Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-05-1980 City Council Minutes MINUTES CITY OF SARATOGA TIME: Wednesday, November 5, 1980 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: Saratoga City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, Calif. TYPE: Regular Meeting AGENDA ' ' ACTION I. ORGAN I ZAT I ON A. ROLL CALL All members present (Watson . , arrived 7:36 p.m.) Jensen/~allory moved ~cceptance of:~8/20 B. MINUTES- 8/20; 9/30; 10/1;~ ~min~'~S.W~th'-~hahg~'6f'.~c~0n,O~fi~n II' 10 / 2 3 1~&~e~:: ',j~O! ,~a]1i~ ;!-!,~e~:~i~r:=' ~bS~ained). ~ensen/Mallory ~ove~ acceptance oE 9/30 an~ 10/1 ~i~utes. ~asse~ unani~ousl~. " Mallory/Clevenger 'moved acceptance of 10/23 minutes with corrections noted below. Passed 4-0 (Jensen ~ , I abstained). Item 2 moved by Clevenger/Watson. Item 3 moved by Mallory/Watson. II. COMMUNICATIONS ' ' A. O~L B. WRITTEN 1. John A. Brigham Staff dir~t~ to re~% to Co~cil what is ~rrently ~ing done wi~ res~ct to sol~ ener~ by ~e City ~d ~e Comty. 2. Jo~ H. Tilton Staff dir~t~ to ~ite to Mr. Tilton wi~ ~laa~on of drainage project. 3. F~r L. Jo~ston I~tter not~. III. ~ SP~ ~S~SS (It~s cont~u~ fr~ 10/15 Co~cil m~t~g) A. P~G C~SSION 1. Tr~t~l re: ~ification ~llo~/Watson m~ approval of ordi- of R~rea~on Cou~ Ord~ace n~ce as ~ifi~ by Plying C~ssion. Passe. ~ly. B. D!~R OF P~LIC ~S 1. Conversion of s~eet lights - Cons~Ss to consider it~ in six ~eks ~r~ Va~r to High Pressure after s~ff has receiv~ res~nses fr~ S~i~ physici~, o~ cities, ~d s~ior citizens of Sarat~a. 2. Study of hy~l~, fl~g ~d Watson/~llo~ mv~ to au~orize study. erosion ~ U~r Cal~as Cre~ Pass~ 4-1 (J~s~ op~s~). Watersh~ C. DI%~R OF ~I~ S~CES 1. Pro~s~ pr~r~ for ~diture Jens~/Watson mv~ to accept rec~ of' ~a Fatino ~ds ~tion of staff. Pass~ 4-1 (~11o~ op~s~). 2. Re~ re: ~t~er fr~ Dr..' ~jon S~aff ~r~t~ to contact Dr. Katske Katske re: Pmbl~ ~t K~v~~ ~d ~co~age citiz~s to re~rt c~- ~r~ Park plaints to Dir~tor of C~ity Ser- '~- ~ vices or Sheriff's Office. · 2111/5/80 · AGENDA ACTION ~II. D. PLANNING DIRECTOR 1. Report re:' Modification ~'L Staff directed to develop ordinance or to Zoning Ordinance ~" ~ other procedure-allowing winery allowing ~inery oDeration operation in the area. (K. Kennedy) 2. Report re: Waiver of Wa~son/Callon moved that staff be Design Review Fee for E1 directed to refund all fees remaining Q~ito·Park Subdivision after staff ha~ completed necessary Entry Sign reports and inspegt~on. Passed~.3-2. (Jensen, Malloryopposed) i 3. General Plan Citizens Consensus to remove from application Advisory Committee form marital ~status~ yea-r graduated from high s~hool, degrees, n~mber of children, and number of years attended college and substitute~"Personal History" and "Education." · Jem~en/Cle~eng~ ..~_ved-tQi!ad~ tq- application form -"~D~.~ :-YqU~' ow~z._un~eveloped,~la~d!?.in._Sarato~a!~i 9r--its~ ~pher~ q~ ,influ.ence-!and.if so~.-~here?" · Passed- 3-~ "(Mal~Ory.~. Watson -,opposed) ,-. · c ~ Jensen/Watson moved that vacancies on committee be advertised with an application deadline of 30 days. Passed unanimously. IV. SUBDIVISIONS, BUILDING SITES, ZONING REQUESTS A. SDR 1409, ACCEPTANCE OF OPEN Jensen/Mallory moved to' accept easement:' SPACE EASEMENT (David Ritter, Pa~sed unanimously.. Belnap Drive) V. PETITIONS, ORDINANCES & RESOLUTION~ A. AMENDMENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE Mallory/Watson moved to adopt Ordinance OF CITY OF SARATOGA (SIGNS) BY NS 3.44 as modified with clarification PROVIDING OPEN HOUSE SIGNS' that "No signs shall be located in bike lanes, sidewalks, median S~rips, or 1. Introduction Of Ord~-NS~3.~44 streets, nor shall such signs be (as modified) (Public = located within 70'0" of the right of Hearing closed.10/15/80) way line of designated scenic highway. Passed 3-2 (Clevenger/.?~ensenc.~ppos~d). B. SPRINGER AVENUE RE·SOLUTION Clevenger/Jensen moved acceptance of PROHIBITING PARKING NEAR proposal and adoption of Resolution FIELDSTONE DRIVE. MV-141. Passed unanimously. 