The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About12-17-1980 City Council Minutes MINUTES S/iRATOGA CITY COUNCIL TIME: Wednesday, Decemberl7, 1980 PLACE: Saratoga City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga TYPE: ExecUtive Session - Litigation - 6:30 p.m. Regular M~eting- 7:30 p.m. AGENDA ACTION I. ORGANIZATION A. ROLL CALL Clevenger, Jensen, Mallory, Watson, Mayor Callon - all present B. MINUTES - 8/21/80, Special CLEVENGER/WATSON MOVED APPROVAL WITH Meeting; 8/21/80, Regular "e EXCEPTIONS NOTED BELOW. PASSED 5-0. Meeting; 11/25/80; 12/3/80'. 11/25 - Add "raise edge of bike path." 12/3,"p75 ~ Add "Consensus to schedule.for study session 1/27/81." II. 'COMMUNICATIONS A. ORAL B. WRITTEN . III.. ..SUBDIVISIONS, BUILbING'SITES, ZONING REQUESTS A. REQUEST TO EXCHANGE SURETY' WATSON/JENSEN MOVED APPROVAL. BOND FOR DEFERRED IMPROVEMENT PASSED 5=0. AGREEMENT, SDR 644, r (Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, John W. Oliver) IV. PETITIONS, ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS A. ~MENDMENT TO SOLID WASTE MALLORyTWATSON .MOVED ADOPTION OF MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR HELLYER RESOLUTION~'981'. PASSED 4-1 (JENSEN CANYON .OP~0SE~).-' ~' 1. Resolution No.-981 V. PUBLIC HEARINGS ~ ~ A. CONSIDERATION OF. REQUEST IN Associate Planner reviewed history of ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS this request, explaining that the lot OF MEASURE I'A," INTERIM RE- in question was an existing lot of STRICTIONS AS RELATED TO HARD- ~ecord which WoUld be exempt from SHIP CASES,'MR. & MRS. ALLEN Measure Ai Proposed addition of land DON (Tract 3943, Lot 12) would improve the lot as a site, and (Cont'd from 12/3/80)' staff recommendation was that the .. exemption be granted. If usual pro- bedur&s were followed, the exemption would be conditional on granting of final building site approval. 2-12/17/80 AGENDA ACTION Responding~'to ~ouncilmember'Jensen's question, AssoCiate Planner explained that in order ~o meet Measure A density standards,":~he lot would need to be 6.59 acres. Councilmember ~ensen expressed concern about the geologic character Iof e~ and,I~vi~ent~frc~nboth her site thl inspection and'the City Geologist's report. Mayor~Callon noted that as the process cohtinued,~geological problems wouldibe addressed at the appropriate time. The Public Hea~lng was opened. Rodger Griffini Junipero Way, who represented th~ Don~s, noted that the City Geolo~ist's report is a cursory reviewlof the site to determine whatipossible problem areas require more thorough inVestigation.!.The report from Engeotech constitutes that more thorough ~nves~gat~on. As for the addition of la~d, it would give the City more latitude in road placement by allowing t ~ house-to h be sited farther from pO~ible roads. Councilmember Watson expressed his belief tha~ th~prgposed site was a better one-than the original:' Th'e Public Hea~ing was Closed. Councilmember ~leVenger agreed that the proposed c~ange was &n imprOve- ' ment and that.ilt should be approved. Councilmember ~ensen reiterated her concern with the geologic situation but agreed tha~ the proposed change would be an ' ~rovement. CONSENSUS TO DI%RECT STAFF TO PREPARE APPROPRIATE'FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION TO GRANT EXEMPTION AND PRESENT AT ::: B. DE NOVO HEARING, APPEAL OF c an er noted that appeal APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW was based on a ]design approved A-732, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE unanimously by ;Planning Commission. ON CAMINO BARCO (Ronaid Haas De no'vo hearing~ was mandated because of Councilmembe;rs' questions regarding access which were not a part of the o 'ginal appeal'~ Staff recommendation was for approva of design review application. 