HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-16-1981 City Council Minutes MINUFES
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
TIME: Wednesday, December ~16, 1981 - 7:30 p.m.
PLACE: City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue
TYPE: Regular Meeting
I. ORGANIZATION
A. ROLL CALL
Councilmembers Clevenger, Jensen, M~llory, Watson and Mayor Callon present at
7:32 p.m. a
Watson/Jensen moved , pproval of minutes with following corrections. Passed 5-0.
]eer
p. 2 - Title of P t Cain, Dividend Industries employee, corrected.
p. 3 - Spelling of Dav d Sturrock's name corrected.
II. OOMMIIqICATIONS
A. ORAL
City Manager introdl zed' City' s recently-hired Finance Director, Steve Peterson.
All referred to staff, Concen~ing #2, Mayor Cillon requested public notice
of vacancy on Agin~ Advisory Council. Concerning #4, it was noted that
public hearing will be held on revenue sharing budget 1/6.
III.SUBDIVISIONS, BUILDING~Si'i~MS, ZONING REQL~STS
None.
IV. PETEIONS, ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS
A. Ordln [
· ence amendipg Ch. 6, Article I, entitled "Fire Prevention Code," of
the Saratoga City Code (second r~ading or introduction and first reading
of revised ordinance)
City Manager ec ~ended adding industrial zoning districts to Section 79. 201a;
r u
City Attorney ec ~,ended adding "ccmbustible" to Section74. 116. JQhn Fcote,
r u .
20910 Canyon View Dr~ve, stated that amendments were satisfactory if hazardous
gases were covered; City Attorney stated that they were covered.
~-' -~'. ~leVenge~Ma!lory' . edjto~ incorporate amendments suggested by Manager and
Attorney. Passed 5~i. · ·
Clevenger/Mallory n~ved to introduce7 ordinance and readrby title only. Passed 5~0.·
~.·.. B. Ordinance consolidating the general nmnicipal elections of the City of
the June 1982
Saratoga with i primary election and in June of each, even-
numbered year thereafter (second! reading)
Deput~Ci~y :Cl~.?~orted, brie~l~.conl'~ke~ da~eS z~for l'~~ Juhe 7ieIecti6n!, j~pe~dentage
of FJJdfop~dff~ of, voters ~'not vo~ing "~n?leda~l~ ~Tf ssu~s -~in~,A ~c~nS~.lidated~e l~i~n,
ind' petitiota. ofi~ity i!candidates~and issues on a consolidated .ballot.~ City
Manager noted receipt of a letter fr~n West Valley Republican Wc~en: F~ed~rated
GregNellis, 18366 C ~ms n, rose to speak in favor of retaining the April election
date ~O as to have a~"quality electiQn" in which the voters would be voting on
purely lOcal issues.
..
council discussed Issues. Mayor Callon favored April election to retain focus
on local matters. C6uscilmember Clevenger favored the June date because of
higher voter turnout ~and lower costs. Councilmember Jensen'favored ~onsolictation
tO encourage voter pa~r~icipation and, secondarily, cost savings. Councilmember
Mallory Stated'that if a change were 'forthcoming he would prefer November of
2-12
odd-numbered years so that fmlnicipal candidates and issues would be consolidated
with school beard candidates. Councilmember Watson noted that more citizens
should participate in civic affairs, and that consolidation would be the right
thing to do,
Jensen/Watson moved to amend the ordinance by adding "to encourage voter
participation." Passed 4-1 (Mallory oilposed).
City Attorney noted that amendment was not a substantive change to ordinance.
Councilmember Mallory asked whether date' chang~'wouldebe permanent, and Council~
'.member Clevenger~'sugge~'~h~t"cbi~n~ be reasses~ed after j~lection.'
WatsonXJensen moved to read b title and waive furthers reading. Passed 5-0.
Watson/Jennsen moved to adopt ~rdinanCe 67. Passed 3-2 (Callon, oppo )
Mallory sed .
It being 8:00 p.m., Mayor Callon proceeded to public hearings as required by ordinance.
