Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-06-1980 City Council Minutes 'M~INU. TES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL TIME: Wednesday, August 6, 1980 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: Saratoga'City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting AGENDA ACTION I. ORGANIZATION A. ROLL CALL Councilmember~ .Watson, Jensen, Mayor Callon - present. Councilmembers Clevenger, Mallory - absent. II. COMMUNICATIONS A. ORAL B. WRITTEN JENSEN/WATSON MOVED TO ENDORSE BOARD OF REALTORS EFFORTS IN CAMPAIGN TO STOP BURGLARY AS DESCRIBED IN WRITTEN COMMUNICATION #7. Passed 3-0. III. SUBDIVISIONS, BOILDING SITES, NONE ZONING REQUESTS IV. PETITIONS , ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS A'. MEASURE "A" AND RELATED ITEMS 1. Public Hearing on con- sideration of Requests in Accordance with the Pro-' visions of Section 7 of Measure A, Interim Restrictions as Related to Hardship .Cases a) Mr. & Mrs. Politi ,, Mr. Toppel, Deputy City Attorney, SDR 1259 pointed out that a 4/5 vote is n. eeded 'for.'~a. ,h~dship-~e~em~.tion~r~ahdconly~'u'i th~e'~unci-ItmemB~rs~I~were present. ~O.N,_S~.SU~S-.TO ~ON~!~UE-TO ~AUGUS~ 2~ Director of inspection Services stated that a. geqlogical evaluation had been performed' by City Geologist; a geologic investigation by .the. applicant was not required. The site is in an SBR zone, and a soils foun- dation investigation is required. 2~8/6/80 AGENDA ACTION Councilmember Jensen requested that Planning Director give the Council a report on the access at.the next meeting. B. APPROVING APPLICATION FOR JENSEN/WATSON'~MOVED. T0.ADOpT~.RESO- 1976 STATE PARK BOND FUNDS LUTION 962, APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR 1976 STATE GRANT MONIES FOR EL 1.' Resolution No~ 962 QUITO PARK ACQUISITION PROJECT. Passed 3-0. C. REVISION OF POSITION CONSENSUS TO CONTINUE TO 8/20/80. CLASSIFICATION 1. Resolution No. 85-9.48 V. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. TO CONSIDER APPEAL BY ERNEST Planning Director reviewed the his~m- T. BARCO OF PLANNING COMMItION tory of the appeal, concluding with DECISION RELATIVE TO DESIGN the Planning Commissioners approval of REVIEW APPROVAL OF A-716 t~e recommended design. (Henry Haas, Camin6 Barco Ernest T. Barco, Camino Barco, expressed his dissatisfaction with the fact that certain actions had taken place without a public hearing. .He objected first to the lot split .because~hez'~felt.~th~.Sp~it was~ under~!~pp~al ~when-~app~yed. He also objected to the size of the house. In conclusion, he-requested that the Council stop all further action on the lot. ilbert Waxman,' Los Gatos~ the appli- cant, described the sequence of events leading up to the present designsnoting that the pad size had been decreased and that it was his intention to preserve the streams-. and trees. Moreover, he had spoken with neighbors tO ascertain their feelings. Because of the swales,.he believed a large one-story home could not be built on the lot, despite its size. Anita Waxman spoke in favor of the project, as did Betty Previtt, Camino Barco. RonIHaas, owner of the lot, explained the procedures he had undergone for the subdivision and affirmed his intention to work within Ordinances and established procedure. Dora Grens, 13451 Old Oak Way,' asked why the process had progressed through design review when an initiht appeal had not been resolved. 3-8/6/80 AGENDA ACTION City Manager replied that there had been no formal appeal, simply concerns raised by. ,C~lonel. Barco a.t ,a study session. ~ Planning Director noted that at an earlier .time there. was no<~ require- ment fox a public hearing7 on tentative map appli!Cations. The Public Hearing~ requirement came i~to effeqt in the fall of 1979, w~en'-the then City Attorney, .based on a ruling of the Supreme Cour.t., m~de it. mandatory for tentative m~ps of two lo6~ or more to have a public hearing. Further- more, there is a requirement for a public hearing on the conversion of a single story residence to a two- story residence; there is no ~sudh requirement when it is part of a subdivision. The Publi~ Hearing was closed. Deputy City Attorney reviewed the process through which the lot split had gone and conEluded that a final map, once