The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About05-07-1980 City Council Minutes MINUTES r '-~ .... f~ SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL TIME: ~Tednesday, May 7,1980 7:30 PLACE: Saratoga City Council Chambers~ 1'3777 Fruitvale!'Ave., Saratoga, Calif. TYPE.: Regular Meeting I. ORGANIZATION ORGANIZATION A. ROLL CALL Present: Clevenger, Jensen, Mallory, Callon Absent: None B. MINUTES ' April 2, April 7, April 15, M/S: Clevenger/Jensen approval April 16, 1980 of the minutes. Carried unanimously. II. CO~.~NICATIONS CO~fONICATIO~S A. ORAL 1. Andrew Beverett, 19597 Mayor Callgn advised the Council "Via Monte Drive, inquired. would not receive input on agenda if any public participatior matters other than publi~ hearings. is going to be permitted 6r Item IV-C relative to high density, low-cost housing. Mro Beverett further re- Noted. quested agenda items affectinR. senior citizens' be scheduled on the agenda at an earlier hour. 2. George Gablesky, 20773 Referred to staff. Hillmoor Drive, requested the City Council ask the Planning Commission staff. to re-examine'the adequacy of the bike Path on Via Roncole. 3. Terrill Barco, Camino Co~.~nnents acknowledged. Barco Ave., urging the Cit Council to select a replac~ ment for the vacancy on the City Council.on Saturday, May 10. B. WRITTEN ~t. Dora Grens, 13451 Old Oak Referred to public hearing on'this Way, expressing concern subject (item V-A). about the proposed Circulation Plan in the north~est hillsides. 2. Dora Grens, 13451 Old Oak ' Referred to public hearing on this Way, Re: previous letter re subject (item V%A) questing E.I.R. for the _ alternate road propos~in~'-.~I~'~ northwest hillsldes~ ..' A. GENDA ~ ACTION ~I. COMMUNICATIONS (Cont'd.) B. WRITTEN 3. Letter from Mr. and Mrs.. Directed City Manager to reply to Louis B. Santos, 14076Quitc letter, indicating City's position. Road, objecting to Quito: · and Pollard Road develop-. ment. 4. Letters (~0) from residents Lettersto be considered with item and property owners of IV-B(3) on the agenda. Lantana~ Camrose~ and Chaparral Avenues, indicat- ing strong support of annexation to City of SaratOga. 5. Two letters (Don and Doroth~ '~Z~t~.~6 'b~ c~de~ ~i~ ~tem Stoner, 18300 Swarthmore IV-B(1) on th'e a~d~. - Drive and Mr.'and Mrs. William Notz, 18276 Purdue ,.. '- Drive) expressing oppo- sition to Sunland Park Tract annexation to the City of San Jose. 6. Petition from residents of Petition to be'considered with' Via Regina area indicating public hearing (item V-A) oh the support of'Cheriel Jensen agenda. in her request for an EIR' on the road referred to in '.~ the proposed Circulation Element amendment to the.'~ .S~rat0ga General'Plan. 7. Letters (8) from residents Directed City Manager to reply to and property ovrners object- letter, indicating City's position. ing to zone change=,'appti-' cation Z-80-3 for the Pollard-Quito Road area. 8. Russell Crowther, 20788 Concensus to include with dicussion Norada Court, re: Saratoga's re: open space element and General Plan. Measure "A". 9. Mr. and Mrs. Michael ~L~t~r ~',~' considered with the Bodourian; 13673 Verde public ~ing bn 5/21/80, regarding Vista Court, objecting to the Housing Element. potential high density-low ~ost housing. recommended by Saratoga Planning Commission in the Verde Vista area. 10. Lawrence O. Roe, 12499 The City Manager recommended in- Scully Avenue, re: the cluding the previous data and .' obtainment of'a small por~ ~X~e~pt~_bf~.k~e'.~i&~i6~s/COuH~ii'. tion of undeveloped area ~&'tion concerning' th{s ~q~e~t']~' adjacent to Kevin Moran Park. -.2 AGENDA ACTION' " II. COMMUNICATIONS (Cont'.d'.) B. WRITTEN 1t. City of Cupertino re Noted. No action taken. authorization to-appro-= priate money for the defense fund to assist the City of Tiburon in 'the Agins vs. City of Tiburon ~ppeal. 12. Santa Clara Valley. Water Noted. No action taken District to San FrancisCo Bay Region Water Quality Control Board re: Appli-: cation of City of Saratog~ ' ~'' ' ~' ~ --.' for a Clean Water Grant. · 1'3. A.B.A.G. memo regarding" ~oted no'~dEioh~t~ken. Proposition 10.' _.~:." . .'. ~, .... 