The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About01-20-1982 City Council Minutes MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COLKqCIL TIME: Wednesday, January 20, 1982 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue TYPE: Regular Meeting I. ORGANIZATICN A. ROLL CALL - Councilmembers Cleven~er, Jensen, Mallory, Watson, Mayor Callon ~ All present at 7:35 p.m. B. M/NUTES - 1/6 MALLORY/~GER ~ APPROVAL EXCEF~ FOR CAPITAL IMP~ BLI~4h'I' IT~N. Passed 5-0. II. ~CATIONS A. ORAL Walter Doucett, 19131 Da91klr Drive, stated his objections to the co-generator at the Paul Messon Winery near his property and described other problems he had experienced. Mayor Callon determined that representatives of the winery were present, and there was consensus to move the item to Administrative Matters. B. WR/'i'I'EN #1 Concerning Paul Messon Winery considered under ~klmj.nistrative Matters. #2 cencerning timing of intersection lights referred to City Manager. #3 and #4 concerning LAFCO considered under Administrative Matters. III. SUBDM SIONS, BUILDING SITES, ZONING REQUESTS NOne. IV. PETITIONS, ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS A. Ordinance 38.75-4 setting and establishing speed limits (first reading) City Manager explained that recent survey had determined only one speed limit change was necessary. Counci~rs questioned speed limits on certain streets, and CuL..unity Development Director explained that limits were based on 85th percentile speed of vehicles using streets, respectively. If limits were lower, he said, courts would not uphold enforcenent. cr,RVENGER/MALIDRY MOV[D TO READ BY TITLE ONLY Ab~ WAIVE FURTHER READING. Passed 5-0. CLEVH~GERE MOVED TO INTRODUCE ORDINANCE. Passed 5-0. B. Resolutions adopting Menorandun of Understanding and providing appro- priations frcln reserves to budget accounts~ City Manager reviewed resolutions, noting that increase eunted to 4.5% overall. MALLORY/J~I~S~Iq MDVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 85-9.54. Passed 5-0. MALLORY/J~IqS~lq MDVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 1052. Passed 5-0. The hour of 8:00 not yet having arrived, the Mayor proceeded to Ite VI on the -' ~_ l ~. agenda. VI. BIDS AND ODES None. VII. CONSENT CALENDAR CIEVE~GER/MALIORY MDV~D ACCk~gANCE AND ADOPTION OF CCNS~qT CAT,RNDAR. Passed 5-0. A. Denial of Claim - Jack A. Camou Claim denied. : . · - '.i ...'.-= . - ~., B. Final Building Site Approval, SDR 1473, Galeb's Property, Ted Ave./ Wilson Lane, 9 lots Approved. 2-1/20/82 VII. CONSEN~f CAI.RNDAR (continued) C. Final Map Approval, Tr. 6996, Galeb's Property, Ted Ave. /Wilson Lane, 9 lots Approved. D. Construction Acceptance for SDR 1311, Fox, Bohlman Road Approved. E. Construction Acceptance and Approval of Indemnification Agreenent, SDR 1401, Tate, Sobey Road F. City Treasurer's Report - December G. Approval of Warrant List Approved. VIII. ADM/NISTRATIVE MAturEMS A. MAYOR Mayor Callon suggested t_hat the Council hear t_he matter of the cu~laint concerning the Paul Masson Winery. City Manager reviewed complaints from various residents concerning noise frcm trucks and the new co-generator. He stated that staff had contacted the winery and obtained cc~m~itments to take' action to solve the problems. He recuL~lended that t_he Council take no action until the winery had cc~pleted implenentation of its solutions. Director of Cc~a~unity Development then stated that progress had been made since his staff report dated 1/15. Consensus to accept report and request City Manager to work with re~entatives frc~ both affected neighborhoods and Paul Masson, with a report on progress and either a representative or a letter frcm the neighbors indicating their level of satisfaction at the 2/3 Council meeting. It being 8:00 p.m., Mayor Callon proceeded to public hearings, as required. V. PUBLIC HEARING A.~sA~peal.of denial of variance and design review approval to construct a two-story dwelling which exceeds the floor area-ratio by 18% where 5% is the maximum allowed at 18801 Montewood (Applicant/appellant, Dr. C.M. Mayo) (De novo hearing]continued frc~ 1/6) City Manager reviewed appeal in general and presented Council' s options. Cc~munity Development Director noted that staff was]hot able-to make · findings requited to grant appeal with the'exception k~f the finding that the project would not be a detriment to the community in the ~iate ._ area. Staff reccrmnended denial of the variance, he said, and, if the area were reduced to that allowed by the ordinance, ~a~pr_Ova~l"! of the design review. The public hearing was opened at 8:10 p.m. Jim Lyle, Pacific Design Group, spoke as the architect for the project. He submitted slides of structures in the neighborhood which he asserted showed bulky, two-story structures. Mr. Lyle then showed slides of various Ma o's views of Dr. y lot and explained a diagram shewing a detached racquet- ball court which conformed to the ordinance and a chart indicating viewing angles which he asserted showed that the visual impact of the proposed design would be less than that of the current house. He stated that the proposed design met the spirit of ordinance NS 3.47 and the findings required to grant the variance because it was energy-saving, not inappro- priately bulky, not invasive of privacy, did net interfere with views or light and air, not adverse aesthetically, preserved natural topography, d~c~e~sed impervious coverage, increased landscaping, and met all require- ments except the floor area ratio. He stated that the attached racquet- ball court was the only practical means to achieve a passive solar col- lector. o No one further appearing to speak, the public hearing was closed at 8:20 p.m. 3-1/20/82 Councilmember Clevenger mentioned that she had understood that the floor urea ratio applied to detached as well as attached structures, and CuBL~nity DevelOFment Director explained that it did not. The Planning Ccmxnission, he said, had directed staff to prepare a madification to the ordinance so that signifidant detached structures would be covered. LISTED BELOW. Passed 4-1 (Mallory opposed). 1. That strict or literal interpretation and enforcenent of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance. 2. That there ure exceptional or extraordinary circtmustances or con- ditions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the property which do not apply generally to other properties classified in the sane Zoning District. 