recorded, is considered valid for all purposes by State law, particularly since the property in question was in the hands of a bona fide purchaser. He believed that the time for appeal of the lot split had passed, but that the design review approval could still be examined by the Counej~l. Councilmember Jensen asked if the tentative map approval had any con- diti~h~',-~regardin~ the'~o~.residence issue; Planning Director replied that' removal of the kitchen facilities had been a condition .6f-' final map. approval. There was some question as to whether the intent of the sub- division ordinance was being met, he fel. t, because even without kitchen facilities as defined by the code, the cottage was being used as a rental unit. Russell Crowther, 20788 Norada Court,'. spoke against the lot split, saying that there were other grounds to disapprove a final map, such as the fact that it may have been improperly' recorded ~r flawed in some other way.: Deputy City' A, ttorney replied that such factors may be the" ,~asis for an appeal from tentative map, but not from final map. He stated that there f .. 4-8/6/80 AGENDA ACTION might poss{bl~ be some exceptions, but none that he was aware of. He also felt that an initiative such. as Measure A would not be applicable as grounds in this case. Mr. Crowther pointed out that if the. design review were not approved, no building permit could be issued. Mayor Callon expressed h~r concern that the structures would come to be a deviation from the footprint approved before design ~eview be- cause the footprint presented to ~the Council deviated greatly from that approved by the Planning Con~nission at the'tentative map stage. Councilmember Jense~ 'sta~ed her con- ce~ns with the entrance to the garage, possibility of water damage, and the inappropriateness of the size and height of the house in relation to the.neighborhood. Councilmember Watson said that although he had reservations about the massiveness of the building, he felt that the requirements had been met and the design ought to be approved% Director of Inspection Services stated that the plan approved by the architectural review committee contained 4100 square feet. Mayor Callon said she was concerned with the size of the house, but since the plan was enlarged through proper procedures, i~e~, amending the tentative map, she felt the design should be reluctahtly approved. WATSON/CALLON MOVED THAT THE DECISION'I OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING~ THE DESIGN REVIEW BE UPHELD AND THE APPEAL DENIED.-Passed 2-1. (Jensen opposed). Councilmember Jensen asked whether the Council had some discretion on . the design; Mayor Callon replied that since the body that had approved the design in the first place had also amended the map to show a larger area, the area was not now an issue for the Council. Councilmember Watson agreed that approval of the design was reluctant and added that the Council should 5-8/6/80 AGENDA ACTION investigate'ways to deal with the increasing size of houses and densityl of centers. B. TO CONSIDER REQUEST BY BILL Director of.Public Works reviewed theI CLARK FOR MODIFICATION TO history of the lot, starting from ROAD STANDARDS. SDR 1377 July 1978, with tentative approval. WALNUT & SARATOGA-SUNNYVALE In June of 1980, Mr. Clark appealed ROAD the condition for widening Walnut Avenue, tQ~.i tb~ Land Development Committee, which found that it had no j'uriBdiction because the General Plan~ requires developers to make such im- provements and because the appeal period had expired. Staff recommen- dation was to d~ny the appeal on those grounds. Councilmember Watson expressed concern about retaining the appearance of theTM street and the possibility of creatin~ an inconsistent pattern of widening and narrowing if improvements are re- quired on some properties. Councilmember Jensen spoke in favor of retaining the present street width but requiring some surface improvements including parking and bicycle facili- ties, but not a curb. She felt that z this would improve the area without damage to the oak trees. Director of Public Works suggested that the street be~wid~ne~n~ar' ~he ~Q~n~{t~t~pro~ide~a ~arge~l~u~nln~- F~i~S~, wlth~'!.thelwid~nihg~lb~in~ ~ l~p~re~..