14. Joseph B. Krajeska, 1394:5 Itemto'be. considered at a public hearing Pierce Road, requesting to consider the hardship exemption one=year extension on .provisions of'Measure "A" on oWned lot, and exemption JU~e 4t~I add-18th. from Measure "A" ,' 15. Letters from.Mr. Foley, Noted and filed. Mr. Compton, Mr. Wesida~idh, and Mr. Johnson, recommending Gene Zambetti for aDDbint- menE to'the City Council. III. SUBDIVISIONS, BUILDING SITES, SUBDIVISIONS, BUILDING SITES, ZONING REQUESTS -' ZONING'PdEQUESTS IV. PETITIONS, ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS PETITIONS, ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS A. MEASURE "A" AND RELATED ISSUES 1. Hearing to show dause why The City Manager explained that work and permits should items are for individual tots,'.and non remain suspended. Mr. Tichinin, attorney relative'to (cont'd. 4/22780) - Measure "A", had requested to re- view the City's Subdivision a) 14123 Pike Road Ordinance as it relates to these (SDR-144~5'- Peter' two applications. Noonan) Mr. Tichinin advised that these lots b) 13800 Pierce,Road were proce.ssed under the City's (SDR-1325 - Thomas Subdivision Ordinance which provides Walker) for final site approval. This is the final approval referred to. with respect to lots in Measure."A", and therefore, Measure "A" appears ' to apply. There has been no I. indication by the applicants that 3 AGENDA ACTION IV. PETITIONS, ORDInaNCES, RESOLUTIONS John Perkins~ attorney for Mr. (Cont'do) Noonan, inquired what would be the distinction and what are we going A. MEASURE "A" AND RELATED !SSUE~ to deal with as a cause why work permits shouldn't remain suspended, (Mr. Tichinin - Cont'do) as opposed to what a hardship case is. they did not know the terms of Mr. Tichinin replied that it would Measure "A" at the time they be appropriate for Mr. Berkins to commenced .construction under!the make any more arguments other than building permit and of the those made by Mr. Noonan with respect .existence of Measure "A" impendi~ to what constitutes good faith, and on the ballotS. that they do not any other grounds on which they qualify for the Ureliance" believe the lot does not fa~l_and exemption. They would .therefore: the Dermit does not fall fall within the terms of Measure MeasUre "A" ' If =the Council con- "A". Options before the Council ~lddes that"it does_.qualify and are: ~ application is madetYor a hardship exemption, it should be scheduled 1) schedule for hardship = fo~ publi'c hearing.' If the Council exemption application hearings, if requested B~ concludes7 that it does not qualify, they should immediately terminate applicant(s). the stop work order. 2) make the stop work orders permanent until such time. Mr. Perkins commented that if falling as the Specific Plan re- wfthin Measure "A" is the question, quired in Measure "A" has7 that should be the only question. been adopted by Council, He inquired if we really are talking and then reconsider any . about the language of the ordinance? application in accord wit~ the Specific Plan. Mr. Tichinin responded that the ordinance indicates that the Mr. Noonan addressed the Council moratorium provisions apply to any ~tating that when he applied for' lot which has received final approval a building site, he was not aware within two years of the effective he had to bring an attorney with. date of the measure, upon which sub- him. He indicatedhe had been stantial construction and substantial advised by the Land Development liabilities were not undertaken and Committee and the Public Works incurred in good faith reliance uDon DeDartment that they. didn't believe Measure "A" would apply eo a building permit. He stated that ~ because Mr. Noonon appears to have one lot. He went on the good had notice of the election, he had faith of the. people in the~City.~ notice of the terms of the moratorium, and he therefore does not fall with- He further commented that when he in the good faith reliance exception. purchased this lot, there was an. His situation is that when he comes SDR file open,'and Mr. Noonan had into a governmental authority, he is thought the City was still charged with knowledge of what the processing the same file. There- law provides, and ignorance of the fore, he thought the site.was law is no excuse. approvedo He believes itis un- fair that he be held under this Mr. Perkins stated that he believes moratorium, and if he is going to the real issue is the t~o years. be held under it, he would like ~o He commented that he believes the' apply for the hardship exemption. good faith section of the ordinance He has no idea what the provisions is going to be talked about now or are for a hardship. later. - 4 AGENDA. ACTION IV. PETITIONS,' ORDINANCES,' PmSOLUTI6N ~i~'hl ~a~"~g~'. 'j'~ b~i]~ 'a~d (.cent*' d. ) , L~.rading permits aopiied for b~ ~" ~Shn'~d.