3. That strict or literal interpretation end enforcement of the speci- fied regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of otb~_r properties classified in the ssme Zoning District. 4. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the seine Zoning District. 5. That the granting of the vuriance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfure, or materially injurious to properties or .improvef~ents in the vicinity. Councilmember Clevenger discussed her reasoning for making the required findings, and Counci~ Watson stated that he could make the findings for similur reasons; he felt that the Council's p~se in part was to serve the people by allowing vuriances where'there was no negative impact. Councilmember Mallory, on the other hand, stated his belief that t_he prot~Dsal was a clear violation of the ordinance which could be dealt with only by changing the ordinance. He agreed with the 10/19/81 staff reFort which did not make the required findings; Mr. Monia's cu~iLents in the Planning Commission meeting of 10/28/81, as well as Mrs. Laden's cuLulents. B. Appeal of, and request for clurification of, c~nditions of tentative map approval to allow construction of a 5-story, 45-rocm hotel at the northern terminus of 3rd Street. (Applicant/appellant, Wurren Held on behalf of Oudewaal et al.) (Continued from 12/16/81) City Manager reviewed appeal, -noting that appellant had with~lrawn all but two items frcm appeal? since those items bad been sufficiently clurified by staff. Of~the re~naining two items, the appellant had agreed to satisfy the fire access requirement through obtaining an emergency fire access easement from adjacent landowners, to be dedicated to the Fire District; the parking issue was thus the maih unresolved problem, ha said. The public hearing was opened at 8:35 p.m. Warren Heid, 14630 Big Basin Way, spoke as urchitect for the project on behalf of the owner, Mr. Oudewaal.et al. He stated that he had arrived at an agree- ment for an easement with the affected property owners which bad been signed by two of the three parties. Councilmember Mallory noted that the agreement should be reviewed by staff. Mr. Heid then asserted that the Santa Clura Valley Water DiStrict approved of his plan for four cantilevered pa~king spaces; he-also believed that the structure would not have been in danger during the recent severe storm. Ce~m~unity Developmant Director confirmed that the Water District had told him essentially the same thing. Concerning possible pur- chase of parking spaces frcm other property owners, Mr. Heid stated that one owner my be willing to ~ell,-ispace, but the owner could not be reached. Other property owners, he said, were agreeable to restriping spaces to credit three more parking spaces to his proposed project. He also urged the Council to consider that four spaces were available to his project from the space for the Fun Fabrics store, although a previous City Manager had disagreed, since ha felt a previously-approved restaurant could not have been approved without credit for those spaces. He believed that the project should be credited with 3L~spaces from restriping; 4 from Fun Fabrics; 8 frcm the agreement; 30 on site, for a total of 45 spaces. 4-1/20/82 Councilmember Mallory questioned whether the inn remai~ed~a, ~'~ed-ahd~' breakfast establishment, as originall~ planned. Mr. Heid stated that catered breakfasts would be available on 'each floor. Councilmember Mallory questioned Mr. Heid's attempts to purchase parking spaces, and Mr. Heid explained that two spaces ware apparently available, but the property ownars could not be reached. Councilmember Mallory then inquired as to a transient occupancy tax, and Mr. Heid stated he believed most cities had such a tax in addition to a sales tax.and, in answer to Mr.' Mallory, stated he would ask ' the owners if they were willing to campaign for the tax. He also stated that the owners intended to hire a professional staff. tbjOperate the facility but were not planning to sell it. C6unci~ Watson stated his opinion that there were many positive factors to the project, but he did not support the proposed restriping.because it would negatively impact the Village. Mr. Watson then suggested reducing the number of rocks te fit the available' parking. Mr. Heid replied that several rocks could be combined into suites, but that a certain minim~n number was necessary to make the project financially feasible. In reply to Mr. Mallory, 'he stated that he felt he could succeed in making the Third Street entrance area attractive. Mayor Callon inquired as to Mr. Heid's reasoning in crediting the project with the Fun Fabrics parking spaces. -He responded~that the Fun Fabrics square f footage of 1800 sq. ft. was not deductad fr~n the total when a planned res- taurant was approved, so it should not be deducted frc~n the current project' s total. The public hearing was 61osed at 9:00 p.m. WATSON/J~qS~q F~ED TO D~qY WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND S~qD BACK TO PLA~IIqG (13MMISSION TO RESOLVE PARKING PRDBL~MS. Failed 2-3 (Callon, Clevenger, Mallory opposed). Councilmember Clevenger noted that Council had ~reviously decided against crediting 3bspaces frcm restriping or 4 from Fun Fabrics; Counei~l hadlfavored aid~f~rred improvement agreeKent for the 4 cantilevared spaces, if h~eded, leaving applicant with 'a' total of 38 credits. She expressed willingness to drop require/~ent for two extra spaces added by Planning CuL~ssion. Council- member Watson stated that Planning Cu~l~ssion, not Council,was body to decide dasign questions.so d~nying without prejudice would have been proper action. Councilmember MallOry stated his belief that 38 spaces' could be credited and that 45 were necessary f6r the project as proposed. Mayor Callon cc~rented she would l'ike to hear bond counsel's advice on_ re-striping ndwcthat so~_many nearby proparty owners had c6nse~ted to re-striping. She pointed out that even with 38 spaces credited applicant did not meet ordinance requirements, so she felt perhaps applicant should request varianc_e_ frc~ Planning Cu~ssion~ ~ee-~la~i~if use permit for fewer units than requested could be granted, and Ccm~un~ty DeVelopment Director