3-/12/17/80 AGENDA ACTION Councilmember Watson inquired as Go whether the staff recommendation '~ would stand if the two-story c,~-'?!L~ ordinance were adopted as currently envisioned; Association Planner · o replied that that ordinance was not developed far enough for any speculations to be based upon it. The Public Hearing was opened. Ernest T. Barco, 19101 Camino Barco', spoke as the appellant. Referring to a letter from Dr. Julian P.. Henry, who owned property adjacent to the property in question, Col. Barco disputed Dr. Henry's contention that a building permit had been obtained for a cottage on the property. He expressed his opinion that the lot split which had created the lot in questi~n.w~s invalid because of the presence,of the cottage. Col. Barco also objected to noise and traffic from the cottage and, speaking for the,Balbonis, to its-appearance. He .also stated that. the slope calculations were misleading because, although~the main portion of the lot was fairly flat, a'.~eep bank at one end increased the average slope. Thus hei~ felt the calculationslwere misleading in spite of having 5een~done~.dor~c%~y. Further objections were that the house was too big, too high, and too close to the creek. Ronald Haas, speaking as the builder whose design-had been approved by .'~ the Planning Commission, noted that the original ~tyle of the house,. which had been approved by.the architectural review committee, had been changed to one felt to be more appropriate to the neighborhood. .He stated that the neighbors .had not,' complained about the design earlier in the process,.but that'h~ tried to be ~ooperative. William Balboni, 19100 Camino Barco, reiterated Co. Barco's objections to the cottage. He further stated that he disapproved of the proposed driye- way because it would interfere with a drainage swale. Moreover, the tentative site approval was for a smaller house, and he found the. larger~sized house inappropriate.' Councilmember Mallory noted that the net effect'of the design changes was a reduction in square foo~age; in 4-12/17/80 AGENDA ACTION response to further questions, Mr. Haas stated that the length of the house had not changed'. According. to his survey of the neighborhood, his house's area was not significantly larger than the average. Council- member Watson pointed out-that there were two neighborhoods in the vicinity. The Public Hearing Was closed. City Attorney, in r~sponse to Council- member Clevenger.'s,.question, staged that the interim urgency ordinance concerning design review pro6edures for houses over 22' was intended to clarify prese~t~ordin~n~es and that it pr~vjils~-Whe~e 'it c~hfl.icts with them. COuncilmember Watson stated his b~lief that~the intent of the design review ordinance would not be met if the d~sign~ were'a~lowed to be built. He felt the Council would be perpetuating the destruction of a neighborhood. City Attorney pointed out that the design.review ordinance is not the 'key issue, but whether the design review was adequately resolved by the Planning Commission, Ordinance 13.1 ondesign review is thus~the guiding regulation. The appeal, to be upheld, must fall into.one of the categories specified in Ordinance 13.1. Councilmember Clevenger expressed her concern over possible environment damage by the structure, as well as the timing of approving a design when a new ordinance is about to be adopted. CLEVENGER/JENSEN MOVED TO UPHOLD THE APPEAL. PASSED '3-2 (CALLON, MALLORY OPPOSED). Jensen said that she wiBh~d to uphold the appeal for environmentally-related reasons, such as loss of vegetation and flood danger. Mayor Callon stated that she voted against the motion because the issue was design review, and the desig.n had been approved by the Architectural Review Committee and the.Planning Commission. In addition, the site coverage was only 6% of the site. She noted that when any house is built there is some environmental damage. Many of the issues addressed 5~12/i7/80 AGENDA ACTION by the appellant were, she felt, not related to the issue of the design of the house. Councilmember Mallory reviewed both sides of'the case and found no basis for objecting to the design, except a personal objection to larger homes. Councilmember Jensen listed the factors that would make the situation accep~inble.