HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-19-1986 City Council Minutes SARATOGA CITY C[~ClL
TIME: Wednesday, Febr~ry 19, 19~6 - 7:00 p.m.
PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue
TfPE: Regular Meeting
1. ROLL CAI.L - Councilmembers Callon, Fanelli, Hlava, Moyles and Mayor Clevenger
present at 7:06 p.m.
2. ~ ~ - None.
3. I~OUI'ItiE HPa'J_~cS
A. Hin~ ~ 2/5
B. Approval of k~rrant List
Sta££ members answered a number of questions from Councilmembers concerning ~he
Warrant List. ~Since no de£initive information was immediately available on the
circumstances of the City's paying the PG~E bill of the Ghamher of Commerce, that
ite~ was removed from the Warrant List.
HLAVA/FAN~.LI MOVED API~OVAL OF THE WAP~A~T LIST WITH THE EX~ffON OF THE
OF COI~fi~RCE ~ BIL~ Passed 5-0.
A. Consideration of Gla~m~ - lL~el
Gleven~er/Hlava moved to deny the claim. Passed 5-0. City l~nager recommended that
~he Council approve the claim. The contractor who had l~rformed the work resultir~
in Miss Keel's claim had indemnif.ied the City, he said, so the City could be
reimbursed by him; Miss Keel should sign a release, however.
HLAVA/I~YLES MOV~ TO RECONSIDER THE DENL~L. Passed 5-0.
HLAVA/CLEVENGEI~ MOVED TO APPROVE T~E CLAIM IN THE AMOUNT OF $80, SUBJECT TO THE
CLAII~AI~'S SIGNING FOP~I ~.F~STNG THE GITY FRC~ ALL LIABILITY~ Passed 5-0.
B. Order con~ent Calendar
1) Re~ol~cion Revising Order of Business at Regular l~eet~r~a
2) Resolution C-~..,-~in~ Be~y ~and ~illy~ Peck
RESOVJTI~ 2310
3) Action Referral Log
ResolL~cion c--~.,-~n~ Barbara ~is ~ Pl~in~
5) Resolution deai~na~ ~'s ~isr~ry k~ -~
- 6) Her~e Preservation G-.~,,zasion Action~ - 1/29
7) Acceptance and Acknowle~ of ~one Donation - Uenaka
8) ~Par~ ~nd Recreation C-'-..,.:sgion Ac~i~ - 2/3
9) Authorization ~o ~o ~o Bid for ~r~.rov~r~ for Gc~reas Sprjn~ Park
lO)Authorization to proceed with Final Design of Medtan8 on Saratoga-
St~myvale Rd. between Southern Pacific Railroad and Blauer Dri~
2-2/19/86
11) Planning C~-....;ssiou Actions - 2/12
HLAVA/CLEVENGER ~JDVED TO APPROVE CONSENT CAHKNDAR B. Passed 5-0:
A. Oral Co~ie~itious from the Public sad Co~missious
Joan Hershkowitz, 19364 Shubert Ct., 'urged the Council to place an anti-frE:eway
initiative petition on the ballot, stating that the petition had been signed by a
number of citizens eq~ml to 23% of the Ivotes cast in the last election:
E.T. Barco, Camino Barco, noted that the newspaper had quoted the City Attorney as
questioning the wordj'.ng of the petition. He felt it was too late to re-word the
petition and urged the Council to put the measure on the ballot as originally
worded, saying that an adv/sory measure was not acceptable:
Tom Reddick, 12389 Larchmont Avenue, requested the City Attorney to draft a recall
docunent for the entire CoLmcil.
Shelley Willisms, Brookridge Drive, suggested that the Lawrence Expressway be made a
graded parkway or freeway; noted that a pell from the Route 85 Task Force indicated
that the majority of residents of Los! Gatos, Saratoga and Monte Sereno favored a
freeWay; stated that ~ flyer from '~rotect Our Environment" should have made clear
that the group was ags~inst a freeway; suggested that the Council consider putting a
pro-freeway measure on the ballot.
Councilmember Callon pointed out that having the City Attorney assist private
citizens with initiative petitions or ~ecall documents would be an improper use of
public funds. Councilmember Hlava felt the Council could rightly be criticized if
the City Attorney took on such projects.
