Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-20-1977 City Council Minutes MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL TIME: Wednesday, April 20, 1977 7:B0 P.M. PLACE: Saratoga City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratgga, Calif. TYPE: Regular Meeting I. ORGANIZATION A. ROL~ CALL Present: Councilmen Brigham, Corr, Kraus, Brigham Absent: Councilman Matteoni (arriVed later) B. MINUTES None. II. CONSENT CALENDAR A. COMPOSITION OF CONSENT CALENDAR It was moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded by Councilman Brigham approval of the Consent Calendar composition. The motion was carried unanimously. B. ITEMS FOR CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Section 2156 Report (~aliforni~ County Road'and City Street Progress and Needs Report) 2. Authorization to Solicit Proposals for Hiring of Planning Consultant for Zoning Ordinance Upd~t~ with Use of Anti- ~Payment~i'ai~D 4. City Clerk's Financial Report 5. City Treasurer's Repor~ It was moved by Councilman Brigham and seconded by Councilman Kraus the items for Consent Calendar be approved. The motion was carried unanimously. III. BIDS AND CONTRACTS A. JOINT LANDSCAPE AGREEMENT WITH FOOTHILL FAMILY FACULTY CLUB It was moved by Cou~cilman'Brigham and seconded by Coundilwoman Corr the Mayor be authorized to execute this agreement. The motion was carried unanimously. B. AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE FOR BIDS 1976-77 STREET SEALING PROGRAM It was moved by Councilman ~r~a~Us~.and seconded by Councilman Brigham the gtaff=t~a'd~'~'~se=£o~'b~fd~Tfbr the 1976-77.Street Sealing Program. ~Th~e~mot±~'~fi~'d'~animously. IV. PETITIONS, ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS A. RESOLUTION NO. 814 A Resolution of the City COuncil of the City of Saratoga Commending Barbara Sampson It was moved by Mayor Bridges and ~e~onded by Councilman Kraus Resolution No. 814 be adopted. The motion was~carried unanimously.* B. MINUTE RESOLUTION RE: VILLAGE TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES Mr. Van Duyn, Planning Director, presented b adkground information and various alternatives which have been reviewed by the Council to date, in conjunction with slides illustrating some of the current problems with the existing transit system in the Village. In concluding, Mr.'Van Duyn outlined the alternatives available to the City in acting on this matter: 1) Eliminate transit service in the Village.* 2) Modify the current Third Street configuration. 3) Utilize the X~~ 4) Establish off-street turn-around facility at the end of Big Basin Way. (Councilman Matteoni arrives) The City Manager brought to the Council's attention a letter from the Saratoga Chamber of Commerce supporting the alternative to provide a turn-around at the end of Big Basin Way. He indicated that this alternative would be the most costly of those provided. He further indicated =there are 2 alternatives which do not fall Within the objectives'of the;CoundilYr 1) Maintain the status'quo, keeping the problem which now exists. 2) Eliminate the busesrthrough the Villagelby moving layovers for 2 of the routes to West Valley College, and having a third route stop at Saratoga-Los Gatos Road without entering the Village. The City Manager further p6inted out the alterdative for a turn-around at the end of Big Basin Way has been objected to by the owners of the condominiums across the s~reet. The Council then heard comments from several. ~sidents affected by the transit system in the Village, including: Edwin Garner, 14531 Oak Street,. voicing 0ppgsition to buses on Oak Street and Third Street. Mr.. Garner also- presented letters from 3 neighbors in! the area indicating opposition to buses in this, location~__"~ Susan Ferrah, member of the Advisory Committee at Saratoga School, expressing opposition to bhses in the Village. Mr. McLaughlin, 14505 Oak Street, expressing opposition to bus route up Third Street due!to narrowness of the street. Gil Bartel, President, Congress Spring~ Homeowners Association, expressingopposition to ~ bus. turn- around at the end of Big Basin Way. It was then moved by Councilman ~righam and seconded by Councilwoman Corr to support the Arco site and the original agreement. F ~ ~ ollowing~co~derable discussion on this issue it was moved B~'~[cir~n~.M~t~i' and seconded by Councilm~n Kraus to table Councilman Brigham's motion until the next regular meeting of the Council, and schedule the matter for discussion a~the Committee of the Whole Meeting on April 26th. ~.