pOinted out that Planning CceTnission had specified in Condition I tY~t applicant could reduce number of rooms to conform to number .of parking spaces available if he could .not obtain more. City Manager noted that suites would be counted as individual rocks if they w~re rented individuallg, so ifrm~re rocms were thus rented out than there were parking spaces, Zening Ordinance would he violated. Mr. Heid then cc~mented that the other six items he had appealed (other than fire access and parking) had been sufficiently cl~rif-ied in the staff report and ~were not now being appealed. Mayor Callon inquired as to whether the aUplicant,ciflaredited with 38 parking Spaces for 38 rocks, could request a variance to increase the number of units. City Attorney stated that it' was possible, but it would require a separate application. MALLORY/_CLEV~qGE~ MOVED TO D~Y APPEAL ON PARKINGE~SP~EES WITH THE FINDINGS='THAT THERE ARE 34 PARKING SPA~ES CR~]Di'I'~O TO THE PROJECT PLUS 4 GRANTED THRDUGH A DEFERRED II~PROV~IM~qT AGREKM~qT IF THE .SANTA CLARA VALI.RY WATk~ DISTRICT APPI~DVES AND THAT CNE SPACE PER L~IT IS REQUIPa~. Passed 4-1 (Jensen opposed). MALLORY/CIaEV~G~R MOVED TO UPHOLD APPEAL ON FIRE ACCESS WrrH THE FINDING THAT APPLICANT'S PROPOSED SOLUTION M~2~'iS CONDITION OF PLANNING CC~e4ISSION. Passed 5-0. MALLORY/J~qS~q MOVED ADOPTION OF CLARIFICATION OF SIX CONDITIONS OTHERT~? [IREEACEESSEAND PARKING AS EXPLA/NED IN STAFF_ REPORT DA~'m 12/16/81. Passed 5-0. The Council recessed f~c~ 9:25 p.m. to 9:45 p.m. 5-1/20/82 V. C. Appeal of grant of use permit allowing the construction of 32 condcminium units on a. 2.53 acre site designated in the 1974 Saratoga General Plan for Planned Development, south of the intersection of Saratoga Avenue and Bucknall Road (Appellant, Brett E. Cross et al.; applicant, J. A. Teresi) City Manager explained that appeal was limited to information presented to Planning Ccm~ission; if other issues were to be considered, the hearing would have to be continued to a de novo hearing at a later date. Council decided to bpe~ public hearing and decide, after public input, whether de novo hearing was necessary. The public hearing was opened at 9:50 p.m. Dan Guiterrez, 18845 ~Farland, spoke as President of the E1 Quito Park Hc~t~Dwners Association. He expressed dissatisfaction with the fact that the homeowners association had not been formally notified of the project and stated he would let others speak to the traffic problem. Brett Cross, 12601 Pasec Cerro, spoke as one of the signers of the appeal letter. He stated that his original concern was for traffic, .b~t~cwas aware of others' concerns. He did not oppose deveto~nent~..h~said~ but was concerned about traffic and a buffer zonel, as well. Mark Gaubatz, 12610 Paseo Cerro, also a signer of the appeal letter, explained traffic patterns whereby drivers use side streets to avoidlmaking a left turn onto Bucknail. He felt further development would cu¥~ound the problem. Kathy McGoldrick, 12680 Pasec Presada, expressed dissatisfaction with the fact that she had not been notified that project was before Planning Cu~L, ission, although she is chairperson of the General Plan area affected. She stated that there had been a change in the driveway which she had been unaware of. Mayor Callon pointed out that within the 500' flOtification limit there is a school and a gas station, so there would be fewer individuals notified than usual. Cc~m~nity Development Director stated that there had been no modifi- cation of the proposed driveway in this application. Ms. McGoldrick reiterated that there had been changes and that hcmeowners' association personnel should have been notified. Bill Notz, 19276 Purdue, spoke as president of the Sunland Park Hcmeowners Association, which favored a change in traffic patterns so that traffic would not be directed to the single-family housing area but toward Saratoga Avenue. He ~as not opposed to senior citizen condcminit~ns but suggested that structures along Bucknall be single-story to he cu~atible with neighboring property. Brett Cross again spoke to state that he end Mark Gaubatz had received no notification of the project. He favored re-design so that the entrance and exit should be located on Saratoga Avenue. He stated that density was also an issue, since it had an impact on traffic. Coancilmejnber Jensen not~d~that density according to underlying zoning would be about 10 units~rather than the 32 units proposed; she inquired whether trafficjpatt~f~.~p~roposed by developer would be acceptable with only 10 units. Mr. Cross stated that would be an improvement. Councilmember Jensen then asked if anyone in the audience objected to any develoFment being served from Bucknail, and a large number of people raised their hands. Bernard Hagan, Hagan Development Cc~npany, Redwood City, spoke as the applicant. He pointed out that he was willing to work with the neighbors, but he had had no ecntactlwith them. He submitted the list of those notified, which he had been required to prepare. Mr. Hagan stated that there had been no change in the driveway ~ince~the original application. With regard to single-family housing, he stated that such housing would be expensive and would not provide the senior housing that he believed the City desired. The original application was for 40 units, he said, and several different numbers were considered, ending with 32. He noted that although the appeal letter stated that there were 82 parking spaces, only 64 were planned. In a 12/8 letter frc~ Mr. Cross, he stated, mentionLwas made of lowering the age limit to 45; that was not the case. He also noted that according to a staff report the PRD Ordinance allowed one unit~ per 3500 sq. ft., while the project proposed one unit per 3444 sq. ft., which meant that the project would have ½ unit more than the ordinance allowed. As to traffic, he said mast residents would he seniors, so they would probably be more careful drivers than most~and, furthermore, would not be traveling often during cc~mute hours. He felt that designing beth entrance and egress on Saratoga Avenue could congest Saratoga Avenue; would require cc~plete redesign of the project; would destroy the aesthetic value of the project. He stated 6-1/20/82 his willingness to pay for a traffic study, and to delay the project' until Council could obtain