Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-21-1977 City Council Minutes MINUTES SARATOGA CITY. COUNCIL TIME:. Wednesday, September 21, 1977 - 7:30 P.M. PLACE: Saratoga City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, Calif. TYPE: Regular Meeting I. ORGANIZATION A.- ROLL CALL' Present: Councilmen Brig~am,. C~rr, Kraus, Matteoni, Bridges ABsent: None B. MINUTES - It was moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded by Councilman Brigham approval of the minutes of September 7, 1977. The motion was carried unanimously. i ? YR NTATI'ON: FINAL REPORT OF' THE U C.B~ SMALL CITIES PROGRAM Mi s s Janet Hans on, As s is tant( '~ the DirectOr= of l~Public _~ffairs f~ t United California Bank, addreSSed' [[~Yo~i'l~e~%ng appreciation for allowing their representatives to. come into the City and participate in the-Samll Cities Program. Miss Hanson further requested the Council to grant .pe~ission allow the bank~'to'-mo~Ltor.~the r, esults' 0f ~he study during the next 9 months. - . ~ , - It was moved by,C~uncilman~Kra~s and seconded by Coundilman Brigham representatives' bf United California Bank be granted permission to monitor the ,Small Cities .Program with the City for the next .9 .months. · The motion was carried unanimously. II. CONSENT CALENDAR A. COMPOSITION OF CONSENT CALENDAR It was moved' by Councilman Brigham and seconded by Councilwoman , Corr aRproval of the Consent Calendar Composition. The motion was carried unanimously. : . B. ITEMS FOR CONSENT CALENDAR . 1. '.Final Acceptance a) SDR-1136- A.H. Brolty/Fruitvale Avenue 2. Renewal of Agreement between the City of Saratoga and West Valley Co~unity College EcolOgy Club for Operation of Recycle Center 3. Payment of Claims 4. City Clerk's Financial Report 5. City Treasurer ' s RepOrt It was moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded by Councilman Matte0hi approval of the ~tems for Consent Calendar. The motion was carried. unanimously. III. BIDS AND CONTRACTS A. AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR BIDS FOR PARKS DIVISION'S ONE-HALF TON TRUCK It Was moved b~ CouncilmaR Kraus-and seconded by CounCilman Brigham the staff be authorized to advertise for bids for purchase of the one-half ton truck. The motion was carried unanimously. IV. P~TITIONS, ORDINANCES AND FORmaL RESOLUTIONS A. MINUTE RESOLUTION RE: APPOINTMENT OF COUNCIL MEMBER TO ABAG GENERAL ASSEMBLY ON FEBRUARY 24, 1977 It was moved by Mayor Bridges and seconded by CounCilman Brigham to appoint Councilwoman Peggy Corr as the voting delegate for the ABAG.General ASsembly, and Councilman Matteoni as the alternate, representative. The motion was carried unanimously. B. CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST BY CITY CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER RE: REVOCATION OF CITY BUSINESS LICENSE 77-842 FOR THE FRUITBOWL, LOCATED AT 12175 SARATOGA-SUNNYVALE ROAD The City Manager presented the Council ~ith pictures of the fruit stand which had been taken on September 16th, and also, today, September 21st, showing the condition of the fruit stand. ~:He cor~nent~d~tha~ ~e violation he has had re~orted to him ~'~dT~"~{~play in advertising and this was observed by himself over the Weekend. ' He indicated.Ltha~ at the previous m.e~ee~ing, there had been some diScussiOn with~regard to yf i ~splay cases being dumped ~n back of the property,~'a'~eHere was some evidence presented at the hearing that there had been a representative of the Fruitbowl picking things up from the pile in back of the property. The Council had r~quested~t~t these case~ be picked up, if in fact the~b~'t~h~g'~'=~h~"B'~ners of the Fruitbowl. . Mr. Demster, Attorney representing the owners of the Fruitbowl, addressed the CoUncil indicating that their position is that the truck was not used for advertising. He further commented that it is his belief the,Council is doingin'directly what it cannot do d~rectly. Itwas his position that this is a non- conforming use based, on this property being used historically as a fruit stand, an impossibility. Mayor Bridges commented that he believes it is possible to operate a fruit stand confined Within 4 walls, and there are a number of them in existence -- D. Martini Orchards, and one on Foothill Expressway near Ralph's Market are very successful businesses ~n his observations. He further stated it is clearly against the City ordinances to spread outdoor displays around the parking area, and if it cannot be operated in any other way than it presently is, the !City has no choice but to revoke the license. - 2 - BUSINESS_LICENSE'~RE~ 