Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-03-1982 City Council Minutes MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL TIME: Wednesday, March 3, 1982 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue TYPE: Regular Meeting CLOSED SESSICN - Litigation - 6:00 p.m. Conference Room, City Hall, 13777 Fruitvale REGULAR SESSION I. ORGANIZATICN A. ROLL CALL - Councilmembers Clevenger, Jensen, Mallory, Watson and Mayor Callon present at 7:32 p.m. B. MINUTES - 2/17 MALLORy/JENSENIMOV[D APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Passed 4-0 (Callon abstaining because she had been absent f~utt the meeting). II. COM~aqICATIONS Ao ORAL Ernest Barco, 19101 Camino Barco, requested that the minutes of 2/17 be changed to reflect that he had said there was an "apparent" conflict of interest and had requested an investigation into the matter. Moreover, he objected to the fact that the Deputy City Attorney' s response had apparently been forwarded to the Planning Cc~missioner involved and the Saratoga News rathbr than to the Council only. He requested that the matter be agendized so that he could discuss discrepancies in the ~ttorney's letter. JI~qS~/MALIDRY ~DV[D TO RECONSIDER THE MINUTES OF_ 2/17. _~Passed 4~0'i(CalI6n abstaining). J~qS~q/MALIDRY E TO ADD THE WORD "APPARI1NT" TO COL. iBARCO'S STATEMENT ON CONFLICT OF INTEREST ON PAGE 1. Passed 4-1 (Callon abstaining). City Attorney explained that letter had been sent to City Manager [orb~idistri- but~d with Council packet Friday afternoon; copy hsa been mailed'to rMrs'~ :Laden Friday afternoon. City Manager then stated that he had made five copies of the letter for the Council only and had retained the original. When Mrs. Laden had inquired about the letter, he had suggested she await the copy mailed to her by the City Attorney. He further explaLnedrthatiMrs~ 'Lad~n'stated"she had received the cOpy mailed to her by the attorney on Friday and that editor of Saratoga News bt~ted that she had received letter frcm Mrs. Laden Friday evening. It was not known,/-hess&id, how Mrs. Laden' s mailed copy could have arrived so quickly. Mayor Callon suggested that Col. Barco write a memo explaining the discrepancies to which he haj referred so that the matter could be agendized. Councilmember Watson ~aaed that he would also like further explanation. ofzhDw_.th~fn~wspaper!-c.' received its copy so quickly. Councilmember Jensen suggested that Col. Barco's letter be sent to the State for review, since Planning Con~H ssioners are covered by State law. Councilmember Clevenger stated her concurrence in agendizing the matter at a public meeting, but rot a public hearing. Den Guiterrez, 18845 McFarland, asked whether his recent letter were going to be heard. Mayor Callon stated that it was listed under Written C~'m~nications. II. B. WRITI'zN #1 concerning govermnental take-over of public utilities referred to staff; Councilmember Jensen suggested that Mr. Johnston explore the possibilities and report to Council. #2 concerning nursing home problems to be sent to Sheriff' s Dep~hYent.' #3 concernling dangerous traffic condition at Saratoga-Sunnyvale end Brandywine referred to staff; to be returned to Council. #4 concerning two dangerous pedestrian crossings; staff reply p½eviously forwarded; cu~,lj ttee is being formed with Mallory and Clevenger as Council representatives. p. 2 #5 concerning ~ction program for Ar.~a C General Plan; information only. #6 concerning modification of notification procedures for land use decisions referred to staff for ~eply to Council. #7 concerning litigation against ne~ state reapportiorment plan2 referred to staff for reply as to who is ~Saratoga's representative .until next election and what litigation costs would be. III. SUBDM SIONS, BUILDING SITES, ZONING REQUESTS None. I~.7. PETITIONS, ORDINANCES, AND RESOLb~fIONS A. Ordinance establishing a service bharge for response to false police r lu setting amount of charge. eso tlon alarms (second reading); ' ' City Manager explained ordinance and distributed copies of 'letter '~received frc~ Bruce Johnson opposing ordinan6e. CLEV~qGER/MALLDRY MDVED TO READ BY TITLE, WAIVING FURFHER READ]lqG. Passed 5-0. MALLORY/CLEV~GER MOV~]D TO ADOPT ORDINANCE 38.105. Passed .3~2 (callon, Watson opposed). Mayor Callon conmented she felt residentis should be allowed one false alarm without charge; Councilmember Watseh agreed, saying that people need one opportunity to "de-bug" systems and! that threat of charge may-discourage people frcm installing systems. Councilmember Mallory felt that allowing the City to take on the burden of cQsts for first alanms would be to subs_ sidize those with ala~ns. ' CALIJDN/WATSON MOV}~ TO WAIVE CHARGE FOR FIRST FALSE ALARM. Failed 2-3 (Clevenger, Jensen, Mallory opposed). 