V. 'PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Appeal of denial of mDdification to Site DeveloF~ent Plan, variance and
design review approval to construct a single family dwelling over 30' in
height (42' max.) on Bohlman Roa~d in the ~HC-RD zoning district (A~pallant/
applicant, Michael Mauldin)
Cc~munity Develo~nent Regulation Director reviewed appeal'.. The public hearing
was opened at 8:20 p.m.
Bob Saxe, attorney for the appli6ant, spake in.favOr of the appeal, stating
that ~he Council had the authority to grant modifications to site development
plans in 'this area, which he said was similar to the Northwest Hillside area.
Bob Schwenke, designer of the residence, spoke in favo~ of the appeal. He
explained amodel of the proposed design, as well- as overlays showing the
proposed ~site d~sign'~cmpared' with !the '~p~evious ly~pproved site. He stated ~'
that the plan had'jbeen ~changed so that two stories .were underground to reduce
visual impact, gain solar heat, and lock the heese to solid rock.
Mayor Callon asked about geological Safety of the site. Mr. Shook stated that
City Geologist had tentatively found that proposed site could be made as safe
as original site.
Walt Hesk/ns, ,~j~ngineer for the project, stated that those working on the project
were aware of geological problems and could deal successfully with them.
Councilmember Jensen inquired as t~ ~e hydraulic h~ad on the septic system,
and Mr. Sheok replied that a. lthough ,no specific information was available, the
elevation from~the~I~e~tic~i~as~certainly significant. Mrl Sch~ehk~ asserted
that the septic tank plan had been approved by the County Health Department.
On being questioned by Councilmemberl Mallory, Mr. HOskins explained that it
had been decided to change the site 'to reduce visual impact by fitting the
house better to the hillside, The other.site, he said, would not have allowed
th~5)500 square '-foot-house, bht only about 2,800 square feet. Mayor Callon
questioned visual impact of breadth of heese, and Mr. Hoskins explained that
trees would reduce impact.
Councilmember Watson observed that i~sue should have been handled by Planning
Con~nission but for the fact that there was no procedure for them to grant a
variance on building house on slope greater than 40%. Mr. ShookI confirmed this
fact and noted that Planning Cc[~nission could provide for such a procedure if
directed to do so by Council.by incorporating it in the Hf~D~Ordina~Ce. M~-~Saxe
stated that he did~ not~ need an immediate answer. Mayor. Callon explained that
at the time the 40% limit was adopted in the HCRD area
Cc~mission and Council felt that an engineering solution for steeper slopes
might be too drastic.
Mrs. ~uldin, wife of the applicant,'. stated that the house had been designed for
safety.
Mr. Shook noted that application could be denied without prejudice and returned
to the Planning ConmlissiOn if procedure is developed for variance. This would
be more appropriate, he believed, than ~elaying decision for several weeks or
months until procedure was in place.~ Existing tentative site approval would
not expire, he said, for almost one year. Mike Thc~nas, Bohlman Road, inquired
~s to the reason for the 40% limit, and ~I~yor Callon reiterated her ~earlier
statements. Councilmember Watson again noted that Planning Con]nission is body
to' ~make such determinations.
3-12/16/81
~r. Hoskins inql]~red as to whether h~ would need to submit a new application
after the ordinances were in place and, if so, whether it would be better to
defer the item. City Attorney recc~Aended denial without prejudice. The
public hearing was closed at 9:00 p.m.
Councilmember Jensen pointed out that several variances were being requested
in application. She considered the project substaDa~rd and thought it possible
that the house could-be'seen from'Sunnyvale. She felt the appeal should be denied.
Mallory/Watson moved to deny appeal Without prejudice, taking no position, but
asking the Planning ComniSsion to fevie{~ whether there should be a variance
procedure in the HCRD ordinance as 'to percentage of slope of building site.
Passed 4-1 (Jensen opposed).