~tO~.g tbe~frontage~.~-.J~, The P~blic Hearing was opened. Bill Clark, 19404 Shubert Drive, spok~ as the appellant'. He stated that the Land Development Committee approved moving the driveway closer to the highway. He felt that street improve- ments would change the character of the neighborhood and endanger the oak. trees. Moreover, he believed that the Land Developmen~ Committee should be ! made up only of residents of Saratoga~ City Manager stated that the Land Development Committee does not have discretionary powers. Its powers are strictly limited by ordinance, and the condition for street improvements would have been imposed regardless of whether the committee members were residents. Mr. Cl~rk objected to the fact that he had been incorrectly.advised to 6-8/6/80 .AGENDA ACTION apply to the LDC rather than directl~ to the CounCil. He also requested permission to proceed without a bicycle path, since he sawno need for one. Ian Webb, 20621 Canyon View D±ive, spoke against the need for any stree~ improvements on the corner in question~ -' as did! Don Bernardo, 20544 Marion Avenue. The Public Hearing was closed. Councilmember Watson spoke.:in favor of maintainin'g the character of the street by preserving the trees while. improving the safety of the corner by expanding it in a-limited manner. z Councilmember Jense~ stated that, from her observation, traffic patterjs did not requi~e changing the width of the-Street or the corner or putting in a bicycle path. CALLON/WATSON MOVED THAT THE COUNCIL~ ADJUST THE MAP TO SHOW IMPROVEMENT TO THE CORNER TAPERING FROM THE HIGH= WAY'BUT INCLUDING AS MUCH PROTECTION FOR THE TREES AS POSSIBLE AND A BICYCLE PATH. Passed 2-1. (Jensen opposed). Mr. Clark requested that the Council! obtain input from Caltrans, Since Caltrans did not find widening the corner necessary. Director of Public Works stated that no improvement on the State right-of-way was proposed. Councilmember Watson expressed his ~ belief that widening the corner would preserve Walnut and yet keep the streets fronting the Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road.consistent. C~ 'TO~'CONSIDER APPEAL OF PLANNING Planning Director reviewed history of COMMISSION DECISION REGARDING appeal. Applicant had previously DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL, WILSON presented two designs, one of which RESIDENCE ON ELVIRA S~REET' the Planning Commission denied. The current design had been approved by that Commission, but approval was . being appealed by a resident. Staffl recommended-'design approval. The Public Hearing was opened. Nancy Arias, Canyon View D~ive, spoke as the appellant. She felt that ambiguities in the two-story ordinance were used to the developer's advantage, 7- 8~/6/80 AGENDA ACTION contrary tothe intent of that or- dinance. An undesirable precedent for two-story homes would be setl ~he felt, if the Planning Commission's design review approval we.re not set aside. Further, she-felt that the discretion allowed the Planning Department negated to some extent the influence of the public as ex- pressed through.public.hearings. Don Bernardo, 20544 Marion Avenue, spoke in favor of the appeal, stating that large houses and particularly large roofst were aesthetically in- appropriate and blocked the views of neighboring houses. He also believed that the neighbors were not properly notified of the proposed design. Ian Webb, 20621~Canyon View Drive, spoke in favor of the appeal. He objected to the two-story design and, asked why there had not been a public hearing on the matter. Planning Director explained'that the 0nly requirement for a public hearing on a two-story issue was for a con- version from single story to two- story; there was no such requirement for a new house proposed as two-story. Inresponse to Mr. Webb's observation that this was an inconsistency within the ordinance, Planning Director suggested '~that thejCouncit~ may. ~wish to' review the ord~lan~e'to elj/Dj_na~e scme of' 't~e~inc6n- Deputy City Attorney agreed that the existing two-story ordinance was inconsistent and ambiguous, but.he nevertheless felt the pro- posed two-story hc~e, violated the ordinance because of its location next to a one-story residence. Nancy Arias stressed tha~ the four lots built. upon by the san~ builder were originally approved as four single-story homes; the house had only recently, without public hearings, been changed to two-story. Dennis Lavario, 14091 Elyira"Street, spoke in favor of the appeal, saying that the pro- ~sed house would spoil the view of neighbors. 