1- member Jensen felt that charging for all alarms was a matter of equity. Mayor Callon noted that all citizen~ subsidize those who use police services, as a matter of course. MALLOBY/CLEVENGER MDV~D TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 1060 ESTABLISHING! THE AMDUNT OF SERVICE CHARGE AS $35.00 PER INCIDENT. Passed 3-2 (Callon, Watson opposed). Mayor Callon.then proceeded to public hearings, since 5h~Zbur..of 8:00 p.m.] had been reached. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Saratoga Union, School District General Plan Amendment (82-1-a) and Rezoning (C-198) City Manager explained situation, noting. that the staff recuL,LeJndation was to cond~ct~th~spublidch~ering-and then continue it~so that the issue could be c~mbined with other General Plan l amendments for discussion in May or June. He pointed out that State law allowed the City almost one year to act on the application, and be explained how, if amendments were considered separately, all _t_h_r_ee~opportunities for General~Plan~ amendments Could be used up,-which would mean that a fourth amendment could' not De introduced until Jenuary. Assistant Planner Ffores further explaLned application. Councilmember Mallory asked whether considerationS had been given to possible purchase of the area as open space or creation of an. assessment district to maintain it as open space. Assistant Planner explained that no practical means had been found for doing so, but that i~ was possible fdr the City to require dedication of land or fees to maintain nearby open space. Councilmember Watson pointed out that,although contiguous zoning was R-1-12,500, there' were a nl~nker of larger lots in the l area:. Assistant Planner noted that area d~sig. nation 'in.-th'e :Gen~al Plan d'iffers ffom,,that aesig~.~i'Sn as' a- zohiRg d~'tri~ i-n tha~ 'i~h~-.forn{~'-'z~eSU alto~'~ Flg~f 'd~en~itg. Plan designation, that the Campbell [Cage. property had been designated PD. The public hearing was opened at 8:15 p.m. p. 3 No representative appeared to speak for the applicant, the school district. Bert Toevs, 13120 Via Madronas, spoke as representative of Area E ~n the General Plan Citizens Advisory Cu~'u.~ttee. He stated that his o~=LH ttee's report had recut,Llended that the~Cohgres~ S~Drings site be considered for multiple-family dwellings; as an individual, he felt the portion that backs up to the Southern Pacific Railway,and across the railway frc~n the substation and diagonally across frc~ Con- gress Springs Park should be considered for multiple-family and the r~naining portion for R-1-12,500. Carl Sullinger, 19721 Via Escuela, spoke as a property owner across the street frcm the school. He supported the zoning request to make the zoning similar to adjacent zoning. Councilmember Watson asked whether Mr. Sullinger had attended the GtEAC sessions; he stated he had not. Councilmember Watson asked his postare on the multiple-family issue, and Mr. Sullinger stated he would prefer R-1-12,500. Mayor Callon noted that she had received a letter frcm Dr. Wood and Mr. Locmis, whose property borders the sits; they were concerned about possible grading of the property. C~'~nity Development Director stated that could be a~ressed at the time of tentative map approval, when a public hearing noticed to dwners within 500' of the site would take place. Cu'l~.~rtity Devel~t Director then ~ted that after reviewing ordinances he had determined that in a develoFment of fewer than 50 lots a fee was required rather than dedication of open space, unless there was a park site shown in the develoFment on the General Plan. This develol~nent, he believed, would have fewer than 50 lots. The public hearing was closed at 8:25 p.m. Councilmember Watson stated that he would like to deal with the amendment and rezoning now to ~?handleL, concerns expressed by the residents. Mayor Callon agreed that it was appropriate to deal with the situation now. Co~cilmember Clevenger reported that before she was elected she had stated that if that site were developed it should he developed in a way cu~atible with the neighborhood and had been criticized for considering that possibility. She still believed that the site should be developed cu~atibly with the neighborhood, especially since the neighborhDod is already impacted by traffic fr~n the existing park and would probably not be suitable for open space. WATSON/CLEVt~qGER MOVED TO EXPRESS I~T~NTION TO GRANT G~qERAL PLAN A~ENDMENT AND REZONING TO R-1-12,500 AND DIRECT MANAG~2{ TO PREPARE NECESSARY ~. Passed 5-0. Councilmember Mallory expressed scme uncertainty as to whetbar a more creative solution had bee~ a~tively sought, although he agreed with the