The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About05-01-1985 City Council Minutes T/ME: Wednesday, May 1, 1985 PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue TYPE: Regular Meeting CaXtaa~ ~ION r~ Persormel - 5r45 p.m. O-,.~.mity Ce'~ter Senior Lounge (]01~4FI~R. OF THK WEIDLE - 6:00 p.m. Cum~n~.?y Cerfcer Meeting Roen InterviM with AppLicants for ~ritage Preservati~ C-,,,,,issic~ ~ ~:~.cxNG - 7:00 p.m. I. C~GANIZATION A. I~OLL CALL - ~ci~s Cleveg~, Hla~, ~yles ~d ~yor F~elli pres~t at 7:04 p.m. ~ci~ ~llon pres~t at 8:22 p.m. B. e~ - 4~7 ~,F.q/~ ~ ~ ~0~ ~ S~'rI'm. Pass~ 4-0. III. ~ A. ~1~ ~]ai~ ~ ~i~ a ~im ~ ~ P~ ~,,,i~i~ ~ ~ ~1 ~ ~t U.~.S.D. ~j~ ~ 4~7 E~ 2229 ~ 4~7 E~ 2230 ~~ 2231 D. ~1~ ~ ~t ~t ~ ~ ~d ~ ~t P~ . E~ 2232 E. ~ ~~ ~r F~elli r~t~ re~l of It~ B so ~t she could ~s~ fr~ v~g. S~f ~ ~es~ons ~neg ~e W~r~t ~st. ~F.~-q ~ ~P~ OF I~ A ~ C-E ON ~ eNS~ ~r.~. Pass~ 5-0. ~~ ~ ~ 0F I~ B. Pass~ 3-0 (F~elli ~s~g). A.~~1~ ~ 1. S~f ~rs ~ re~ on S~ts ~d ~ghways ~e r~la~os for ~s~g r~r~ts for s~t ~rov~ts ~d ~eir relations~p to the pro~s~ ~lling up of ~e Z~tti ~f~r~ ~r~t A~t. ~ci~s dis~ss~ ~e mtt~ ~d decid~ to vi~ ~e site individ~lly. ~nssus to ag~ize def~r~ ~rov~t a~t for ~y 15 ~t~g. ~t~ Dir~or ~la~ r~est. ~ci~r ~ava suggested ~t ~e 2-5/1/85 organizers run a shuttie service to th~ event 3. Re~ort ¢m Maintenance Of Street Lights in the Village.. Report noted. B. M FR~( CC!~4ISSIONS M CCt4~L'fn~S - None. C. ORDINANCES ]~ RESOLUTIONS 1. Resolut[cms iXm CorL~m with TanClSC~ping and Lighting Dis~ct LI2%-1 (existing) City Manager, Maintenance Director and Civil Engineer explained purpose, pointed out location of various zones on map, a~d reviewed reasons for varying amounts assesse~L CLEVENGER/MOYLES MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2227B GIVING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF ENGIN~:P:~'S REPORT. Passed 4-0. ~HIAVA MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2227C INDICATING II~I~NTION TO ORDER LEVY AND COT.T.~CTION AND SE'Fi'iNG PUBLIC HEARING DATE. Passed 4-0. 2. Resoluticms in Connecti~ with Tandscaping and Lighting District LIA-1 (~ticn) Staff answered questions similar to those concerning the previous item. Civil Engineer also explained that staff had met with residents of the zones to determine what improvements they desired. 3. Settlement of Hulse Litigation and EXtension of Tentative Building Site A~mral for ~DR 1290 Mr. Toppel of the City Attorney's Office explained the settlement and request for extension. MOYLF. q/HLAVA MOVED TO APPROVE S~fI'I~ AG~R~MENT. Passed 4-0. HLAVA/MOYLES MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 2233 EXTENDING T~:NTATIVE BUILDING SITE APPROVAL. Passed 4-0. 1.A~ree~mt with San Jose Water Cc~, Bas Homes and Teerlink Ranch, LtcL in Cx~M~-ticm with Fozmati~ of ~ater District in NHR Area Mr. Toppel of the City Attorney's Office explained the proposed agreement. In answer to Mayor Fanelli, he stated that the agreement would have no effect on formation of the. entire district; the developers were among the original petitioners for the district; the agreement would not discourage other property owners from beconing involved in the district, especially Mr. Cocciardi. HIAVA/MOYT.~q ~ %~D APROVE AGRk~M~NT. Passed 4~0 CLEVENGER/HLAVA .MOVED TO AWARD CONTRACT TO SOUTH BAY FORD IN THE AMOUNT OF $14,326.50. Passed 4-0. ' ~.Wv~lqGER/HIAVA MOVED TO AWARD CONTRACT TO GOLDEN STATE EQUIPMenT COMPANY IN THE AMOUNT OF $19,527.50. Passed 4-0. Councilmember Hlava expressed appreciation for staff's recent success in obtaining low bids on various items. V. PJ~.