Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-07-1983 City Council Minutes M/NUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL TIME: Wednesday, SetYcember 7, 1983 - 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue TYPE: Re_cB/lar Meet ing CLOSED SESSION - Meet and Confer -6:00 p.m. Senior Lounge, 19655 Allendale Avenue I. ORGANIZATION A. ROLL CAlL - Councilmenbers Clevenger, Fanelli, Mallory and Mayor Mnyles present at 7:04 p.m. Councilmember Callon absent. B. MINUTES- 8/17 ~.T.I/CL~riI~GER MOVtD TO APPROVE AS SUt~MI'ITED. Passed 4-0. II. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS No One appeared to speak. III. CUNS~Ff CALENDAR A. Denial of Cla/m - Rawson B. Denial of Claim - Bingham C. Approval of "Great Montalvo Griffin Chase" Footrace, 10/30/83 D. Approval of 18th Annual Fail Parade and Conmunity Footrace, 9/18/83 Resolution No. 2087 E. Approval of Agreement with Mr. Sutton F. Notice of Completion - Kitteridge Road Repairs G. Treasurer ' s Report - July H. Approval of Warrant List MAILORY/CLEVENGER MOVED TO APPROVE CONSENT C~T.RNDAR. Passed 4-0. IV. SCHEDUT.R~ MAT[ERS A. ADM/NISTRATIVE REPORTS 1. Report and Recoa~nendations on County Solid Waste Managenent Plan FANELLI/MOYLES MOVED TO APPROVE RECO~fINDATIONS At{) SEND A LhTI'ER TO THE THAT THE CITY WOULD HAVE NO COSTS IN CONNECTION WITH THE PLAN. Failed 2-2 (Clevenger, Malloz"y.oppesed). Councilmember Clevenger noted that lack of response would be considered as a posi- tive response. She felt that supporting the plan without studying it further ~Duld rot be prudent. 2. Report on Correspondence from Martels Objecting to Bus' Routing on Fruitvale Avenue 3. Report on Barn behind Maddalena's Cc~munity Development Director stated be had recently learned that an application was now pending; he agreed to report on it at the next study session. 2-9/7/83 ~ ic ut 4. Report on Proposed A c~at Aid Agreement between Central Fire District str and Saratoga Fire D1 act Chief Sporleder, Central Fire D ~ ict and Chief Kraule, Saratoga Fire District, reported istr , on the proposed agreement, which] was pending before the County Board of Supervisors. -They explained that response tim~ could be decreased at a minimal increase in cost. CONSENSUS TO DIRECT STAFF TO SUPPORT PROPOSAL BEFORE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS. C. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS 1. Ordinance Regarding ~Me?~t, ing and Procedures of City Council and Planning Con~nission (second. reading) CounciLmember Fenelli expressed concern that the reconsideration procedures might allow Council to reconsider a p~evious~y-approved item without the applicant ' s knowledge. ! Councilmember Mallory stated that the Council should be sensitive to applicants in such a situation. MALLORY/FANELLI MDV~]3 TO READ ORDINANCE 38.112 BY TITLE ONLY, WAIVING FUFa'HER READING. Passed 4-0. FANELLI/MALLORY MOVED TO ADOPT ORDINANCE 38.112. Passed 4-0. 2. Resolution Regarding Procedures and Time Requirements for Sutm~ission of Doc~nents to be Considered by City Council C~.RV~GER/FANF~,T,I MOVED TO ADOPT !RESOLUTION 2088. Passed 4-0. 3. Resolution Con~ndan [ · g Edward Bolger for Service as Planning Cc~t~H ssioner ~T,RVENGER/MOYL~Iq MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2089. Passed 4-0. 4. Resolution Approving ~Mem~.rand~In of Understanding and Authorizing Changes in Salary and Compensation for Employees g 1' tl resolution. Councilmenber Mallory stated that ~i.ty Manager submitted a s m h revised al~hough he agreed with the overall settlement, he opposed the resolution because it pro- vided rD increase in wages. He feared that it would not help the City con~Dete for future employees. He also helieved that~ employees should pay a significant portion of their pen- sion ar~ that the lack of increase in inccme tax was undesirable. Mr. Mallory also favored a sunset clause for City payment of the increased portion of PERS. Other Coun- cilmembers noted that all future ~alary con~3risons would include the cost of this bene- fit and felt that the agree-rent w~s fair to both sides. c~Tv~qGER/FAN~,T.I MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 85-9.58° Passed 3-1 (Mallory opposed). D. BIDS AND CONTRACTS 1. Award of Contract - Quito Area Storm Drain Project MALLORY/~GER ~OV~) TO AWARD CONTRACT TO ERNEST PESTANA IN THE AMOUNT OF $86,714.00. Passed 4-0. 2. Consider bids received for Bank Mill Retaining Wall ;.