1. Resolution MV-141 C.. DE SANKA AVENUE - ORDINANCE Mallory/Clevenger moved adoption of ESTABLISHING A BUS LOADING Ordinance 38.92-1. Passed unanimously. ZONE (Blue Hill'School) 1. Introduction of Ordinance 38.92'1 , - 3-11/5/80 AGENDA ACTION PUBLIC HEARINGS A. PRESENTATION OF THE CITY'S HCDL, C'oor~i[~to~r '~plained that the PARTICIPATION UNDER THE HOUSING DreSen~ pdbiic~ hearing fulfilled the AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT' ACT federal requirement for two public hearings on ,HCD prqgrams. He then 1. Adoption of prop0s~d 1981~82 presented se~r~i~.cor~ec~tions to the HCDA Program ~o 'figdres 'Qn the 1sH~P p~ogram and reviewed the 'past accomplishments of 2. Annual Housing Assistance Saratog~'s HCD program. For the 1981-82 Plan Modification fiscal year, three programs are being proposed: ,SHARP; Paul Avenue & 4th 3. Adopt Resolution 977 Street Imp~ve, ment.'s_; and Quito Area Storm Drainage-. It was pointed out that any reference to low-income federally assisted housing had-been deleted from the Housino Assistanc~ Plan ~ecause~,of.rthe.-Council,"s .,.express~d'~wish not. 't~ paFtic ipate~- i~ this--type ~'~ofr. activity. The Public Hearing was opened. David Moyles, speaking for the E1 Quito Park Hc~eowners, expressed their awareness of the risks involved in the program and their will- ingness to take then. Margaret Sherill, 14290 Paul, spoke in favor of having a certified soil engineer study the area before street improvements were made to ensure that proper curbing and paving was used Eo prevent runo£f and erosion. HCD Coordinator, in response to a question frc~ Mayor Callon stated that the project was not in the design phase yet and that there would be a time for public input on design later in the process. Councilmember Watson msntioned that he had been contacted by Mrs. Kolchick l who was in favor of the project. The Public-Hearing was closed. Councilmember Watson pointed out that on page 5 of the' staff report there w~s mention of the possibility of 'the County' s contacting the City concerning assisted housing; he asserted that he absolutely would not accept or en- eearage federally assisted housing in this coarslnity. Councilmember C-Ieveng~r said that the priorities of these projects had been ~ell established ro meet the needs of Saratoga. ~Councilmember Mallory agreed that.the =~r. oject~'Wduld enhance the ent~'re communitF~'an~ !'n~ted that no local tax money was requi~ed. 4-11/5/80 AGENDA ACTION HCD Coordinator stated that it would be desirable for Saratoga to appoint a representative On the HCD Citizens Advisory Committee by November 15. Councilm~mber Jensen expressed her concern that properuprocedure should be followed and the vacancy advertised ~ctin~_~Ci~t-~--?Mah~ge~ noted that HCD CoordinatOr had announced the vacancy at various meetings, and Councilmember Clevenger indicated that the City had 5 good applicants already. Consensus to appoint HCD Citizens Advisory ~or~Bi.~"~teeKmember~atra~journed.lregutartm~e~ing ~in.c~njunction withnext study session. B. APPEAL OF CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning DireCtor reviewed history of OF USE PERMIT, UP-467, DESERT appeal. He noted that the present use PETROLEUM, INC., 12600 SARATOGAi of the propertyTM i~ non-conforming, AVENUE. since the use has exist~ ~SinCe"before use permits were issued'. Because an expansion is beihg proposed, however, a use permit is now Eequired. The Planning Commission ~pproved the use permit,'but imposed Conditions regarding hours of operation, erection of signs, anda revised'driveway access. Councilmember Jensen proposed a de novo hearing so that all the issues could be heard rather than only the three conditions being appealed. Councilmember Mallory said'he was not aware of any other circumstances that should be considered,~-a~d?.he therefore wished to consider the case at the present time. The Public Hearing was opened. Rick Norman of San Rafael, spoke for the applicant, saying that they d~sired a 3 x 5 price sign similar to those of other service stations. Concerning the driveway, he stated that moving the driveway would not affect the queuing problem and would be inconvenient for customers. IRichard Taylor of Walnut Creek,. Real Estate Manager for Desert Petroleum, spoke against the condition limiting hours of operation. He stated that there was a screening wall and shielded lights topro~ect neighbors. Because the station'offers only gas. and not service, he felt that noise and loitering were less of a problem than in many servic~ stations. john Grover, 18700 WoodE.Deli~CoUrt, speaking on behalf of 20 residents of the area, spoke against the appeal. 