Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-05-1978 City Council Minutes MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL TIME: Wednesday, April 5, 1978 - 7:30 P.M. PLACE:' Saratoga City Council Chambers, 13777 Frditvale Ave-., Saratoga, Calif. TYPE: Regular Meeting I. ORGANIZATION A. ROLL CALL ~i~Present: Coundilmember~CalfOn,cCorr~ KalbT~att~on_f~Kraus B, MINUTES - March 14, 15, 21,Z . Correction to Minutesof Ma'rch 15th: Page 15, re: public hearing on Lattanzio and Jones proposal, fourth paragraph from bottom of page should indicate co~ented that although ghe cannot vo~ f~ thff~p'~j'ect . . .." 'Page 15, last paragraph, Councilwoman Callon voted to deny the request to amend the land use element of the General Plan; therefore, the vote was 4 tb 1. Page 15, fourth paragraph, should be amended to read: "Councilman. Kalb co~ented that~ his concerns cen.ter~j~er~ can ~atfsfy the needs 7'-'. It was then moved by Councilwoman Corr and seconded by Councilman Kalb .the "minutes of March 14, March 15 (as amended), and March 21, 1978, be approved. The motion was carried. II. CONSENT CALENDAR A. CO~OSITION OF CONSENT CALENDAR Co~cilman Kalb requested to remove item 3 from the Consent Calendar. Co~cilman Kraus requested .removal of item 2. It was ~oved by Councilwom~n Corr and seconded by Councilwoman Callon approval of the Consent Calendar composition, with the e~ception of items 2 and 3 .' The motion was carried. B. iTEMS FOR CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Resolution 848, A Resolution of the City Council 6f the City of Saratoga Requesting Pe~ission for Temporary" Closure of State Highways on May 7, 1978 * 2. Resolution 849, A ResolUtion of the City of Saratoga Upholding the Appeal of David De Carion for a Use Petit (UP-361) to Allow a Tennis Court at 19199 Monte Vista Drive * 3. SOcial ~u~yJ~pj~e~ Benefits a. Resolution 85-9.34 b. Resolution 850 4. Notice of Completion - Saratoga Co~unity Library 5. Acceptance of Gifts for New Library 6. Final Acceptances a. Tract 5256 -.Sevilla Lane/Saratoga Foothills Development Corp. (Resolution 36-B-176, Accepting Dedication of Streets) b. Tract 5319 ShadoWoaks/Saratoga Foothills Develop- ment Corp. (Resolution 36-B-177, Accepting Dedication of Streets) c. Tract 5462 Dagmar-Bonnet/Dividend Industries (Resolution 36-B-178, Accepting Dedication of Streets) d. Tract 5676 - Mario~ Road/Saratoga Foothills DeveloD- ment (Resolution 36-B-179, Accepting Dedication of' Streets) 7. Authorization to Call for Bids for Vehicle Inspection Services 8. Amendment to Joint Powers Agreement Re: Youth Service Bureau - Revise Number of Members and Requirement for a Quorum 9. Payment of. Claims It was moved by Councilwoman Corr and seconded by Councilwoman Callon approval of the Items for Consent Calendar, with the exception of items 2 and 3. 'The motion was carried unanimousty~ C. ITEMS CONSIDERED SEPARATELY FROM CONSENT CALENDAR 2. Resolution 849, A Resolution of the City of Saratoga Upholding the Appeal of David De Carlon for a Use Permit (UP-361) to Allow a Tennis Court at 19199 Monte Vista Drive Mayor Kraus indicated he is voting against this action in " keeping with his comments at the public hearing on March 15. It was moved by Councilwoman Corr and seconded by Councilman Kalb Resolution 849 be adopted. The motion was carried, 3 to 1, Councilman Kraus in opposition,~Councilwoman Callon abstaining. 3. Social Security Replacement Benefits a. Resolution 85-9.34, A Resolution Amending Resolution 85-9 Adding to Fringe Benefits for Employees of the 'City of Saratoga b. Resolution 850, A Resolution of Intention to Amend the Contract between the City of Saratoga and Public Emp~byee's Retirement System The Council discussed a proposed amendment stipulating that the City's contribution to the approved replacement benefits not exceed the amount the City would be required to contribute on behalf of its employees to the Social Security system. It was moved by Councilman Kalb and seconded by Councilwoman Corr to adopt Resolution 85-9.34, including the proposed amendment, and direct the staff to insert the amendment into the resolution. The motion was carried unanimously. Jim Hendrickson, Assistant City Manager, read into the record the following figures, which would be incorporated into proposed Resolution 850: 1) Increase in employer contribution rate; from 7.213% to 10.128%. This represents a 2.915% increase. 2) Annual dollar costs for first 12 months: estimated $91,150.. This is based on an estimated payroll of 10.128%. It was mo~ed b%~Councilman Kalb and seconded by Councilwoman Corr the~n of Resolution 850. -~j~rried unanimously. III. BIDS AND CONTRACTS A. FINAL PHASE DEVELOPMENT HISTORICAL PARK The City Manager advised that three (3) bids had been received for this project. It is th~ staff's recommendation the Council award the contract to Collishaw Corporation for its low bid of $8,795 to complete the final phase of development o~'rthe~, Historical Park. It was moved by Councilwoman Corr and seconded by Councilman Kalb to accept the low bid oft$8,795 from Collishaw Corporation, and funds be taken from revenue sharing for this work. The motion was carried unanimously. B. CHANGE ORDER NO. 9 SARATOGA COMMUNITY LIBRARY It was moved by Councilwoman Corr and seconded by Councilwoman Callon approval of Change Order No. 9 in the amount of $5,380.03 be approved. The motion was carried unanimously. IV. PETITIONS, ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS A. RESOL'UTION 851 A Resolution Commending Colman Bridges It was moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded by Councilman Kalb Resolution 851 be adopted. The motion was carried unanimously. B. RESOLUTION 852 A Resolution of Intention'~to Vacate and Abandon Walkway Easement, Tract 5164, Sobey Meadows Court The City Manager~~ '~a~'~¥ ~h~'~~t; ~ ~i.'f~March 15th me~Fin~,~ acc~p~h~'~f'Dg~'i~i~ ' ~ for pedestrian/equestrian use on this easement. The City Attorney has advised that the correct process to carry out this action is the same as that process for vacation or abandon- ment of an easement, which requires the following: 1) Formal adoption of a resolution by the City Council indicating its intent to take such action; 2) Ordering a formal public hearing to consider the ~-Re"~61F~o~O~gFi~Vac~on ~~andonment of the ~-~s-emen~,__~-- ~ - In reference to the proposed resolution before the Council this evening, the City Attorney suggested the following modi- fication: Section 1, line 6, reword as follows: "Exhibit "A" and shown on the attached Exhibit "B", reserving, however, from such abandonment the existing Public Service Easements, Sanitary Sewer Easements, and Flood Control Easements." Councilwoman Callon commented that she would like to again urge the Council if they intend.to-pass the resolution this evening, to consider between now and'the time of-the public hearing that since the City has the Offer of Dedication from the hOmeowners and it was there when they;purchased their homes, the City should hold to th~ easement until such time as a policy is adopted with respect to development of a trails and pathways - 3 - system. She urged that the Council look at this issue as one to be considered in the future along with development of the major trails. It was moved by Councilman'Kalb and seconded by Councilwoman Corr to adopt Resolution 852, as modified by the City Attorney. The motion was carried, 4 to 1, Councilwoman Callon in opposition. The Council further indicated its concensus to hold a public hearing on May 3, 1978, to'consider the Resolution Ordering Abandonment of the Walkway Easement. V. CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST BY DR. AND MRS. FOX FOR CLARIFICATION OF DEFERRED IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT FOR SDR-1311 The City Manager explained that the staff has prepared a list~of options ~e~evant to street improvement requirements on this parcel. Councilwoman Callon commented that it was her impression the Council at its study session on this issue had focused on what is outlined in Option 5, that the City require that the proDerties be fnvolved Councilman Matteoni commented~:relevant to procedure on this issue, and he would think the preliminary step would be to consider Dr. Fox's letter as a request for reconsideration of conditions. Then if the Council agreed to reconsider the conditions, he would be inclined to look at the request for some improvement, tying in options 3 and 5, on Norton Road.. He indicated that the driveway takes its ingress and egress to and from Norton Road, and there is no use of Bohlman Road by this property from the juncture where it would be called upon to eventually participate in improvement. Councilman Kalb indicated he would like to see the property be conditioned such that if an assessment district were formed, Dr. Fox be required to join in that assessment district; or if the land be subdivided and developed, there be a requirement for the improvement of the road. 'LIn either case, it would not put the entire burden of the cost of development on Dr. Fox, and in both cases, the City would be assured of the fact that he would be a participant in the entire process, which would seem to be a combination of 6ptions 4 and 5. Mayor Kraus indicated he wo~d concur in Councilman Kalb's comments, and would like to add the fact ~that if Dr. Fox were to gain access from Bohlman Road, the City should consider improvement of both Bohlman and Norton Roads. Otherwise, he would favor improvement of just Norton, and Bohlman as an assessment district. In response to Councilman Matteoni's comment relevant to procedure, the City Attorney indicated that there is a provision in the Subdivision Ordinance which says that at the time of Final Site Approval, the Council has the power, at the request of the applicant, to modify, change or delete.an~! conditions~-~'~R~ would consider this a request in advance to appeal to th~=~'C~n~il for a change at the time of Final Map Approval. It was the consensus of the Counci'l to indicate preference to options 4 and 5 of the staff report dated March 29, 1978. Mayor Kraus clarified'this, stating Chat if there were any subdivision y d D . ox'shome at this Doint, Norton Road~ar~n~/~~ad ~ ' ~"l=~vz~ '~ ~l-'~'~' -L' '- ~ ..... Mayor Kraus directed staff to prepare the appropriate Deferred Improvement Agreement per the Council's action this evening, for consideration at the regular meeting on April 19, 1978. W. G. Carlson, Chairman, Saratoga Parks and Recreation Commission, inquired how the Council wishes to proceed with respect to an item under COUNCIL AND COMMISSION REPORTS, entitled: Report from Parks and Recreation Commission Re: Request for Reconsideration of Council Action Re: Sobey Meadows Easement. In light of the COunci~'s action to hold a public hearin~ on May 3rd concernin~ this issue, it was ~moved VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. TO CONSIDER APPEAL OF LAND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE DECISION RELEVANT TO CONDITIONS IMPOSED ON BUILDING SITE APPROVAL ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON PIERCE ROAD AND PIKE ROAD (SDR-1325, WALKER) (Cont'd. 3/15/78) The City Manager explained that this_item was continued from the_Mar~h 15th. mee~in~to~e ~u~s~i~evant to. condition II-B, and specifically the retaining wall. The question was that if the work was deferred and there was an assessment district at a future date for the improvement of Pike Road, whether or not this could be included i~ this assess- ! ment_distr~ct_ add ~heth~ o~r_ no~,.because of the ~efer~ed ..... / Improvement Agreement and the commitments' ~ th~ road to parti- cipate in a future assessment district, these would be impacted. A review by the staff and the City Attorney indicates that this particular item could be included as part of a future assessment district. Therefore, it could be included in a Deferred Improvement Agreement~ The Mayor then op~ned the public hearing at 8:40 P.M. Tom Walker, applicant in this matter, addressed the Council and indicated he would be glad to answer any questions the Council might have. There being no further dischssion, it was moved by Councilman Matteoni and seconded by Councilwoman Corr the public hearing be closed. The motion was carried; the public hearing was closed at 8:42 P.M. It was movedby Councilman Matteoni and seconded by Councilwoman Callon to accept the staff {ecommendation that condition II-D be modified so as to require that this property be responsible for its pro rata share of the cost of improving Pike Road to public street standards, and that such be the subject of a Deferred Improvement Agreement, in reference to SDR-1325. The motion was carried unanimouply. B. TO CONSIDER APPEAL BY RESIDENTS OF CARNELIAN GLEN AND DIVIDEND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION RE: PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION CON- CERNING DESIGN REVIEW CONDITIONS OF PROPOSED RESIDENCE BY LOU IACOMINI, LOT #5, CARNELIAN GLEN (Cont'd. 3/1/78) The City Manager reviewed the Council's action on March 1st, to continue the matter to this evening, recommending that the applicant~ubdi~ision Design' RevieW'~E6mmittee present the t~e modification~f'~la~'eo '="' 'ann-"ng~C6f6mission. 