[~'{~{~ it be requested a representative of the Transit Dis~i~e%~B~'~'esent to address the following questions: 1) phasing in of the Arco site; 2) r6ute. sdheduling; 3) possible dispersing of layovers. The motion was carried, 3 to 2, with Councilman Brigham and Councilwoman Corr in opposition. Councilman Matteoni indicated he would like to add the request that the Council discuss the interim solutionto pull the buses off of Third Street as soon as possible. = V. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. CONSIDERATION ON APPEAL BY:TERRENCE ROSE OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF DESIGN'REVIEW LOT LOT #4, LOCATED AT 14631 CARNELIAN GLEN COURT (LOUIS IACOMINI) - TRACT 5575 The City Manager referenced the letter from Mr. Rose appealing certain conditions of Design Review Approval, particularly ~the interpretation of Section 13.1 as applied by the Planning Commission, and also, Section 13.3 dealing with the plans as they were submitted. He explained that Mr. Rose is claiming that the Planning Commission failed to perform its basic function, as ~equired by Section 13.1 of the ordinance pertaining to the purpose of design review. Section 13.3 talks about the site plans, architectural drawings, etc. Mr. Van Duyn, Planning Direc~or,~~'~ion to the plans submitted for this proposed buildl~g site. 'He indicated the matter was reviewed by the. Design Review Subcommittee, and' it was~a~proxed by the City Planning Commission at its~'~ing d~'dT-'M*~~fg~. He advised that this proposal is par~'~f a<-l-5l~O't~6~di-~f'sion, and pointed out on .the subdivision map the location of this proposed development. Councilman Matteoni noted that fn the Planning Commission minutes, there was a question of interpretation regarding the purpose of design review, and further comments that there may ha~.e~ bee~ a private agreement with the developer. Mr. Van Duyn replied that the developer was developing the lots under their own standards, and most of the homes were designed by one particular architect. Mr. Iacomini's home was the first to be designed by someone other than that architect. Mr. Van Duyn indicated that it was his understanding there was some agreement between Dividend Industries,and the individuals who purchased these lots, and the Planning Commission had made the distinction that this was not within their particular perview to argue. The Mayor opened the public hearing at 8:55 P.M. Frank Galetti, Attorney representlng Mr. Iacomini, addressed the Council. He stated that Mr. Iacomini had been building homes for a number of years, and no one has ever guestioned his homes, as far as design review is concerned. He urged that the Council approve the Design Review Committee's recommen- dation. Councilman Matteoni asked Mr. Galetti if he knew when the building permit was issued. Mr. Gal&tti replied that it was issued the day after°the Design Review hearing. Mayor Bridges inquired if there is a normal 10-day waiting period following design review action.- Mr. Van Duyn replied that there is no provision in the ordinance that allows the City to withhold a building permit within that 10~day period. Mr. Galetti commented that he believe's the gentlemen appealing this doesn't consider this house as being harmonious with the rest of the neighborhood b~a~us~e of a committment~B~made~b~ 'the family residence nearing completion on LotS6' of'c~r{~Gl~'~' court, addressed the Council. Mr. Rose commented that he doesn't believe there is anything basically wrong with-the home as it is designed -- that it fits in:very nicely as a tract home in many' other areas of the community. Mr. Rose stated that he believes the developer started something unique here -- they generally are not ranch-type homes. He indicated that his contention is that the Design Review Committee did not live up to the instructions given it by the ordinance regarding harmony in the community and monotony, as far' as design. He stated that he doesn't see that there is anything unique about this design. It was.his understanding this gentlemen did submit his plans to Dividend~~as required by the purchase agreement, and ~ertai~'~t~i~ns were made; however, he did not know if these suggestions w&re followed. Mr. Rose'stated that his' biggest problem was that heWas unaware this was going on, and when he did find out, whiCh'was about 2 hours before the final hearing after the design had already'been discussed, he learned that there was a 10-day appeal period. During that period, he applied to the staff forLTa copy of the ordinancesunder which the Design Review Committee conducted its meetings, and received it several days later. On the tenth day, he made his application. Mr. Rose indicated that the'se gentlemen were out starting construction the day after Bearing, and if they did not receive a building permit at that time, he would suggest that possibly they were constructing illegally. Mr. Rose stated that possibly he could appeal to the Council on the basis that the permit was issued improperly; however, he commented that even if the .Council does not agree with him regarding the design,.he would urge'that something be done regarding procedure so this situatioB doesn't occur again. Councilman Kraus requested~that Mr. RoSe outline exactly what his objection is. Mr. Rose replied that he believes the building in this situation is incompatible with what has been started on this cul-de-sac. Further, he does not feel the Design Review Committee followed the instructions of the ordinance regarding compatibility and harmony in the'area by approving this design. 