~tb! .h~r: ~ ~ the ho0jse! should~ be ~smal~e~; '~' 'it ;sho~/d-~not .'tie tw~.,s~6ry.;~ itl:should "be'se~:'farther:up'~the!hi-l:l~;TaWa~ frcEni~h~..~ flooding ar~ j, adcess' shoutd'-;b~provided :'for r-the:~djoihing: property, ,as :wel~as.'fd~, the pro · 'perty 'under:"appeal; the! ap~reh(tyrillegal 'strueture on: . ~ -'~djoinidgt~property <should be taken care~o~. Associate Planner pointed out that both staff and Mr. Haas needed direction from the Council as to the proper course of action and asked whether the remainder of the Council concurred Qith Mrs. Jensen's statements. Councilmember Watson replied that the 'design review ordinance being prepared would address questzons of scal~ and mass. He felt that these questzons should be directed'to the Planning Commission or Councilmember Clevenger because it was his understanding that some parameters~had'been~set-. ~ Councilmember Mal'lory noted that City functions could not be stopped while the ordinance was i~"prepargtion 'and that action n~eded to ~e'~aken% City Attorney reviewed-the c~iteria listed in Ordinance 13.1"'Snd polled the Council to ~etermine-'whether they had based their.votes on that 'ordinance; all stated tha't the'ir votes were based on Ordinance'13.1 ~nd not on any other factors. Specifically mentioned were drainage problems. damage to natural'vegetation, unsightly grading of hillside occasioned by location near swat~;~ ~ncompatibility of bulk of house with existing neighbor- hood and location in flooding area. Mr. Haas requested a written summary of the Council's objections to the design, and Mayor Callon assured him that they would be in the minutes. · o - .,- .......... ,--: ,1-- .-- , , =:-:,-i.-.,-.. 6~!12/17/80 · ~GENDA ACTI0~ C. EXTENSION OF AN INTERIM ?".~7~' Acting City Manager explained that URGENCY ORDINANCE'OF THE CITY Interim Urgency Ordinance 3E-16 would OF SARATOGA IMPOSING A MORA- expire in Jahuary, and more time was TORIUM UPON THE ISSUANCE OF needed to prepare the final ordinance. BUILDING PERMITS. WITHOUT PRIOR DESIGN REVIEW'FOR·CERTaIN Associate Planner stated that the .RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES PENDING requested extension Was for eight REVIEW AND AMENDMENT OF HEIGHT months; staff planned to have a rough LIMITATIONS AND OTHER BUILDING draf~ for·"th~,~Plahnih~..CofRm~Ssion in RESTRICTIONS PERTAINING . early February. THERETO (2-Story Ordinance, 3E-16) In response'to Councilmember Watson's · . question, City Attorney replied that 1. Ordinance 3E-17' Government Code Section 65858 pro- vided that any extension would be for eight months, but that the interim ordinance could be repealed and the new one made effective before that time if the processes had bee~ completed. The~J~pub'~icLhe'ar"~ng?~wa's~,ope~'d. Col. Ba~CO~ Z~he'~on l~.' ih'di~fdua t'zl a!ppearing ~o sp~a,k~ exp~ss~'d hi~',wi~i~gness to.~'help?~prepar~.~he'l~e~-d~'s~ig~'~r~iew ordin'ance?' ~'~h~'!jpubl~!~,h~a~iiD~.~'~a!~_~ - ENS N/ AL OR MOVED TO ADOPT ORDINANCEs73E~q~ EXTENDING~ ORDINANCE '3E-,t6~ FOR~A,~pERIOD"~OF~ EIGHT= .MONTHS WITH THE~UNDERS~AND~N~T~AT~ITiCOULD_,BE~-~ "REPEALE~EF~RE THAT~,jT~'ME~,~F, TH~NSW',~l ORDINANCE-WEREcREADYi~ Pass~d'5'~0~. As required by law, City Attorney read the2headi~g and text of Urgency O~dinance 3E-17 in full. D. APPEAL OF LDC CONDITIONS Director of Public Works reviewed the CONCERNING CURBING, GUTTERING appeal and presented the options AND UNDERGROUNDING OF .EXISTING available to the Council. Staff OVERHEAD UTILITIES (SDR 1479 recommendation was to reject the (Gibson Anderson, 19571 appeal and require the ~mprovements Farwell