motion because it was a general consensus. Councilmember Jensen moved t~ '~ ~ne~ =~h~l n6~16n~ to- chahgeI ~jYe z6~d~g t6' R-I= f5 ~000~=~h~r' "than-R= 1~ i2;'500'. ~ No second. B. Appeal of grant of use permit allowing the construction of 32 condo- mini~ml units on a 2.53 acre sits designated in the 19747General Plan for Planned Development, south of the intersection of Saratoga Avenue and Bucknall (Appellant, Brett E. Cress et al.; applicant, Bernard Hagan) (continued as de novo hearing frc~ 1/20) City Manager explained that applicant had requested a continuance and stated t~e. effects of granting or denying the appeal; he recommended that Council give tentative direction on which staff could base doc%m~_nts which would contain necessary findings. Commmity Develot~n~nt Director Shook explained that ~l~peal had originally been concerned with traffic impacts on neighborhood but had been expanded to appearance of two-story structures. He also noted that he~hi~d not yet received the traffic study requested frcm the appellant. Mr. Shook then went on to say that the only change frt~n the project as approved two years ago was to increase the setbacks frcm Saratoga Avenue and Bucknall Avenue. City Manager reported the General Plan ~opted~in.~974~'.required that certain areas designated PD-Residential have a precise plan approved before develop- ment. The procedure for approval of such2a!precise plan was to include public hearings before the Planning C~m.~ssion and the City Council, he said, bat the Zoning Ordinance had hot been amended to include these 7 _ -- p. 4 procedures. Therefore, althDugh the ~Ding Ordinance had be _en follc~qed when the project was approved previously, it was not reviewed by the Council either then or at .the time of extensio,n or at the second issuance of the conditional use permit. Manager stated that Council fight find that General Plan has not been adhered to with res~ct tb this application; or Council might fiD~ that application is being r.~viewed by Co~cil as part of the current process. Councilmember Clevenger asked if the General Plan had then not been implenented in the years since 1974; ~anager replied that to his knowledge ~o~P]'anned Develol~nents had been appro~ed s~ince 1974 which were not consistent with the General Plan. Mayor Callon expressed her opinion tha~t possible previous irregularities need hot be discussed, since the previous approvals had expired in any event, end Council was now hearing a totally new &pplication; City Attorney concurred. She then noted that since application had been appealedl ahd was receiving a public hearing at the Council level, Council-needed to decide whether that procedure complied with ~he General Pla~_. City Attorney stated that ~ouncil should decide whether procedure complied w~'th both General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Assistant Planner asserted~ that fn~prev~i6fiSr. yearsfit=had~been thUDintent of the Planning CULUL.~SSiOn bnd Council to implement the General Plan through the use permit process and the Planned Residential Development Ordinance. This procedure, he said, w~ the means by which the requirement for a precise plan was satisfied. ~ ' Councilmember Jensen pointed out that even ~.if requirements- were deemed to have been satisfied, the appellant- should hhve his meney refunded, since it was his appeal fee which brought about the hea~ing which satisfied the requirements. She also stat~d-~that an entire neighborhood was not noticed about precise plan hearings .for senior citizen age limit, ~ end she wished to correct the process. Mayor Callon agreed that the appeal fee for the current matter should be refunded, but she requested a staff report de~r~ing further the implementation of this part of tt{e Ce_neral Plan. She wished to make a decision on the issue at this time, however. Councilmember. Watson .s~ated he felt that although the .public hearing fight meet the re~r~nents, i~ did so by accident rather than by design. City Manager noted that since the Zonj~[g Ordinance was adopted after the General Plan, the Council at that time may have felt the pr6dedure ~a~ried out the req~rements of the General Plan. m The public hearing was opened at 8:50 p.. ' Bernard Hagan:spoke as the developer of the project, expressing uncertaj_nty~ as ~to who should have been designated as the applicant; he asked for extra time so that his attorney could examine the question. Further, he stated that[ he needed a continuance in order to ccm~- plete the traffic study end to prepare[' a response to a letter da~ed 2/15 frcm scene of the neighbors. In answer to Councilmember Mallory, Mr. Hagan stated that he had not met directly-with the heighbors. Brett Cross, 12601'Paseo Cerra, spoke -the appellant. He stated that he bad ~ent Mr. Hagan the 2/15 letter because~ Fir. 