~C~r~Ted ~nanimousiy~ A. MEASURE "A" AND RELATED' ISSUES 3. C6n~'{de'r~{6~ '~ ~f0~ Hardship Cases_~ Mayor Callon asked if Mr. Walke~ was. in the audience. There was Mr. Tichinin commented that Measure no representation. "A" provides that after two noticed public hearings and upon a 4/5 vote M/S: Jensen/Mallory to continue of the Council, exemptions from this agenda item to the next Measure "A", in cases of extreme meeting of May 21, 1980, to allow hardship, can be granted. He the Council to review Mr. Tichi~in's recommended that if the City Council memorandum outlining legal advide, expects to be able to avoid granting · ' w a {ed unanimous~l' hardship exemptions to almost all The motion as c rr · ~ of the various development appli~ ~. 2. DENIAL"WITHOUT PREJUDICE~T7 cations in process within the ~OF ~P'~LICA~-IONS IN PLANNING ~ Measure "A" area that the Council 'DEVELOPMENT PROCESS' '~ not make economic hardship part of ~ _..~- .~ ~ ........ /' the definition ofhardships, but Mr B ' ,~ . eXer made reference'to a define hardship as relating to non- \'li~'f~0~'~ppilc~'fons~ currently : economic matters. in the planning.development pro- cess. He indicated that it is . 'Councilwoman Jensen'indicated she a requirement under Stat~ Law has some basic concerns that relate .',that the City approve or deny a more to the reasons that Measure "A" development project within one' passed, more than to'the hardship year after the application has itself. She inquired if it would been accepted as being complete.' be proper for the Councirto take another look at the geologic maps Mr. Tichinin commented that he and review the ~pplications them- believes the determination with. selves, or to look at the circum- ~espect to the final map should .. stances surrounding the applications. not be taken up this evening, but that issue should be con- Mr. Tichinin pointed out that tinued until the Council has had. another standard that must be met a chanceto consider the issue of in order for the Council to grant validity of the open space plan. a hardship exemption is that the He indicated the Council has a development be in agreement with the duty to decide at some point in provisions of Measure "A". In order time with respect to approvals, to assUre'this, he would suggest other than applications pending' including all of the criteria with for final map, and it would be respect to planning set out in appropriate to deny all of those Measure "A", and have an evaluation pending approvals without prejudice made by city staff as to whether or to the rights of all. of the appli- not the particular development that cants to re-apply for approval of is applying for the hardship exemp- their projects under the Specific tion would not violate any of those Plan adbpted pursuant to Measure criteria. Councilman Mallory indicated he would Mr. Tichinin made reference to like to approach this from the a memorandum dated 4/22/80', which standpoint of fairness and equity. includes projects that have re-. He made specific reference to the ceived final map approval and work performed by Blackswell Homes would be processing toward other~ that would benefit other residents permits. of the city. M/S: Jensen/Mallory to stop in' process ~he' Ye~fo~ih~.'~'A~p'lic~D3 AGENDA ACTION IV. PETITIONS, ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS (Mayor Callon - cont'd.) (Cont'd.) as a possible route for this kind A. ~ASURE "A" A~D RELATED ISSUES of development.. 3. Consideration of Criteria7 -~unciim~n Mallory seconded t~e for Hardship Cases (Cont'd.) ~otion'. .............. ' Mr. Tichinin advised the Council' CouncilwomanJensen commented that could define "hardship" in such z she believes we are getting ourselves a fashion that persons who had into legal hot water in taking this expended funds in pursuif of the. action. There are a lot of unknowns development to the benefit of .. connected with this, and there are persons other than themselves, problems that deal with considerations would qualify under'this defini~on in the City's General Plan that haven't been adequately addressed. Mayor-'Callon proposed that the ~ It was her understanding what the Council consider defining "extreme Council was doing right now was hardship" as structures already defining "hardship", and she would in progress that had building like to bring this back. permits before Measure "A'~ was~ passed, and which have ahtuaIly I Councilwoman Clevenger commented She begun construction. This would ' believes Mayorz~Eallon has a good total.4. Further, implement a suggestion, but the Council has so process whereby the 15 remaining~ many other things to address and lots in which all the drainage believes it would be a good idea development has been put in, . to get on with the hardships.. could come with a changed appli-, ' ' cation for the 15 lots that wou!