further infonnation. Councilmember Mallory asked whether Mr. Hagan were concerned about his ability to sell the units to senior citizens as designed, since another developer was apparently ~<periencing some difficulty in that respect. Mr. Hagan stated that his project was better designed for its purpose, and he expected no problems. Councilmember Watson said he would like further infor- mation. Councilmember C!evenger noted that Mr. Cross' letter had stated that the proposed development was roughly 33% denser than the senior housing to the south; C~Lu~nity Development Director responded that the density of the proposed development was 2/3 the density of the project to the south, so Mr. Cross' letter of January 14 was in error. Mayo~Callonssugge~ted~,that Mr. Cross and Mr. Hagan work together before the matter was heard again so that all issues would be brought outeaKd that staff also participate so that they could provide fur'ther information.' Mr. Cross said he would be willing to do so. He theh produced Exhibit F, UP 410, showing, he said, that the driveway "had been changed. Councilmember Jensen c~'ented that several issues needed to he considerred, including the future of the school site. She' feared a dense pattern of development around the school would pose probl~ns. sC6uncil~ember Mallory echced~h~' concerns, particularly the growing impact of' traffic in the area. City Manager requested sufficient time Co pr._epare reports. J~NSEN/MALLORY MOVED TO CONTINUE TO DE NOVO HEARING AT 8:00 P.M., 3/3/82. Passed 5-0. Mayor Callon requested Cc~m~nity Development Director check notification lists, and he replied that that had' k~en done, and lists were accurate. Mayor Callon then ~rooeeded to Administrative Matters. SrIII~.~iSADMi'NIS~I'P~I'VE M~I'I'~RS A. MAYOR (continued) Mayor Callon inquired as to the status of the appeals ordinance, and City Manager suggested she direct the Planning Cul~l~ssion to return it to Council. WATS~N,Y/~J~NS~Ni~ MOVED TO DIRECT PLANNING COMMISSION TO RETURN APPEALS ORDINANCE TO COLNCIL.WITH RECC~4MqDATIONS ~OR ~LTIC~q. BY~MARSH~ 3. 'Passed 5!~.' B. COLNCIL AND ~SSICN REPORTS 1. Report on ordinance adding Article llA to the City of Saratoga Zoning Ordinance relat_ing to adult entertainment facilities City Manager reported that such facilities can be regulated, but not prohibited. Planning Ccr~Lission recc~manded non-ado~ion of ordinance as sutmlitted, he saidl WATSCN/C~,RV~NGER MOVED TO'ACCEPT PLANNING O3M~ISSiGN ~ATION THAT ORDI- NANCE NOT BE ADOPTED. Passed 4-1 (Mallory opposed). Councllmember Mallory commented that Saratoga could have such problems in the future and should take~Faistand now. Councilnenier Jansen requested information about how an application for adult entertainment facility=would be handled at presept. ' Consensus to have staff report on the matter. WR1Tf~N COM~UNICATICNS #4 and #5 - IAFCD Councilmember Jensen expressed concern about proposed guidelines for annexa- tion, fearing that people may not have a voice in their annexation. She also felt that urban service area boundaries were not always drawn with informed consent of cities. Mayor Callon expressed he~ropinion that proposed procedure would aid cities by preventing LAFCO interference with cities' plans to move forw-~rd. C~ty Manager cc~enented that Councilmamber Jensen's concerns seemed to be jpstified with respect to unincorporated areas lying between cities, but that a more significan.t problem was that of islands surrounded by a city which refuse annexation under any circt~nstances. He favored giving those cities greater powe~ to annex, which the proposed guidelines would accomplish. WATSON/c~,RV~XqGER MDVED TO SUPPORT LAFEO ~ATICN ON AN~IEXATIONS. Passed 3-2 (jensen, Mallory opposed). City Manager noted that areas about which Councilmember Jensen was concerned would be able l to 'oppose annexation by other means. if they wished. 7-1/20/82 C. DEP/~TMENT HEADS AND OFFICERS 1. Director of Planning and Policy Analysis a. Report On Mt. Umunhum City Manager noted2hhat Council had requested report in response to oral cc~alnication from Manuel Austin and others at the 1/6 meeting concerning proposed County jail facility~on Mt. Umunh~n. County had decided against such a facility, he reported. D. CITY MANAGER 1. Appointment of representative to Advisory C~l',~ttee of Council on Aging City~Mi~ager~,'~r~se~ed appl'~t'ion'rsubmitted by Dwight Bissell, M.D., which Council considered. WATSON/CLEVENG~ MOVED TO APPOINT MTT,DRED GORDON AS REPRES~V~ATIVE. Passed 5-0. 2. Response to request to amend M1E claim, West Valley ASSIST City Manager statedlthat West Valley ASSIST provides an important supplemental service, but that since application for funds is the responsibility of the three cities, the cities also ought to retain administrative control. Mayori:,. Callon conx~ented that she had not favored the Saratoga Transit ASSIST program because she questioned the need for it, but she felt West Valley ASSIST may betbetter. Councilmember MallOryypraised WVA's use of volunteers but noted that ~ fare should be required. William Doyle, President of West Valley ASSIST, rose to explain further details. Re said that therbudgetjlthis2~;ear was $68,000~ ~he increase ofu$13,000 would bring it to $81,000. With respect to farebox recovery, he stated that there would be farebox recovery in the amount of 20% given by the Council on Aging~ and there were~also private donations. Combining Transit ASSIST with West Valley ASSIST would make the program more cohesive, he said, and still use volunteers. CIEVE~GER/J~qS~q-MOVe3 TO APPROVE REQUEST SUBJECT TO CITIES' MAINTAINING ADMINISTRATIVE CCNTROL OF P~0GRAM. Passed 5-0. C?e?~C ".,~3~..~_r~.ZGr~n V~l~ySDisposal Request for Rate Increase (added at meeting) City Manager reported that request for rate increase would need to be considered soon and requested that Council designate a Councilmember to serve on a joint con~'~ttee of the cities served by Green Valley to review the work of the staff and report to the councils. He stated that Mr. Watson had expressed willingness to be appointed. Councilmember Watson suggested that an acquaintance of his who is an executive with a competitive waste company also review that material. Councilmember Jensen said she would prefer an agre3m_nt which encouraged recycling by charging per/can fees and included curbside pickup. City Manager stated that this was being discussed. Consensus to appoint Mr. Watson as Saratoga representative. 