Avenue) to be installed per City Ordinance. Councilmember Jensen asked whether the berm were intended to control drainage; Director of Public Works responded affirmatively and stated that ~n a similar case·a deferred improvement agreement had been set'~up '· ' for provision of the berm. Councilmember Clevenger asked ff the utility pole could be'-removed, and Director of Public Works replied that since the pole also provides service to a residence across the street from the property in question, P G'& E would have to answer that. 7~Z12/17/80.. AGENDA ACTION . The Public Hearing was opened. Gibson'Anderson, 19571'Farwell Avenue, spoke as the appellant. He stated that the proposed-curbs and gutters were unnecessary,-since drainage was not a problem in the area; that they would spoil the appearance of the neighborhood and cause damage ~o trees; and that the~un~efrgroundi~g-'dfhis~ utilities would serve no purpose because the utility pole would have to remain to serve the residence across the street. Moreover, most of his'.heighbor~,had~signed--.a~petition supporting his position. Bill Clark, 19404 Shubert, compared. Mr.. Anderson's situation to his own an~ sugge*s~d'that residents should be allowed to handle such problems as they thought best when supported by neighbors.- He asked why the Council could no~ ~imply .glve permission on that basis. Mayor Callon replied that the Council had to review each case on its own merits because each house has its own unique conditions.? The Public Hearing was closed. Director of Public Works pointed out that no extension of improvements beyond'the property in question was possible because it was at the end of Farwell. He believed that street alignment problems could be mitigated throughan asphalt overlay. In response to Mayor Callon's question, he stated that if there were flooding problems,%the property could enter into a hold harmless agreement to protect the City. CLEVENGER/WATSON MOVED TO GRANT APPEAL. WITH THE UNDERSTANDING ~HAT THE DEVELOPER IS REQUIRED TO ENTER INTO A DEFERRED IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT WITH RESPECT TO CURES, GUTTERS, AND UNDER- GOUNDING UTILITIES; TO ENTER INTO A HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT TO SAFEGUARD THE CITY AGAINST CLAIMS FOR FLOOD DAMAGE; AND TO PROVIDE AN ASPHALT OVERLAY TO BRING THE STREET INTO ALIGNMENT. PASSED 4-1 (Jensen opposed) Councilmember Jensen explained that she opposed the motion because she wanted to protect the area from having any more curbs and gutters than it presently had. 8-12/17/80 A.GENBA -- ACTION E. DISCUSSION OF THE AERIAL Councilmember WatsOn noted that he SPRAYING OF MALATHION TO had received many telephone calls CONTROL THE MEDITERRANEAN Opposing the spraying. Since no FRUIT FLY IN SARATOGA~ .decision was to be made tonight, he (Note: Agriculture Dept. had~ had discourag~-peOple from attending; withdrawn request for public otherwise, he felt there would have hearing, ~ince they do not been a large crowd. intend to spray). ~ The Public Hearing was opened. Richard Karasik, 13732 Saratoga Vista Avenue, spoke against the spraying, saying that Saratoga'a air quality is among'the worst in the Bay Area because pollution from other areas is funneled here. He believed that spraying over a wide area would result in ~ disproportionately large concentration of malathion in-Saratoga. It was also his opinion that the USDA would return with another request to spray, and ~hat the Council should , provide six weeks' notice of any public hearing on the matte~..