B. Appeal of, and request' for clarification of, conditions of tentative map
approval to allow construction of 'a five-story, 45-room hotel at the northern
terminus of 3rd Street, Saratoga, per Ord. NS-60. (Applicant/appell~ant, Warren
Heid On behalf of Oudewaal et al. )
Community DevelopnBnt Regulation Director reviewed appeal. 'Concerning parking
spaces, he noted that Planning Cor~nis. sion had required one space per unit plus
one space for employees plus one space for loading. He then explained options
for providing required fire access and clarified Planning Conmission conditions.
Warren Heid, architect for the project, spoke favoring the appeal. He presented
the possibility of providing fire access by installing a locked gate between
the site and the Melton property. The agreement for such a gate would run with
the land, he said, and the parcels would probab%y not undergo further development
for many years. City ~.~mnager stated 'that an emergency access casement could be
obtained by the applicante~ from the ~property owners, which easement would then
be dedicated to the City. Mr. Melton, zhezsaid~,vwohld need to revi6w the pro-
posed arrangement with his attorney., Ernie Kraule, Chief of the Saratoga Fire
Department, stated that such arrangement would satisfy the Fire Department' s
access requirements, though building design fi~ei safety~-requirements would be
addressed at a later point. He als6 stated that he did not feel pressured
into approving the arrangement, bet did so freely.
As to the parking problem, Mr. Heid explained proposal for providing up to .45
spaces. Otto Crawf6rd, President of the Village Merchants Association, stated
· - ~ that it was uncertain whether the required parking spaces were needed, but he
felt that the inn was needed for the good of the Village. Larry Tyler, one of
the ownersjof the-property, '_st~ted that the inn would have little, if any,
adverse impact on the Village parkin~ problem; he pointed out that the Planning
Conmnission required more parking per square foot for this use than for other
uses and that this was the best use of the property, in his opinion.
R. E. Kaufnklnn, 20700 Fourth Street, 'spoke as a meraber of the Board of Directors
(apparently of the Gatehouse Condominion Association)~ He spoke against closing dff
Third' Stre~t~be~a~seT'~ ~li~"h?af~i~h I~66/~th~St~ In response to Councilmember
Clevenger, be stated that the condcmini~n cx~ners. had no notice of the proposed inn,
but he felt that perhaps they were unfavorably inclined toward the inn. He saw
no need for the inn and felt it was a poor location frc~n the traffic standpoint.
Mr. Shook pointed out, concerning notification, that there was no requirement for
notification until the present public hcaring.
Gordon Melton, owner of the adjoining property, asserted that there were many
vacant parking spaces in the Village~ He pointed out that Village Parking District
#3 is 10' lower than his property, and it would be difficult to put a street to
Third Street there. Councilmember C~evenger expanded his stat~nent, saying that
if the inn were built utilizing parking spaces down the hill, it would not
impact parking in the Village because people would park down the hill where
there are many spaces available.
Mrs. Joseph Brozda, 14900 Montalvo, spoke as the'owner of the barn near the
proposed inn. She expressed concern 'about the impact of the inn on the barn
and the question of fire access. She asked what the City would do to allow
for the four parking spaces which would be lost when the haCkeentranc~k~oj the inn
was built. Manag~er~]=m ~XPiaideduthate:~.two.~spa~ces%would]~reloc~tedl~;.-~hi'la two
would remain as public parking. Mr. Held stated that his intent was to maintain
the ten parking spaces which had been approved for the restaurant in the area.
Thereg~ould-be eight ~p~ces perpendicular to the Smith property, he stated, and
two spaces perpendicular to the creek. He_exptaim'edrthat'the' barn would be pro-
tected by a fire wall. AfternAssiStantelanner Flores explained further details
of relocation of parking spaces, Councilmember Jensen pointed out that City would
nevertheless lose two space~ because,the two added spaces 'could be added at
present, making a total of twelve spaces rather than ten. M[?~ Melton asserted
O12/16/81
that the City had been ordered by the court to pave the street and maintain
the same number of parking spaces available before the property was given
to the City. He stated that there had originally been 15 spaces, and he
objected to further reduction. 'M~fe~eaf, ~rhe said he had a letter frc~a the
previous City Manager stating that the four parking spaces at the end of
Third Street would not he eliminated. ~ Mrs. Brozda affirmed Mr. Melton's state-
ments and stated her belief that the City' s legal advice on the matter was
incorrect. Raisa KOcher, 14519 Big Basin Way, stated that "all those striped
lines were put on by private owners; ~ey were not in any kind of court."