~C 3-5/1/85 A. Design Pevie. Ap~ to c~r~tn~t a T~o-Stapy Residence on a ~ at N466 ~ P1. (A-1069) ' 1. ~ of ~ ~ (~l~, w. m~ A. ~n) 2. ~ ~ ~ of A~ ~1 to Li~t Si~ ~ ~j.d~ 2,380 ~. ~. (~t/~]]ant, L. ~ E. S~f ~l~nd cir~ces of ap~ls ~d ~er~ ~estions confining ds~ ~ houses ~d ~ prOXies ~ l~al s~t~ of lots. The p~lic h~g ~s ~d at 7:58 p.m. ~ea Coug~, 14474 ~ Place, s~ke as ~ a~ll~t ~/,j~g to ~,~ pro~sd houe. She re~d ~e ~ints in ~e a)l letter ~d ~td out ~e dis~s ~volvd on the raps. She r~estd ~e n~ house ~ b~lt as a one-sto~ no more ~ 22 f~t ~gh. ~n~ ~, 14466 ~ Place, th~ s~ke as the appli~t/ap~ll~t. She ad~essd ~e ~ug~s' ~n~ms by s~tg tt ~ey (~e ~oti~s) ~d a vestal ~teest in te ap~ of ~e n~ ho~e, s~ ~ey w~ld ~ d~ neig~rs. Re~z~g ~at ~e ndg~rs were ~n~md ~ut height ~d set~s, she s~td ~t a tw~sto~ ho~e ~s desir~le ~use it world ~ more en~ effici~t ~d ~il less ~ious ~age of ~e 1~, prese~g rare ~s. She revi~ ~e ~ts in her letter ~d s~td ~t ~e s~e f~ge could not ~ f~er re- du~. She felt ~e pr~sd pl~ pro~dd opt~ utili~tion of ~e pro~y. ~n~g her ~ ~p~l, she said she had ~ ld to ~li~e tt the P1Eg ~mu~dssion's decision on ~e f~ge ~s not ne~ss~ily f~l. She citd a F~t for the ad~tion of ~Are f~ge to a h~se on a s~s~d~rd 1~. She ~ s~d tt d~r~s~g ~e s~e f~ge to tt r~rd by ~e .world not aff~ ~e e~erior d~ions of the ho~e. ~e rdu~im wodd accu~plishd by l~g a ~rch ~closd, she said, w~ch would ~use it to r~d fr~ ~e fl~r ar~ ~l~a~s. In ~er to ~ci~ ~yles, she ~td out ~e l~on of Eious ~s on ~e lot. In re~nse to ~ci~ ~a~, she s~d tt ~e ~ssibility of tEg ~e pro~sd house ~o~d on ~e lot ~d not ~n ~nsiderd by ~e PlUg ~mmmdssion; she ~dd not fores~ ~e r~fi~tio~ of such a m~e ~d world n~ to dis~ss it wi~ her desi~. ~ ~us, 20379 ~at~-~s ~tos R~d, s~ke aga~st ~e Pr~iva ap~l, say~g ~t he livd ~d ~e lot in ~es~on. ~n~ to the ~oti~ 's s~t~t, he s~d, ~s ho~e was s~gle sto~ ra~er ~ ~o sto~. He f~d ~e ad~tion of ~o~er ~sto~ house in ~e ~ ~use his house would ~ have t~ ~y ~sto~ ho~es ~o~d it, rduc~g ~s privaq. He fa~rd b~l~g on ~o c~ lots ra~er ~ on one, ~d he suggest~ ~t a cum~r~sive pl~ es~lishd for devel~t of ~e ~11 lots. ~yor F~elli replid ~t l~d ~e plug ~ght ~ ~ appr~riate t~l, but ~t ~e City ~d not ~ve ~e ~er to force ~s to sell ~ lots as a it. ~ci~ ~llon r~kd tt she world not vote on the totter ~e she ~d ~ssd rest of ~e ptlic h~g. She suggestd, h~ev~, ~t ~e City Attorney ~ght ch~ S~te m~g~ s~tutes. Holly ~vies, 14478 ~ P~, s~ke a~st the Pr~ a~li~on. She s~td ~e ~r~t Protiva resid~ce touchd ~t 11, ~d ~ of ~e st~e ~chd on ~ 13. She ~lievd the house shodd ~ re~esi~d not only to rdu~ the fl~r ~, but also to rduce ~e height ~d bu~ in relations~p to. neig~r~g ho~es ~d incr~se ~e dis~ fr~ the ~ug~ house. She ~td out the a~li~t ' s s~t~t tt ~lco~es ~dd ~ addd later wi ~out PlUg ~ssi~ approval ~d ~a~erizd ~e s~t~t as a "veild ~t" if ~e ~a ~ were not ~ttd. She asse~d ~t ~e a~li~t ~s ~licitly told w~t ~e f~ge was all~d. ~d rode con~ plus in spite of ~ose ~s~ions. She also asse~d ~t ~e ~otivas ~d ~t d~ a l~ge ~s~n tr~ wi~out a ~t. She r~estd t~t ~e pr~sd ho~e ~ l~td to one sto~ with a E height of 22'; ~t ~e house ~ set ~d at l~st 12'; ~t it ~ bdlt of ~t~ial ~o~g wi~ ~e are ra~er t~ ~s~te; ~d t~t ~e ~s)n ~ee ~ repla~ wi~ ~o~er ~. ~lo~s ~, 14560 West~t, s~td ~t ~e sit~tion was ~ ~d shodd not judgd t~ ~y. She felt a vol~ ~rger of ~o sls~d lots would ~e ~st solution. 4-~/1/85 Mrs. Protiva rose again to state that the property owned by Mr. Grodhaus and Ms. Smith did not bordem her lot. She also disputed the statenents that her h6use touched the property line, saying that it was as much as 12' frcln the line. Mrs. Coughlan rose again to state that the Protiva house was'6' to 8' ' frfln the property line. No one further appearjaqg to speak, the public hearing was closed at 8:45 p.m. 