- '. Maintenance Director reported that both bids received exceeded the estimate provided by F~MA for the project. He recommended that the bids be rejected and the staff DL~gotiate with the property owner to prepar~ .a Contract combining City work with the property owner' s work, resulting in lower costs. FANRT,T,I/C],EV~qGER MOVED TO REJECT ALL BIDS RECEIVED SO FAR ON THE PROJECT. Passed 4-0. 3. Consider bids received for 1983-84 Resurfacing of Certain City Streets MALLORY/~ MOV~]~ TO AWARD CONTRACT TO RAISCH CONSTRUCTION CO. IN THE AMDUNT OF $204,162.56. Passed 4-0. Avle 4. Change Order - Paul nue Improvements Coordltor Bonsing and Conmunity Develo_n~ent ' explained that the contractor had made an 3-9/7/83 error in c~mputing costs, which resulted in unacceptably high costs to City. He reconm~_nded that staff be directed to either enter into a "force account" procedure or to negotiate with the contractor to reduce costs. CONSENSUS TO DIRECT STAFF TO WORK OLF PROcb/3GRE TO LOWER COSTS; CHANGE ORDER NOT ACCEPI'~33. V. F3BLIC HEARINGS - no later than 8:00 p.m. A. Appeal of Conditions on Approved Variance, 15041 Sobey Poad (appellant/ applicant, R. Renna) (V-609) (centLnued from 8/17) City Attorney requested that since the appellant had requested a legal opinion on the ordinance regulating fence height, the matter be continued to the next meeting if the Council wished the opinion to be prepared. Councilmember Fanelli noted the presence of a greenhouse on the property which appeared to exceed the normal limits of a greenhouse; she believed the structure might rec~ire a use permit. City Attorney explained that Council could consider the issue, but it could not be tied in any way to the variance issue. He also stated that, in contrast to Mr. Toppel, he believed that the Council had the power to consider the question of the granting of the variance, not simply the condi- tions under which the variance had been approved by the Planning Co~nission. The public hearing was opened at 8:02 p.m. Eugene Francis, 15091 Sobey Road, spoke against the wall, asking if a petition had been presented objecting to any changes in the conditions imposed on the variance. City Manager replied that such a petition had been included in the packet. John Armstrong, ]2121 Sobey Road, requested that the neighbors be given a copy of the conditions as clarified by staff. He also objected to his not being noti- fied akout tonight 's agenda, and City Manager explained City' s required noticing procedures, which had been fully complied with. Mr. Armstrong then expressed appreciation for concern Council had shown for a fair solution for all parties. No one further appearing to speak, the public hearing was continued to 9/21. B. Appeal of Denial of Use Permit for Four-Unit Condominion, 14629 Big Basin Way (appellant/applicant, M. Ou~ewaal) (UP 531) (continued from 7/6) Comunity Develotm~_nt Director explained appeal. The public hearing was opened at 8:11 p.m. Warren Heid spoke as the applicant's architect on behalf of the project. He described the type of office building that could he placed on the site if the condominion were not approved. Lynn Gilmartin Lindsey spoke as a neighkor against the cendomini~n, saying that the neighkors had had no oppDrtunity for public input at the time of first approval. She noted that they disputed the design of the project, not the use; she felt the design was too massive and did not conform to the design of the Village as pro- mulgated in the General Plan. Mary Boscoe, Stone Pine Condominions, spoke against the ~roject's density and its impact on light, privacy and property values. She believed the Negative Dec- laration ard some reports needed to be updated. She referred to a General Plan policy which required that propesals be evaluated to ensure that various impacts are minimal, and she stated the project would impact the Village in general. Councilmember Fanelli ir~uired as to hew close Mr. Heid's modifications c~ne to ' ' satisfying . the neighbors' concernS. Ms. Boscoe reviewed her concerns with the building as planned. In answer to Councilmember Mallory, Mr. Held then explained the changes he had made to the original plan. No one further appearing to speak, the public hearing was closed at 8:36 p.m. Council discussed issues. The general view was that the applicant had done as much as could be done to mDdify the plan to accem~Ddate the neighkors, and that further 4-9/7/83 requirenents for nodifications would