording would be in the interest of clarity ahd would be more acceptable to property owners. In the following paragraph, Mr. O'Brien suggested there be established some ~lement of distance, which would prohibit someone from putting up a two-story home coptiguous to a single- story residence on a ten-acre site. The City Attorney commented that' Mr. O'Brien'.s suggestions relate to the way the ordinance was originall~ drafted by his off~ge, and ~he modifi/ cations were made by the Planning Commission. , Mr. O'Brien commented that in the c~nversion portion of the ordinance, there are no guidelines that the Planning TDirector and ultimately the Planning Commission could follow in granting ?r denying the permit. He thereforeO suggested that the Commission formulate these guidelines. Judy Vance addressed the Council and stated that she disagrees ~ith Mr. O'Brien's statement with regard to~g_"at t~he_discr~etion of the Planning Commission", _~_~__a~~~jg~ff'tbis was,'I~0dified as suggest~d,'there would be the tendancy for d~e~opera to consider][he 5~6%7~x{~'~n every case. One resident commented that rather than have a blanket ordinancelregarding two-story dwellings, that conversions be approvedstrictl~ on an Environmental Impact Report basis, and that each d'evelopment be considered strictly on its merits. ~- ';, Mr. Matteoni, Planning Commissioner,~ indicated he is not ~avorable to the ordinance as presented by the Planning Commission. ~He .further st'ated that he felt the wording of the ordinance7 as drafted by the City Attorney's office, should not have been modified. Mr. Matteo'ni indicate~ that he s~w little in the way of public comment regarding how. the ordinance might ~ffect owners in Saratoga. !~~~ed'that !this public hearing on this ordinance be continued to~e ~ext r~ul~e~elhg so the s~ggested m?difications could be considered. Councilman Bridges~commented it was his feeling the Cit~ needed an ordinanc~ such as this. He questioned, howeveF, the present appeal process, and he felt the Council should give some consideration to the Planning Commission as He f ~ the appeal board. elt~tk~~./~hese appeals should be referred back to the Council for recommend~ti~j''~ 6 ORDINANCE NO. NS-3-ZC-73 (Cont'd.) The City Attorney commented that he .would strongly recommend against three separate hearings on these matters. Mr. Bridges clarified himself by commenting that he didn't mean to indica'te the Planning Commission be excluded from th{s process as it is definitely a Planning process; however, he felt theyappeals should be heard byan elected body. Mr. Matteoni advised that he wouldn~!t suggest moving the issuing of con- version permits from the Director as it is too much policy work and at the staff level. Following additional comment by the 'Council with regard to alternatives for~~l~r~.cess, it was moved by Councilman Smith and seconded by Council~a~D~er that Ordinance'NS-3-ZC-73 be introduced with the modi- fications: 1) eliminating "at the discretion of the Planning Commission . . ." 2) begin that sentence with "Fewer than but no more than 50% of the lots or0 sites within any subdivision . "'; 3) appeals regarding granting or deniel of Conversion Permits be made to the] City Council, rather than Planning Commission. The motion was carried.: VI. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS A. MAYOR B. FINANCE 1. Payment of Claims It was moved by Councilman Kraus' and seconded by Councilman Dwyer that the disbursements be approved and the Mayor be authorized to Sign the warrants. The motion'was carried. C. COUNCIL AND COMMISSION REPORTS 1. Planning Commission - Recommendation for the Council to Adopt an Emergency Ordinance Regulating Heavy Trucks and Equipment on Public and. Private Property. This has b;een continued to the meeting on January 2, 1973. 2. Councilman Kzaus Re: P.P.C. Meeting - Informed the Council of P.P.C.~s . ~ action regarding City of Santa Clara's request for permission to market singl~ ! family homes in the airport area. P.P.~ denied this,request. ~ ~ Weighted Vote issue;- Advised that no ~ vote was actually taken; however, a review made.. 8 cities in favor; 6 opposed; 2 absent. D. DEPARTMENT HEADS AND OFFICERS 1. City Attorney - At the suggestion of the City Attorney, it was moved by Councilman Bridges and seconded by Councilman Diridon that the Council re-affirm and-ratify the previously adopted Resolution 676, and re-affirm the action of the City in the Cermak Wall, and re-affirm expired since the filing of both previous negative declaratim s. The motion was carried. E. CITY MANAGER 1. Announced that tomorrow, December 6th, is the official date to-begin taking out Nomination Papers for the upcoming election. VII. COMMUNICATIONS A. WRITTEN . 5. Jack R. Lyddon~ 'c/o Seven Springs Ranch, P. O. Box 687, Cupertino,~Re'7""""~ notification of meetings. - Noted and filed. City Manager to communi- cate with Mr.. Lyddon~ confirming the position taken by LAFCO regarding the sphere of influence lines. Kenneth M. Colson, 13851Raven-qourt, recommending preservation of the Montgomery Wall and questioning,the importance of a footpath along' Highway 9. - City Man.ager to ~espond and advise City's position. ~3 VIII. ADJOURNMEN~ It was moved by Councilman Bridges and seconded by Councilman Diridon'that the meeting be adjourned to an Executive~e~sion. The motion was carried.. YHe motion was carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:55 P.M. pectfully submitted, - 8 -