HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-04-1985 City Council Minutes SARATOC~ CIT~ (J:JjNCIL
TIME: Wednesday, December 4, 1985 7:00 p.m.
PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue
TYPE: Regular Meeting
A. ROLL CALI. - 'Councilmembers Fanelli, Moyles and Mayor Clevenger present at
7:04 p.m. Councilmember Hlava present at 7:05 p.m.
B. MINUTES - 11/20
Councilmember Moyles requested that further details be added to the problems des-
cribed by Russ Maynard concerning installation of alarm systems by private companies
and the lack of permanence of some companies. Councilmember Fanelli noted that the
paragraph letters in the motion adopting the ordinance on p. 5 were inconsistent with
the proposed ordinance; City Attorney explained that the paragraphs in the ordinance
had been re-lettered because of the deletion of the Planning Commission's addition.
HLAVA/MOYLES MOVED TO ADOPT THE MINIIrES AS AMENDED. Passed 4-0.
1. Resolution Confirming Appointments of Guch, Hillis and DeCarion
FANEI.I.I/HLAVA MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2290 APPOINTING THE ABOVE. Passed 4-0.
2. t~4m~nistration of Oath of Office to the Above
Mayor Clevenger administered the Oath of Office, and Councilmembers congratulated
the new and reappointed conmissioners.
E. T. Barco, Camino Barco, expressed objections to the Council's discouraging of
applause at the public hearing on Route 85 on November 7. He felt it was the
audience's right to applaud and that it was to the Council's advantage to allow them
to do so. Councilmember Fanelli stated that the Council, as a governing body, has the
right to set its own protocol. The Council chose to ask people not to applaud, she
said, so that the meeting could be conducted in a business-like manner. She believed
the Council had always done so and saw no reason to change its procedures.
III. ~ CAT.F~[~R
All items were removed from the Consent Calendar.
A. Resolution commending Stephen Hail for Service on Finance Advisory
0 .,.,d ttee
Mayor Clevenger and Councilmember Fanelli noted the fine service performed by Mr.
Hall on the Finance Advisory Conmittee and expressed the Council's appreciation.
FANEI.I.I/CLEVENGER MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2291. Passed 4-0.
B. Resolution o,,,,-~,~ting Louie h~nnS upon his Retir~a~nt from City Fn~.loyn~nt
Mayor Clevenger expressed regret that Mr. Lemos was leaving employment with the City
and wished him an enjoyable retirement.
HLAVA/MOYLES MOVED TO ABOPT RESOLUTION 2,292. Passed 4-0.
C. Approval of Warrm~t List
Councilmembers asked questions on the Warrant List which were answered by the City
Manager.
HIAVA/MOYLES MOVED TO APPROVE WARRANT LIST. Passed 4-0.
IV. SC~mXn.rn M~rrm{S
2-12/4/85
A. /~I~b'IR~TIVE ~
1. Finalizing of City's 6-,,,~ts on Draft Environmental l.mpact Report
Tom Tisch showed slides showing depressed and non-depressed areas of a freeway in
southern California. He did not know the depth of the depression, but he expressed
the belief that the agency responsible must have done much planning in order to
build a freeway which was as acceptable as possible to ~he community'.
As to the draft letter to CalTrans w:ith comments on the DEIR, Mayor Clevenger asked
that a number of additions be made and stated that she would go over the letter with
the City Manager. She then noted that members of the public had until Friday to
submit their own questions to CalTrans. Councilmember Fanelli commented that
perhaps other suggested alternatives might be listed in a separate statement. She
noted that the Council had no data on which to base a decision on alternatives such
as the tunnel which had been suggested. She also inquired as to the projections
based on modeling done by San Jos~e, and Councilmember Hlava replied that the
projections based on the San Jose modeling would be in much greater detail than what
had previously been provided.
2. RepoE~: from Community'Development Director on Gatto letter concerning
Deannexation of parcel (continued from 11/20)
Consensus to remow~ from calendar in response to letter from Mr. Gatto requesting
removal. Councilmember Fanelli requested that Mr. Gatto be informed that the Council
is not interested in de-annexation so that he would not waste time on such a proposal.