'This has been completed; therefore,'it is not necessary for the Council to take any further action on this matter~ It is recommended the public hearing be closed, and no.action be_taken by the City Council It was moved by Councilwoman Corr and seconded by Councilwoman Callon the public hearihg b~ hl6sed.' Th'e motion was carried; the public hearing was closed at 8:43 P.M., and no further action was ~aken by the Council. C. TO CONSIDER APPEAL OF, LAND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE-DECISION RELEVANT TO CONDITIONS IMPOSED ON BUILDING SITE APPROVAL ON LOMITA AVENUE (SDR-1346, ANTHONY LAWRENCE) Rob Robinson, Acting Planning Director, advised that on February 16, 1978, the Land Development Committee approved SDR-1346.for construction of a 1,136 square-foot addition. Mr. Lawrence had requested that he not be required to go through the Rrocess of Building Site Approval, and he is appealings~ve"~l~Ftandard conditions which deal with improve- ment of them~nim~ccess'street. Councilman Kalb indicated he had one question with regard to ~t_~.h~wi~'~'f'~'the easement. He commen~edl that it appeared that ~'Y~i~'was~R~!'~10,000 zoning, and from the chart, it seemed to indicate a 50-foot wide easement, as opposed. to 56. Mr. ShOok, Director of Public Works, explained that this is a result of the.improvements further south on Lomita being to the standard of a 56-foot-wide right-ofLway and 36-foot-wide pavement. The conditions have been brought onto this portion of Lomita for consistency. Councilwoman Callon asked if she was correct in her understanding that the other improvement of Lomita is, being called for at this time. Mr. Shook explained that the area of Lomita which is under a conditi6n for public street improvement is at the intersection of Aloha. He indicated than the Pronger lot faces. partially on either side of Aloha and reaches half-way between Aloha and the Lawrence, so the improvements on the Pronger frontage are for public street improvements and would reahh half-way to.the Lawrence parcel, and the LaWrence parcel is required into this condition for minimum access load improvements from'the westerly edge of his property, across the property, and UP to and connecting to that public street portion of Pronger. The Mayor opened the public hearing at 8:50 P.M. Anthony Lawrence, 20620 Lomita Avenue, addressed the Council. .Mr. Lawrence indicated he would like to present some of these issues and then ask for continuance so as to allow for further study of the issues. Mr. Lawrence stated before he goes into the specific issues, he would like to point out, as Mr. Kalb has already noted, that there is an error in the conditioning, as the conditioning' is' for a 56-foot-wide right-of-way, and the ordinance clearly calls for 50.feet. The Other end of the street is zoned R-l-15,000; the street width for R-l-l'5,000 is also 50 feet.' He indicated that because the City has made an error or changed the rules on one end of the street is not sufficient reason to bring that same error down to his end of the street. 6 - He.further referenced what he felt was an error in the staff report, dated Mardh 30, 1978. This report states under ~'~OUNDDThe Applicant was conditioned to "install road ~n'~{~ on driveway access to 18 feet width (from Aloha Avenue to the residence)". Mr. Lawrence stated this is not true, as it was from Lomita Avenue to two new houses behind the Pronger residence, and both of these new houses-were permitted, to exist permanently on a minimum access street. Also, the combined square footage of these two new houses~ exceeds 60,000 square feet and has greater impact on the road than any possible development we could have. Mr. Lawrence another item he would like to introduce is the background on the Lomita-~amina-Aloha district. He stated for several years -- from 1956 until 1967 -- various complaints were received by the City. These were culminated in 1967 in an attempt by the City to form an assessment district. The City took a straw poll of the residents in the area and found them to be in favor of formation of an assessment district for street improvements and storm drains. The City followed through, and the latest document he could find in the city files is a memorandum in 1970from the Public Welfare Committee urging the City Council toj'.pass a resolution for formation of an assessment district. The item was continued on the Council agenda in mid-November, and never again appeared. The City had C~o-thirds federal funding and strong citizen support -o yet failed to act to redevelop this area, and no one in the Public Works Department can answer the question why it failed. Mr. Lawrence commented that he does know from talking to citizens, that the plans for the width of the street at this time did not exceed 25 feet~ and respected all existing improvements. He commented that'he has three substantive issues: One is the re-construction of Lomita Avenue to 400 feet that the Tentative Site Approval requires ~- from the Lawrence property to Aloha Avenue. This is required in return for the building of 240 square feet of bedroOm-space. The second substan~lve issue is the dedication of Lomita Avenue for a 56-foot-wide"~ight-of~way, with 36 feet of pavement to be constructed at'a later date. ,CHe 'sta~d~_~b~Sdb~f~6~!~e~.~sue=~s=~ha~' the co_n~.t!.9~S ! ' '~ C~mposed~p6.