4. Couhty-wide Overhead Charges on Sheriff's Contract (added at meeting) City Manager asked if Council authe~ized him to ccm~unicate to County that City objects to such overhead charges. Consensus to do so was apparent. IX. ADJOURNMENT ~GER/'~J~qSEN MOVED TO ADJOURN TO EXECUTIVE SESSION ON LITIGATION AT 6:00 P.M. ON FEBRUARY 3. Passed 5-0 at 11:05 p.m. Respect~/lly suhnitted, Grace E. Cory Deputy City Clerk VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT OF PORTION OF 1/20 COUNCIL MEETING ITEM V. A. - Mayo Appeal (The public hearing was closed at 8:20 p.m.) Callon: May I suggest to the Council that we limit any of our debate on the issue to not more than 10 minutes. Is that acceptable? Comments? Clevenger: I have one comment that I would like to have clarified. I thought that the floor area ratio applied to the main structure and the accessory structures. I didn't know that the accessory structures would be ~ounted separately. Is that right? Shook: The ordinance refers to the main structure, and the Planning Commission has currently requested the staff to draft wordings that would modify that to include the accessory structure and--any accessory structures other than the usual Sears tool shed type thing to be included in the floor area ratio. Currently it is not. Clevenger: Well, I do see that as a weakness in the present ordinance because it doesn't make sense that you could have a lot of little buildings s~rrounding the main building and not count that inTthe floor area ratio. I believe that in one sense this has brought that up. I move that we uphold the appeal.. Watson: I second that. Then I'd like to make some comments about it. Callon: Yes. Would the maker~of the motion like to start? Clevenger: My only comment was that concern about that item. I would like to see that straightened out--that it seems to me that Dr. Mayo would have that option to build an accessory structure and it would not be so satisfactory as the one which he is proposing, and I don't think we can ask him to wait until we correct this glitch in our ordinance. I believe after listening to Mr. Lyle that we-- at least that I can make the findings. Callon: The seconder? Watson: First of all I'd like to compliment Mr. Lyle on a succinct presentation, and as one of the initiators of the need for the ordinance I'd like to agree with Mr. Lyle that I don't believe it will be possible to have such a set of ordinances that there won't be a need for flexibility or variation for particular situations. In this particular case I'm able to find--or make a finding for all the criteria, and I do believe that we have a unique and special situation. I think it's absolutely foolish for us to separate the two Structures and make it possible, especially since the neighborhood can sustain this kind of a structure. I think the second thing that it's important for us to recognize is that we are here to serve, not to obstruct. I don't think that we should be looked upon as a body that"s going to make every effort to preclude a citizen's desire and interest when it's possible to allow that to happen when it does not negatively impact others, and in this particular case, I think this is a very good example of serving a person well by allowing the variance, Callon: May I ask the maker of the motion, at the request of the City Attorney, to please make the findings that you believe are accurate? Clevenger: Go through each one of these? Yes. I feel that a strict or literal Clevenger (continued): interpretation and enforcement of the specific regulation would result in practical difficulty, and I can't go through all the technical reasons that Mr. Lyle gave, but I am relying on the information which he presented about the--whatever those solar things are that seem to be so impor- tant. Callon: Heat sinks. Clevenger: That was one of them. And collectors. I believe there are--the exceptional circumstances in this case, I believe, is the isolation of the site, which makes it an unusual site to deal with. For number three, there are other racquetball courts in Saratoga in that area. The granting would not constitute a grant of special privilege, Since there are other, even larger, homes in that area, and that it is certainly not detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare-- and probably better for his health. Mallory. I would like to comment. I guess in this instance what is clear to one is not clear to another. I really--I went out to the house. I think it's a fantastic lot, fantastic house, and I wanted to grant the variance. But I'm really not in a position to, because I really think it's a clear violation of the ordinance, and the only way it could be dealt with would be to change the ordinance. I agree with the five findings in the staff dated 10/19/81 which they identify as V-562. I'm really not pleased that I need--that I've got to make it this way.: But I do agree with Mr. Monia's comments in the Planning Commission meeting of110/28/81, and also Mrs. Laden's comments.. Callon: Any other comments? On the motion then, all those in favor? Voices: Aye. Callon: Opposed? Mallory: No. Callon: Motion carries, with Mr. Mallory voting nO, and the appeal is granted. Watson: Before we pass on this, Ilwould like to suggest, though, the only concern I had was that as a tenn~sTplayer I couldn't understand a racquetball court ~n the first place. Callon: Moving on to the next public hearing, then, we have Item B. SARATOGA CITY OOI1NCIL TIME: Wednesday, January 6, 1982 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue TYPE: Regular Meeting I. ORGANIZATION A.ROLL CALL - Councilmembers Clevenger, Jensen, Mallory, Watson and Mayor Callon present at 7:35 p.m. B. MINUTES - 11/24; 12/16 MALLORY/WATSON MOVED APPROVAL. Passed 5-0. II. COM~aV/CATIC~S A. ORALf i-U: Manuel Austin, 23490 Wright Station, Los Gatos, spoke against the proposed use of ~;military facility on Mr. UmunhL~n as a penal facility, as did Barbara Leeson, President of the Mountain ASsociation, and David Leeson. Council requested City Manager to provide further information for meeting of 1/20. Heber Teerlink, Crocker PlaZa, Suite 888, San Jose, presented a letter to the Council and read portions of same