As to placing a measure on the ballot, there was consensus to adjourn to February 25
in order to make a decision on that issue at that timel After discussion; there was
consensus not to make the item a public hearing, but to permit the proponents of the
measure to answer Councilmembers' questions if they w/shed to do so: There was also
consensus to limit the; discussion to the merits of the initiative petition and not
to discuss the issue oJ~ the freeway itself.
As to having a represe~ltative of CalTrans speak to the Council on possible different
freeWay configurations~, .there was consensus to do so March 11:
Marilyn Kanemura, Chai'm~an of the L'b ry Commission, reported on activities of the
Commission. She also requested that the Council write the Covemot and State
legislators requesting full funding! for the' public library fund: There was
consensus to do so. ~'
· .,.. ~
B. Writtea CA.~.X~'~CatiOUS from the: Public
1) Letter fr~a Charles J. White. Saratoga Orchards lt~mm~ers Association,
request~r.~ stop sigas at Elva, Canyou View, Reid; etc~ intersectieu
Staff directed to monitor situation and return to Council if warranted.
2) Letter from Bill and Marie Phillips,' 19096 Bonnet Way. expressing
3) 'Letter frm, Todd Walsh, 12759 Plymouth Dry'. urging that antt-freeway petition
be placed on Jt~e ballot.
4) Letter from J~mes M. Purceil, C~tholic Social Service of Sant~ Clara
Co~ty, request:in~ $2000 to fund Loa~ Te~m Care (Jdxdmn~n
5) Copy of letter from Akos Szobo~zlay, ~ress{r~J~ objections to newsl~mper
articles about Hi~y
3-2/19/86
Items 2) through 5) noted; to be filed and acknowledged.
6) Letter from Committee for Green Foothills Concerning proposed County
ordinance (added at met~
City Manager was directed to write Supervisors expressin8 support for idea of not
allowin~ County regulations to be circumvented through gift deed process.
6. OLD BUSINESS - None.
7. l~I BUSIESS
A. Report on Request for Yield Sign at Douglass l~n~e and Shadow Oaks Way
After discussion, there was consensus to direct the' staff to opinions of the
residents concerning the staff proposal and to return to Council March 19.
B. Report on Request for Traffic Control S~En~ at Saratoga Avenue at
Saratoga Glen Place
Councilmembers discussed the traffic flow in the area. City Manager stated that
staff proposal was expected to solve existing problem.
Mayor Clevenger permitted Marcia Fariss, 18983 Saratoga Glen Place, to speak. She
felt that the staff proposal would solve part of the problem, but she felt it would
not solve the problem of cars going south short-cutting the light. She felt the
traffic counts were in error concerning this problem. She favored a pertial cul-de-
sac.
FANELLI/HLAVA MOVED TO APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND ADOPT RESOLUTION MV 164
PROHIBITING U-IIItNS AND LEFf TURNS FOR NORTHBOUND TRAFFIC. Passed 5-0.
Councilmember Moyles requested that another ·traffic count be performed six months
after the improvements had been installed.
Since the hour of 8:00 p.m. had arrived, Mayor Clevenger proceeded to public
hearings on the agenda.
8. FtmI.~C
A. Ordinance Designat~ Bardie ~ at 14650 6th Street as a Heritage Resource
(first ro~l~,~ (continued from 1/15)
City Attorney explained that the Planning Commission was to consider a variance on
the house March 12. -City Hanager suggested continuing the public hearing until
after the variance question was decided. The public hearing was opened at 8:11 p.m.
Carol Mauldin spoke as the applicant fo~ Heritage Resource designation, stating that
· all objections had been met. She said .that .she now owned the house, as the property "'
was in escrow, and requested that the'Council introduce the ordinance so Chat she
could proceed with restoration of the building.
Planner Kerdus explained that the 'original variance request had been withdrawn and
a different request would be before the Pining Commission. She also stated that
proposed designation would affect ~the bellcling cedes applicable to the structure,
causing more liberal codes to apply.