~ The M~yor calle~ for a'vote on the meet Measure "A" standards. motion. In favor: Callon, Mallory. Opposed:. Jensen, Clevepger.~ Councilwoman Jensen inquired if ~ The motion'failed.. . Mayor Callon is talking about a -~ - =. = new map. The council discussed the issue of individual, owner-occhpied lots. Mayor Callon replied, "yes." Councilwoman Jensen commented.~he Mr. Tichinin commented that re- believes the CoUncil shodld.look structurin~ of the map might be at individual lots and cd~sider impossible in that if the substan whether or not there is hardship tive arrangement that was proposedi connected. These should be con- would change the layout of any sidered within the context of the lot, the Council would probably provisions of Measure "A", and staff have to go back through an entire could bring back reports on each one approval process, an~ there would to demonstrate these proyisions. be a problem in the sense that the final mad that would then be ~ Mayor Callon Lasked if strhctures in approved"within the two-yearperiod progress Shduld be considered. would have been aDproved after ! 'Measure "A" was effective, sO it' Councilwoman Clevenger stated she would apply. It wQuld require the would consider structures in progress. Council to measure the map against as beinga hardship. all of the various criteria set out in Measure "A", andlthe ~ Mr. Tichinin suggested an appropriate possibility exists that you would form of motion on this. issue would find that perhaps none of these 'be for the .Council to.indicate its lotb met that standard. ~ intent'ion to resolve to include . . proposals for hardship as containe~_ MayorCallon indicated she would in his memorandum, including like to. try this approach, and structures in progress, a's.within ask for'support from the Measurei the definition of "extreme hardship" "A" attorney in lodk~ng at this ~ and direct him tO prepare a form of AGENDA ACTION IV. PETITIONS, ORDINANCES, RESOLUTION~ (Mayor Callon - cont'd.) (Cont'd.) in the Measure "A" area. This would A. MEASURE "A" AND P~LATED ISSUE~ include single lots, owner-occupied, and they would not have to be in -3. Consideration of Criteria the building p~rmit process; to for HardshiD Cases (Cont!d.) look at structures in progress a possible Measure "A" exemption, (Mr. Tichinin -'c6nt'd.) and To request information on granting relief if a unit meets resolution setting out those Measure '~A" standards and grant standards. some relief from the moratorium period based on this'." M/S: Jensen/Mallory that the Council accept the criteria for Vote on the motion~l"~' '-" hardship consideration those In favor: Catlon,~ M~li~g~Tc~evenger properties that are single lots Opposed Jensen that have had single site apDrova Motion carried, 3 to 1. and where building permits have been issued for the purpose of 4. Consideration Of Cftizens owner-occuDied housing, and to Committee for I~DTementatibn o'f also consider structures in Measure "A". progress under the hardship pro- vision. .~ Councilwoman Clevenger suggested the' City accept applications from Mayor .Callon indicated she would/z people ~h~ a~e i~terested in being vote aKains~ this moEion because on thi~ Con~nittee; that the City she believes the lots that are going to be owner-occupied should Council then appoint 11 people to not be restricted just to those this C6mmittee, including one which have building permits, and' coordinator and one chairman?'~.'~' also, because she would still like '" consideration of her plan to .Mayor C~llon indicated she had gone alleviate concerns regar~in~ tho'se one step furthe~ in suggesting to people who have DUt in benefits take 6 members from the sub-committee on unit 1 of Parker Ranch. from the hillside area that is affected -- 4 single-o~er residents Mayor Callo~ proposed an amendment and 2 developers; and take 5 people to Councilwoman Jensen's motion' scattered throughout the city. to not require that individual !M/I~:' ~Cl~v~n~&~7~e~s~ .... ~'___ ~. lots have building perm{ts, and ----.-- .... . also, ~o-give consideration to to request applications be made the idea that relief be offerred available for the Specific Plan from the moratorium if the unit: Committee, and th~ Council select met the standards of Measure "A",. 