5-11/5/80 AGENDA ACTION ' - He--stated that the Plannihg.Commission .. had acted improperly in allowing the expansion of a non-conforming use and had not acted in accordance with' the General Plan. He asserted that the station was noisy and the people using it were often transients, not residents. ~.THer~"~s'~ a'~illin~g ~tation within',one mile that'fs open'dntil midnight and 11 stations open regular hours within 2 miles. He a~sq e~pressed concerh t :abou~ theT's~gn and abqu~ a possible increase in traffic because of the 100% increase in pump c~pacity. CouncilSember Clevenger inquired as to whether the residents would prefer the previous situation, with the old station operating under no restrictionsr or a new station operating under City Guidelines. Mr. Grover replied that the increase in traffic was regarded as the main problem. In response to a question from Council member Watson, Planning Director explained that the property is zoned commercial, but the General Plan is vague.- Councilmember Mallory' asked about the queuing problem, and Mr. Norman pointed out the traffic patterns on a chart an~ explained that an average of one car every five minutes was expected. Councilmember Watson noted that With that average, there would nevertheless ' " : be times when traffic w6uld be backed up. · Mr. Norman said that moving the'drive-' ~ ways would not help the traffic probI~J~s and would harm'the station's business. · Councilmember Clevenger noted' that the traffic on Saratoga 'Avenue wasthe ; problem. Councilmember Watson asked whether the station 'could remodel without fncreasin9 the size. Mr. Taylor replied that-a ~ ,complet? re-building was planned~ so ..~ that an increase in volume was required · ., · to justify the expense. Councilmember Maliory asked if' the design phase had been entered iDto and planning Director replied that the .'.' , .. . design had been approved.' Counbilmember Jens~n expressed her : concern about lands'caping'and her belief that that barrier, building was "" needed through planting 'of trees. She , 6-11/5/80 · AGENDA "'= -ACTION -. Mfelt ' that landscaping would be one of the appropriate issues to consider at a de novo~ hearing. Plannj_ng Director noted that the Planning Cu~,LH ssion.had,,~equired added land- scaping, but th~_t was not one: .of ]the conditions that w~s being appealed. The Public Hearing was closed. Clevenger/Mallory moved to deny the appeal. Passed 3-2. (jensen, Watson opposed!_. Councilmember Watson noted that' there had been ~jreat deal of conflict in efforts to protect the appearance of. Saratoga. He felt that the whole process should be .~e-examined. He ex- pressed concern t/~t the citizens. had not been, heard ind that there was 'more involved than the'~ three issues being appealed. Mayor Callon stated that the public did participate in the use permit With referenc~ to the design, Council- member Mallory stated that it 'had gone through the sequence for consideration with no evidence that the design is not proper.' He expressed concern about maintaining the character of Saratoga and noted tha~ there is a conflict between donsumer needs and the~appearan~ of the City. He felt the staff recom- mendations could be relied upon for the layout and would like to see the hours of operation reduced. Mayor Callon pointed out that every situation involving commercial use near a residential area requires a balancing of factors, and in these cases the Council cannot re-design every project which comes befo~e~ it. C. APPEAL OF TENTATIVE MAP DENIAL Planning Director' eXpiai'ned that this AND REQUEST FOR EXCEPTION TO appea~ had come before the Council SECTION 13.3-7 OF SUBDIVSION b~cause there was a policy matter to be ORDINANCE, SDR 1463, GEPjtLD decided, which is' beyond the j'uribdf~tion JACOBSEN of the Land Development Committee. Th~ Jacobsen's-! occupy the fourth lot off a minimum access road 'and wish to split it into a fifth lot; there are no other proposals for development off this road. The Public' Hearing was opened. Dick Kier Of Kier and Wright, speaking as the applicant's civil engineer, p6inted out-that the applicant was asking for access over his own property and that only 150' of the road does not conform to the subdivision ordiance. He also stated that the neighbors .' 