Councilmember Moyles expressed 'the desire to ensure that the applicant was fully
informed as to the effect of the historic designation. Councilmember Callon agreed
but pointed out that the applicant would receive certain benefits from the
designation. Councilmember Noyles also noted that the Heritage Preservation
Commission expressed support for the wrisnce, although such considerations were not
within their jurisdiction. He feared that parallel tracks of planning might be
formed.
No one further appeared to speak. '.
· Councilmember Fenelli feared that not all steps had been taken so that the Council
4-2/19/86
could properly consider the approval ~.~f the historic designation. She felt that if
the parking problem were not resolved, the property might be down-zoned to
residential. She did[ not wish to put; the City in the position of creating something
for which the Council would have ~
to.make exceptions which would not be grm~ted to
other applicants. She preferred tO take the required steps in the proper order.
Mrs. Mauldin replied that she did not care if the property were zoned commercial or
residential; she simply wanted to restore it. Councilmember Hlava agreed that the
steps should be takea in proper orderS.
CAI.I.ON/CLEVENGER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. Passed 3-2 (Fanelli, Hlava
opposed).
CALLON/CLEVEN~K MO~D TO INTRODUCE ORDINANCE BY TITLE ONLY. Passed 3-2 (Fanelli,
Hlava opposed).
Councilmember Fanel].i explained that' her vote was not a vote against the historic
designation, but a ~)te against the process which had come about.
After discussion, there was consensus to instruct the Planning Commission that their
deliberations on the variance request should not be influenced by the Council vote.
Councilmember Fanelli then expressed her opinion that any historic designation
should go through the Planning Commission before going to the Historic Preservation
Commission. Planner Kerdus replied that the ordinance required that the application
go to the Historic Preservation Commission for their recommendation to the Planning
C~mm~ssion.
B. Appeal of PlsxminE C~..i,.tssion Denlid of Design Review Request for New TWo-
Story Single Family Residence at 21409 Toll Care Rd. (Appellant/applicants,
Peter and E~.a Kyne11, fomnerly NcBain & Cibbs, Inc.)(A-1016)
Planne~ Kerdus explained the appeal ~nd answered Councilmembers' questions. The
public hearing was opened at 8:37 p.m.
Peter Kynell spoke as an appellant/applicant. He referred to a letter of support'
from the Thomases, ldlich was distributed to the Council. He reviewed the sequence
of events and stated that he had complied with each requirement imposed on him by
the Planning Commission, but that more requirements had continually been added.
Don Steinbach, 14600 Bougainvillea, Submitted photographs of the site and explained
the elevation of the project as compared to neighboring homes.
Bob Sprague, 14605 Bougainvillea, stated that the proposed house was a very large
one on a very small lot with a sizable retaining wall. He felt there' was no reason
to violate building standards because~ problems of the lot.
David Pines rose to note that~ as a Planning Commissioner who had deliberated on the
original design review request, he was ready to answer any questions.
Mr. Kynell then stated that the neighbors were basing their objections· on the
· previous plan, which showed a much ,larger footprint. Tae retaining wall, he said,
"was not over five feet except along Tollgate Road, where it was higher to
accommodate flush ].ighting which would not bother the neighbors. He explained a
". model of the proposed house, showing the site and a neighboring house, which had not
been available to the Planning CommiSsion. ' --.
"~, .... ..
Councilmember Moyles requested that the! staff determine how the change in method of
~ounting affected the square footage figures for the proposed l~ouse and'for
neighboring houses, which had been said to be in the 5500 square-foot range.
Planner Kerdus stated that the former counting method had probably been used for
neighboring houses. She believed. that the proposed house would appear to be
approval-rarely 300 square feet smaller if the old counting method were applied to it.
David Pines rose again to explain the Planning Commission's position further. He
said changes in calculating square footage had been made to convey the sense of bulk
better. He said the pad would be pretty much covered by hard surface. Because the
site is elevated, he said, setbacks were less effective in protecting the
neighbors.
5-2/19/86
NO one further appearing to speak, the public hearing was closed at 9:01 p.m.
Councilmembers discussed issues further. Councilmember Fanelli noted that the
project had been denied partly because of grading which had been done by a previous
owner. She compared' the cut-and-fill figures with Other projects and found that
perhaps they might not be excessive. Some of the driveway grading, moreover, had
been recommended by the Fire District, she said. Planner Kerdus stated that it was
not clear who had done parts of the grading~
Councilmember Callon was concerned about the applicant's having received different
directions. She did not like the flat pad, but felt that since it was there it had
to be dealt with. She was somewhat concerned about the architecture of the house,
but not its size.