11 people to serve on this committee, including 1 chairperson. 'Councilman Mallory seconded the. amendment. Councilman Mallory indicated he wohld favor a 40-60% composition. Mayo~ Callon called for a. vote on He believes the hills.belong to the amendment: In favor: .Callon, eveTyone and the intent of Measure Mallory, Clevenger. ~'A~' is that a ma~or Dart of that Opposed: Jensen. · ..... ~ommittee be from the directly The amendment carried, 3 to 1o affected area. Mayor Callon~tated the amended Councilwoman Jensen was of the motion: opinion the Council should evaluate the applicati0ns, that are. received "To set up criteria and examine and Select the committee .from the under the criteria, hardship applications. standards that relate to owner- occupied buildings ~o be built A, GENDA ACTION IV. PETITIONS, ORDINANCES~ RESOLUTIONS A. MEASURE "A" AND RELATED ISSUES M/S: Clevenger/Jensen to accept i applications for individuals 4. Consideration of Citizens interested in serving on the ~SUb_'z- Committee for Implementation ~6¥~nittee, with the size and of Measure "A" composition to be determined at the next regular City Council Meeting, .. with the deadline for-receiving applications on May 23, 1980. Carried unanimously.. B. PETITIONS FROM RESIDENTS RE- QUESTING ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF SARATOGA !. "Sunland Park Tract" Vicci Rudin, Associate Planner, verbalized a staff report prepared 2.'Area bounded by Quito Road by herself., dated 5/1/80, relative to the west and Along Both to these annexation proposars. Sides of P~seo Olivos to Its Terminus Westerly of Sh~ explained= that there are Colusa Way criteria necessary to be met in order for LAFCO to-approve thes~ 3.. Lantana, Camrose, and annexations. The three islands Chaparral Avenues, between I' ~q~es~ing ~hneXationto Saratoga Bucknail Road and Approxi- feel they ~d~ot ~e~t' ~he criteria mately 200 Feet North 6f to be'anneXed to San Jo'se. To Ba~lor Avenue and Both accomplish this would necessitate Sides of Lantana Avenue modifica'tion of the city's sphere between Bucknail and of influence. 'Approximately 200 Feet North of Baylor Ave/Gr~nsby Shepoin6edjout_~at staff has Ave. dealt with each oflthe three islands separately in the report.. Two of the islands are contiguous to the :. City of Saratoga, and it has always been a policy of the city that annexations must' consist of lands -~ v contiguous. San Jose has. indiCated its'intent to Mold firm on'the Lantana, Camrose,. Chaparral area in that they feel the City has no justification in this annexation. Mayor Callon Commented that she is concerned regarding the impacts reshlting from passage of Proposition 9 if these annexations were approved. It was.the concensus of the Council there was not justification for the City of Saratoga to consider the island on Lantana, Camrose, and Chaparrall. M/S: Mallory/CleVenger to deny the request for annexation to the City of Saratoga for the Lantana, Camrose, and Chaparral area between Bucknail Road and north of Baylor Avenue. Carried ~nanimously. - 8 - AGENDA ACTION IV. PETITIONS, ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS Councilwoman Clevenger suggested (Cont'd~) a public hearing be held for the ,, benefit of Saratoga residents to B. PETITIONS FROM P~S IDENTS RE= comment. This w~l'd'be ,b~fi~'i~ QUESTING ANNEXATION TO THE ,t~ ~at'{~'~be sched61ed for~ CITY OF SARATOGA ~'~e' fof'lowi~th~"J~h~'3rd" k~lect{6~7 allowing the Council to h~v~ more knowledge concerning the City's financial position. The City Manager indicated this hearing would be scheduled.Yfor either June 4 or June 18. He further indicated he would ~end a letter to LAFCO advising of the "~7 -~=-- "'~_. City's action relative to these ..... -, - ' annexation. requests Rece~h~ ~ec~n~n'e- - Mayor Callon announced she wo~ld turn the gavel over to Vice. Mayor Clevenger, due to the fact she had a previous commitment. C. PETITION FRO}{ SARATOGA This was continued as part of the RESIDENTS OPPOSED TO HIGH- information received relevant to DENSITY, LOW-COST HOUSING IN the General Plan Housing'Element, THE'CITY OF SARATOGA to a public hearing on 5/2~80 concerning this issue. D. PETITION FROM THE P.T.S.A. This has been agendized for a'st~dy REQUESTING SUBSTITUTION OF A session of the City Council on TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTED BY. 5/27/80. CAL TRANS FROM BRANDYWINE AND HIGHWAY 9, TO BLAUER DRIVE 'AND HIGHWAY 9 '* E. RESOLUTIONS RE: LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT LLA-1. 