7-11/5/80~. AGENDA ACTI6N supported the excep.tion and noted a number of signed petitions in .faQo~ of the applicant'. r Jonathan Roeloffs, 18665'Woodbank Way, spoke in favor of the exception, sayink that in the interests of-fairneSs, the Jacobsen~s~ shohl~ not be denied Simply because they did not apply for the lot split first. The Public Hearing was closed. Councilmember Jensen spoke in favor of upholding the staff recommendations an~ thnS denying the appeal. She felt the road?iSrssubstandard, the City should maintain its road standards, and there was no reason to make other findings. Councilmember Watson noted that the exception would have no adverse impact and should be allowed. Assistant-Director of Public Works stated that the road was a 15% grade. Staff recommended that the roadway be improved and the vertical flattened. Councilmember Clevenger pointed out that by allowing a fifth home to be built, the City would facilitate the road's improvement. Councilmember Jensen expressed her concern that. this would change the character of the area. Mayor Callon said that she was not pleased with the previous lot splits which had been allowed, but that the present subdivision would not make any difference in the area, s. ince issues such as size or shape of'lotlwere not involved. Councilm~mber Mallory stated that he favored the exception because it would have no tr'affic impact or any other adverse effects on health 'and safety. He felt that the limit of four was arbitrary and should be re-examined the process of updating the Gehe~alfPlan Ma~lory/Clevenger moved that the exception be granted and the'negative declaratio~ approved. Passed 4-1. Jensen opposed!. . 8-11/5/80 AGENDA ACTION ' ' · D. RAISING OF PROHIBITED. ANIMALS AT Code Enforcement Officer reviewed 14740 ~OBEY ROAD, (REStDENTIAi history of case, saying that zoning DtSTRI~T~ violation had continued since December of 1979. His' investigation of the situation'~had been prompted_by complaints from-neighbors about the Jones and Fuqua properties. The D~d~hance allows a reasonable number of r dog~ and cats; if the property is 2 acres or more, certain other specified animals are allowed if in co~nection with a 4H project, if a use permit is obtained from the Planning Commission. The Public Hearing was opened~ Eleanori~Jones)~14740 Sobey Road, spoke on'her own beh~tf. She said there had been some misrepresentation and that at present they hadonl~ 3 goats which created 'no odor~6'~"~healt~' ~6~lem~. She stated tha~ ~any p~0~le~fn th~ area violated the code and that 2 acres was too much ~O'~r~q~e.as a,,m~n~um. . Jim Fuqua,'l~750~Sobey~Road~ spoke on his own beh~tf. He stated that he had 4 children in 4~. He Delieved that most people ~n the area have animals · n violation of,~the code and that it was unfair to single out'~ce~ain Cases Ifor.enforcement,. Disputes ShOuld be settled between nelghbors, he felt, rather than having the Code Enforcement Officer become involved. He stated that he had bought the property, along with the goats, etc. Mrs'. Lorenson, 14810 S~bbyI~ROad, stated that the animals had never bothered'her Deedee Dorsey, 19361'San Marcus Road, stated hbr opinion that the people in the area need animals. Orbin Jones, 14740 Sobey Road, said that the problem was the lack of c~arity of the code as to the number of animals.allowed and a~fine ~Sat should be levied. Brz~ldget~ Bossaert, 18661 Woodbank Way, spOke'~in favor of~a~lowingLanima~s~ say~ng'.tha~he.animals improved the morality of young people. Edward Hinshaw, 19576 Kenosha Court, spoke on behalf of the Lunds, who had complained about the animals. He pointed oun that the Lu~ds support the concept of 4H, but that the issue is a code violation. 9-11/5/80 ACTION Jonathan Roeloffs, 18665.,Woodbank Way, stated that the noise of the a~imals was a problem. Caralee Jones, 14740 Sobey Road, said that it was very important that peopl'e know what animals they were and were not allowed to have. Dr. A.J. Lund stated that he lived next door, and the noise and odor problems were serious. His concern was ~hat;people-should obey the law. Virgil Voss, 14982 Sobey Road, asked the Council to consider the situation in ~n.'~hpre]ud~ce~,way~' He Stated that~Sobey. Ro~dlrwa~ ~ural, and his fAmil'y h~d'mOved there'for the rural atmospher. e..