Council discussed issues. Counci~ Clevenger inquired as to how many spaces
would be in the area down the hill near the inn; Mr.. Shook replied it would be
approximately 85. Councilmember Watsdn inquired as to areas designated as
· "no parking" in the past, resulting in a loss of parking to businesses and
residences. Fir. Shook stated that his memory was that the couzt judgment had
required approximately 10 spaces be retained rather than 15. Mr. Heid corcr
mented that the circulation~ pattern cduld he redesigned so that the four spaces
at the beck entrance. would he retained. Councilmember Mallory urged that the
entrance be attractive and well-lit. No one else appearing to speak, the public
hearing was closed at 10:10. .,
After further discussion, Council reached consensus on the following matters:
3 spaces gained by restriping should not be credited to inn; 4 spaces developers
wish to be credited on basis of removal of Fun Fabrics should not be credited to
~nn~. '~4 spaces to be built by developer if approved by Water District should not
be credited to inn (but with possibility of deferred agreement for later building
left open); total spaces to be credited to inn would be 26 to be built~andi8 in
parking district, or 34 spaces. :
Councilmember MallOry brought up the ~ossibility of the developer' s buying up
spaces credited to other property owners who have not expanded to their full
capacity. ~Ir. Shook stated that this was a viable possibility. In response
to i¢ayor Callon, City Attorney noted that if applicant wished to be reqdired
to p~ovide fewer spaces than 1 per roon, he could apply for a variance through
the Planning Conmission. Councilmember Watson suggested that the hearing be
continued to allow problems to be resolved, such as the developer determining
whether any property owners would be willing to sell rights to parking spaces.
Jensen/~atson moved to deny appeal acdording to staff recc~,Taendation (with
modification of Item 2 which would have allowed restriping). Failed 2-3.
Fayor Callon expressed a desire to codsid~r issu~ af.ter ~eveioper had had a
chance to work out problems'.; ~Mr. Held stated that he Was willing to have the
matter continued.
'Jensen/Clevenger moved to reope. n the P~lic hearing. at 10:40. Passed 5-0.
Councilmember Jensen requested ,documentary evidence from the property owners
indicating their consent to the proposed fire accesS. Councilmember Mallory
requested details on plans for the Third Street entrance area.. Mayor Callon
requested any evidence the s~aff has, and that the applicant has, which hacks
up theira respective interpretations of the parking space requirements.
~llory/Clevenger moved to continue the public hearirK3 to 1/20. Passed 5-0.
The Council recessed from 10:45' to 10:=55 p.m.
The Mayor then returned to itens on the a~enda preceding public hearings.
IV. PETITIONS, ORDINANCES, AND RESOLUTIONS (continued)
C. Resolution establishing citizen ~,~k force for the investigation and reccm-
mendation of alternative policies to maintain the long term fiscal soundness
of the City government ~
City Manager reccm~ended that Council !select a chairperson,' then work with the
chairperson on number of members, etc." Councilmember Watson suggested that Greg
Nellis be appointed chairperson. ,cMaydrlCa-ll~Dn-expressed sc~e dissatisfaction
with the idea of at~pointing a chairperson initially. Councilmember Jensen
suggested recruiting meTnbers of the cceInittee, one of whom would he chairperson,
by advertising in the n~wspaper and reecrm~anding persons known to the Council.
J~nsenTM~iloTymoved to adopt resolutidn 1048. Passed 5-0..
Jensen/Callon nDved to place notice of formation of cu,~ttee in newspaper
saying that residents may apply and that' ccn~nittee will he chosen from applicants
and those who have made known their interest.by January 15. Passed 5-0.
{ ~ ~2/16/81
City' Man~er endorsed procedure. Mayor Callon inquired as to whether Mr.