'Jim St~a.~f~'~, 19149 Allendale, stated that he felt the ordinance was clear in permitting 50% of homes to be improved totwo stories and putting a constraint on that permission by prohibiting two-story houses ad- jacent to or across from single story S:-S~6~S;O - AGENDA ACTION houses. He believed that the two- story ordinance and other 9rdinances were being misinterpreted/however, and they.should be clarified. Kirk DeMartin~, Canyon View Drive, spoke in favor of the appeal, ex- pressing his fear that approval of the design'under consideration would set'a precedeDt for more two-story homes. Dav~ Wilson spoke as the applicant. He pointed out that if.the proposed design were not approved, he had the right to build t~e previously approved design, which Was larger, higher, closer to neighbors, and more. intrusive on the neighbors' privacy. Planning Director' confirmed Mr. Wilson's statements. Vic Monia,.14665 Granite Way, stated' his opinion that the administration and the Planning Commission had per- formed poorly on this issue. ~He -recommended that ~he Council grant the appeal even if that resulted in losing a case in court. Dorothy Stamper, 20562 Marion Avenue,' spoke against large houses, recog- nizing that if the appeal were granted ~ larger house than that proposed might be built. The Public Hearing was closed. Councilmembers Watson and Jensen stated that they did not support the Planning Commission decision on the design and wished to deal with th~ possibility.of a larger house than that proposed being built. Mayor Callon tbok exception .t~ cQm~aents'.~ga~ns~ ther.'Iperf6r~ance~.of the administration and the Planning Commission, although'.she felt there could be philosophical differences. As to the design under consideration,! she believed it violated the ordinance but was concerned that a.Pyrrhic victdry might'rresul~jif the a~eal were upheld. ' In response to Councilmember Watson, Dep~ty'=~.Ci~y7.At~orney stated that Mr. Wilson did appear to. have a design approval that complied with the code' even if the present appeal were up- held. He added, in response to- Councilmember Watson's question about retroactivelyadding conditions+, ,_9.=~/6/8,0 A. GENDA ACTION that permits must be issued in com- pliance with ordinances in effect at the time o~ is~_ua~..c~.O~thepermit~ WATSON/JENSEN MOVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION BE OVERTURNED itND DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL DENIED BASED ON THE DESIGN'S VIOLATION OF THE TWO-STORY ORDINANCE. Passed 3-0. Upon a request by the Deputy City Attorney,.Mayor Callon directed staff to make findings to overturn the decision of the Planning Commission based on violation of the ordinance as interpreted by the Council. Councilmember Jensen inquired as to the possibility of passing a minute resolution and directing the issuance of building permits based on that resolution. City Manager replied that he knew of no way to prevent a person from obtaining a building per- ~mit if he had met all the require- ments. He believed the staff could, if directed by Council, prepare an urgency two-story ordinance for the next Council meeting. Coun'cilmember JenSen then suggested that the new ordinance provide that building permits be. issued only for structures covering not more than 24% of the land on a piece of pro- perty; that single-story houses not exceed 24' in height; and that the goal of preserving views. and pre- venting lots from being overshadowed be clea~ly stated. Mayor Callon requested that staff prepare an urgency two-story ordi- nance based on Council discussion but not necessarily using the exact figures mentioned. Planning Director requested that clarification be made of the extent of the discretionary power of the Planning. Director. ~= £D.