1. Resolution 950-A, The City Manager explained staff Resolution Appointing has been unable to complete the AttoKneys engineering report, and therefore, requested continuance to 5/21/80. 2o Resolution 950-B, This was acceptable to the Council. Resolution of Preliminar~ Approval of Engineer's Report B..Resolution 950-C, Resolution of Intention to Order the Formation of an Assessment District and Levy and Collection of Assessment Pursuant to t~e Landscaping and Lighting~ Act of 1972 - 9 AGENDA ACTION IV PETITIONS, ORDINANCES, RESOLUTION~ (Cont'd.) F. RESOLUTION NO.-799.1 M/S: Jensen/Clevenger to refer this draft resolution to the City RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIl Attorney for assistance in pre- ADOPTING PUBLIC ETHICS AND paring this in the form of an EXPANDED CONFLICT OF INTEREST ordinance, and for assistance with CRITERIA APPLICABLE TO ELECTEl legal details. 'Request a report AND APPOINTED OFFICIALS'AND~ back'to Council on 5/21/80. · KEY EMPLOYEES OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA Councilman Mallory commented he ~ did not believe this item was as high in priority as some other items before the Council, and .:- suggested a report back on 6/25/80. The matter was voted upon: In favor: Jensen, Clevenger Opposed: Mallory · The motion was.carried. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS PUBLIC HEARINGS A, .pROpOSED AMEND}aNT TO THE Vice. Mayor Clevenger.suggested GENERAL PIA, N CIRCULATION this infbrmation becontained in ELEMENT IN THE WESTERN the Measure "'A" Cormnittee, and HILLSIDES (_Cont"d. 4/I~ that they take'input on the hillsides.. The public hearin ~ oben~dlat 10:03PM. Mrs. Venator,.2tl~0 .Wardell Road, indicated she would like to addr~'~s the[%C~uHci~'~ behalf of herself and the Pecs~r"~'.who o~n most of ~he private road at the end of Wa~dell. She requested the CounCil make a motion to delete thi$,p~ivate road from the Circulation Element. She stated ,there is evidence in the City files which Droves .this is private land and c~nnoh'be cbnsidered for a public right-of-way through road. If the City does not delete this from the Circulation Element, it will be acknowledging that it is. condemnin~ land. The City Manager advised that at the present time, the area referred to by Mrs~ Venator is not in the Circulation Element. The element before the City Council is only a recommendation from the Planning Commission. It was the intent if Measure A passed, the issue of the Circulation Element would be tied into one of the elements of the Specific Plan. 10 - AGENDA ACTION V. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont'd.) Council~.7oman Jensen - cont'd. A. PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE shall not be considered until the GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION rights to use that property are EMIMENT IN THE I~STERN HILL- secure. SIDES (Cont'd. 4/16/80)' z 3) Roads shall be located only on Mr. Beyer explained thi's is one of' lands having slopes of 30% or many options in the proposed plan, L less. and it is only recommended to the 4) Roads shall not be allowed where Council for consideration. road g~ades would exceed 15%. Mrs. Venator commented that this is more than an option -- it is 5) New roads shall not be extended - through laDds for ~hich there recommended-in the Element she has,z and it does recommend her private is no,reasonable certainty of road to be considered as a through. the stability of the lands over road..This is a private road and which they pass. cannot be considered as a through road. She stated she would like the Mr. Robinson, Planning Director, · pointed out that m~ny of the City Council to delete the road now, standards which the City is currently unless it is intended to. start illegal condemnation proceedings. using are part of the Subdivision "' Ordinance. He inquired of the M/S: Clevenger/Jensen to close the City Attorney if it would be public hearing. Carried'!unanimously. necessary to modify the Subdivision Ordinance as it relates to these The public hearin% was closed at standards. He further recommended 10:10 P.M. staff be given the opportunity to The City Manager indicated i.t would review these five proposed standards be the recommendation of staff to and prepare an analysis. terminate prodeedings on the amend- ment to the CirCulation Element, The City Attorney affirmed that and have the data submitted to date the all the City's street standards are set forth in the