concerning various items of liti- gation and t_heir costs and requesting formation of a citizens o~uLittee. City Manager wan directed to distribute letter to Council. and staff. City Manager reported on damage frcxn recent severe stoIm, stating that most severe damnage was loss of s~ction of access road to Wildwoed Perk. B. WRITI'~N #1COncerning [~lbtic hearings on future use of Bzookview and E1 Quito Park SchDol sites referred to staff. #2 concerning proposed joint military and. civilian use of Moffett Field discussed under report at Adm/nistrative Matters. #3 concerning West Valley ASSIST ~IE claim referred to staff. for report 1/20. It being 8:00 p.m., the Mayor proceeded to Public Hearings as required by ordinance. V. PUBLIC HEAR/NGS A. Consideration of Capital Improvement Budget (including Revenue Sharing) City Manager reviewed budget in general., noting that items over $5,000 would need to go to bid. and'_ would. thhs- be ~ returned'. to 'CouHcil'..; P lahningi Director ~urm%ariz~d~jea~h dpinion~ oh'hea~hlitem. They expressed a need for fuller justification for several items; suggested alternate means of acccmplishing tasks which would be more cost-effective or more energy-saving~ inct~ding~us~Qf~velanteers; noted necessity for allocating ~-federal'.u'/r~ ' funds so that they would not be lost to the City. ~ public h~aring was opened at 8:30 p.m. Gary Pinkis, 18661 Martha Avenue, spoke as a representative of the Catholic Social Services Ombudsman Program. He stated that the program made extensive use of volunteers and that his funding request was based on the proportion of nursing home beds in Saratoga ccn~pa~ed to the total number of Such beds in the County. Mayor Callon noted that ~he had received a telephone call frc~ ~ Church, a volunteer in the program frc~ Los ~/~ltos, supporting their request. Laveme Huff, 1165 South Stelling Road, Cupertino, spoke as Chairman of the Board of the Saratoga Drama Group. He requested funds to build a light booth in the Saratoga Civic Theater, stating that if the materials were furnished . his workmen would perfozm the labor... -. 7' o~ ~? - Dan Guiterrez, 18845 McFarland, spoke as President of the E1 Quito Park Hc~aeowners Association. He requested funds for street improvements in that area. Cu,u~unity Develotment Director explained that area was target area for next HCDA funds. City Manager pointed out that study of street conditions was at present underway, and priorities would be forthocking fz~n that study. 2-1/6/82 David Moy,~es,13179 Paseo Presada, spoke in favor of street and sewer improvement in the Quito area, .as Well as the acquisition of E1 Qui~o Park. Nana Simone, 1 Park Place, s~oke as manager of the Saratoga C~'~nity Garden. She requested sustaining funds and irrigation system funds for the Garden. Nac~ui Sob, 13946 Trinity Court, spoke in favor of funding the CSS Cxnbudsman Program; she read 'aloud a letter fr~n' the Mayor of Los Gatos ehdorsing the request. Jim Stevens,/2714 E1 Vista, Sin Jose, spoke as Chairperson of the Advisory Cc~mnittee for the Clnbudsman Program; he supported the funding request, saying that the quality of the program was very high. Brenda Priest, 14715 Golf Links Drive, Los Gatos, spoke in support of the Ombudsman Program. HOb Phillips, 99 S. 12th, San Jose, spoke as a representative of the YOuth Science Institute. He announced that the Sanborn HOuse at Sanborn Park has been designated to the YSI and that thej funds requested by them would be used for payment of' part-time help at that site. Karen Humphries, '5180 Oxbow Court, San Jose, spoke as a representative of the Central Counties Safety Council,ee~plaining their programs and requesting funding o - Peggy Corr, 19234 Dehavilland, spoke in support of the Ombudsman Program. :Fi] ~C~me~s~l, 19817~Veronica,: spoke in favor of acquiring E1 Quito Park and improving the Hakone Gardens driveway. No one further appearing to speak, the public hearing was closed at 9:30 p.m. Councilmember Jensen moved that Council adopt li~t under"Cc~xmmity Activities Support with exception of Chamber of C~Ll'~_rce, Information and Referral Service, and Central Counties Safety Council. There Was no second to the motion. Councils discussed Ccmlmmity Activities Support i~' d~tail: ~nd ~a~ed consensusson which items to fundsand to what extent. They then returned to prop6sed City-wide '~it~nsu:_and/. reached consensus on ~hich ite~ to fund and to what extent and which itens ~equired further. study. WATSON/CFf~SEN MDV~D TO APPROVE RESOLUTICN 1049 ADOPTING THE CAPITAL IMPROVE- MENT BC~)C~T IN T}~ AMDL~T 'OF $1,552,271 WITH MODIFICATICIqS MADE ON I/6. Passed 5-0. NOTE: Full Capital Improvement Budget as adopted is available at City Cl~rk's Office in City Hall. B.' Appeal of-condition (concerrL{ng res[rictions Of hours for conduct~g classes) 'of Use Permit 510 to~allow a new roster levee- (one Worid Montessori) a~d--~ubleasees (Religious science of Mind, Pacific Academy, Sunburst Day Care/Develo~n~=_ntal Learfling Associates, Inc., Dance Plus, Fitness Unlimited, and Kara[e) to 6ccupy the ~rookvie~ El~nemtary School site at 12301 Redoyka Dr. (Appellant/applicant, Warren G. Jacg. bs an ) City Attorney pointed out that since hearing was2not de novo the o~1~ issue the Council could consider was whether the Planning CuL~,~ssion had enough information on which "t~ base their dedision; If so, .their decision would star~; if no~, ~he Council could set a de novo hearing for another date to consider th~ use permi~ in toto rather than beifig.:donfined?~o the appealed items. Director of Cum~unity Develolm~ent Regulation then reviewed hist6ry of appeal. The public hearing was opened a~ 11:00 p.m. Warren jacob~en~ 621 East Campbell, spoke as the appellant.' He' stated that the hours restriction would not allow him to fulfill his t~serol~ligation to the school district, since Ehe school cSuld not be a "ccmnunity facility"' in the fullest sense with~severely restricted burs. He also stated that the restricti6n would~his ability to sublease the building and that other schools allowed later evening use. 3-1/6/82 Art Woods, President of the. Moreland School District Board of Trustees, spoke in favor of the apFeal. He stated that continued public use of the facility.