3. Policy Devel~t Calendar
City Manager answered Councilmembers' questions on the calendar. Mayor C.levenger
wished to inform the public of what was to be reviewed, and City Manager suggested
sending a letter to community groups inviting input on the budget. In answer to
Councilmember Hlava, he stated that~ the Council would probably build its agenda at
the second meeting in January. CounCilmember Hlava was concerned about the state of
the budget for the current year with respect to loss of Revenue Sharing funds and
other matters; she requested a mid~-year budget review so that the Council could
decide not to do soxne capital projects, for instance, if the budget looked tight.
Councilmembers also requested that current recipients of Revenue Sharing funds
be informed of the anticipated loss 6f those funds. Consensus to approve calendar.
4. October Financial Report
Councilmember Fanelli questioned the placing of so much under "miscellaneous." She
also noticed a large apparent over-expenditure in "public area landscaping." City
Manager replied that he intended to check the figures. Consensus to approve report.
5. Uncontrolled Party Cos~ Recovery
Rollin Swanson, a member of the Public Safety Commission, pointed out that the
purpose of sending tlne proposed lette~ was not simply to recover costs from parents,
but also to convey the concern of the City as to the seriousness of the problem.
Councilmembers suggested the letter 'go out over'the Mayor's signature rather that
the City Attorney's, and that iE be shortened and more tactfully worded.
Councilmember Moyles objected to Sending the letter on two grounds: sinde the
request for reimbursement could not zbe enforced, it invited scorn; parents already
pay taxes for service and should not ~have to pay twice.
HLAVA/FANELLI MOVED TO APPROVE THE PROPOSED LEI~'i'~R, WITH THE MAYOR WORKING OUT THE
EXACT WORDING WITH q.~E CITY MANAGER. Passed 3-1 (Moyles opposed).
Since the hour of 8:00 p.m. had arrived, Mayor Clevenger proceeded to public
hearings on the agenda.
V. PUBLIC ~S
Appeal of denial of variance to allow an 8' soundwall along the front and
side property lines at 18621 Kosich Dr. (Applicant/appellant, R. Haydon)
(V-714(c))
The public hearing was opened at 8:25 p.m.
3-12/4/85
Richard Haro, architect for the project, reiterated the grounds of the appeal as
stated in the appeal letter. He also stated his intent to make the proposed wall
attractive. In answer to Councilmember Hlava, City Attorney explained how the height
of a fence is measured. In response to Councilmember Fanelli, Planner Kerdus stated
that an 8-foot fence would have to be 25' 'back from the property line on the Saratoga
Avenue side and 10' from the rear property line to be built without a variance, but
the house was at 25.' She added that the hot tub was about 6' from the rear line.
Mr. Haro displayed drawings showing a six-foot fence and an eight-foot fence and
explained that his client would put in landscaping if permitted to place the fence
back from the property line. He asserted that a sound wall was needed in back as well
as the front because of a large vacant lot in back.
Alan Aspey, 12421Lolly Ct., asked what current ordinances provided as to fences
facing a right of way. City Attorney stated they could be 6' tall except in certain
situations. In answer to Councilmember Fanelli, Planner Kerdus stated that the
requirement for Planning Commission approval of walls on arterials has been
implemented only on Saratoga-Los Gatos Rd. Mr. Aspey then said he had been
concerned about the wall's blocking driver vision, but his fears were somewhat
allayed by the proposed setting back of the wall. He also stated that he did not
want it to look like the lawrence Expressway.
Ray Haydon spoke as the applicant. If he were not allowed to build a set-back 8'
fence, he said~ he would have no choice other than to build a 6' fence, which might
be less attractive, on the property line. He would not spend as much money
improving its appearance, he said, because he needed to invest his money in
features that would improve the value of the house, such as an effective sound wall.
If he could have the 8' fence where proposed, he would remove excess landscaping
from the City right of way and improve visibility for drivers.
Omar Chatty of Morgan Hill then suggested that building the freeway might lessen
traffic impacts and, thus, the need for a sound wall. Mayor Clevenger replied that
traffic was expected to increase in Mr. Haydon's area if the freeway were built.