result in an office building rather than a condominitm, which ~ould r~t he desirable. The majority of the Council also felt that any development, however ~easonable,. would affect the neighbors,. and it was 'not the Council' s role to forestal~ any development of ithe parcel Whatsoever. Co~qcilmember Clevenger exp ssed the vie~ that although the archite~ had'attempted re concerns ,· the building was still too bulky and massive to accommodate the neighbors' for the site. She believed the Planning Cc~mission had done a good job of reviewing the project and, with good reason, ·had not approved it. It was, she felt, too inten- sive a use of the site which would affect the City dramatically. FAN~,T,I/MDYLES MOVED TO APPROVE UP 531 WiTH THE COr~DITIONS STATED IN MR.:'I HEID'S IEI'I'ER OF 7/1/83 AND WITH EXHIBIT C-2 I (SHOWING THE TOWER CUT OFF), AN]D MAKING FINDINGS REQUIRED BY SECTION 16.6 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE. Passed 3-1 (Clevenger opposed). Plan to create consistency between The publ h . m Hugh LorshbDugh, 14475 Oak Pla!e, spoke aqainst' o~ercial zoning of the Napkin Ring site, saying that tt~se whe favored it dia not live in the neighkorbood, while those who opposed it did live in the ~neighborhood and were most affected. A packet of letters from neighbors opposing it was distributed. Mr. IDrshbDugh believed that traffic and other impacts of corm~ercial uses wore detrimental to the neighborhod, and that a conditional use permit sheuld be required of the Napkin Ring, along with an amortization schedule to re~urn the site to residential use eventually. Linda Protiva, 14466 Oak Placej quoted from one of the letters opposing cu~_rcial use of the Napkin Ring site and expressed her concerns on the unfavorable impacts of traffic and parking on ro rt' p pe y values in the area. She favored a use permit for the Napkin Ring. Roberta Savage, a Saratoga resident, spoke as the agent who sold the Napkin Ring pro- perty. She stated the main traffic problem for neighbors was Sunday traffic from the nearby church. She felt proF~rty values were net decreased because of the Napkin Ring and that residential use was ~ssible because of the site's Ilocation. She also stated that the people who own and manage the Napkin Ring are Saratoga residents. Nora Matteoni then spoke representing the owners of the Napkin Ring, requesting that the General Plan be amended to i'show the area as commercial. He reviewed the history of the site as ooFmercial and ~maintained that his clients had followed all the proper procedures for ' it would be unjust not to allow them to continue, since they permits.; had made a financial Investment based on good faith reliance on those procedures. He added that his clients would a~ee to a use permit requirement for restaurants if the Council were concerned akout that. Dena Hirschfeld, 14524 Oak St. ~ spoke in favor of changing the zoning on Item 24 to R~-3,000 Multi-Family so that ~he could develop the property. She cc~lnented favorably on the SHARP program and its City coordinator, Stan Carnekie. spoke as the owner of Item 37, asking whether be could sell part of it to a neighbor And part to a new owner of his property. Councilmember Fanelli replied that he could do so if he went through the proper procedures. Lois Cockshaw, 20995 Canyon Vi~ew Drive., spoke in favor of leaving Item 28 as R-1-10,000 because in case of disaster ~t would be difficult to re-build to the standards of R-1-40,000. Lee Lesh, Vessing Road, spoke for rezoning Item 10 to CN so that it could be developed as a shepping center. Calvin Ten~, 12721 .Ar~0yQ. de A ~/ello, spoke ~ favor of retaining the same zonin~ on "Item' 35. Frank Giuliano, 1397 Trinity, asked that the four largest lots in Item 30 be removed from the rezoning to R-l-12,500. 