~6~e~e~d~i~.sTj'fi~H~lharsher than thY ~6~dfEi'~ffsr~ imposed f~r tFe d~velopm~ht of the Pronger property. With regard ~o the re-construction of 400 feet of Lomita Avenue to Aloha Avenue, Mr. Lawrence stated that he asked Mr. Shook a question one day and received no reply. He would like'to re- address the questi6n toMr.,Shook at this time. He asked: "Is it reasonable to require usto construct 40D feet of road in return for the right to Build 240 square feet of bedroom space?" Mayor Kraus commented that he does not know that it is Mr. Shook's job to determine whether it is reasonable or not. He interprets the Subdivision Ordinance, and this is made up by the Planning Commission, the City Council and the citizens. Mr. Lawrence 6ommented that Ordinance 60 requires that the Land Development Committee shall determine the reasonableness of requirements, because it .gives the Land Development Committee the option to alleviate citizens from unreasonable requirements. Therefore, if the Land Development Committee Of which Mr. Shook is the only member here, did not determine it was reasonable, they should have determined it unreasonable. Mayor Kraus Etated that the Land Development Committee has indicated they feel it is reasonable.. ~j' · ~' "efig~'~V~[ed~z.the~s~o~d ~rt of the reasons they feel that it imposes excessive financial hardship. He ~eadzats~ction from a letter to the Council supplemental to their appeal letter: "Section 15~3 of NS-60 gives the Planning Commission the power to grant exemptions'if the exemption is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of sub- stantial property rights of the owner.' Section 23.2-3 gives similar power to the Land Development Committee by empowering them to 'in cases of undue har.dshi~, t° permit.variances or deviations from the requirements' due to inequality of economic burden on the landowp. ers or other circumstances' " He commented that he contends that there is an inequality of economic burden placed upon him by developing Lomita Avenue in front of seven of his'neighbors' residences. He recognizes that this will greatly improve the street; however, it is a burden borne solely by him for the right to build a bedroom. Mr. Lawrence stated the third reason they do feel they should re-construct Lomita Avenue has to do with the practical difficulty of the problem of re-connecting the driveways. He. presented a slide of how it would look if the road were con- structed to 18 feet wide wi.th 1-foot gutters on either side. He stated that the existing driveway entrances of Mr. Sudholt on the high side of the street enters to the surface crown, and. would prevent the flow of water in an orderly manner from in front of Mr. Lawrence's property into storm drains in the Aloha Avenue area. Therefore, his driveway would have to be cut down by at least two feet where it enters the street. He asked if the Council contendsl for him to bear the cost of re- construction of Sudholt's driveway. Similarly, onthe lower side there are four households whose driveways enter the road. These driveways enter at an. angle too low to permit the con- struction of the appropriate kind of drainage and. would have to be re-engineered and re-built from the garage entrance to the street level. Mr. Lawrence asked if he was to re-build all five of these driveways -- to make improvement's on other people's property for the right to enjoy his own private property. Another reason Mr. Lawrence stated they do not feel they should be compelled to build this 400 feet load is that the City already has a lien against Mr. Pronger to build at least half of this road, and he does not understandiwhy the City has con- ditioned him to build the same piece of road it has already conditioned Mr. Pronger to build, and has $8,000 worth of PG&E stock to build it with. Mr. Lawrence explained that the reason he would like a 'continuance on the first substansive issue is so the legal council can study the legal problem of whether or not Mr. Lawrence is required to build these five other private driveways. ~ 8 He indicated the second substan~ive issue is that of the street width. He commented that everyone he has talked to in the Planning Department'and Public W6rks Department is in agreement that it is impossible to build a 36-foot-wid~ paved street down Lomita Avenue. Yet the question remains: "Why am I being asked to dedicate for a 36-foot-wide paved street when there is unanimity in!the City OffiCes that such a street is impossible?" Furthermore, he asked why he is being asked to dedicate for such a street when it is clearly contrary to the plans drawn for the street in 1970 by the Public Works Department, for a pavement.width of 26 feet'm~ximum. Mr. Lawrence~indicated that most of his neighbors ~re~in agreement that they donot'.want a wider street, and he has started a petition for the City to accept this street for development as a 40-foot-wide, 26 feet of improvement, hill- side local street, which is one of the streets approved in the Saratoga General Plan. He asked that the matter of the street width be continued until such time as the owners can bring in the petition. He then read the proposed petition: "We the undersigned residents of the private portion of Lomita Avenue respectfully request that the Council endorse the concept of 'a 'hillside local street' as defined by Table II of Appendix ~, Article 3, Section 26 of the Saratoga City Code, for any future improve- ments for the as yet undedicated portion of Lomita Avenue. Furthermore, we request the Council to approve the h±~ts±de street design without curbs, and to guarantee the existing landscaping, trees and improve- ments against removal in the event that the City should improve this street. We feel that this action is necessary to preserve the ruralgand rustic ambience of this older portion of Saratoga." Mr. Lawrence stated that the third substantive issue is whether these terms imposed on them are much harsher than on the Pronger property. He pointed out that"on the Pronger property there were two new homes constructed -- bo~h~of these empty by means of a minimum access street onto Saratoga Avenue, and they will permanently Yront on this minimum access frontage. These two homes total approximately 60,000 square feet when taken.together. Mr. Lawrence stated he is putting no additional burden on the street -- everything remains the same, with their addition of the bedroom. Mayor Kraus inquired if the staff report was incorrect in reference to Aloha Avenue. Mr. Shook advised that the two new residences do front on an 18-foot minimum access road which comes out to the public portion of Lomita; therefore, the report is in error in this regard. He indicated that the ProBger development was con- ditioned to_provide the public street improvements on 56 feet of right-of-way. Atso~ at the intersection of Aloha and Lomita there-is a tremendous oak tree near the centerline of the street, and the improvements have been adjusted to accommodate that tree. The underlying requirement is the same as that re- quired of Mr. Lawrence on the deferred improvement portion of his work. Councilman Kalb inquired if the City is requesting Mr. Lawrence to improve all the way to Aloha, or just to these other improv~ ments which are being called. .