- Col. Ernest T. B~rco~ 19101 Camino'. Barco, addressed the need for further information on actions private citizens can. take in Medfly eradicati~n, such as frui~ stripping. He ekDressed his opposition to Spra~ing~' Vince Garrod, 22600 Mt. Eden, explained various methods of con- trolling insects bY interrUPting their life'cycles. He s'ta~ed tha~ an abatement ordinance'~ight be of help by encouraging residents to cultivate the ground to destroy the pupa, and strip fruit to remove the larva's living si[e. He noted.'that recent temperatures had not been cold enough to kill the larva within the fruit. Willem Kohler, 21842 Via Regina, expressed his belief that the weather would control the Medfly and that the spraying effort was a government boondoggle. Link Bradley, 19201 Portas Drive, spoke in favor of relying-.o~ expert opinion. He felt the Medfly was potentially'dangerous to all of California agriculture; although the predator-pest relatiohship m~ght evantually control the Medfly, he" .... feared that serious economic losses would occur before that came ~bout, requiring' heavier spraying than that proposed now~. · - 9~12/17/80 A. GENDA ~ ACTION Vince Garrod stated that the spraying had not taken place because the time wad not right for control of the Medfly, not because of any objections by the local governments. Mayor Callon emphasized that any efforts should be taken through a centra~i~&d body such as IGC or ICC rather than by the cities individually. Councilmembers Jensen and. Watson recommended that the Council go on record as being against aerial spraying until the Council was con- vinced that spraying was 7safe.cr~r<~?. Councilmembers Clevenger and Mallory felt that such actiQn would.be in bad faith; Mayor Ca.llon felt it would serve no purpoSe~ Councilmember Clevenger cautioned that enough notice must be given before this topic is agendized so that neither side would have an unfair advantage. Mr. Karasik stated that it would be helpful to announce any public hearing on the matter at a' Council meeting previousto the meeting at which the public hearing was to be held. Mayor Callon agreed to do so. Mayor Callon received a communication from Mrs. Melvin Ross, 3110 Fowler Road, San Jose,.opposing malathion sp~ay~gI'~f6r~"h~at~h~.andil~e~i~nmen~al~. reasons. ' The Publi~ Hearing wa~ closed,. CALLON/MALLORY :MOVED TO PROHIBI~ AERIAL SPRAYING OF MALATHION IN SARATOGA UNTIL THE COUNCIL HAS HAD A REQUEST FROM THE PROPER AUTHORITIES, HELD A PUBLIC HEARING,~ND MADE A DECISION ON THE MATTER. PASSED 3-2 (Watson, Jensen opposed). JENSEN/MALLORY.MOVED TO COLLECT INFORMATION ON THE PROGRAM TO ABATE TttE FRUIT FLY PROBLEM THROUGH RESIDENTS' ACTIONS AND TO COOPERATE WITH THIS PROGRAM. PASSED 5-0. VI. BIDS AND CONTRACTS NONE :F:'Z'~'Z '~-, ~.Z::'~.:'. 3 . . , 10~12/17/80-.-. AGENDA ACTION VII. CONSENT CALENDAR WATSON/CLEVENGER MOVED TO ADOPT AND APPROVE CONSENT CALENDAR EXCEPT FOR ~' '4-1~r """'~ ........ '~' ~"""~'~ ITEM G. PASSED~ 5-0 A. CITY TREASURER'SrREPORT Approved. B.., PAYMENT OF CLAIMS' Approved. C. DENIAL OF CLAIM.'OF M~CHAEL ABDELMALAK Approved. D. REQUEST OF A.J. SCHRA~ER," Approved. HIGHWAY 9, FOR. 6-MONTH EXTENSION-OF BUILDING SITE IMPROVEMENT ~SDR 1399) E. FINAL ACCEPTANCE ~ SDR 1434 Approved. (Charles Laughlin) F. FINAL ACCEPTANCE - TRACT 626i Approved.- (Clay Thomas) G. MINUTE ORDER APPOINTING CHIEF CALLON/CLEVENGER MOVED TO.DIRECT BUILDING OFFICIAL MINUTE ORDER BE MADE WITH INCREASE IN SALARY FOR CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL OF 5%.DURING THE TIME IN WHICH HE SERVES IN THAT CAPACITY. PASSED 4-1 (Mallory opposed). H. MINUTE ORDER CONCERNING Approved. DEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTY AFFECTED BY TAKING BY CONDEM- NATION VIII. ADMINIBTRATIVE MATTERS A. MAYOR B. COUNCIL & COMMISSIONsREPORTS C., DEPARTMENT HEADS & OFFICERS 1. Planning Director a. Report re: Annexation No[ed Report. of Sunland.Park b. Report re-: General Noted Report. Plan Citizens. Advisory Committee D. CITY MANAGER 1. Clarification of pa~t No action, ~-o motio~ re: Planning Commission IX. ADJOURNMENT MALLORY/JENSEN MOVED ADJOURNMENT'TO ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 22 AT 6:00 P.M. RespectfUlly submitted, GraCe E'.~r~ory Acting City Clerk