Subdivision to the Specific Plan Committee, Ordinance, and the Ordinance would requestin~ that this committee, along with the. Planning Commission, have to be ~mended in.order to review this data as part of the change thesesstandardS. development of a Specific Plan for Measure A. It was the concensus of the Council to refer the proposal as outlined bv Councilwoman Jensen't'o'the st~f' Councilwoman Jensen suggested some fgr analvsi~,. and a reDor.t back interim standards be adoDted until' 'the time the CircuI~tion='Element to the Council in 30, d~ys. is again considered. She proposed the following: 1) Private roads not be considered available for regular or emergenc] access by new development, ~,~ere legal rightsto use those ~oads does not exist. Land division shall not be allowed with the .anticipation of securing such rights in the future. 2) Development proposals which do not have proper access without the potential condemnati6n of private property or private roads AGENDA ACTION V. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont d. B. CONSIDE~ATION OF APPEAL OF The City Manager outlined ~o options PLANNING CO~4ISSIONDECISION available to the Council in acting RELATIVE TO USE PErmIT FOR on this matter: CONSTRUCTION OF A TENNIS COUR% 1) Review the decision of the AT 14403 DONNA LANE, UP-442 (MORSE Planning Commission to det'ermine if there was substantial evidence presented to the Cornmission to substantiate its decision. 2) If the Council determines that it wishes to hold a hearing de novo, it should order such a hearing to. a future time, and immediately discohtinue'any further proceedings at this time.. M/S: Mallory/Clevenger to review the appeal without a de novo hearing. Carried unanimously. Mr. Robinson, Planning Director., · reviewed.this application and' the action of .the Planning Commission, as outlined in the staff report, dated 4/29/80. The Mayor opened the public hearing at 10:16 P..M. Lowell Morse, 14403Donna Lane, addressed the Council.' Mr~ Mors~ indicated he had prepared.a map and sent it to~every neighbor that had been noticed. of this h~ar'ing. The result was 100 percent neighbor- hood encouragement, and not'one negative letter or participant in the hearing. The Council is going · to say, "yes" or "no" tonight, and ..., he is going to build a tennis:court '~ or:a pool. Mr.~Morse indic'ated~he can build a pool and a cabana, moving the same amount of dirt and covering the same amount of area that~e~s'~ih~that the Council allow ~im in'~rder to build a tennis court. It doesn't make a lot of sense if he has to do the same' things to build a pool as he does to · build a tennis court, and the City tells him "no" on a tennis court and" " yes on a pool, and he doesn't · have 'to come back to the Council for a pool. He would hope the Council · ~ would allow him to use his property in the way he would like.to. Ken Upley, resident on Donna Lane, indicated. he would like to call to - 12 AGENDA ACTION V. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont!d.i B.. CONSIDERATION OF A~PEAL OF 'i the attention of the Council the fact PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION of the integrity of Mr. Morse and his RELATIVE TO USE-PERMIT FOR ~ family. He used to live down the CONSTRUCTION OF A TENNIS COUR street and built a tennis court ~here AT 14403 DONNA LANE, UP-442. which is an asset to the neighbor- (MORSE) hood. He beti~ves a tennis court at his current residence would be an asset to the neighborhood. He would encourage the Council to accept this . " proposal. Councilman Mallory requested staff's comment on this ordinance. ~ ~' Mr. Robinson explained. that the ordinance is intended to allow a . tennis court on lots greater than .~ 10 p~rcent and in a'~D" designated ~ district, provided that.the Planning " Commission can make the necessary findings. The staff has been directed to modify the ordinance to look very closely'at the possibility of eliminating tennis courts on ' slopes greater than 10,percent. CounCilwoman Jensen indicated'she .is bothered, bythis much earth movement, particularly in a creek- s~de area such as this. Mr. Morse commented that the retain- ing wall has been designed so they would not be encroaching on the creek -,area. at.aIl.I.,'Also, the tennis court ~0u'ldlb~.a'!longway from the cen~er of the c~ek. Itswould be about 30 feet from the edge of the creek. "~ 'M/S:-~Maito~y/Elev er to close ~' ,the'pUbliC hearing.; Carried ~.. unanimously. The public hearing was Cl0S~d at 10:28 