- 9 - Mr. Shook advised that inasmuch as these improvements have not been completed, the conditions call for improvement to the nearest public street, which is Aloha. Councilman Kalb commented that from a practical standpoint, what we are talking about is the development from the edge of the Lawrence property, across the Sudholt property, to the other improvements which are being buitt. Mr. Shook stated that.this is correct. Mayor Kraus inquired about the statement in reference to the opposite side of the streets. Mr. Shook explained that there is a requirement to provide an 18=f6ot minimum access road'. Councilman Kalb asked if he was correct in understanding that this could be done on one side, as opposed to both sides. Mr. Shook replied that if the pavement which is there can be kept, the widening can take place on either side to accommodate an 18-foot-wide pavement. ~M~!t~e~.-a~g~d~esse~ the Council and. commented that '~he~e~i~S~~~ ~eing constructed on one side or the Councilwoman Callon commented that it disturbs her greatly .when th~'C~6y goes in'to try and make improvements that one person is responsible for improving what everybody else uses. She commented that she does.not know what recourse the City has in situations like this~ She asked if it was.possible, if the City feels the street is dangerous to life and limb, the City could go in and perform whatever ~ecessary work is done and assess the owners for that work. It was her feeling when a person improves their_own Rroperty, they shouldn~o~.'~eld responsible for '~ore than~lsideof the street th'~t extends in front of their own.property line. The City Manager explained that this City's policy on private streets for public safety purposes is to have them at minimum access road standards, and the City cannot legally put any~ money into it because it is~a private street. Councilman Matteoni inquired if the City could implement a Deferred Improvement Agreement on a private street. The City Manager indicated this was discussed in November, and they did not get into the specifics of what the conditions would be. However, the understanding ~=t~'C~ty!'~l~d be open to a Deferred Improvement Agreement process. Councilwoman Callon 'asked if she was correct in understanding that both the deferment~and the improvements are beyond the extent of one-half of the street in front of Mr. Lawrences's property. Mr. Shook replied that this is correct. Councilwoman Callon commentezdthat she understands the logical connection between anyone coming in and going beyond the-fifty percent improvement on thei~ home to be "caught" at that ~oint in their share of helping with the street. However, it seems the logic extends only to the extent of;their property, and not beyond that, either by deferred improvement or at the actual time. - 10- Mr. Shook explained that this is done, and may not be operative here because the joint properties are developed. However, when there have been incidences where the minimum access road goes beyond the limits of the property in question, thereis a procedure in the ordinance which allows for a Minimum Access Road Reimbursement Agreement~ Under this process, it is indicated that the City will assess and!collect a fee and pay it to that property owner at such time as other fronting properties develop. Mr. Lawrence commented that all the properties along this street are fully developed,.and there is no possibility of a develop- ment over fifty percent of the square footage. Also, he pointed out that most of the houses on that street are in violation already of the zoning restrictions. Councilman Kalb suggested in discussing the various alternatives, the Council also consider the alternative of not widening the street, but correcting the problems of the existing street. Mayor Kraus inquired if. there would belany objection to continuing the discussion on this matter at a Committee of the Whole MeetiBg. There being no objection, it w~s agreed to agendize this matter for a Committee ~f the Whole Meeting, and continue the public hearing.to the regular meeting following the Committee of the Whole discussion. 'D. TO CONSIDER APPEAL OF LAND DEVELOPMENT CO~tMITTEE DECISION RELEVANT TO CONDITIONS IMPOSED ON BUILDING SITE APPROVAL, MADRONNE HILL ROAD (SDR-1337, RUDY L. CHAIDES) Mr. Robinson, Acting Planning Director, explained that this is a map where there was over 50 percent improvement, phased over a ~year period. The Land Development Committee approved this map on February 16, 1978, and the applicant is appealing 3 conditions .1) Condition II-C, Widen Madrone Hill Road to 18'?wide plus 1' shoulders from Piedmont Road to driveway to site. 2) Condition Ill-F, Retai~ the services of a soil engineering firm regarding the stability of the cut and fill slopes within the subject property. 