'CATION - THE FRUITBOWL. (Cbnt d.) The City Attorney advised that if the.Council do~s not vot~ to terminate this business license, this does not prpvent them from iDdependently attacking the operatio~ as being in violation of the Zoning Ordinance. It was moved by CounCilman Ma.tteoni and seconde~ by Councilman Kraus to not revoke Business License No. 7%-8j2, on the basis of an attempt to comply with the recOmmendationS bythe Code Enforcement Officer and Council, and on the condition. that the sign situation remai~iF~c6*~_~6~mance with City requirements and there be no outdoor 4iW~liy~,. The-motion was Carried unanimously, It was indicated that this business license wg~ld come up for renewal the beginning of the year, and if there are any flagrant violations existing at the frUit stand at the time of license ~&newal, this license would be withheld'and the situation brought to the attention of the Council for further consideration. V. SUBDIVISIONS, BUILDING SITES, ZONING REQUESTS VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO DE~Y~ A VARIANCE FROM ZONING ORDINANCE NS-3 TO ALLOW REDUCTION IN THE REQUIRED SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR FENCING IN EXCESS OF SIX FEET I~ HEIGHT - ROBERT AND KATHLEEN PACE, 12900 ARROYO DE ARGUELLO (V-473) Mr. Van Duyn, Planning Director, explained that the applicant had initially submitted a plan for landscaping of the one-foot area, whicb is the distance between the existing ten or twelve- foot high fence and the side property line. He submitted to the Council photographs which Mr. Pace had submitted' since the P~anning Commission actioh on this matter. Mr. Johnston, City Attorney, indicated that if the pictures are descriptive of that which has been discussed before the Planning Commission, it is not necessary to set a de novo · hearing to consider same. Mr.i~a~ Duyn advised that the application is str{ctl,y involved with that portion of the fence that exceeds six feet in height. He indicated that the applicant placed the fence on the property at the same time he built the court -- approximately one year ago, and subsequent to that the matter was referred to the Cit'y on the ~as~"=iYof~'an intgrest by an ~butting neighbor who · had wanted.t~d~"~e same type o{' thing and was informed that a,permit must be obtained. The applicant, however, has applied for a ~ariance in order to obtain the-fence. He indicated that the Variance Committee had reviewed the matter on August 16th, and a public hearing was held on August 24th, after which the variance was denied, on the basis that Q a..~ariance ofone foot from the property line Was not considered to be a reasonable request or adequate grounds for hardship:. Also, written findings were made, and in essence what would be granted in this situation would be a dineteen-foot variance. testimony presented to ~h~e'Planning Commission.. The .m~otion was -'3 - APPEAL - ROBERT AND KATHLEEN PACE (Cont'_d.) The City Manager then brought to the.C~uncil~s attention an item o~ correspqndence relevant to this matter, from Mr. and Mrs.. Chiu H. Ting, 12932 Arroyo de Arguello, indicating their opposition to the proposed variance requested by Mr. and Mrs. Pace. . The MayOr opened the public hearing at 8:24 P.M. RObert Pace., 12900 Arroyo de AVgUello, addressed the Codnci~. He indicated he is submitting the same information as that presented to, the Plannihg Commission, and pointed ou~ that the photographs are merely aIternative landscaping plans. Mr. Pace indicated that on h%s property there is an approximately 35-foot easement ditch, which is really a creek in itself, which runs through the center of his acre. Also, the Calabazas Creek runs directly. behind his house. Therefore, ~here is very little land for his children to .play on. Mr. Pace indicated that he was very lim{ted on wh~t .he could do here, and the Flood Control District would not allow him to build anykind'of structure, so 'he came tothe ~ity to see if he could put up a sports court. Mr. Pace indicated he di~ not need approval for the sports court; however, the Pta~ding Department staff had advised him this was o~ h Flood Control easement,' and he could not(~~ a structure'of any kind without getting approval from .F~6~'~:'I'~ Control. My. Pace indicated that he applied with the Flood Control District for a permit in May. and it was approved. In June, ~e constructed the court. Mr. Pace indicated he would liRe to call t.othe Council's attention that the fence.really doesn't run alongside the Ting residence. Also, the fenceis barely visable from the street, and the other sid~ 9f the