74- Mr. Johnston,~Attorney, explained that where there is an action by an advisory agency,_the action doesn't become final until that appeal period has~expired, and this is built into the ordinance. However, these is not a provision which specifically states a building permit cannot be issued the day after obtaining design review approval. He further indicated that once the building permit has been issued and funds expended, the applicant has acquired a vested right to finish out that which he has started. Mr. Rose indicated he has been told by Doug Watson, President of Dividend Industries, there was a requirement by Dividend on all homes to be developed. by people other than themselves. Mr. Watson had told him there was a strong suggestion that future homes emulate what ha'd already been done there. Mayor Bridges asked Mr. Rose what he would try to emulate by whatever was put on this lot. Mr. Rose replied, "quality of design and materials." Mayor Bridges asked if Mr. Rose did not feel the Design Review Committee did not review the~.materials that were to be used. Mr. Rose replied that this was part of it, and one thin~ Dividend had requested that this developer do is put wood frame windows in the home, and he believes there is some wood trim around them; however, he doesn't know whether or not them are still medal-frame windows. Another point brodght up is that~'~-~-~'~o~B~d~'~ for the fen~_d'~area in front. Mr. Van Duyn commented that it might haverhelped the City"s process if Dividend Industr{es had sent those specifications for consideration during the design review process. Mayor Bridges indicated he didn't believe this was in the perview of the Design Review Committee. Mr. Rose suggested that either the City do away with the appeal situation, givingsome notification to the surrounding area, or honor the appeal process. The City Manager indicated that he would like towclarify that for design review, there isfno hearing process per se at the Planning Commission level. It calls for a hearing before the City Council; however, at the Planning Commission level, there is no hearing process. Mr. Rose inquired if when the Design Review Committee, is this a public hearing, and can apyone attend and maMe comments? The City Manager replied that it is a public meeting, but it is not a public hearing in the legal sense of the term. Mr. Galetti indicated.that he would like to point out plans and specifications were submitted to Dividend Industries and approved before they came to the Design Review Committee. Also, he advised that Dividend Industries does not own any more lots in that subdivision. It was then moved by Councflman Matteoni and seconded by Council- man Kraus the public hearing be c~sed. The motion was carried; the public hearing was closed at 9:20 P.M. - 5 - It was then moved by Councilman Matteoni and seconded by Councilman Kraus that the appeal be denied on the basis that there is evidence to support the decision and interpretation by the Design Review Committee. Recess and Reconvene IV. PETITIONS, ORDINANCES, AND RESOLUTIONS (ContYd.) A. RESOLUTION NO. 814, Commending Barbara Sampson Mayor Bridges re-opened the matter of Resolution 814. Councilman Matteoni indicated he would like to make his aye,~ vote by acclamation.. This was approved by the Council. VI. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS A. MAYOR 1. Appointment of Two Additional Members t6 Village Task Force It was moved by Mayor Bridges, seconded by Councilman Kraus to approve the appointments of Paul Flanagan and Connie Hillblom to the Village Task Force. The motion was carried unanimously. 