Mayor Clevenger stated that the applicants had had to return to the Commission
because they bad not done what was requested of them.' She felt that the Commission
had reviewed the project appropriately and saw no compelling reason to overturn its
decision.
Councilmember Callon felt the applicants had done most, if not all of what was
originally required of them, which was reducing the height, removing the second
story over the garage, and pushing the house 5' farther back from Bougainvillea.
Councilmember Fanelli agreed and expressed her opinion that other houses in the
neighborhood, both approved houses and houses which had been constructed, had more
impact and bulk than the proposed house. She felt the house was set into the
hillside more appropriately. In short, she felt that issues had been made
concerning this project which had not been of concern in other projects.
Councilmember Moyles expressed concern as to making the required findings. He felt
he could not override the Planning Commission without seeing the site, so was
willing to pestpone the decision. While he sympathized with the applicant because
of the inconsistency of direction given to him, he felt the remedy was to get a
count and stick to it rather than-to attempt to make findings on the basis of
sympathy. :
Councilmember Hlava also expressed concern as to the process the applicant had had
to go through. She felt the house minimized the bulk as much as possible and
pointed out that the entire structure was not visible from one direction. She felt
the 24' height was modest for two stories. She felt much of the natural landscaping
was gone, but that was because of the grading which had already been performed. She
did not think that lower the house one or two feet would help the neighbors on
Bougainvill~a in terms of their view. .I .~.,.- ........
Mayor Clevenger believed the house to be t6o bulky for the size of the pad. She
thought it was very visible and should be designed more sensitively for the sake of
the neighbors. Rather than comparing the 'proposed house to other houses, which were
badly designed in her opinion, she felt each house should· be judged on its own
merits. {
FANT~.I.I/ItLAVA MOVED TO GRANT THE APPEAL, MAKING THE FINDINGS CONCERNING INTIltFERENCE
.. WITH PRIVACY AND VIEWS OF SURROUNDING RESIDEN(IF-q, PRESERVATION OF NATURAL LANDSCAPE
.I AS IT PRESENTLY EXISTS, LACK OF pERCEPTION OF EXCESSIVE BULK, AND COMPATIBILITY WITH
~ HOMES IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA; MODIFYING CC~DITION 2 TO Pd~'LECT THE FLOOR AREA
AS NOT EXCEEDING 6972 SQUARE FEET; AND STRIKING CONDITION 12. Passed 3-2.
(Clevenger, Moyles opposed). ':', ~: '.~:'-
Councilmember..Fanelli suggested that a better process be established so that no
other applicant would have to experience the problem of changing requirements. She
Council's decis on was no reflection on the Planning
noted, however, that the i
Commission' s decision.
Mayor Clevenger recessed the meeting fran 9:26 to 9:44 p.m.
C. Amendment of ~eneral Plan Designation of a portion of a parcel at the
southwest comer of Sobey ~d. and Chester Ave. from Open Space-Outdoor
" Recreation (OSOR) to Residantial-Very Low Density (RVLD) (Gypsy Hill
· Subdivision)
6-2119186
City Manager explained proposal, noting that it appeared from the map ~hat some
trail easement needed to be reserved. Councilmember Fanelli said that trail
easements were dedic~tted at the time !of subdivision, and Planner Kerdus added that
the Plsrmin~ Commission would make the decision on trails and would ensure 'that they
were properly corrected to existing t~rails~ The public hearing was opened at 9:50
p.m. No one appearing to speak, it w~s closed at 9:51 p~m.
FAN]~.I,I/CLEVENGER MD~ED TO APPROVE THE NEGATIVE DECLARATIONi Passed 5-0.
HIAVA/I~DYLES I~DVED TO ADOPT RF. SOLUTION 2314 AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN. Passed 5-0.
Councilmember Hlava inquired as to the n~nber of General Plan Amendments tern-lining
for the year, and City Manager replied that a total of four per year were permitted.
He stated that a conscious effort would be made to coordinate the remaining
an~ndments.