5-9/7/83 P.E. Greenlee, 13879 Trinity, ' supported Mr. Giuliano's request, stating that it would save time and money. Cordon Kubota represented r' his nother, a resident of 18781 Allendale Avenue. He requested that Item 40 be rezoned to R-1'12,500, noting that the change would increase property taxes to the City and increase the property' s value. Ann Fitzsimmons, 13480 Saratoga Avenue, spDke for keeping Item 23 cc~m~rcial. Councilmember Fanelli requested clarification of Mrs. Hirschfeld's request, and Mrs. Hirschfeld explained the location of the property in question. Councilmember Fanelli con~nented that it was unfortunate that the City had not heard from Mrs. Hirschfeld or Mrs. Fitzsimmons during the General Plan review process, since the proposed actions were a result of that process. No one further appearing to speak, the public hearing was closed at 9:50 p.m. Council agreed to go through proposed amendments and rezonings item by item and renDve these which required discussion. . After discussion, consensus was reached ~n all' items except Items 13-17 and Item ~0. ' On Items 13-17,\Councilmembers Fanelli and Moyles '~uppofced the Staff recommendation for rezoning which would allow pro- perty owners to subdivide their land, believing that a very low density single family designation would amount to spot zoning. Councilmembers Clevenger and Mallory, on the other hand, supperted the Planning Commission recommendation for General Plan designation of very low density single family, believing that the resulting varia- tion within the area would be healthy. Mayor Moyles than stated that the Planning CormLission recon~nerdation would stand. With respect to a 'similar division of opi- nion on Item 40, Councilmember Clevenger withdrew her opposition to the staff reoom- me-r~ation to rezone, and Mayor MDyles stated that the staff recommendation would stand as a result of that compromise. Concerning Item 25 (Napkin Ring), there was consensus to amend the General Plan to Conmercial with the direction to the Planning Conmission to study an ordinance which would require a use permit for restaurants in Conmercial areas. Councilmember Fanelli stated that the current property owners bad agreed to forestall any restaurant use of the area until such an ordinance could be prepared. FANELLI/CLEVENGER MDVED TO APPROVE THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR C-202 and GPA 83-2-A (INCLUDING GPA 83-1-C). Passed 4-0. FANF/,I,I/C~EVENGER MOVtD TO APPROVE ~HE FOLLOWING GENERAL PLAN AMMqDMMqTS RECDMMMqDED iBY THE ~.F/+ANNING COMMISSION: ITbiMS 5, 9, 10, 13-17, 22, 24, 25, 28, 33, 3~, 35, 41 and 42, WITH 17_ _~M._.25 AM~qDED TO RETAIL COMMERCIAL. Passed 4-0. (Clerk's note: See .further notion be_low, which resuited from Mrl Flores' noticing two omissions.) FANELLI/MDYLES MDVED TO RECONSIDER THE PREVIOUS MOTION. Passed 4-0. FANF~,T.I/MDYLES MDVED THE PREVIOUS MOTION ON GtlNERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS WITH THE ADDI- TION OF IT~ 30B (FOUR LARGEST LOTS OF ITEM 30, TO BE VERY lOW DENSITY RESIDt~qTIAL) AND ITM~ 31B. PasSed 4-0. FANRrI,I/CLEVENGER MOVED TO READ BY TITLE ONLY, WAIVING FURTHER READING, AN ORDINANCE REZONING THE FOLLOWING ITEMS AS RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION: l'l'bi~ 1-4, 6-8, 11, 12, 18-21, 23 (AMM~DED TO R-M-40,000), 26, 27, 29, 30A (AMENDED TO R-1-12,500), 31A 32 36-39 AND 40 AMENDED TO R-1-12,500) THE FINDINC~ SET OUT IN THE S~X~F ~RT ~l'~ju 6/21183. Passed 4-0. , MAKING Asst. Planner Flores stated he would return at the next Coancil meeting with a formal resolution and revised ordinance for second reading. D. Rezoning of a Portion of a Parcel from R-1-40,000 to HC-ED and Pre-zone Parcels in the County HC-RD (Peach Hills Rd., Tom Lauer) (C-203) The public hearing was opened at 11':06 p.m. · No one appearing to speak, it was closed at 11:07 p.m. FANELLI/CLEVEN~ MOVED TO APPROVE THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR C-203. Passed 4-0. CLEVtNGER/FANELLI MOVED TO IlVPRODUCE THE ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING MAP BY TITLE ONLY, WAIVING FORTHER READING, MAKING THE FINDINGS SET OUT IN THE STAFF REPOR~ D/~I'EO 7/19/83. Passed 4-0. 6-9/7/83 VI. NEW BUSINESS A. Discussion of Oral Cnmmunications, if any - None. B. Written Conmunications from Public #1 frcm M. Dennis suggesting means other than hotels for raising City revenues - City Manager requested to a~knowledge. #2 from R. Diridon concerning Bike-to-Work Week - noted and filed. #3 frcm S. Steinmetz encourag~g support for legislation concerning use of IR funds - noted and filed. C. New Business from Councilmembers ' - Counci]menk~r Fanelli re_nDrted that, at the.direction of Council, she had met with Ed Gcmersall and Louise Schaefer; lthey jointly recommended a mem6rial bench for Rob Robinson. CONSENSUS TO ALIDCATE UP TO $50,0 FOR WOODEN B~NCH AT HAKONE GARDENS TO CO~M~]vDRATE ROB ROBINSON, WHEN PROPOSAL IS READY FOR DISCUSSION. VII. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was eddjourned tO c] ~sed session on litigation at 11:14 p.m. Pespectfully suhnitted, Grace E. Cory Deputy City Clerk