P.M. '*Councilwoman Clevenger indicated she '~np~t j,u~ti~ Overturning the Planning CommiSsion on this matter. ~ M/S: Jensen/Ma.llory~to uphold the Planning Commission decision to ' deny this use permit. Carried. unanimously. AGENDA ACTION VIi BIDS AND CONTRACTS BIDS' AND CONTRACTS A. AGREEMENT FOR ARCHITECTURAL Councilwoman Jensen requested con- SERVICES FOR DESIGN OF SENIOR tinuing this item until~-the Council CITIZEN ADDITION TO THE has considered the issue of the HCD CO}ef0NtTY CENTER funds. ~ Councilwoman Clevenger commented '~ this. is something that was worked -out ~hrough the previous Council in great detail, and she is not favorable to going into great detail on this. M/S: Mallory/Clevenger to approve the agreement for architectural ~s._erVices. The motion was carried q2/to. 1, Councilwoman Jensen in opposition. B. AUTHORIZATIOn]. TO CALE 'FOR BID. Barbara' Sampson, Director of ON WILDWOOD AND EL ~QUITO PARK Community Services, outlined the IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS ~ staff report concerning this project, dated 4/30/80. Councilwoman Clevenger indicated she would like to compliment the staff and Parks and .Recreation Commission on this proposal. : M/S:' Mallory/Jensen to authorize ~ staff ~o advertise for bids for [ construction of the park improve- . ment'~proje~=ts at. ~ildwood and E1 ~ ..O~i~'o ~arks '.C~r~ied unanimously. C. LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES' Th~ City Manager explained this CONTRACT, 1979-80 proDosed~ contract amends the Law : ~ ~,Enf~rc'em~nt'C0ntrac.t for the 1979-80 " fiscal y~ar'only[ "The impact of this proposal is that its would in- . crease' .th~"~t'.tSy '~$3'4,000~ over - that which~'i~' i~"'t[i~ ~e~~ ~ ~budget. · He..outl~ed the'basis for this adjustmen't~ contained in the.-~ memorandunY to the City Council, dated 4/28/80. . . ' .' M/S: .Mallory/Jensen to approve t~e modified Law Enforcement ServiCes Contract for 1979-80. Carried - unanimods ly. VII. COB~SENT CALENDAR i CONSENT CALENDAR A. AGREEMENT WITH SANTA CLAP~ M~$: Mallory/~Jensen to approve the COUNTY INFORMATION ~ND KE- Cbnsent Calenda~ Carried unanimously FERPJ~L SERVICES FOR% SERVICE TO THE CITY OF SARATOGA B. ANNUAL FOOTHILL CLUB MEMORIAL DAY RACE AGENDA ACTION '?jII. CONSENT CALE!ND~R (Cont '~ d, ) C. DENY CLAIMS AGAINS~ CITY ADOLPH J. SCHP~AGER!AND FRANK MATAS D. DENY CLAIM AGAINST ~THE CITY BY AARON L. KATZ AND CAROLYN G. KATZ E. RELEASE OF MONUMEN~ BOND, SDR-1310, LUC SERR~ERE, /f~LEpNAP~-ROAD F, PAYMENT OF CLAIMS VIII. ADMINISTtATIVE MATTERS A~INISTRATIVE ~IATTERS A. MAYOR 1. Vice Mayor Clevehger Re: Referred to staff for review. County Proposed Barking Dog Ordinance - ~.G.C. 2. Vihe Mayor Cleve~ger Re: Requested distribution to members Report on GuadalUpe of the Council. Corridor Project¢ B. COUNCIL AND COMMISSION P~PORTS 1. CoUncilwoman Jen~en Re: Sanitation District 4 Meeting ~' ~ ,~ i~2~Ceft~fY~at~ ~A~e- No ted. ~ihtion Awarded to : Henry Kraus. ~Resuested official reI ' " D Sentatlon. b) Hearing on PrOposed Report to follow. Increased Sewer Charges. 2. Quits-Pollard Annexation City Manager' to follow. up. -. Proposal. RequeSted Council representation at meeting next wee~. C'. DEPARTMENT HEADS ANb OFFICERS 1. Director of Public Uorks a) Response'to l~tter of Ref. 'staff report dated 5/1/80. F.D. Russell,i13987 Mr. Shook advised that Video Pike Road Re: Cable. Engineering is working within the Television parameters of their franchise, and to alter this agreement would require re-opening of negotiations on the franchise. The Council was agreeable to adding-this to the items for discussion at the upcoming'Council workship with staff. -:15 AGENDA ACTION VIII. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS (Cont'd.) D. CITY MANAGER 1. Status Report Re: HCD Ref. staf~ report, dated 4/28/801 Program - Site Acquisition ReCommendation to fold this into and Improvement for Develor the public hearing on the Housing merit o~ Affordable Housing~ Element on 5/21/80. Council con- on City Property Located at curfence. Corner of Saratoga~Sunnyval~ Road and Cox Avenue 2. Status Report of Water Ref. staff report, dated 5/1/80. Assessment District in the Western Hillsides Jensen/Mallory to interrupt Assess- ment District prbceedings until such time as the Council deems it appropriate to.move forWard. Carried unanimously. IX. ADJOURNMENT ADJOURNMENT M/S: Clevenger/Mallory to ~djourn the meeting to an Executive Session. Carried unanimously.. The meeting was adjourned at ll':20.P.M. R pect submitted, r 16