~ was .desirable and that the citizens wished to main- tain it as an educational'facility. He felt that the hours restrictions were contrary to the public good and that zoning restrictions did not apply to a government-funded institution. Richard Green, 12301 Radoyka, spoke as President of the Board of Trustees of Religious Science, a subleasee. He expressed his organization's desire to utilize the school facility and stated that Religious Science did not cause any probl~ in the neighborhood.during their evening or weekend use. Councilmembers discussed intent. of Planning Cul~,dssion in restriction of weekend use. Councilmember Clevenger noted objections of the neighbors as to increased traffic and stated that classes at Argonaut did not have as great impact; she noted that the school district was in effect running a business operation at BrookView! ~ Director of Cu~,unity Development pointed 'out that the Planning Cu'~'~ssion had specified that profit-making subleasees were to vacate the premises by June, but other issues were unclear. Councilmember Watson expressed concern that lack of restriction could set precedent in 'opening neighborhoods to problems which they had not traditionally faced. Warren Jacobsen pointed out that any use added to the site would require a public hearing, which would protect the neighbors. Alan Aspey, 12401 Lolly Court, asserted that the uses which were to be restricted were not the educational ones; that Mr. Jacobsen was in violation his lease because he did not obtain use permits for his subleasees; that the heighborhood was inappropriate for eveni~gcuse?because of the lack of street lights and sidewalks,~number of children in the area, and difficulty of access. He stated that his main concern was traffic and perking, a-.1-'[h.ough~$.eth~a cables' restricting access were removed for weekend soccer, alleviating the street parking problen. Bob Bjoring, a consultant in property management for the Moreland School District, sFoke, saying that when the proFerty was leased there were several public hearings attended by many citizens, and several uses were approved with full public input. He also noted that the Montessori School paid for irrigation of the property. Councilmembers questioned Mr. Aspey further about neighbors' concerns. Mr. Aspey stated t_hat any regularly scheduledCevening activity was not appropriate for the area, and that the Planning Ccm~nission had encouraged violation of the Zoning Ordinance by permitting suchi=activity.. Councilmember Mallory spoke for reaching a oa~rc~mise, since he felt the school was pro- viding a service to the cormnmqity and needed inccrae to do so. Gerri Pappas, 18909 Westview, spoke again~tteheappeal, saying that there was tee much traffic, it was not in keeping with the neighborhood, and those attending classes were there too late in the evening. No one further appearing to speak, the public hearing was closed at 11:30 p.m. Jennsen/Watson moved to deny the appeal, limiting evening meetings to two per month with numbers of people using facilities limited to those who could be acccm- modated'by~fia~ked onSite~pafrking;the weekend uses to be limited to daylight hours; indn makih . 'th& ~equired fi~din~s~Failed .2r2f(Callon,MaIlory' opposed; Clevenger abstained~. ' ' ' Mayor_-'Ca,llonz-and Councilmember Mallory cul~le_nted that the r~tion seenu-~ff to be too restrictive.. Councilmember Clevenger stated the Planning Cu~dssion should he the body to set restrictions~ since they had had greater public input at their hearing} she felt they should clarify their intent as stated. Jensen/~atson moved to restrict evening hours to two evenings per month limited to parking n~rked on site. Failed 2-3 (Callon, Clevenger, Mallory opposed). Jensen moved to deny the appeal of evening hours without defining "infrequent." There was no second. Clevenger moved to deny the appeal. There was no second. Jensen moved to deny the appeal and request the Planning Conrdssion to make a definition on these vague points. There was no second. 4-1/6/82 City Attorney pointed out that matter could be continued for 30 days and referred to the planning C~L'~L[ssion fo~ clarification. Jensen/Mallory moved to continue item to 8:00 p.m. on Feb~]ary 3 while Planning Cc~mission resolves definition of their 'terms. Passed 4-1 (Watson opposed). Councilmember Jensen stated her opinion that the profit-making operations were not authorized to continue their operations until J6ne, since ordinance forbade that, and Council had not authorized 'it. Director of C~m~unity Regulation stated his opinion that permit issued by Planning Co~nission was operative with the exception of the item being appealed. C. Appeal of denial of variance and design review approval (V-562 and A-794) to construct a two-story dwelling which exceeds the floor area ratio by 18% where 5% is the maxim~n allowed at 18801 Montewood Drive, Saratoga (Appellant/applicant, Dr. and Mrs. C.M. Mayo) Director 6f C~lmunity Development explained history of appeal, noting 'that the variance of floor area ratio needed to be decided before design review. He also pointed out that accessory structures ere not included in t~e floor area ratio by the Design Review OrdinanCe. Councilmember Jens~n stated that she had hot understood that the Council had intended to approve an exclusion for accessory structures, and that should be reviewed. Director of .C~','~LLunity DevelOpment stated that the 'Planning CUL'~L~iSSiOn had on the previous night reviewed ordinance and suggested inclusion of such structures. Councilmember Jensen then stated that a racquetball court was not an allowable use, since it was not listed as such in the ordinance. Cc~unity Develotm~nt Director stated that there was precedent for such ~se, and Mayor Callon said that if tennis courts are allowed, raqquetball courts are probably acceptable. City Attorney pointed out that applicant may wi~h a de novo hearihg, although that was not stated in his letter. Otherwise, he said, the Council could consider only the question whether the planning Cc~a~ission had subs~intial evidence to reach a decision. A r~pfesentative of the applicant, apparently Jim Lyle, the architect, stated that the applicant desired to have whatever type of hearing would allow the Council to overturn 'the Planning Cx3nTnission's decision. Jensen moved that the matter be 'set 'for de novo hearing. There ~as no second. City Attorney noted that the hearing on