'Hagan's secretary had phoned him to say that the project might be indefinitely postponed because of economic con- sident not want a ditions. He went on to say that thelre s would high density project because of traffic impacts;. they p~eferred R-1-10,000. that the two parties meet,i:i~drthe residents have been unable to ~ontact Mr. Hagan. Bill Notz, 18276 Purdue, spok~ as President of the Sunland Park H~neowners Association. He said the d~velopnent should he c~npatible with the one-story neighborhood, and the trhffic should exit on Saratoga Avenue. Greg Nellis, 18366 Clenson, spoke in s~up~o. rt of the appeal. He felt the project as proposed would have adverse visual and ~traffic impacts. The public hearing was closed at-9:05 ~ m p. - MALLORY/CLEVEN~ ~DVED TO GRANT APPEAL, DM~YING APPLICATION WITHOLFP PREJLDICE WITH FINDING THAT TRAFFIC IMPACT AND APPEARANCE OF TWO-STORY HOUSES WAS NOT PROPERLY CONSIDERHD. Passed 5-0. B~f6res the vote on the above motion, ~uncil discussed the matter. Council- member Clevenger expressed concern about conflict between the ccndomj_nitln zoning · aD~] residential zoning. Co ~lmember Jensen recun'~l~nded that application be unc denied.. The process was improper, she~ felt, a~dcthe application did not eenfonn either to the Zoning Ordinance or the General Plan. ~c~c :7~.-e~. p. 5 JENSEN/WATSON MDVED TO AMEND MOTION TO D~I~Y WITH PREJUDICE. Failed 2-3 (Callon, Ctevenger.ifMat-lOry opposed). City Attorney explained that denial with prejudice entailed a time period of one year before applicant could re-apply, and the filing fee would need to be paid again. Councilmember Watson expressed concern that if the appli- cation were denied without prejudice it would return without the significant changes in circulation pattern, density and height of structures that be felt were'warranted. Counci~ Jensen believed that a denial without prejudice would be an invitation to resukmit, while what was needed was a change in procedure to ensure cu~liance with the General Plan. Council- member Clevenger felt the objectives of significant changes in the application could be accomplished by a denial without prejudice. In response to Mayor Callon, City Attorney stated ha was unaware of any t/me constraints for rer~ppli- cation under a denial without prejudice; he also explained that because of a recent court case use permits were now considered to run with the land, so that it was irrelevant in whose nane the pezmit was issued. He also stated that it was not legally necessary to make further findings, but that it might avoid delays in the future if the applicant were given more guidance. Mayor Callon stated that she had reservations about the two-story units, about circulation, and about setbacks. She believed density should not be greater than the application previously approved. Councilmember Jensen felt that the proposal didrfiOt'.'cc~ply with the General Plan; it did not protect the rural character of Saratoga or of the neighborhood, she ~t~ted. She was also concerned about traffic and drainage impacts on streets not designed to handle then. Further, she believed that the dif~inishment of open space and crowding of E1 Quito School and the park would infringe upon the public property. Mrs. Jensen than painted out a requirement in the PD partion of the ZOning Ordinance calling for separation of uncovered parking areas or private streets frcmzthe boundary of the project by a lanjscaped strip of at least 10'; she stated that the strip was as narrow as 4" in scme places. Finally, she expressed doubt that there was a need for higher density to provide for senior citizen housing, since the adjacent senior project has not sold or rented its units in a timely fashion. Councilmember Mallory, on the other hand, expressed his belief that there was a need for senior citizen housing. City Manager stated that st~ff would include as many findings as possible in resolution to be presented at the next meeting and that Council could then includ~ and exclude what the majority determined. C. C. Appeal of d~cision of-Planning Cc~mission for Use Permit 514 to modify an existing non-conforming accessory structUre over 6' in height in the required rear yard at 19467 Saratoga-los Gatos Road (Appellant/ applicant, Jerry Jordan/John Henricks) (continued frcm 2/17) Mayor Callon stepped down frcm h~r Council seat with a statement that her husbara had recently formed a business relationship with one of the appellants. Mayor Pro Ten Clevenger assumed the duties of the presiding officer. City Manager explained the aFpeal process briefly, and Cca~l'~unity Develot~nent Director Shook gave further