'In answer to CouncilnMm~Der Moyles, staff explained that accordj_ng to a 1978 ~p on which the lot lines ~light not ~z accurate, the Protiva house was about 1' from the Lot 11 property line ~md d~,'.~. ~ncroach on Lot 13. Councilmember Clevenger inquired as t6 the precedent cited by Mrs. Protiva, end staff replied that ~Lhe house mentioned was on Carniel. Mr. Toppel of the City Attorney's office re(.~.~ended that the Council judge each case on its merits rather than relying on precedents. He then explained the Council' s options to grant, deny, continue, grant con~Litionally the appeal or request further modification of the design. Councilmembers discu-¢~sed issues, saying that Oak Place is one of the few hi:]toric neighborhoods left in Saratoga; the m~n issue is design, not just height or set- hacks. Councilmembear Hlava c~,~ented that she had been on the Planning Ca,.~ission when the original design was discussed, end the discussion centered around an even smaller house. She felt the long side of the house with the 6' setback should be adjacent to the developer. Councilmember Moyles pointed out that modern stalla~rds would not allow the houses to be built as in the past. He preferred to err on the side of preserving t/xe character of the neighborhood. # He stated a willingness. to grant the Protiva appeal if Mrs. Protiva merged the two lots. After 'further discussien, Mayor Fenelli asked Mrs. Protiva if she preferred to have the Council act on tt~e proposed design,' with the understanding that if her appeal were denied she would have to return to the beginning of the approval process; or if she preferred to retu~m to the Council with a new design which met the guidelines of the Planning Cu~,,ission. Mayor Fanelli s~Tmarized the Council's view that. the design should be ccm~tible with the neighborhood, meet the height and setback and requirements with restL~t to the immediate neighbors, and be within the 2,380 square feet allc~ed by the Planning Canntission. Mrs. Protiva stated that she could return to the Council with a new design on Jane 5; it was pointed out that if either she or the staff were not fully prepared by then, the hearing could 'again be continued. Councilmember Moyles added that he would be accessible to discuss the design with Mrs. Protiva in order to avoid her developing a design which he would feel bound to vote against. CONS~SUS TO CONTINUE TO JUNE 5. Mayor Fanelli then re(~_ssed the meeting frcm 9:11 to 9:28 p.m. B. Ccnsia~ratifm ef Revisic~s of Second Unit Ordinance Mr. Toppel explained the proposed changes, which primarily liberalized restric~cions on existing second units, represented the apparent consensus of the Council at study sessions. He noted that the Second Unit Ordinance was to be before the Planning C~,~,~ssion May 22, euld that the purpose of this hearing was simply to gain public input, not to take act/on. He then answered questions on the ordinance. The public h~aring was opened at 9:45 p.m. John Cahill, 12077 C~Lro1 lane, expressed satisfaction with the flexibility of the proposed ordinance as cc~pared to the current ordinance. He favored more flexibility, however, as 'to the requirement for owner occupancy. Barbara Simner spoke as President of the League of Wcuen Voters. She stated that the League favored preservation of current housing stock, including existing sE~cond units. Louise Cooper, Mt. Eden Rd., suggested consideration of liberalizing restriotions on new second units in the R-1-10,000 zoning district. 