fence is approximately 20. feet and then drops off into the creek to end. Mr. Pace further advised that. in July 1977, the Ting's applied. for a pool variance on the other side of their house, within the 20-foot setback, for the same reason Mr. Pace is applying for his variance, and they were granted a variance to put their pool within 10 feet of the 2.0-foot side variance. He stated that when he asked the Planning Commission why his court was looked upon more as a %uxury than a ~wimming pool, the reply was that the Commission was used to looking at swimming pools, but sports courts were something new and they.really didn't yet have an ordinance to compare it with at this.point. Mr. Kraus ~sked Mr. Pace Ghy he has ~ 10-foot fence, stating that he wouldn't~have any problem with a 6-foot fence. Mr. Pace ~eplied the reason for a 10-foot fence was to stop the balls from going over into the neighpor's yard and down into the c~eek... Mr. Pace further indicated that at the time he put the fence in. his neighbor did not object, and in fact the builder that · 'built his peighbor's house built the fence for him~ He stated it was further his understanding the'complaintant had telephoned the Code Enforcement Offider and dropped the complaint. Mayor Bridges pointed out that the let[~r presented to the Council from Mrs,. Ting is dated September 15th, which expresses concern and asks that the Council not grant this appeal. -'4 - APPEAL - ROBERT AND I<ATHLEEN PACE (Cont'd. Mr. Pace commented that he believes one of the real reasons for Mrs, Ting's bringing this to the C"~t.'~"~T~rtention is that originally Mrs. Ting asked to use his'~{~way-to-to~do~her rear landscaping, and he allowed her to do so, when they busted some header board ~nd ran over a sprinkler v'alve housing, which was never taken care of. Therefore, Mr. Pace asked that she cease from using the driveway. After she re- ceived her variance, however, she asked Mr. Pace if she could use his driveway to dig her pool, and he refused on the basis that he had already spent some money to repair his driveway while the Ting's were building their house. He stated it was with this that the complaints were renewed. Mr. Pace stated that he doesn't really believe this would do harm to the Ting's because their activities are going to take place on the other side of their house where the pool variahce was granted, and the only function his fence serves is to keep the balls out of her yard. and from going down into the creek. Also, it is a safety matter because there is a 30-foot enbank- ment. Councilman Matteo~i inquired what was the height of the 10-foot fence if you come down from the top~he'~_n~ext. cross beams. Mr. Pace replied he believes it is about 7 feet. It was then moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded by Coundilman Brigham the public hearing be closed. The motion was dnanimoUsly carried. The public hearing was closed at 8:40 P.M. Councilman Kraus indicated it would be his feeling this fence could be lowered to 6 fee~, particularly when he sees brochures which illustrate sports courts with 3-foot fences or no fences. Councilwoman Corr domme~ted that it would seem to her if the fence were lowered and some landscaping put in shielding the fence from the house, this would remove some of the obnoxious Affect that it presently has. Councilman Matteoni~ed_t~a_t~,be feels there, is something to be said ~ for the~pen-,t~p~fen~?hSed at the mini-park off Cox Avenue which do~'~t'~l~{ew,'and wouldn't be as heavy appearing if it had the additional 2 feet of cross beams and supports. He indicated h~ would consider'bringing the fence down a couple of feet, thereby denying .the appeal in part and affirming it in another part.~ negotiate a variance -- ~'h~re~e'~e~t~iH findings required, and absent these findings,'he does not believe a variance can be granted. It was then moved by CounCilman Kraus and seconded by'CounCilman Brigham to uphold the Planning Commission decision and deny this variance. The motion was carried, 4 to 1, Councilman Matteoni in opposition. " VII. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS A. MAYOR 1. Report Re: Appointment ofCouncil Representati~eto the Flood Control Zone Advi'sory Committee · ~ ~ ~ MAYOR REPORTS (Cont'd.) It was moved by Councilwoman Corr and seconded by Councilman Brigham to re-appoint Robert Shook as the representative to the Flood Control Zone Advisory Committee and appoint Vice Mayor Kraus as his alternate. The moti6n was carried unanimously. 