details. City Manager distributed copies of letters received frc~ June Cartwright (stating that structure did not appear to be used as a residence) and frc~ the appellants. The public hearing was opened at 9:25 p.m. John Henricks spoke as one of the applicants. He stated his belief that Mayor Callon need not have excluded her- self fren the proceedings and inquired as to the significance df a tie vote. City Attorney explained that a motion to'approve the appeal woul~ need'three votes to pass whether 4 or 5 counOilmembers were present. Mr. Henricks then asserted that his previous references to poss_ible crenyien, since the neighbor objecting to his use permit was a former eounCi]member, were unfounded; he apologized. He stated that residents of the area felt that the structure had been used as a guest house. He also said that he had never intended to make it into a dwelling and had been willing to make several concessiorS to the neighbors to ensure that it would never be used as a dwelling. Mr. Henricks felt that the City bore scm~ responsibility for the structure, since the City appreved it when it was built. Councilmember Mallory inquired as to the defini- tion of a guest house, and ASsistant Planner Flores replied that the essential point was that a guest house is any accessory living quarters without a kitchen. Lynn Belanger, who stated that she had grown up in'the area, spoke inTfavor of the Planning O3mnission's conditions, saying that prior use of the property was irrelevant. She believed that because the structure is non-confozmj/ng, a use permit was required to allow it to remain; without the permit, it would be subject to ~nortization,¥ajdrintensification of the use is illegal. p. 6 Charles Robbins, 19348 Monte Vista, ated that the structure as proposed would not be a guest.house, but -a second dwelling with an unfinished kitchen. It would be-about twice as big as th~ average Saratoga guest house, he said, c as a rental unit. He stated that all adjacent neighhDrs objected to the appeal. Any renters, he said,~wo~ld probably not he senior citizens because.of the layout of the structure. Moreover, he stated, fen6ing and shrubbery would not significantly .reduce noise, and the louvers on the ~wi~dow neither block the boise nor con- stitute a ~ent solution, .since they are hinged and could he removed. .Mr. Robbin, s requested that all .work performed 'b~fore~and'3aft~r the~Plahning Cum~s~ioh'2iSsd~dcthe use permit should be renoved. if it was done without a building permit. Councilmember Mall6ry asked what was objectionable about this particular structure, since Mr. IRobbins did not object to guest houses in general. Mr.' Robbins replied that it is much too large, too close to the neighbors, and likely to be rented, to the detriment of the neighborhood. He conceded that the possibility of rental was speculation, but the roc~ indicated as "office" had a sink, cabinets, a"~lacerK~rkedLt!'-~e~riger'ater~-etc. and~w~s'~Lk~ty to he converted. He also ~tated that he had not seen all .the documents presented by the appellantS, but Mrs. Bolton's letter stated that the building had been lived.in for o~ly three years,cand2it~was~t~'=years old. ~n response to Counci]/nember Watson, ~Mr. Shook explained that there was a building permit indicating that'the purpose was storage and garage. WalterAndrus, 19431 Saratoga-Los Ga~s Road, spoke in support of.Mr. Robbins, Saying' that he feared the structure would! ~ a ~iviIi~ unit, although since 1969'no one had ~ay~dtthere more than one or two uights~ Jessie McGu~re~ 15350 Bestview Court stated that the Robbins' beck yard was very private 'at present, and she expressed concern about'possible impact on their privacy, as well as her own. She also feared for the possibility of the building being rented. - D iv"" Shelley Williams, 11951 Brookridge r e,. sukmitted a letter supporting the appeal. As the listing ahd selling ~ssociate for the property, he stated his belief that the 'Coun~il hadlthe power to grant the appeal. He felt Mr. RobbLns ob~]ect~ons could be resolved w~thi m~tigating measures. C~ D~ 1 t John Henticks stated that he had 'informed ~u~nity e e opmen Director of work he was performing after use p~li~'t was issued. Concerning the outside ill~]~ination, he stated that it had been there for three years, 'before he acquired the property, contrary to 'M~. Robbins' statement. The public hearing was closed at 10:10 p.m. ~ ; " " uphold the Councilmenber Jensan moved to Planning CuLt~.