design review would be de novo according · to the Design Review Ordinance, but' the appeal o~ the variance denial was not. Councilmembe~ Clevenger objected to th~ fact that the appellant-apparently had not been told that he should request a de novo hearing and had consequently .been forced to wait all evening, with his architect, to no purpose. Councilmer~ k~r Jensen noted that she had been attenpting to have ordinances revised so that this sort of thing would not happen. Councilmember Watson endorsed Councilmember Clevenger's CUL~'L'entS. City Attorney, in response to Ma~or Callon, reiterated that tonight' s hearing could only consider whether evidence was sufficient for Planning CC~T~iSSiOn decision; he noted that the ordinance revisions had been Suhnitted to the Planning CUL~L~SSiOn and had not yet returned. The ~applicant's expert' s testimony could be taken tonight, be said, so that he ~Duld not need to return at a later date. Mr. Lyle stated that he would be willing to return JENS~N/MALIORY'MOV~I) TO OONTINUE TO DE ~OVO HEARING 1/20.ATP8.~00~P~MOo Passed 5-0. Dr. Mayo expressed disappointment at having to return to present his case, and Council apologized._ M~yor Callon then proceeded to itens a~pearing before public hearings on the agenda. IV. PETITIONS, ORDINANCES A~E) RESOLUTIONS A. Resolution establishing crosswalks between intersections (School' Crosswalk, Oak Street CLEVEN~R/MALLORY ~DV~ APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION MV-151. Passed 5-0. 5-1/6/82 B. Ozdinance amending Ch. 6, Article I, entitled "Fire Prevention Cede" of the Saratoga City Code (second reading) MALLORY/WATSON MOVED TO READ BY TITLE ONLY AND WAIVE FI~THER READING. Passed 5-0. JENSEN/MAT.TnRY MDVED TO ADOPT. Passed 5-0. C. Resolution altering and establishing fee schedule for Ccrmnunity Center Senior Wing WATSON/JENSEN MDVMD TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 780-18. Passed 5-0. Mayor Callon proceeded to Administrative Matters, Item C.2.a. in order to accuL~l~date Mr. Constantin, who was awaiting d~spDsition of the matter. C. 2. Directorzof~ty~D~v~lotm~_nt a. 'Report on Tentative Building Site Approval, John Constantin, SDR 1441 ' erelim. ) Mr. Constantin, 6132 Francisco Ct., San Jose, explained that he would like the 'City to allow him to construct a septic'tank with inadequate leaching field in hopes that he could later connect with a neighboring. sewer development. · Mayor Callon suggested that he contact his County Supervisor~ since t_he County 'Health Department stated it had. no variance' procedure~ and City had no jurisdiction. VI. BIDS AND CONTRACTS A. Agreenent for Plan Checking Services Jt~qStlq/WATSON MOVtD TO APPROVE AG~k~"MENT WITH TECHNICAL ANALYSIS, INC. Passed 5-0. B. Authorization to call for bids on one-ton dumpctruck Jt~qStlq/CLEVENG~R MOVED'TO ALrffDRIZE CALL FOR BIDS. Passed 5-0. C. Change Order #2 - Cu~f~nity Center ~ddition J~ifi~n/boved':to approve first part of Change Order. There was no second. C3EEiIq/MALIDRY MDVED TO APPROVE CHANGE ORDER #2. Passed 5-0. D. Notice Of Completion - Cu'L',~',0nity Cente~ Addition JENSEN/M~T,Tf]RY ~DVED TO APPROVE. Passed 5-0. VII. CCNSMqT CALRNDAR Councilmenber Jensen removed Items B and E. MAT,TORY/JENSt~q MOVED TO ADOPT CONSMqT CALENDAR EXUEFr ITIlvig B A~D E. Passed 5-0. A. Final Building Site Approval for SDR 1490, Park Saratoga Association, Saratoga-Sunnyvale Read Approved. B. Construction Acceptance for Tr. 6526, Parker Ranch, Prospect Road JENSEN/M~r.TnRY ~ TO APPROVE. Passed 5-0. C. Construction Acceptance for SDR 1385, Richard D. Harkness, Oak Street D. Construct/on Acceptance for SDR 1338, Gordon Iwanaga, Sobey Road Approved. E. Notice of Completion for Overlay of McCoy Avenue Not approved. Councilmember Jensen noted that asphalt finishing was not satisfactory. 6-1/6/82 VII. CONS~ CALENDAR (c.ontinued) F. Resolution prohibiting parking' on a portion of Quito Road (McCoy td Baylor) Resolution MV-152 approved. G. Report on Quito Rmad Path . Staff recuL~'L'endation to proceed with application approved. ~? H. Approval of Warrant List Approved. VIII. ADMINISTRATIVE M~i'i'~RS .A~-C~'MAYOR I. Mayor Callon noted that the Great Race was Jan. 10 end encouraged Councilmembers to partic!~pate. "- · B. CDt~qCIL AND COMMISSION REPORTS Jensen - C/mm~_nted on Wildwood Park damage and asked for reconsidera- tion of tentative map approval so that another easenent . could be provided. No consensus to do so. - Cc~mented on lendalide on Big Basin Way with thought that it mightlbe2con~ectedF.to~Parnasrsewer; Councilmember Mallory and ~ity DeveloFment Director noted that slide was due to clearing of hillside adjacent to McBain end Gibbs property and was not connected with 'Parna~' sewer. Watson - Noted that issue of use of Moffett Field had been before Transportaeion Cc~mLission. WATSC~/MALLORY MOVe3 TO OPPOSE JOINT USE OF MOF~'E,',' FIRLD FOR CIVILIAN AND MILITARY AIRCRAFT. Passed 5-0. Jensen - Reported tha~ power lines on' Saratoga-Sunnyvale Read had still not been undergrounded. CounciLmember Clevenger exc~sed herself frc~ the meeting end left at 12:30 a.m. .... C~. ~ DEPARi}~2~f HEADS 'AND IOFFI~RS 1. Director of Planning and Policy Analysis a.Analysis of joint use of-Maffett Field for civilien and military aircraft (See Watson Council Report, above.) -b. Report on a[Tpointment of Heritage Ccr~nission JENS~q/MALLORY MOVED TO EX'i'~/~D APPLICATION PERIOD'FOR ~SSION ONE MONTH. Passed '4-0. (Clevenger absent) Councilmember Watson excused himself and left the meeting at 12:3S a.m. B2 ODUNCIL AND CONAMISSION REPORTS (continued) 1. Planning CuL~l~ssion report of consideration of ordinance controlling adult entertainment facilities Consensus to direct City Manager to return item with further information. With respect to Councilmenbet Jensen's concerns on uD~ergrounding, Director of C~unity DeveloFment stated that residents had made conversions, but State had not undergrounded power to signals. Staff is gathering further information to ~'~ exert pressure to encourage State to underground. Councilmember Jensen then inquired as to radio wave shields on telephone lines; City Manager e~plained their IX. ADOL~NMENT MALLORY/CA!.I~N MOVED TO ADJOURN AT 12:40 A.M. TO CLOSED SESSION AT 6:00 P.M. 1/12. Passed 2-1 CWatson, Clevenger absent; Jensen opposed). tf~jl~l~submitted, Grace' E. Deputy City Clerk