C. Raperr cm~e~,in~ Survey of Council Salaries
City Manager explaine] report, noting. that Cupertino had not been included i'n the
survey because it was in a larger population category. Councilmembers discussed
various aspects of reimbursement and salariesl There was consensus to have the City
Manager write a formal reimbursement policy which would allow for reimbursement for
meetings Councilmembers artended as representatives of the Council and for certain
travel out of the County. There was also consensus to direct the staff to obtain
the relevant informat:ion from Cupertino as well as information on what benefits
would be available to the Saratoga Council and to notice a public hearing to be held
on March 19 on an ordinance allowing ]Council salaries up to $300 per month with :.
employee benefits.
.
D. Request for R~[und of Fees ~y Carl Franklin (SE~ 1615, U-722)
FAN~U.I/CALLON MDVED ~1) REFUND $1525.00~: Passed 5-0~ ' ..
.
E. Rec~----~atim from ~ar~ and P~reation C~,.~./ssion ~ Frem~t Sche~l Site
City Manager explained recOmmendat!ion and reviewed history of proposal.
Councilmembers discussed the possibility of developing the park through the lease
option, with the perk reverting to public use after a given period of time. M~yor
Clayanger felt that that would be too high a price to pay for developing the park.
Councilmember Fanelli 'was concerned that those buying homes might believe the park
was private, and thE:re would be a !dispute when it reverted to public use.
Councilmember Hlava pointed out that the park had been conditioned because this was
an area which needed a park~ She opposed having a park which could not be used by
the public. ~
Dick Oliver, the developer, stated theft he had requested that a decision be made
because he was selling homes wi'th the representation that the lend in question was a
park site. . . .I _. . ~ .
FANELLI/MOYLES MOVED TfIAT THE 2.3 ACRE SiTE BE LEFT AS DEDICATED TO THE CITY FOR A
PUBLIC PARK. Passed 5-0. . ~: · .
FANELLI/HLAVA MOVED' TO'APPROVE CONTRACT WITH MACKAY AND SOMPS IN THE AMOUNT OF
$17,400.00. Passed 5-0;
G. P, eport fr(ml Firerace f'~-mHttee 'an' Cox/S~rat~-SIm~yvale Property (added at meet{-~
Consensus to consider at March 5 meeting~
H. Froposed Polic7 Isstes Liet
After discussion, there was consensus to ikeep the list as proposed and to direct the
City Manager to prepare an "in-progress" list of items being worked on.
- 9. CITY CeiMC~L
7-2/19/86
In response to Councilmember Callon, City Manager stated that under the new agenda
format an oral communication would either be handled immediately or, if discussion
was required, would be set for the next agenda.
Councilmember Callo~ then noted that a Sheriff's Deputy had been quoted in the
newspaper as making derogatory remarks about Saratogans in connection with the
recent storms. There was consensus to direct the City Manager to write a letter to
the Deputy involved expressing the Council's objections to her remarks.
Councilmember Fanelli expressed concern about the appropriateness of a Planning
Commissioner's participating in the Council's deliberations on an appeal from the
Commission. Councilmember Callon agreed, feeling that it would be best if a
commissioner simply answered any questions the Council might ask rather than making
a presentation. Councilmember Moyles also agreed, stating that the Council needed
to observe the protocol. There was consensus to discuss the matter informally at
the joint meeting with the Planning Commission.
Councilmember Hlava reported on the Transportation Commission, noting that
Supervisor Rod Diridon had believed that Route 85 was not a priority for light rail.
Councilmember Fanelli brought up the Employee Recognition Reception. There Was
consensus to hold it May 2 and to hold the Volunteer Recognition Lunch April 23.
City Manager reported on damage in Saratoga from the recent severe storms.
Councilmember Fanelli requested that a letter be sent to maintenance staff members
in appreciation for their fine work. Councilmember Hlava requested that the
employee recognition reception. again be scheduled in such a way that the maintenance
workers could attend.
10. CLO~ SESSII~I
At 11:23 p.m. the meeting was adjourned to a closed session on patential litigation
and to 8:00 p.m. on February 25.
Respectfully sukeitted,
Grace E. Cory .
Deputy City Clerk