3) The refusal of the Committee to approve the location of the proposed swimming pool as part of the site approval. The Mayor opened the public hearing at 9:32 P.M. Albert Ruffo~ attorney representing Mr. Chaides, addressed the Council. Mr. Ruffo stated the basis of the appeal was on the three conditions outlined by'staff. He stated that he disagrees with the staff's conclusion relevant to Condition 3. Mr. Ruffo stated insofar as Condition IIrC1, ~hich is the widening of~j~H~tf~Rbad down to Piedmont~ and he believes this falls somewhat in the same category as the condition discussed in the preceeding matter. The only~difference is that in this case it is not quite as acute. He indicated that Madrone Hill does have an 18-foot pavement extending all the way down Piedmont Road.. 11 The only difference is that from a standpoint of cost, there would have to be a foot or two of shouldering, and insofar aS the appellant is concerned, he would work within whatever .parameters the City Council will ultimately decide to'dO. .Mr. Ruffo coranented that it seems to him to be unfair to impose upon any applicant the condition that this roadway has to be completed out to a distancelquite removed from his own property, and in this, instance, it will accommodate and will benefit many Of the lots that Will eventually be built-in the upper area. Mr. Ruffo stated it was his understanding, however, there is a procedure by which there Can be some reimbursement, so long as the lots will be.forthcoming in the future. For.those that are already there, it would be impossible to form an assessment district, and therefore, there would be no-way of reimbursement. He indicated this is approximately 500 feet. With respect to Condition 2 regarding the soil ana'tysis, Mr. Ruffo~indicated the applicant did have at the outset Terra Tech, who made an inspection of the hillside which is on the upper part of the rendering before the Council. Terra Tech had come to the conclusion that it was safe, based on the rain experienced this spring. Subsequently, Mr. Chaides went to Purcell, Rhodes and Associates who are consultants in. the applied earth sciences, and they went into it more thoroughly than fhe first engineer. They submitted a report to Mr. Chaides which was given to Mr. Wimberly of the city staff. As per the recommendations set forth in this report, Mr. Chaides would follow the..procedures under the requirements.imposed by the City. With respect to the third condition, Mr. Ruffo indicated it is necessary to understand the background. He stated that in the first instance when the appIicant contemplated expanding his premises, he did not.exceed ~the 50 percent dividing point between whether hehad to obtain site approval or whether he could go ahead with staff approval. He did get Staff approval which entailed an expansion of somewhat less than the 50 percent, and the plans were submitted for the grading, etc. Subsequent to this, he came back in and decided to expand his structure to a two-story structure. That plan was submitted, and likewise, did not entail more than 50 !percent of the original structure. Therefore, he did not have to have site approval, and it was only at the staff level where the plan could be processed. That plan was approved on June 18, 1977, and it had the location of the pool, the grading, the Cut of the slope and was quite extensive. Pursuant to that plan, he embarked upon the improvements. He spent $9,000 or $10,000; there was a carport adjacent tO the old structure that was removed; he graded and cut the slope to the extent necessary. After he had done this work, he decided he wanted to add a little room to the bedroom, measuring 5'x 18', also shown on the plan. When Mr. Chaides h~d to come in for a site plan, this was the plan as shown, but it also had a pool in that location. The~ Land Development Committee felt it could not grant this, due to the fact the location Of the pool was less than the 201-foot setback. Therefore, they went forward with the approval of the site plan without any reference to the location of the pool. Mr. Ruffo stated that the interesting thing is' Mr. Chaides has a right-of-way that is 40 feet,.and he has an easement all [he way out to Madrone Hill Road. The pool is about 10 feet from the property line, but it is a distance. from the easement so the easement could be considered somewhat of a barrier. - 12 Mr. Ruffo indicated that there {s a legal question whether or not in an instance such as this an easement would apply~ and the practicality of the matter is that all setbacks are- imposed for the benefit of neighbors. In this instance, in view of the fact Mr. Chaides has a 40=foot easement across the front, he does have the right t~ have it remain for access purposes in its entirety. It would seem.to him the purpose of a setback in front of the premises is really unnecessary. Mr. Ruffo stated that in view of the fact two sets of plans had been approved with the pool in this location, and relying on this, he removed the earth from that location, spent $9,000 or $10,000, which becomes a material factor in his judgement. Councilman Matteoni asked of staff if the representations by Mr. Ruffo regarding meetingsConditions II-C and III-F are satisfactory so the Councildoesn't have those matters before then on appeal. Mr. Robinson indicated that he believes the applicant has submitted sufficient paperwQrk, particularly on item II, and if agreeable with Mr. Wimberly, he wouldn't see any concern for Condition II, relevant to the reimbursement agreement approach. Mr. Shook, Director of Public Works, commented that~he believes the process may be a little more complex here in that ohmthe portion of Madrone Hill Road on which the.improvements are required, there is no potential development. Therefore, on the Minimum Access Road Reimbursement Agreement, it would be these kind of properties that would provide reimbursement to the structure of the roadway. Since the creek eliminates the use of the property between=Mr. Chaides' access road and Piedmont, there is not likely to be anything happening on the narrow area between Madrone'Hill and Peahh Hill. However,.he indicated the staff could.r~view this and see if it could be effected. .. Mr. Ruffo indicated he has with him the plan which was approved on June 28, 1977, which shows the location of the pool; however, he does not have the plan which was approved prior to this. Mayor Kraus inquired if the,pool in the previous plan was in the setback. Mr. Ruffo replied that the pool was in the setback and exactly where it is on the June 28th plan. Mr. Chaides,understood after he had gone through it with the staff, that there would be no problem with it; therefore, he went.ahead and filed a site plan. If he hadn't filed a site plan, then there would be no problem. Councilman Matteoni.reCalls that the situation of an adjacent easement counting as a setback requirement sometimes utilizes a reason for a ~ariance, and if it is the requirement that the City cannot legally county this as part of the setback, then it appears the City Council is not in a position to hear t.he appeal on 3 without a requestlfor a variance. Mr. Ruffo commented that when the applicant first exceeded the 