5-5/l/85 Charles Bolander rose to state that there were more young applicants for his s~con~ unit than older applicants. He opposed the age restrictions. Harriet Handler, 13385 Ronnie Ave., sp6ke in favor of liberalizing the ordinance, saying that the lot size restrictions prevented establishment of much-needed second units. No one further appearing to speak, the hearing' was closed at 10:08 p.m. Mayor Fanelli summed up the questions to be referred to the Planning Comm/ssion as follows: 1. Is 1.6 acres too much to require for a new accessory structure? 2. Is the penalty for not applying for a permit high enough? 3. Is the owner occupancy requirement appropriate? 4. Is the age requirement appropriate? 5. Should more than one second unit be allowed on a property? 6. Should second units be allowed on R-1-10,000 lots which are larger than the basic requirement for that district? Specific cc~nents concerning the questions were as follows: #3 - Callon felt the requirement to be necessary, with perhaps a one-year grace period if an owner has owned the property for a long period of time. Hlava agreed with Callon and pointed out that deleting the requirement would result in two rental units on one lot.. Clevenger brought up the possibility of deleting the requirement if the owner lived next door, but other Councilmembers felt such a provision would be too complicated to enforce. Fanelli stated that there was some consensus for owner occupancy, but that the issue was still open to Planning C~L~,~ssion review. #4 - Callon wished to retain the requirement, since the issue had initially come to the Council from seniors who wanted to remain in their own homes or move into someone else's second unit; she felt the seniors tended to be good neighbors and cause less impact due to noise and cars. Fanelli noted that age groups other than seniors need housing and that the age requirement might be legally unenforceable in any case. Moyles expressed opposition to the age requirement. Hlava wished to be cautious in making a major change to the ordinance such as deletj_ng the age require- ment until we have more experience with second units. Fanelli stated that the majority of the Council apparently wished to keep the age requirement. #5 - Fanelli felt that this could be accomplished by rezoning rather than changing the ordinance. Callon pointed out that the purpose of the second unit ordinance is not to create multi-residential housing in single family areas; an owner wishing to do so has other options such as subdividing, rezoning, or moving a unit to another lot. #6 - Fanelli believed that an existing unit created by dividing a house without remodeling the exterior would not cause a problem and should be allowed. Callon felt they could be considered for new second units. Clevenger felt that this would be the district in which second units could have the greatest undesirable impact. Callon stated that there were only a few lots in the district which would be larger than the basic requirements, so not many second units could be added. Fanelli believed that most second units in Saratoga are .on small lots and do not impact the neighborhoods adversely. F~lava favored having the Planning Commission look at the issue in terms of what size lot would be allowable. Councilmember Clevenger then asked about the cap provision; Mr. Toppel of the City Attorney's Office replied that the cap of 20 new units per year was still in the ordinance, and far fewer than that have been granted. He expected more applications if the ordinance were liberalized, but not an inundation. Councilmember Moyles requested that the Council comments after the close of the public hearing be transcribed in detail to give the Planning Commission the direction of the Council's thoughts. He favored creating two classes of second units: those existing before August 1983, which would be treated on the basis of compliance with health and safety considerations; those established after that date, which would have to comply with stricter standards. He was concerned about legitimizing existing units and wished to make it easier by deleting the owner occupancy requiremeat and allowing multiple units if they have caused no offense to the neighborhood. 