~ssion. r~dations with the addition of the condition '.that,if any pl~m~bing had'been added since the matter came before the Planning ~,~,]Ssion, it be removed. There was no second. , ' Counncilmember Watson- felt the issue was that the permit was issued for garage and storage rather than a. guest heus~; he did not wish the pl~mlbing to be renoved, however. Counci]_menber Jensen noted that the structure did not m~et the height and setback requirements 6f the ordinance but should not'be tern down because i~ had been there so lohg. The best mitigation, planting trees, would cut down on the neighbor' s sola~ access, she 5elieved, so the best solution might he 'to move the building to another lot, If 'it remained, she J~X~S~X~/W~TSCX~ r~3V]~3 TO UPHOLD THE PLAI~IIgG OON~vLISSICE~ ~ATION. The motion was not voted on in that form~ and discussion followed as to which .f~'in~/~ Plannin~EOf~ission rec~i i~endation should be changed. Councilmember Clevenger felt that t~'structure bad not been a guest house, as the term is currently used, w~thout plumbing facilities~ it was 'also too large to qualify as '~ guest house. .CounCilmember MallOry objected to removing the 220 wiring which had been there for many years, since it could be related to uses other than dwelling uses. Purrher, he felt there was no need to reuove the floodlights which had been thereCfor.' three years.' Councilmember Watson saw no need to r~nove the plumbing a~ long as it e6~tributed-lt6'~use as a gage- and not necessarily as second dwelling. Mr. ShoOk pointed out p. 7 that no permits for plunbing had been issued, although some work may have been performed. Councilmember Watson brought up the-window which the Planning Cu,~,,~ssion had recur,tended be removed, and MayoriPro Ten Clevenger brought up the interior two-by-fours which Mr. Robbins had requested be renoved. There was consensus to have the window removed and allow jthe."two-by- fours to remain. The motion was then voted on in final fortre. JENSEN/%^IATSON MOVED TO L~HOLD'~HE PLA~I~ING ~CO~IMISSION ~ATIONS FOR USE ~S GARAGE AND STORAGE WITH THE CONDITIONS THAT ANY PLIIMBING OTHER _THAN DRAIN AND SINK ON IXDWER LEVEL BE Rtl~DVED; 220 WIRING AND OUTSIDE FLOOD- LIGHTS CAN R~MAIN; WINDOW MUST BE RtlMOVED. Passed 4-0 (Callon abstaining). The Council recessed frcm 10:25 p.m. to 10:40 ',p.m., and Mayor Cull0n resuned her seat. "' D. Appeal of deniul of vari&nce to~'conSltr. uOt~ an addition to an existing two-story residence exceeding the floor area ratio by. greater than 5% at 19384 Chablis Court (Appellant/applicant,. J~nes Elder) (continued frc~ 2/17) City Manager explained issues briefly. sTheip.~ublichhe~rih~:was opened at 10:45 p.m. Jim Elder spoke as the appellant. He distributed various charts and photographs of the property, stating that the house at present was more inoal~atible with the neighborhood than it would be after ~eling. As to impervious coverage, he stated that~evised plans showed 14,000 s~a~e feet,,'~hileLhe?was ullowed 14,803. As to floor area ratio, he felt that the guidelines were too limiting and noted that new guidelines were being studied. In any case, he believed that the topography of his lot required a larger area. i-Mr.l-Elder-felttth~ti/'~ Councit--oould make ull five required findings, especially in view of signed doctmlents frcm neighbors supporting the appeal. Oscar Sohns, architect for the project, explained in answer to Mayor Callon that the present first floor living space was 3,000 square feet, and below that there was 1380 square feet, 686 square feet being garage. Since the house is built over a cavity, the wing must be supported by posts or walls, so the best solution is to enclose the posts and place the garage under the wing, he stated. He clarified that the recreation rocm of 688 square feet had been deleted, saying he believed that explained a' dis6Tepancy in the numbers between the staff report and the.applicant's suhnittuls. Mr. Elder rose again to speak, saying that his h~me affects all other homes in the neighborhood because of its site and that all the neighbors supported his proposul. Mayor Callon inquired as to how much living space was in the house excluding the garage, with the new design; Mr. Sohns replied that 1700 sqn~sre feet would be garage space. He also stated that most buses in the neighborhood were in the 4300-4500 sc~re foot range, and Councilmember Watson cc~11~e_nted that the proposed house would be one of the larger ones, but Mr. Elder's family was a large one. John Peterson, a_neighbor on Granite way, stated that he had looked at the plans and believed that the remodeled house woul~ be an improvement to the neighborhood which would enhance property valueS. Vic Mania, 14665 Granite Way, stated that be lived across the street f~um the hou~e; His opinionz was that because of the topography of the lot ~he proposed solution was a'-go~dcone; _zIf mass grading of the hill had not been permitted, the owner ceuld have added to his house