2. Mayor Bridges indicated he would like to commenton a discussion which was held at the September 13th Committee of the WhOle Meeting relevant~to_the City~s~position co~_n~ cerning the West Valleyf~!~itiati~?~i~t~' ~ amend City Zoning Ordinanc~Sr3~t%~'~c~ud~'th~ co~h~ction of major spectator oriented stadi~s within city limits. ~Several ~e~of ~b~ ~6d~ve~t f ~r~ ~i~i~le~d_ ~ ~indicated_dohce~n~i.th~r~eg~zd to [he~Ci~' ~Ro~f~ion_on~~'' this petition,' stating t~at mgmb~rs of th~['st Valley Taxpayers Association who had been in add~ndance at the meeting had given the'impression ~hat the City was in favor of this initiative petition. Also~ ithad been brought to his attention other members of the Council had received -co~ents from other people in r~gard to this position, and it was the wish of the,Council that he direct a letter to Mr. Frank ofthe Wes~ Valley Taxpayers~AssociatiOn, clarifying the Council's position< Following considerable.discussion concerning this matter, it was moved by Councilman~Matteoni and seconded by Councilman Brigham to fo~ard the.letter signed by Mayor Bridges to the M~j. Frank of the West Valley Taxpayers Association, with the following revised wording to the I request tha~ you advise members of your association and other advo~ate~ of the initiative n~ ~o directl~ or indirectly inferno members of the public that the City Council supports your proposed Initiative Measure.~-- ~ The motion was carried unanimously. Recess and ~ ' reconvene~ B. COUNCIL AND CO~ISSION REPORTS 1. Councilman Brigham Re: 208 Study - Advised that the draft Surface Run-off Management Plan will be coming out this week, and'must be acted upon by October 17th. The City Manager ind{cated this draft plan wou~d be on the Co~ittee of the ~le Agenda on Tuesday, September 27. C. DEPARTMENT HEADS AND OFFICERS 1. Reports from the Director of Public Works a) Amendment to Notes oh Recorded' Parcel Maps It was moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded by Council- man Matteonijto approvean Addenda.to the Improvement Agreements in SDR-1285,.SDR-1275 and SDR-1297, and authorize the Mayor to sign these amendments. The motion was carried unanimously~ DEPARTMENT HEADS AND OFFICERS (Cont' d. ) b) Guava Court - Pedestrian Crossing of RailrOad ~ Track The City Manager indicated that at the Coundil!~had asked the staff to discuss with PG&E the possibility of taking a path from ~he end of the termination of the existing pathway between homes off of Fredericksburg Drive, and carrying it down to Cox Avenue adjacent to the back of these properties. The staff did contact PG&E, and they advised.that they_would require a 5-foot fenced pathway, ~~~mat~_~=$1~3,000. Following~~%~'n'on this matter, it was moved by to set a pubf~d'h~ring fo~ January 18, 1978, w{~'[~'~[~ intent to abandon the easement on Fredericksburg Drive. The motion was carried unanimously. 2. Report from the Director of Planning Re: Tree Removal Permit #225 Mr. Van Duyn explained that this pertains to a matter. which was discussed atithe September 7th City CounCil Meeting, at which time the Council considered a letter from Mr. Cl~rk, an abntting property .owner of--the site for which th~ subject tree is to be removed. The Planning CommisSion has approv.~dremoval .of this tree, . and the staff has issued~a tree ~removal permit. However~ the Council had requested holding removal of the tree until it had given this matter further review. The City Manager advised that.since the S&ptem~er 7th meeting, the City has been named as a defendant in~w suit pertaining to an Order to Show Cause and Temporary Restraining Order to p~ohibit the tree from being~ ~_ve'd~ and directed to appear in Court on October 7th. Also, Mr. Clark has filed a claim against the City .in the a~ount of $100,O00'because of the~Cit~'s action in issuing this permit. Following c~nsideratiod of this action, it was moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded by Councilman Brigham to deny the claim filed against the City in the amount of $100,000, and refer this to the City's insurance carrier for consideration. The motion was carried unanimously. It was further moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded by Councilman Brigham to not participate in the court pro- ceedings on this matter, and to formally apprise the court of the City's intentions. The motion was carried unanimously. D. CITY MANAGER VIII. COMMUNICATIONS 1. Mr. Robert E. Browne, Mayorof the City of Milpitas, enclosing a letter and res61ution to the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors Re: Emergency Medical Service Plan. The City Manager indicated he would be providing a report on this Emergency Medical Service Plan to the Council in the near future. - 7 - WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS (Cont'd.) 2. Ms. Marjory Bunyard, President, Los Gatos-Saratoga American Association of University.Women, introducing Gladys Armstrong and Ann Hexamer as Saratoga observers to the City Council meetings. - Noted. 