50 percent of addition, he had to file a site'plan. This.meant that he came in with aLsite plan w~hzthe swimming pool in that location -- just exactly where it was before. - 13- Therefore, it'was before the.'hand Development Committee, and the Land Development Committee refusted to accept the pool in that location 'The City Attorney advised that the site development Mr. Ruffo is refering to was probably developed at a time prior to the setback ~equirements of the pool. ~. Ruffo argued that~'they were in effect at ~he time.' The City Manager commented that he recalls some problems that came up at the staff level.with regard to the grading, and also, initially when it came in for a building permit it was for the initial building, and he doesn't believe the plans for a site ever went through a review process, other than for the building that they were getting the building permit for. It is possible the p6ol was on'a set of plans that weren't in for review,~Y'i~771~ly it is the building addition that was reviewed'~ ~h~'~an~ing Commission. Mr. Ruffo clarified that the map which was app~oved was headed: "House Addition and SWimming Pool". This is dated May 16, 1977 and June 8, 1977. 'He commented tha~ obviously when this was approved, this was not an approval to build a house or a swimming pool. This opened the door for plans snd specifications to be prepared for the po61 and the addition. Pursuant to this, the plans and specifications were prepared'fOr the structure, and this has been underway. They anticipated there would have to be plans and Specifications that would have to be submitted for the pool. Mr. Ruffo further stated that he doesn't know if the City does have the jurisdiction at this point to approve the setback as established on this plan; however, he does know the City does have a variance procedure and this is one way to do it. Councilman Kalb commented it would seem to him'the Council could act with regard to items 1 and 2 on the agenda; however, for the swimming pool the applicant would have to initiate the variance proceedings. The City Attorney expressedhis.agreement with this point. Councilman Matteoni s~ggested continuing this matter for two weeks, and give direction to the applicant that the]legal advise the City has received is that a variance application is~ in order. This was acceptable to the Council. The matter was, therefore, continued to the'next regular meeting in order to receive staff input on item 2, and to allow the applicant to proceed with a request for variance through the Planning Commission. RECESS AND RECONVENE VI~ ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS C. DEPARTMENT HEADS AND OFFICERS (taken out~ of sequence) 3. Report from City Attorney Re: Nicholas Frank Storm Drainage Problem C~er ~~~e= c~X'~- ~1 ~gsltion .with~her .C'ty t~rney deny Mr. Frank' s request to accept responsibility a~d expen'~~ funds to remedy drainage Droblems on this property, on'.the ~ basis that the problem is not~'~ ~~ut of a private nature. The motion was carried unanimously. - 14- A. MAYOR 1. Letter from County Grand Jury Re: Transit Committee Recommendations - This will be considered at the next City Council Meeting agenda. B. COUNCIL AND COMMISSION REPORTS 1. Report from Parks and Recreation Commission Re:.Request for Reconsideration of Council Action Re: Sobey Meadows Easement Deleted. C. DEPARTMENT HEADS AND OFFICERS 1. Reports from Planning Director Re: ~a) Village Task Force Report The City Manager advised that it is the staff's'recommendation to support the concept of the consultant proceeding on the course of work concerning the modification to the Zoning Ordinance, reviewing the."CC" standards, with the inten~ of holding public hearings in August or September on the Zoning Ordinance. It was the concensus of the Council~to accept the ~taff report on this matter. ~ b) Annexation Request for Ravine Road-Littlebrook Road and Overlook D~ive The City Manager indicated he has been requested this matter be agendized for the Committee of the Whole Meeting next Tuesday. This was acceptable to the Council. 2. Reports from Director of Public Works Re: a) Bridge Widening Project, Quito Road The two alternative plans as discussed at the Council's previous..Committee of the Whole Meeting were reviewed. Mr. Shook indicated that the design as proposed in Plan "A" is for 4 to 5 feet of vertical gabi~o__ns, with a slope bank on top'of that and a flood wall of 2 to 3 feet above that. With the relocation of the culvert, there is a greater degree of channelization. He indicated that the cost differential of Plan "A" over Plan "B" is approximately $2~000, because of mucb larger involvement with structural concrete and sanitary sewer facility. It is the opinion of the staff Plan "A" creates less of an impact than Plan "B". Councilman Kalb commented-that it seems to him if the City's intent is to preserve the setting in'as natural a fashion as possible, the only real p~oblem with Plan "A" is' t~e loss of the large t~ee. He suggested if this'plan is approved, reinstating a tree. Cheryl Jenson, 13737 Quito Road, commente~ that she would like to see the City expandsits goals and impose goals which: would increase overall .safety in the area, without prejed~ce to the residents and the children who use this as a mini park, and do this without the loss of the other values. Mrs. Jensen indicated she has seen th~se kinds of solutions proposed for other intersections and b~idges in the City, and she.has seen identical solutions torn right'out after they were built. 