No one further appearing to speak, the public hearing was closed at 8:45 p.m.
Mayor Clevenger stated she had a problem in granting variance for an 8' wall
because she did not want to establish a policy by granting it. She felt, however,
~_- that the Council needed to look at the present ordinance because of the need for
sound walls along arterials.
Councilmember Moyles stated he was unable to make the findings to grant the appeal.
He felt the applicant had alternatives as to what to build, and it was the
applicant's reponsibility to mitigate any undesirable effects of his choice.
Councilmember Hlava was also unable to make the variance findings. She felt there
was a problem with the General Plan as to decibel levels and the appearance of sound
walls along arterials. She suggested that the Planning Commission look at the two '
issues and set up a procedure to allow for this kind of situation.
In response to Councilmember Fanelli, Planner Kerdus stated that if the wall were
considered an accessory structure it would have to be set back 25 feet; the staff had
recommended the conditioning of a 10' setback if the project were approved. Mr.
Haydon indicated that he was agreeable to the 10' setback. Councilmember Fanelli
stated that she recognized the applicant's problem, but was unable to make findings
for a variance for such a tall wall because it was not in keeping either with the
variance procedure or with the character of' Saratoga.
Mayor Clevenger preferred to send the matter to the Planning Commission and have
them look at the entire question of fences on arterials. She wished the application
to remain active so that the applicant would not have to re-file.
Councilmember Moyles felt the broader issue of soundwalls on arterials had been
resolved and should not be reviewed, but Councilmember Hlava believed a sound
analysis had not been done at the t~me of General Plan review.
MOYLES/FANELLI MOVED TO DENY THE APPEAL WITHHPREJUDICEANDWITHNO FEE WAIVER.
Passed 4-0.
Planner Kerdus then clarified that if the applicant returned with a 6-foot fence on
the property line it Would be reviewed by the Planning Commission because it is on an
4-12/4/85
arterial; such a rew[ewwould haveno set fee.
Councilmember Hlava and Mayor Clevenger then moved and seconded to refer th,~ issue
of sound abatement procedures along arterials to the Planning Commission for review
along with the General Plan. After {further discussion, the motion was wit'hdrawn,
and there was consensus to permit that issue to compete with others to be considered
for the schedule of the Planning Commission.
Mayor Clevenger recessed the meeting ~from 9:04 to' 9:22 p.m.
B. Appeal of denial of Second Unit Use Permit at 20471 Willjams Avenue
(Applicant/appellant, F. Ff_Kenzie) (SUP 13)
The public hearing was opened at 9:25 p.m.
Kirk McKenzie spoke as the son of the applicant/appellant. He reiterated the points
in the appeal letter and noted that his mother was attempting to comply with the
ordinance, unlike some others in Saratoga. He also raised constitutional issues,
asserting that the age and handicapped requirements may be illegal, and disallowing
the second unit may amount to the taking of property without just compensation. No
one further appearing to speak, the public hearing was closed at 9:34 p.m.
Councilmember Moyles stated that his intent with respect to the second unit
ordinance was not to abate existing ~econd units, but to bring them into compliance
with codes. He felt that although second units in general were not especially
desirable, he would view an appeal ~n an existing second unit more libera].ly than
one on a new second unit. He noted the owner's investment, the fact that the second
unit was not incompatible with the a~ea, and the lack of complaints. He was willing
to waive the setback and lot size requirements if the parking problem could be dealt
with, and he was able to make the hardship findings. Councilmember Fanelli agreed
in general but fe].t the age requirement need not be waived since the unoccupied
second unit could be rented to someone who met that requirement. Councilmember
Hlava feared for the proliferation of rental units with no supervision and was
unable to make hardship findings tQ waive the owner occupancy requirement. Mayor
Clevenger feared that waiving the requirements would set a precedent which would
wipe out those requirements, especially owner occupancy.
Councilmember Moyles moved that the appeal be granted subject to waiver of owner
occupancy and age requirements for this owner only, making the hardship findings.
The motion died for lack of a secondS.