Watson wished to screen applications for the committee. Councilmember Watson
'stated that he felt the conm~ttee had changed in direction end scope end did
not aL this point wish=~to 2uhdertake that role. Councilmember Mallory and Mayor
Callon stated their belief that C6uncilmember Watson's main pur[~ses were being
mot. by the intent of the resolution.
D. Resolution adopting Capital Improvement Budget for 1981-82
Councilmember Clevenger expressed concern at b~inglng up this subject late in
the evening. Councilmember Jensen requested that transit develotment funds
for a Senlend Perk bike lene be included; Mr. Shook stated that the application
had been made for 1982-83. She inquired as to funds to repair the Village Library;
City Manager stated that no project had been included as yet because the use of
the building had not been determined. :She then i~c~red as to whether a decision
had been made on outsid~ agency funding. Mayor Callon al~Di-f~lt some consensus
had already been reached and requested, a report if that were._so. Councilmember
Mallory believed that there had been only discussion on the matter previously end
agreed with Councilmember Clevenger that it should be taken up at a later meeting.
VI.' BIDS AND CONTRACTS
A. Contract for City Atorney Services'
Mallory/Clevenger moved that the agreement be approved as presented end the
Mayor authorized to execute' it~on behalf of the City. Passed 5-0.
VII. CONSENT CALENDAR
Mallory/Watson moved adoption and apprOval of the Consent Calendar. Passed 5-0.
A. Resolution authorizing City Manage~r to sign for Williamson Act subvenfions.
Resolution 1050
B. Final Building Site 'Approvals, SDR 1469, Ralph Renna (S?bey Road)
C. Treasurer'S Report ~.October and.' November
~qovember report was pf~s&nted at meeting. )c~;I ~
D. Approval of Warrant List
VIII. AEFLIIgISTRATIVE M~I'i'EHS ~ .
A. MAYOR
Mayor Calloh noted that City had received invitation to join the Conference of
Mayors, with dues of $1000. Consensus not to join.
B. COLIqCIL AND (IDMvflSSION REPORTS
Jensen reported that progress is being made on CalSECDA program.
CleVenger stated that citizen had expressed concern to 'her about a recent armed
robbery-in Saratoga. City Manager stated that this was the first residential armed
robbery in'Saratoga in many years, although there have been two in neighboring
cities ~n recen{ months which may be connected. Councilmember Mallory cc~r~nted
that the Citizins.-Conmis~ion on Crime, .which has not been formed, could assist
in observing trends.
C. DEPARS~NT HEADS AND OFFIC~]~S
1. Director of Maintenance Services
a. Report re: Exchang~ Program with Japan
Clevenger/Watsen moved to accept staff reccrmrendation to proceed wi~h program.
Passed 5-0.
Director of Property Maintenance spok~ briefly to explain arrangements being
"made to proceed with program .without extra cost to Ci.tylend to provide employee
with benefits.
j ~ ~I r/16/81
2. Director of C~l.L~unity Development ~,R~Jula.tion
a. Report re: Proposed fee ~ increases for Cc~munity Development
Regulation
Mr. Shook explained that purpose of fee increases was to more nearly cover
cost of land develo~Dent process.
Mallory/Watson moved to adopt Resolut/ons 780-15, 780-16 and 780-17 altering
and establishing fee schedules and to request a report on appeal fees. Passed 5-0.
3. City Attorney ~.
a. Amendment to Stipulation 'for Settlement between Fremont Union
F~igh School District and City of Saratoga
W~tson/Matl0ry zmo~d to ~cept amendment and adopt Resolution 1051. Passed
4-1 (Jensen opposed).
D. CITY MANAGER
City Manager reported on citizen' s ~m~laint that employees of Saratoga Cable
TV do not have identification cards with pictures, which could result in undesirable
situations. Beginning in January, he said, all employees will have such cards.
Councilmember Cleveeger and Mayor Callon questioned Mr. Daniel's report under
Written Ccnm~/nications, which had impl~ed.~that cable television was available
in their areas.
Consensus to cancel study session 12/22~
Recessed to litigation session at 11:40 p.m.
~djourned at 11:5_0 p.m.
Respectfully suknlitted,
Grace E. Cory
Deputy City Clerk