without a large addition in floor Space, he felt. He also supported the planned landscaping. Don Wulte, 14708 Granite Way, spoke as an adjacent neighbor. He supported the appeal, believing that the remodeling w~uld make the property more attractive than would alternative proposals which woul~ comply with the ordinance. Warfee Major, 14730 Fruitvale, said that the Elders had done a good job in upgreding the property through landscaping and other means. He supported the appeal. The public bearing was closed at 11:05 p.m. CLEVENGER/JENSEN FIDVtD TO UPHOLD THE APPEAL, GRANTING DESICN REVIEW AFPEKDVAL Z AND VARIANCE. Passed 3-2 (Callon, MallOry opposed). Councilmember Clevenger stated that the excessive floor area ratio was acoaptable in this case because the unusual topography of the lot ~iencOtiraged p. 8 .~a~designT.Whic~.~resulted in large fl r area; she felt the proposed design was the best. treatment for the lot. ~Coun~ilmember Jensen agreed that this was an unusual case whore, because of excessive ~rading by a previous owner, the remodeling would ho an improvemeht to the neighborhood even though the floor area ratio was excessive. Co lmember Clevenger stated that she considered the topography to ho a p~sical hardship in this case. Mayor Callon inquired as to the assertion that the applicant met the impervious coverage req~li rements andl that the staff report was in error. ME. Shook stated that he was aware o~f no ~error, but that staff might have dealt with it. The deletion of the re reatlo rocm would have an effect~ 'ho said, but that 688 sc?~are feet woUld not explain the several thousand sq~m~re feet of excess coverage. He also stated that the staff check had showed the neighborhood houses to be~ 3400 to 4000 square feet, which was cc~parable with Mr. Sohn~?~! estimate;I the ~Elder house would have 7500 · square feet when the garage .space wa~ included, as· it had k~en in the estimate of neighbors' sc~are footage. Mayor Callon. inquired as to tb~ setback preblens that C~m~issioner Bolge~-had mentioned as report in the Planning C~n,~.~ssion minutes, and Mr.~ Shook stated that he was unaware of any problems, and Cu,,l,~ssioner Bolger had not defined the. Councilmember Watson said that altho,Ugh he was a chief protagonist for the design review ordinance, that had bebn aimed at infill or impacted areas; but since the neighbors supported ~. Elder's,re~Ddeling, he supported the appeal.as well. Mayor Callon expres. sed her opinion that although it was refreshing to hoar an~appeal which the neighbors supported, she believed the remodeling-stretche~t the limitsbfthe design reviaw ordinance because of the size of the house; she felt the applicant coUld sukmit a design which would better meet the intent ~f the 6rdinance. Councilmember Mallory. stated that was ~ unable to make the findings for the appeal. He felt it was the Council'~s duty not to, in effect~ waive the ordi- nance, but to interpret it. Although ho ~porsQna~l~ly~f~vored mere flexibility and consideration of family ne~dscar~ neighborhood impacts, he felt the way to handle this type of situation was~ to change the ordinance. H~ - E. Application of Blackwell· s requesting the City Council approve the reversion to acreage of 17 approved lots (Tract 6526, LOts ·1, 2, 3, 10, 11, 12 ·and 13) into· 3 parcels, corner of Prospect Road, . Parker Ranch, and Burnett D~ive . City Manager explained issues. The ,~ublic hearing was opened at ll:15.p.m. No one appearing to speak, the public hoaring was closed at 11:16 p.m. ~GER~ArATSON FOV~D TO APPROVE REVERSION TO ACREAGE. PasSed 5-0. Mayor Callon ~then returned' to the l~ast item preceding public hearings, Ite~ IV.B. IV. PETITIONS, ORDINANCES, A~ RESOLUTIONS (continued) B. Resolution to amend salary for City Manager~a~d make appropriations WATSON/CLEV~GER MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 775.5. Passed 5-0. C. Resolution cu~ending Ma~'o~ Bunyard as Citizen of the Year CLEV~/WATSON MOV~ TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 1061. Passed 5'0. Mayor Callon then proceeded to the ext item after public hearings, Item VI.A. VI. BIDS AND CONTRACTS A. Notice of Cc~pletion - Overlaying Prospect Road C6D~'i~7 ' !l~j~yj.'i~d as to whether overlay b~_d been inspected. ~' Mr. Shook ·replied that it bad, and had been four~ acceptable. - MALLORY/W~TSON MOVED APPROVAL. Pass 5-0. 