MOYLES/FANE, t.LI MOVED TO GRANT THE APPEAL, WAIVING THE O~ OCCUPANCY REQUIREMENT
BUT NOT THE AGE REQUIREMENT, WITH THE WAIVER TO APPLY TO THE CURRENT OWNER ONLY,
MAKING THE HARDSHIP FINDINGS. Failed 2-2.
· ]
City Attorney noted that City rd n required the matter to return to the Council
O ln~ Ces
for the next meeting at which a quorum was present because of the split vote.
C. Ordinance designating property known as the Nardie Borne at 1465{) 6th St.
as a Heritage Resource (first reading)
Councilmembers questioned Heritage Preservation Commission Chairperson Sharon
Landshess as to the circumstances under which the application had been brought to
the Council and the purposes of the~ prospective buyer of the property. She replied
that there was concern that the structure might be demolished to, make room for a
commercial use, since the property[was zoned commercial; the buyer wished to make
use of historic building codes, which were less strict than standard codes. City
Attorney added that: tax benefits are available for historic structures.
Carol }~uldin, 15345 Bohlman Rd., then spoke as the prospective buyer. She explained
that the house was legal for commercial or residential uses. There are three homes
next to it, she said, but they do not look like the subject house. As to the required
parking, she felt that no parking Was n~cessary because her business is operated by
telephone. Mrs. Mauldin said she would buy the property even if no commercial use
were approved; the sale was to be completed before the end of the year. She wanted to
save the structure as a benefit t6 the City, she said. Councilmembers expressed
reluctance to deal with the issue before the person interested in the historic
designation owned the property and before the Planning Commission had decided whether
to grant the parking variance which had been requested.
There was consensua to continue the.matter to January 15, by which time the variance
5-12/4/85
on the parking should have been decided.
Concerning a related matter, Councilmember Fanelli brought up the Warher Hutton
House, which the Historic Preservation Commission was considering having moved to an
orchard in Saratoga. She noted that the costs may be more than expected, and it may
be better used in some location other than on City land. Ms. Landsness explained
that CalTrans was probably responsible for moving the house and related costs, City
Manager noted that the staff intended to consider different locations in the City,
and the Parks and Recreation Commission had wished to participate in the process.
Councilmember Fanelli felt it would be useful to put her concerns in writing.
B, RgP(~'iS FRON CONI~SSIONS AI~ COMMI'ffl.:J.-'q - None.
1. Early gaming Fire Alarm System (second reading)
FANELLI/MOYLES MOVED TO READ ORDINANCE 38.136 BY TITLE ONLY, WAIVING FURTHER
READ~qG. Passed 4-0.
}DYLES/FANELI,I MOVED TO ADOPT ORDINANCE 38.136 AS READ BY TITLE. Passed 4-0.
2. Satellite Dish Antefinn Ordinance (first reading)
City Attorney explained revisions he had made. Councilmember Hlava requested tbat
the ordinance be amended to include a maximum beight limit of 10'. Councilmember
Fanelli suggested tbat it be amended to allow one foot of increased height for every
3 feet of increased setback. There was consensus to make beth changes.
FANEIJ.I/HLAVA MOVED TO APPROVE NEGATIVE DECLARATION. Passed 4-0.
HLAVA/FANELLI MOVED TO INTRODUCE THE ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO
REGULATE THE PLACEMENT OF SATELLITE DISH ANTENNAS AS AMENDED IN SECTION 1.14 AND
1.13, SUBPARAGRAPHS E AND H. Passed 4-0.
3. Resolution increasing appropriations for executive recruitment nd
City Atterney's revision of the Mtmicipal Code
FANELI,I/HLAVA MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2241.10. Passed 4-0.
4. Resolution Eliminating Parking on Portions of Big Basin Way, Oak
Street, and Kan{na Av~mue
MOYLES/FANELLI MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION MV-162. Passed 4-0.
Councilmember Fanelli complimented Erman Dorsey on the clear, thorough report be bad
written.
D. BIDS AND C(}ITRAClS - None.
Mayor Clevenger then proceeded to items following public hearings on the agenda.