~ VILLAGE PARKING DISTRICT City Manager explained that the NO. 4 ASSESSMENT DISTRICT ~ resolution in question was intended to change the limit on sale of bonds 1. Resolution No. 889-W, A ~ from 8% to 10%, in accordance with Resolution Ordering changes in Stated law. Staff recom- Changes & Modifications mendation was to adopt the resolution. Village Parking Districk No. 4 Assessment District The Public Hearing was opened. No one appearing to speak on the matter, the public hearing was closed. 10.28/6/80 AGENDA ACTION WATSON/JENSEN MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 889-W. Pass'ed 3-0. JENSEN/WATSON MOVED TO PROCEED TO ITEM VIII ON-THE AGENDA BECAUSE OF · THE 1ATE HOUR. Passed 3-0. (For purposes of minutes, items have been recorded in agenda order). VI. BIDS AND CONTRACTS A. CANCELLATION OF AGREEMENT. WITH WATSON/JENSEN MOVED THAT STAFF JUN R. HATOYAMA RECOMMENDATION BE ACCEPTED. Passed 3-0. B. AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR PHASE I City Manager suggested that Council · DEVELOPMENT CONGRESS SPRINGS reject the protest of Munkdale PARK Brothers. JENSEN/WATSON MOVED TO AWARD THk CONTRACT TO B.L. COHEN. Passed 3-0. C. REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION TO Removed from agenda for consideration GO TO BID ON ANNUAL',STREET at a later meeting. STRIP~ING_~ PROGRAM ~ VII. CONSENT CALENDAR .. JENSEN/WATSON MOVED TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR EXCEPT ITEM~A. .~ j~,.~j ",_~..f .,~ j~.,~I~,.;, 7, ,-.:7c.::i~i~:j7?..: Passed ·3-0. A. 'TRACT 6850 - HAGEN CONST. Continued to August 20. · RESOLUTION 1433-2, APPROVING FINAL MAP B.TRACT 6393 - KELLY GORDON Approved. SARATOGA-SUNNYVALE ROAD CONSTRUCTION ACCEPTANCE ~ C. 15th ANNUAL PARADE Approved. VIII. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS A. MAYOR NONE B. COUNCIL & COMMISSION REPORTS! Councilmember Jensen stated that Mr. Neate intended to donate land for a bicycle path in an area which would not involve tree removal. She also reported on a major spill of the sewage treatment plant; a resolution restricting sewer hook-up~ was to be on the agenda of Sanitation District 4. ,, C. DEPARTMENT HEADS & OFFICERS 1. Planning Director a) Report re:' Appeal Planning Director reviewed the Procedures & Letter of issues,in Col. Barco's letter. As 7/,1_4'/80 by Colonel to the issue of whether it was Barco possible to appeal final map, he 11-8/6/80 AGENDA ACTION believed that no such appeal r~ght · existed because the Council. had no' discretion to deny final map if tentative map approval had been granted. (except under Specified circumstances which were not in question in this case). Any change would i.nvolve modifying the sub- division ordinance. Stafffhas--recorm~nded 7so~eL~odifications to clarify the ordinance. As to the right of the City to control house designs, that had been discussed several times. As to the right of appeal, it does exist and had been exercised. As to the definition of a single family unit in the municipal code, Planning Director noted that although a guest house is allowed along with the main residence on one piece of property, only one kitchen is allowed. If Council directed, the definition of "kitchen" could be modified. The final issue was that of public hearing on the tentative map. While no Sitate law mandates such a hearing~ former City Attorney Faber Johnston interpreted a Supreme Court decision' in September 1979, as mandating it. Saratoga procedures have been changed to accommodat~ this mandate. Mayor Callon stated that, contrary to Col. Barco's assertions,'she believed noappeal had been filed because the time had expired. Although the Council was distressed at some of the lot splits that had resulted from past procedures, there was no recourse with this site. Councilmember Jensenexpressed her belief that although. the-Supreme Court had interpreted the law as requiring a public hearing at the tentative map stage, the law had actually been in effect before that decision; therefore, she felt the tentative map was invalid. Moreover,~ she felt the tentative map was in- valid on the grounds that it had required the second structure to be a guest cottage; since she believed it had always been rented, it did not qualify as a guest cottage. If the tentative map was invalid, final map approval was incorrectly issued. Because of these errors, Council- member Jensen suggested that the Council review the decision on the two-story house. ~,.