2B. Request for authorization t~o advertise for bids - Old Wood Road Storm Drain J~qSEN/WATSON MDV~ TO APPROVE. Pas~ed 5-0. p. 9 · C. Revised Joint POWers Agreement - Intergovernmental Employee Relations Service ' CLEVENGER/MALLORY MDVED APPROVAL. Passed 5-0. D. Agreenent with Saratoga Drs~a Group fo~ installation of lighting booth MALLORY/J~qS~ MDV~D TO APPROVE. Passed 5-0. VII. CONS}~qT C3~T.k~ND~ A. Approval of Warrant List ~GER/MALLORY ~DV~D APPROVAL. Passed 4-0 CWatson abstaining). Councilmember Watson stated he abstained because he had not had sufficient time to review the Warrant List. '.VIII. AD~LINlbTFATIVE NL~i'i'~jRS A. MAYOR Mrs~C~e~'~er reported she was unable to attend the ABAG General Assembly 6n March 27. Councilmembers Jensan and MallOry volunteered to attend as voting delegates if their 'schedUles permitted. WATSON/~GER FOVED TO APPOINT JENSEN AS VOTING D~,FGATE AND MALLORY AS ALTERNATE TO ABAG CONVEXqTION MARCH 27, 1982. Passed 5~0. B. COLNCIL AND CO~4ISSION REPOF~S Mallory - reported on program he was to attend on causes of violence. Watson - reported that Transportation O~m~ssion's currant issue was fare study. 1. Planning C~m~ssion reccA~_ndation to amend HCRO Ordinance City Manager briefly explained reocmnendation. Mayor Callon asked whether Planning Ccnmission h~d actual ly adopted certain language for the Specific Plan Ordinance, and Con~ty DeveloFment Director Shook reported that Cu.~.~ssion was divided as to when' to take;hp various' related issues, hut intent was to make Specific Plan ordinance and HCRD ordinance consistent as to density and as to slope. Counci~ Jensan feared that changing the slope standard would he a~step hackwards. Mr. Shook stated that the Specific Plan ordinance allOWed variances hut was anclear as to hOW the slope is to he measured; the proposed amendment would allOW variances in the HCRD Ordinance and would define the process for measurement. Co~cil- member Mallory ccmuented that since the Council had sent the matter to the Planning C~m~ssion, Council should consider their recommendation and perhaps set for public hearing. ~-~z_i'~ ~-L~r_- -~ l~__~. WATSON/CLEV~ ~ TO SET THE MA~'A'~R FOR PUBLIC HEARING AT NO SPECIF~:I~ DATE. Passed 4-1 (Jensan opposed). C. DEPARTMENT HEADS AND OFFICERS 1. Planning Director a. Report re: ad hec cu~a~.~ttee re trails euld pathways in Chester Read area City Manager explained history of issues. Assistant Planner Flores gave further details, saying the recum~_ndation of staff was either to keep the plan as is or to use~Alternative 1, which preserves an east-west connection. Council discussed various alternatives and their effects. Property Maintenance Director reported that if City did Pot amend contract for Reherti-Z'Berg funds or make oa~,~.~hnent to use funds, those funds might he lost by May 1. Ron Mancuso, 14330 Chester, rose to speak as a member of the ad hoc cul,~.~ttee. He stated that the report did not indicate that the c~,,~.~ttee felt that equestrians on upper Chester Avenue would he dangerous and impractical; in answer to Mayor Callon, he stated that Alternative 1 would meet the cc~m~tttee's eeneerns. p. 10 City Manager noted that Alternative 1 might not be able to implemented in the near future, depending on when th easement could be acquired. Council- member Jansen expressed her belief that an equestrian trail would be beyond the Cit!F's means for maintenance. She moved t~=abandon the easenent on upper Chester and the easenent that goes through the Odd Fellows property. There' ~Sno second. Councilmember Mallory~ stated it was improper to spontaneously ~change a part of the General Plan without ~going through the appropriate process. Counci~ Jensan said she did not~ feel it was a change to the plan, but an acknowledgement of the practical real~ity of the situation. She wished'to relieve those who were anxious about the easement. CALLON/WATSON MDV~D TO S~qD ALTERNATIVE 1 IN THE STAFF REPORT DA~'N3 2/2/82 TO THE PLANNING ~SSION TO EXkMINEI AS PART OF THE GENERAL PLAN PROCESS FOR THE AREA CONCERNS). Passed 5-0. inted Cc~nunity D~elo~ment Director Shook po out that it might be a good idea to start process to use Roberti-Z'Berg funds in another area because he did n~Dt believe Planning Cu~,L.~SSiOn eould~ return General Plan to CounCil by May 1. City Manager stated that ~h~=$t5,000 ~vailable frc~ those funds would pro- bably not go ' ' ' of trail that would be necessary. 2° 2. Request to r ' ' ' "smal hcmes frcm the req~rement of Building Site approv~ for over-50~ expansions ' ' Director of Cc~nunity Develol~nent indicate~t that the Keenans, who had made subject request, had.now received a cQpy Of the report on the matter. They had not, however, indicated S~e~ wished to be present. J~I~S~/CLEVt~GER MDVED TO TABLE. Pas led 5-0. D. CITY MANA~ :' 1. Report re: AB 2365 (Konlyu) City Manager explained that Mr. Koany l had requested support for AB 2365, which I~.LLORY/WATSON MDV~I) TO SUPFORT AB 2365~. Passed 5-0. IX. ~DJOURNM~qT " M~LLORY~SON ~4)V~I)TO '~IIIOURN AT 12:00 I~IDNIGH~. Passed 5-0. P~spectfully subuitted~ Grace E. Cory Deputy City Clerk