15 - Mrs. Jenson con~ented that this plan would have(~_n~d~impaCt on the traffic movement on Quito Road and the'safety in leaving her driveway. Also, pedestrian use of the bridge would be encouraged with its widening, creating~a hazardous situation. She indicated that the losses as a result of this project would be to skyline trees at an entrance to the city, loss of a park setting around the creek. She further pointed out the surface treatments on~h~c~'~k bank could create a hazardous situation in that people'coul'd'~ot get out at this location. Also, she commented that the character of the area would be changed in such a way as to create a very big loss. to calculate this bridge with the Water Dist~iIE[,'7~he learned these were figures from the railroad bridge,which collects more Water, and the'b~idge would be oVer-~esigned by u~ing the Water District's figures. Further, she pointed out that no one will be impacted in~any way by the flooding on Mrs. Jenson property, and it is not necessary to build a bigger structure and destroy what is there to protect the property. Mrs. Jenson asked that the City Council consider the following: The trees be preserved, including the water environment. The creek not be shifted. The volume of the channel not be made greater. The surfaces not be hardened in any way. Gabj~7on~Snot be used. Instead of relocating power lines, simply move them over. The money saved through a cooperative dedication be used for the undergrOunding of those adjacent power lines, and an underground district be formed. Flow requirements upstream be used for design criteria. Safety be considered as a basic design parameter., ' The Bro~ property be protected by a short wall. The property not be sold to the Water District ~of protect Mrs. Jenson's property from the lO0-year flood. The demands for dedication be postponed. More money than the va~ue of the Brom property not be spent to protect the property. <~S~i~built to keep people from getting into Councilwoman Callon questioned whether or not the Water District might be willingto give a little more on the improvement environmentally. Councilman Ka~b ques'tioned ~ the ~Sas of the transition the~!oy~,~i~/rf~w~jf4fg~fRantI~,/i~hat the Water Distr{~ might back do~in ~'~u~e~.. ' Eollo~ing=additional discussion by the Council, it was moved by Councilwoman Callon and seconded by Councilman Matteoni to adopt Plan "A",, with the direction to staff to attempt to pursuade the Water District with regard to the co~ents on flow requirements', and to attempt to restore whatever might be lost in implementing this plan. The motion was carried unanimously. D. CITY ~NAGER 1. Reco~endation Re: Agreement with County of Santa Clara Re: Maintenance of Library '- Focal agreement will be before the Board of Supervisors next week, and specific Cit~ Council agenda item will appear on April 19th. - 16 - E. DEPARTMENT HEADS AND OFFICERS (Conttd.) 2. Report from Director of Public Works b) Santa Clara Valley Water District Rate Increase Mr. Shook indicated that the staff is reconmnending the rates be increased as proposed. Councilman Kalb c~mmented that in looking at page'15 of the Water District's Report, and the thing that stands out is the fact that debt service is down 1%; operations up 20% over 2 years prior; maintenance up 36%.; construction down 22%; p~anning up 23%; and administration up 63%. Also, he felt the projections they have made for use of water do not in any way take into account the negative price elasticity associated ~ith this water. Further, all this money they plan to accumulate for capital improvements is completely out of line, and believes they should be told. D. CITY MANAGER (Cont'd.)' 2. Chamber Of Comme~ce Request to Use Arco Site for~Hot Air Balloon Rides at Blossom Festival on April 22nd. Council condurred in City Manager's action toLadViSe the City's approval of ~ hot air balloon; however, it be,Ltethered~, pul~F'$!~ 7o~ria~Yri~7%~A~s~uTan~e~ui~ VIII. COMMUNICATIONS A. .iWRITTEN 1. Ms. Marie Gaspar, requesting that she be allowed to- enter into a Deferred Improvement Contract with the City of Saratoga, Tract 5928. It was moved by Councilwoman Corr and seconded by Councilman M~n~t~ogrant the Deferred Improvement Contract doneetn_j~pg~r requirements for Tract 5928, conditional upon ~mprovements being made within a ~ne- year period of time~a~nd'Yh'it'b'~tfl'd'ingr~_ermi~ no~be - issued until Water 'i~c'a~i~l~l~'~'the-s~e.'/ ' 2. Thomas L. Dashiell, 18908 Ten Acres Road, Re: Sobey Meadows Court Easement. - Noted and filed~for consideration at the time of the public hearing on this matter. 3. Ms. Julie J~meson, 19227 San Marcos Road, Re: Sobey Meadows Court Easement. Noted and filed for consideration at the time of the public hearing on this matter. 4. Maurice E. Dullea, Chairman, Board of Directors, Santa Clara Valley Water District, Re: Reduction in water use in Santa Clara County.- Noted and filed; City Manager to' respond. 5. Residents of Lumbertown Lane requesting installation of a traffic sign on Lumbertown Lane. - Referred to staff for a report back to the Council in 30 days. - 17 6. James E. Jackson, Mayor, City of Cupertino, Re: upcoming Inter-City Council Conference. - Noted and filed. 7. Russell L. Crowther, 20788 Norada Court, with three letters to the City Attorney. The City Manager explained this is correspondence between Mr. Crowther and the City Attorney on two issues where he.has filed Writs of Mandate on E.I.R. determinations. No action has been taken to date on these ~ matters. City ManagerShas responded. 8. John Brigham, Chairman, Castle Rock Group of the Sierra Club, requesting the City Council declare May 3rd as "Sun Day" to promote solar energy. - Approved to draft appropriate proclamation based on sol~r~energy policies proposed by Mr. Brigham and approved by the City Council. 9. Dena De Mya,'14525 Oak. Street, complaining re: noise from buse~ on Oak Street - City Manager t irespond.advising City s attempt to eliminate this probYem. 10. Bert Martel, 14420 Fruitvale Avenue, re: new road surface on Fruitvale Avenue. City Manager to respond concerning City Council's action approximately two years ago to utilize new process for economy purposes. 11. Joseph T. Hootman, 20335 Hickory Hill Way, re; trails and pathways in Saratoga. - Noted and filed for consideration at public hearing on this issue. B. ORAL C. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF PUBLI~ GROUP REPRESENTATIVES The Mayor acknowledged the presence of pub'lic group repre- sentatives, as follows: Lynn Belanger, Chairman~ Saratoga Planning Commission G. Carlson, Chairman, Parks and Recreation Commission Gladys Armstrong, American Association of University Women Ed Gomersall, Parks and Recreation Commission Louise Schaefer, Parks and Recre-tion Commission Sally Carlson, Good Government Group (coffee hostess) Jim ~pleyard, Good Government Group. IX. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Councilman Matteoni and seconded by Councilwoman Callon the meeting be adjourned. The motion was carried; the meeting was adjourned at 12:20 A'.M. ~ity Clerk f~