~ The Public Hearing was closed. City Attorney'stated that the issue is whether to follow the recommendation of the Code Enforcement Officer. The Council is to assume that there had been a violation.' Councilmember JenSen expressed her concern that the ordinance was not ~lear en0u~h and suggested that it be reviewed. CouncilmemBer Clevenger expressed concern about the ~ural character of Saratoga and also suggested reviewing the ordinance. CouncilmemBer Watson noted that ~he Council cabnot legislate behavior. He 'believed that'theOrdinance had served a good purpose, but compliance has not occur.red~ and the.Council must deal with' the, fac.tor that good judgement .needs to be exercise~. Mayor Callon expre'ssed her b~liefthat the ordinance was clear, in that'the permitted animals are specified, and all others are not peEmitted. She believed the limit of two acres to be reasonable. The ordinance protects those who move into the area under the assumption that there are limits ~o'the number of animals in the area. She felt that the ordinance should be en- forced as it stan.ds; if the Council wished to consider amending it, Mowever,'- the 4H project provision could be dropped. She stated that the issue was a code violation and the Council was in a position of balancing private property rights. 10-11/5/80 AGENDA .ACTION Councilmember Mallory e~pressed concern about the lack of good faith on the part of those people cited by the Code Enforcement ~fficer. He felt, however, that there were positive values in having animals'raised by children and that the'~ordinance should be reviewed by a committee. Council arrived at a conSensus'to. review the ordinance. Planning Director noted .that the review would have to'go to the Planning Commission, since it is part of th~ Zoning Ordinance. He stated that he could provide a timetable*for review at the next meeting .ofthe Council, but that two months did not.appear to be enough time. Jensen/Mallory moved to freeze the number of animals on the properties the number and type presently there. (Fuq~ - 3 goats, 2 dogs, 1 cat; Jones - 2 goats, 4 dogs, 10 ducks). The number is to be kept constant, but no replacements are to be allowed while ordinance is being reviewed; Code Enforcement Office~ is to monitor the situation while ordinance is being reviewed. Passed'4-1. (Callon opposed) Mayor Callon explained that she opposed'the motion because the Council was not balancing the rights of property owners and was freezing the situation at a large number of animals. VII. BIDS AND CONTRACTS A. REPORT RE: BIDDING ON BANKMILL Callon/Watson moved to direct staff to ROAD DRAINAGE (PUBLIC WORKS) negotiate agreement with the City as a party to do remedial work with the ~ understanding'that the City will not contribute more funds to this project and that the affected property owners will pay the future costs. Passed 4-0.. (Mallory abstained). Councilmember Mallory left the meeting at this point. B. SIGNAL MAINTENANCE CONTRACT Jensen/Clevenger moved acceptance of contract. Passed 4-0. (Mallory absent)'. VIII. CONSENT CALENDAR Jensen/Clevenger moved approval of Items A-C. Passed 4-0. '(Mallory absent). A. 'PAYMENT OF CLAIMS Approved. 11-11/5/80. A_GENDA ACTION B. ~ APPROVAL OF FOURTH ANNUAL WESTER~ Approved. FEDERAL SAVINGS GREAT RACE ON JANUARY 11, 1981 C- AUTHORIZATION OF FUNDS TO CONDUC~ Approved. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF WESTERN HILLSIDE D. RESOLUTION ELIMINATING FOUR-HOqR Consensus to direct staff to determine PARKING IN VILLAGE PARKING DIST~ wishes of Village Merchants. 1.' Resolution MV-140 IX. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS A..,' MAYOR B. COUNCIL & COMMISSION REPORTS C. DEPARTMENT HEADS & OFFICERS 1. Director of Community SerViCes a. Design of Senior Citizens Noted report. Addition to CommUnity Center Planning Director a. Disposition of Previous. Coundilmember Clevenger reported that Draft Housing Element after reviewing"tape of.5/21 meeting she concluded that'-dlraft housing element had been rejected. Consensus to develop housing element afresh duFing Generai Pllan re~i'ew. 3.. City Manager a. July 18, 1980, letter Consensus tO direct staff.to draft ,from Ernest T. Barco - letter to Col. Barco asking for City Attorney comments clarification'.. b. Department of Inspection Watson/Clevenger moved approval as Services Reorganization' proposed. Passed 3-0. (Jensen abstained, Mallory absent). X. ADJOURNMENT XI~. EXECUTIVE SESSION - Litigation Consensus to.cancel. RespectfUlly submitted, Grace E. Cory Acting City Clerk