A. Discussion of Oral ~'-..,,~mications, if any.
Mayor Clevenger stated that she agreed with Col. Barco's statement that it is unreason-
able not to allow applause at a Council meeting. She felt applause was not intimidat-
ing, and there was no way to enforce such a rule in any case. Councilmember Moyles
stated tbat although he admired and respected Col. Barco, he disagreed with him on
this issue. He feared Col. Barco might not fully appreciate the element of intimida-
tion tbat people wbo are assertive and noisy may introduce. He preferred to make a
judgment based on reasoning rather than on the enthusiasm of the crowd. He believed
that the level of public interaction with the Council at' the Route 85 bearing October
2 was detrimental, and that the Council needed to be sensitive to minority views at a
public meeting. Councilmember Fanelli stated that tbe Council meetings were business
meetings, and it was necessary to maintain proper demeanor during the entire meeting;
she had been appalled to hear the tape recordings of the October 2 meeting, which
revealed catcalls and much moving about and loud talking while the Council was deliber-
ating. Councilmember Moylesthenexplainedtbat, farfromzriticizingMayor Clevenger,
he supported the pro-active role which she had taken in limiting audience reactions.
6-12/4/85
Councilmember Hlava was not happy wizh applause, but did not feel the meeting was
out of control.
B. Written Ca~unications fmmTthePublic
Councilmember Hlava noted that many well-written letters had been received
concerning Route 85 and suggested that they!beacknowledged. Other Councilmembers
were unable to envision how staff could respond to the many letters received.
C. New Business from Staff, Administrative Reports not Scheduled
City ~nager reported on efforts to Obtain City liability insurance. He submitted a
letter from Dan Abbey, the City's fnsurance broker, describing several options.
After discussion, there was consensus to approve Option #1 provided by Alliance
Insurance Company, as described in;'Mr. Abbey's letter of December 4, 1985, on the
condition that the City Manager found that Class XI was an acceptable rating for an
insurance company. Councilmember!Moyles noted that defense fees would not be
covered and asked if Mr. Toppel's 6ffice could handle increased legal activity.
City Attorney said the Council should not feel committed to use Atkinson-Farasyn for
all legal work, and the City should consider using special counsel as the need
arises. Councilmember Moyles also inquired as to the need for a letter of credit,
and City Attorney questioned that need. Councilmember Hlava reported on the status
of an initiative measure and a legislative bill to help solve the insurance problem.
City Manager then reported that a letter had been received objecting t.o staff's
refusal to allow a Christian Science. announcement banner to be posted in Blaney Plaza.
The City Attorney e:~pressed his opinion that under current policy the banner wouldbe
permitted. After discussion, 'there was consensus to continue the current policy.
Next, the City Manager reported on the results of the Route 85 survey sent to
residents and distributed the tally ~heet.
D. New BusinessfrcmConnc~ hers
Councilmember Moyles reported onla transportation finance bill. Consensus to'
request staff to determine how monies provided by bill could be spent;
Councilmember Hla~x suggested they be used for repair of two bridges on Pierce Rd.;
Councilmember Mayles suggested they Ibe used for improvements in the Village.
Councilmember Hlava reported on Transportation Commissionbusiness, notingthat
there was still discussion of the use of Transit District money for high-occupancy
vehicle lanes. Councilmember Fanelli remarked that on the Artesia freeway such
lanes seemed to be effective.
Mayor Clevenger reported that Los Gatos wished to host a meeting onRoute 85 with
Saratoga on January 14. Councilmember Moyles requested a written agenda, and
there was consensus to request that~itbea dinner meeting.
Mayor Clevenger then reported on th~ Mayors Conference and their decision t0 have a
nominating conmittee select the next chairperson.
Councilmember Fanelli suggested deferring selection of an alternative for Route
85 until after the last public he~ring on January 7. Mayor Clevenger pointed out
that the Council still does not h~ve some critical information necessary'for an
informed decision. There was consensus to delay further.discussion until after the
public hearing.
E. Action Referral Log - ~No comments.
VII. AII]Oi~t~I~1~T '
The meeting was adjourned at 11:21 p.m.
Respectfully sutxnitted,
GraCe E. Cory
Deputy City Clerk