6-511/85 Harriet Handler rose! again to ask how to apply for a second unit. Fayor ~nelti answered her questions, and Ms. Handler stated that second units have little impact on the neighborhood. A. Discussiel of Oral C~nicatiels, if any - None. B~ Writt~ (k~unicatices f~um the Public #1 frcm Louise P~I requesting recognition of National Nursing Hcme Week. CLEVENG~/MOY~,P~q MO~ED TO ADOPT RESOLU~I~.ON 2234 CONCERNING NATIONAL NURSING H~;~ W~m~K. Passed 5-0. C. Ne~ ~-~{nees free Staff, ~am{.~-~tl-ative Re~ not Scheduled City Manager brought up the request frcm the Foothill Club for waiver of fees for their M~morial Day P~rade. ~MOYLF. q MOVe) TO WAIVE ~'~:~q FOR ME~0RIAL DAY PARADE. Passed 5-0. City Manager then noted that he had appointed Clement O. Ford as Deputy City Treasurer for the peariod May 1 through October 1, since the Finance Director, who acted as Deputy Treas~Eer, was resigning. He asked for an appropriation of funds to cover Mr. Ford'-~ salary, saying that the salary was only a token ~ount. Coancilmember Callon asked that Mr. Ford's qualifications be stated, and City Mana- ger replied that the~e were no statutory qualifications, but that Mr. Ford is a retired accountant zmd had been taking care of scme of the duties of the ]Deputy Treasurer on a volunteer basis° In answer to Mr. Toppel of the City Attorney's office, he stated t/rot Mr. Ford was not qualified to be Deputy Finance D/r~.~ztor. Councilmember F/ave renarked that she was scmewhat bothered by having a non-City employee do this type of work and would therefore abstain frc~ voting. CALLON/MOT.~-q MOV~ TO APPROPRIATE FUNDS FOR SALARY OF DEPUTY TREASURER. Passed 4-0 (Hlava abstaind_ng). D. New Business fr~. Councilmembers Callon - brought up tie possibility of passing a resolution on W~nen in Business. CALLON/c~,RVENGER MOVED TO ADOPT RESOI/3T/ON 3235 CONC/,/erlIqG WOM~ IN BUSINESS. Passed 5-0. Callon - brought up a letter frcm Floyd Steinberg concern/rig removal of a tree. Mayor Fanelli reported. that the remover had been required to replace the tree with a 15-gallon tree. Staff e~plained that the dispute had ccme about because of conflicting information as to whether the tree ~ras on Mr. Steinkerg's property or his neighbor ' s. Hlava - suggested that a resolution cu~ending Dr. Paul V. Collins, retiring Superintendent of the Los Gatos-Saratoga Union High School District be adopted. There was consensus to do so at the next meetings. . - reported on an upcoming Joint Powers Agreement meeting concerning Transit Assist. Clevenger - reported that most of the school districts contacted had responded to the school site survey, and recu~endations could be made soon. Fanelli - reported that the Council was to meet with the Board of Trustees of West Valley Joint Ccmmmiry College District the next night; Clevenger noted that she would ha attending 'the Peninsula Division League of California Cities meeting instead. E. Ac~_ion Referral Log - No cul~,ents. 7-5/1/85 VII, A~JOLE~qM~T The meeting was adjourned at 10:44 p.m. to a closed session on personnel. Respectfully submitted, Grace E. Cory Deputy City Clerk