~ i- ~ -:~ ~ ~. -. '~7 · .~l 'lly ?~ ".~ c .- -~ ..... ~ - ~r,iI 12-8/6/80 AGENDA ACTION In response to Mayor Callon's question, DepUty City Attorney stated that he would not take the positi6n that all tentative maps issued prior tQ the Supreme Cour~ decision were invalid. ~ He suggested that the appeal pro- visions in the'6rdinance could be r~w6fded to avoid misunderstandings as to the point at which an appeal becomes effective,and that the application of the provision's con- cerning permissible locations for ~ two-story houses could be clarified. Jim ~St~ar-t~, 19149 Allendale Avenue, expressed his opinion that the C~ty should have required a public hearing at the tentative map stage before the Supreme Court decision. Deputy City Attorney stated that there was no specific time limit on ~is~ ~ z'Of appb~ 'the J~ni~fpalte6d~, and tha{'adding a 15-day appeal period . provision might be appropriate. Vic Monia, 14665 Granite Way, suggested that procedures be modified so that neighbors know what sort of structure is to be built. on a site at the tentative map stage in order that they may appeal in a timely manner. He also asked that Col. Barco's case be re- considered. WATSON/JENStl~ P~VED TO RECONSIDER THE MOTION PASSED ON COL. BARCO'S APPEAL OF THE HAAS FrNAL ~P ,~ CO~TkNUE IT TO A LATEn DA~S ' WHEN STAFF Fulq PREPARED A REPDRT AS TO THE, ..... POSSIBLE I~ACT OF THE ~XD-STORY ORDINANCE AND A POSSIBLE EMERGENCY MORATORIUM. Passed 3-0 b) Peport re: Building Design 'Councilmember Jensen expressed concern about Review ADDroyal Saratoga the possibility of' the= building~JDeing_-fl'ooded. Foothills (Corner Saratoga- Director of In _spection Services stated that ..... Sunnyvale-Road & Prospect). that had b~en properly evaluated and dealt "....':c" ' '! '.-.,'-".' .....-: with. Deputy City Attorney said that no appeal was possible at this point. 2. Director of Public Works a) Report on Request of DirectOr of Public Works explained that the Herbert Quevas re: Village request was for a c~nnection through the Parking DiStriCt #1 Parking District to provide access to a development. This would involve the loss ........ of three parking spaces, which ~ould need to be replaced through a dedication to the public of three spaces on Mr. Quevas' propertg, with access thereto. WATS_ON/JENSEN MOVED TO ALLOW STAFF TO WORK WITH MR. QUEVAS TO ACCOMPLISH THE CONNECTION WITH A DESIGN SUCH 13-'8/6/80 , AGENDA ACTION THAT THE PUBLIC SPACES ARE CLEARLY RECOGNIZABLE AND APPEAR TO BE WITHIN THE iPARKING.iDISTRIC~-~,~a~Se~.3-0. b) Report.on Bank Mill Director of Public Works reviewed Road Drainage PrOblem the history of the drainage problems on Bankmill Road. Staff recommended that Council authorize staff to pre- pare plans to construct a concrete- lined swale, although there is not necessarily any City liability in the matter. Staff also asked for direction as to funding and other details of the project, including whether property:owners should grant entry or easements at no cost. John Tilton, 21172 Bankmill Road, stated that he felt the City was responsible for the funding of the project because the City had allowed' development in the area without proper drainage provisions, as required. JENSEN/WATSON MOVED TO INSTRUCT STAFF TO PREPARE A TENTATIVE DRAINAGEi SWALE PLAN AND TO COOPERATE WITH THE RESIDENTS IN. THE CONSTRUCTION WITHOUT ANY FURTHER COST TO THE CITY AND NO ADMISSION OF LIABILITY ON THE PART OF THE CITY. Passed 3-0. D. CITY MANAGER 1. Report re: Proposed City Manager withdrew thisitem for Addition to City Code/ modifications. Regulating Vehicle Repair in Residential District 2. Draft Response to letter City Manager'~sked the CoUncil whether. from Victor Monia dated' each Councilmember regarded the Posta.1 July 16, 1980 Service move as advantageous to the well-being of the community. Council- member Watson Said yes~ Councilmember. Jensen said no;' Mayor Callon said no.' Councilmember Jensen expressed her concern that the "Civic Center" not become a "Service Center" drawing large numbers of people for industrial or commercial uses. IX. ADJOURNMENT CONSENSUS TO ADJOURN.TO AN EXECUTIVE SESSION ON PERSONNEL. RespectfUlly submitted, Grace E. Cory. Acting City Clerk