3. A petition from residents of Pierce Road requesting the City allow Pierce Road to be kept at its present width. This petition was referred to the staff for review and a report back at the next regular meeting of the-Council. 4. Mr. and Mrs. Chiu H. Ting~ 12932 Arroyo de Arguello, expressing opposition to the proposed variance requested by Mr. and Mrs. Robert Pace. See item VI-A. Letter noted and filed. 5. Ms. Marie Rose Gaspar, 14754 Pierce Road, requesting final .approval of map on Tract 5928. The City Manager (~rte~d~]' the Director of Public Works- has indicated tha~'~h~essmen~ district is formed, and bids have been received and construction authorized for the water system, he would~Ta_~~_~'~_na~ final map approval. Bill Heiss, Engineer for this project, indicated it would be their desire to obtain conditional map approval, recognizing that no recordation can occur until all conditions have been fulfilled. He further indicated the petition has been pre- pared for the water district'formation, and Mrs. Gaspar is in the process of circulating this petition. Following discussion of this request, it was moved by Councilman Matteoni and seconded by Councilman Kraus to grant Conditional Map Approval to the 8-lot subdivision of Tract 5928, subject to fulfillment of the conditions to the satisfaction of staff and delivery of the necessary proofof satisfaction to the City Clerk items 1 thru 11, which condi'tional approval is good until February 1, 1978. Ifconditions have not been fulfilled as'of that date, approval would terminate, and regular approval would have to be appli'e~_? for. The motion was carried unanimously. 6. Ms. Mildred R. Kennei, City Clerk of the City of E1 Cajon, enclosing a Resolution Supporting Reform of State Laws ~ich Impede or PreVent the Timely Licensing of Essential Power Projects. - Noted and filed. 7. Mr. Paul E. Sagers, Assistant Executive Officer, ~FCO, concerning annual review of City Urban Service Areas. n This letter was referred to the Plan ~ng staf determination as to whether or not there i~'~l~d~ r~o~end any planning changes in the urban service areas. 8. Ms. Sylvia M. Siegel, Executive Director, Toward Utility Rate Normalization, requesting financial support to continue utility advocacy in the cons~er interest and endorsement of an alternative public str~cture to the current rate increase. request for utility company conservation programs. - No action taken. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS (Cont'd. 9. Martha Elizabeth Grapa, 12500 Fredericksburg Drive, urging the Counci t kee open the Guava Court right-of-way. See item VII-C~i-~). ~ity Manager to respond. 10. Susan Barrera, 12545 Fredericksburg Drive, requesting that the walk-through between Fredericksburg Drive and Guava. Court remain open. See item VII-C(1-b).. City Manager to respond. B. ORAL 1. Charles Ware, representing George Day Construction Company, requesting Final Acceptance on Tract 5150 on Fruitvale and Douglass Ave. The City Attorney explained that there is a Landscape Mainten- ance Agreement between George Day Construction Company and the City which provides that unless and until the homeowners association is properly formed and functional and elects its directors, and thereafter. itself enters into a contract with the City and bonds that 'contract to maintain'the landscaping, George Day Construction Company remains liable for the landscaping. He indicated that in his opinion, this is some- thing separate and distin.ct from accepting the tract improve-. ments. The City Manager indicate~ he would be meeting with the staff involved in this matter during the next week, and sees no reason why it couldn't be. agendized for the next regular meeting of the Council. C. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF PUBLIC GROUP REPRESENTATIVES The Mayor acknowledged the following public~rgroup representatives present this evening; as follows: Fred Lustig, Saratoga Planning Commissioner Rudolph Kanne, President,t Good Government Group Mrs. Rudolph Kanne (serve~ coffee) IX. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Councilman Brigha~a and seconded bi Councilwoman Corr the meeting be adjourned. The motion was carried; the meeting was adjourned at 10:55 P.M. ~ 'es ~fYa~l-~y submitted, Ro.