2. Request-by Santa Clara Valley Water District Re: San Filipe Bond I~sue · it was moved by < Vd' seeonded by Couneilwoman Corr the adoptio~'g~l~'ti~8'~6, Endorsing the Revenue Bond Issue. The motion was carried,.4 to 1, Councilman Brigham in opposition.I B. COUNCIL AND COMMISSION REPbRTS 1. Councilman Brigham - Announced in the Legislative Bulletin, League of California Cities, Bills AB-999, SB-12, SB-154 (Property Tax Keform.'bills) are outlined, and this would be coming up for hearing on May 2nd. Requested the City Council take action on these bills. It was agreed to s~hedule an AdjOurned Regular Meeting for ' April 26 to discuss these bills and take action. C. DEPARTMENT HEADS AND OFFICERS 1. Director of Public Works Re: Request by Principal of Marshall Lane School forCrossin5 Guard at Intersection of Pollard and Quito Roads It was reported that when this request was submitted, the signals had not yet been completed. Further, it is recommended an educational program should be employed to inform students regarding the signal operation. Therefore, the staff's recommendation is to deny the request for a crossing guard at this intersection. It was then moved byICouncilman Matteoni, seconded by Councilman Kraus to accept the staff's recommendation and deny this request, and request the Central County Safety Council to provide brochures to the school on the operation of these signals. The motion was carried unanimously. 2, Director of Planning Re: County of Santa Clara Economic Values and Land Use Report This report has been preparedby a sub-dommittee of P,'P,C, in subs,tantiation of the CountX's Geheral Plan Revie~,+~.~ It was the consensus of the Council no particular. action was necessary regarding,the report at this time, D, CITY ~NAGER 1, Cable Television: Receipt of New Application for Cable Franchise This application prop6ses elements' which'would bring about a change in the City's existing franchise ordinance, and proposes service to first those who are. hard to serve in .the co~unity, This ~roposal has bee~ presented by' Mr, Ken Daniel of Video:Engineering Corporation, The City Manager advised an analysis wSutdneed to be prepared concerning the changes to be.made in the ordinance before proceeding with this proposal, . . . The Council requeste~ a'report back' concemmng~X-Rropes~' ordinance modifications for the May 18th meeting Council. Signs in Area Near Upper Hills Drive (Cont'd. ) It was moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded by Councilman Brigham the adoption of Resolution~-121, Prohibiting Parking on a Portion of Upper Hill Drive. The motion was carried unanimously. Re :~C~e~'re~nt~ti~n Eo 'Che~'eWl?:fo~ed~lneer~overnmental Council. It was moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded by Councilman ~ateeoni the appointmenU of ~ayor Cole Bridges as the City's representative to the Intergovernmental Council. The motion was carried unanimously'. VII. CO~U~ICATIO~S. A. ~ITTE~ 1. Hrs. Henry P. Kaplan, 207~5 Sevilla Lane, Re: condition of ehe Saratoga Recycle Ceneer - The City ~anager indicaeed he would request the snarl. to inves~igaEe ~he idea of posting a sign to indicate when'the Center is closed.- 2. Board of Supervisors, San Francisco, transmitting resolution con~rning the Dete~inaee Sentencing Ac~ of 1976 ~or Council consideration. - ~o~ed and filed. '3. Guy F.' Arkinsert Associates, indicatingsupport of Video Engineering, Inc. in ~s application for CA~. : ~o~ed and filed. 4. The Villages Management Corp., 5000 Cribari Lane', San Jose, recommending Video Engineering, Inc. and Mr. Daniel for operation of a cable television system in the City of Saratoga. Noted and filed. 5. Ialeen Granlund, President, Saratoga Chamber of COmmerce, Re: ~ounty Bus Service to Saratoga Village. - Noted and filed. 6. J. P. Heald, Treasurer, Northwest Saratoga Homeowners- Association, requesting~the City Council take a position regarding the request that other Saratoga taxpayers share in the cost for street light service at two locations. It was moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded by Councilman Brigham the City uphold its present policy regarding mainten- ance of intersection lights on major city streets only, and deny this request. The motion was carried unanimously. 7. Letters submitted Re: Transit System in V~llage: Mrs. Laura Berte~sen, protesting parking of buses on Oak Street. Ge~old Stepovic and Joan Stepovic, expressing opposition to buses on Oak.Street. Mr. and Mrs.' Gary Espinosa, 14510 Oak Street, expressing opposition to bus routeon Oak Street. Mr. and Mrs. P. Stephen Camm, indicating opposition to bus route on Oak Street. -These letters will become a.part of the-file on this issue. B. ORAL None C~Di~EKNOWE~DGEMENT OF PUBLIC GROUP REPRESENTATIVES Lynn Belanger, Chairman, Saratoga Planning Commission Cindy Morris, League of Women Voters Lane McDaniels, Good Government Group · VIII. ADJOURNI~ENT : It was moved by Councilman Brigham, seconded by Councilwoman Corr the meeting be adjourned to an Adjourned Regular Meeting on Tuesday, April 26, 1977. The motion was:carried unanimously; the meeting was adjourned at 10:30 P.M. Czty Ci~~ -,8 -