Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-18-1986 City Council Minutes TIME: Wednesday, June 18, 1986 - 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777. Fruitvale Avenue TYPE: Regular Meeting 1. ROLL CAI3. - Councilmembers Fanelli, Moyles and Mayor Clevenger were present at 7:02 p.m. Councilmembers Callon and Hlava were absent. 2o ~ ITEMS A. Resolution 2351 Recognizing Sacrifice of Sheriff Officer Douglas Miller FANEI.I.I/MDSq.F.q MOVED TO AIDOPT RESOLUTION. Passed 3-0. 3. ROUTINE M~nEKS A. Approval of Ninutes MOYLES/FAN~.LI MOVED TO ADOPT 5/29 MINtrrF~ AS SUBMI'rr~D. Passed 3-0. FANFJ.T.I/MOYLES MOVED TO ADOPT 6/4 MINUTES AS SUBMI'rr~JL Passed 3-0. B. Approval of Warrant List Councilmember Fanelli inquired as to payments to WSP trucking and ABAG. City Manager explained purpose of payments. FANELLI/MOYLES MOVED TO APPROVE WARRANT LIST. Passed 3-0. A. Planning C.,,-ission Actions, 6/11- Noted and filed. B. Berita~e Preservation O:-,,-ission Minutes, 6/4 - Noted and filed. C. Library Cf-,iMssian Actions, 5/28 - Noted and filed. D. Public Safety O-,,,,!ssion Minutes, 6/9 - Noted and filed. E. Investment Report - April - Approved. F. Final Building Site Approval, ~ 1599, 21166 H~mead~w Dr., J. Shanafelt - Approved. G. Trp~urer's .Report - April - Approved. 1t. FinMmcial Report - April - Approved. Councilmember Fanelli asked questions concerning the Financial Report which were answered by the City Manager. 'MOYI.F.q/FANEI.I.I MOVED TO APPROVE CONSENT CAI,F~DAR. Passed 3-0. ...- 5. C(I~MIINICATI(~IS FROM COMMISSIONS AND 'ni~ PUBLIC 8. Oral Ct-,,,,~ications from the Public and Cubmissions - None. B, Written C~mications fron the Public 1) Audrey L. Summers, requesting support with parking problem at 15345 Bohlman Rd. - Mayor Clevenger noted that the report from the : Community Service Officer .indicates that problem is being handled. i 2) Galen Bishop, requesting Council opposition to shooting ranges in '. hillsides ~ Received and filed. 2-6/18/86 3) Walter and Elizabeth! DeHorn, supporting park or single.-family resid,ential use for Cox/Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road property - P, eceived and filed. ~ 4) Brent N. Ventura, Town:of Los Cotes, presenting proposal for ~Xafce 85 Councilmembers discussed Mr. Ventura's letter. They reaffirmed the Saratoga {. position as expressed in Mayor Clevenger's letter of January 17 and agreed that she should reaffirm it as Saratoga's position at the Policy Advisory Board meeting June 25. As to individual points in the letter, Mayor Clevenger stated the width of the median should not be a problem, since the main issue was the width of the corridor itself. Councilmember Fanelli agreed, pointing out that the General Plan stated that the width of the corridor would~be 200 feet. As to mass transit, Councilmember Moyles stated he might consider an easement for that purpose in case of later need for it, but he felt that question should not hold up deliberations. Mayor Clevenger felt the transit loop should go down; Route 85 to Highway 17 because that is on the County list of priority .rail corridors. In answer to Don Peterson, newly-elected Councilmember, Councilmember Moyles clarified that in speaking of a transit easement he meant an understanding that an easement may be needed in the future. As to the proposed joint powers agreement, Councilmember Fanelli felt it might be acceptable if the body were only advisory. Councilmember Moyles wanted neither a Policy Advisory Board (after it had finishad its work), nor a joint powers agency. He felt a JPA would be an unnecessary layer of government and might result in legal problems of jurisdic. tion. He felt that at the PAB meeting Mayor Clevenger should express no interest whatever in a JPA unless there seemed to be overwhelming support for the idea. Karen Anderson, the second newly-elected councilmember, commented that not every city was represented by the Policy Advisory Board, while they would all be represented by the proposed JPA. Councilmember Fanelli responded that every city was already represented by the Traffic Authority Policy Advisory Board. There was consensus to approve point ~[6 concerning design so as to accommodate BART or light rail in the future, as well as point ~[7 concerning the Vasona corridor. As to Mr. Ventura's point that cities :that provide jobs should provide -housing, Councilmember MoXles feared that the proposal actually went beyond that and might result in Saratoga's being required t~ increase housing density. Mayor Clevenger feared that Saratoga might be required to add industry. As to point ~[8 concerning staging of construction first in San Jose and Cupertino, Councilmember Fanelli felt that that would leave Los Cotos and Saratoga in the difficult predicament of having traffic "dumped" in those cities. As to point ~9 concerning the Policy Advisory Board's resolving interchange questions, Mayor Clevenger felt that should be up to the cities. She stated she would no~ feel comfortable approving an interchange in Saratoga without at least another public bearing. Councilmember Moyles felt discussion of interchanges at this time was inappropriate, since Saratoga had heard no response to its proposal of Jandary 17. There was consensus that point ~[10 concerning the best design and' landsca, ping was acceptab'le. Councilmember Moyles commented that he had been informed that additional issues were in contenticQ, but he was not aware of what they might be. 5) Mark I4[urillo, Student Trustee, West Valley College, requesting endorsement of fontbell ~me to be played at the College City Attorney explained that there was no need for the Council to take action on the request. The City Code does not prohibit games, he said, but only certain items which are defined as a "stadium;" The only way to change the ordinance would be by a vote of the people, since the ordinance came about by initiative petition. Consensus to refer to City Attorney for reply as to the circumstances under which a game could be held without establishing facilities which could be construed as · constituting a stadium. ~ 6. OLD BUS111ESS A. Report fren City Manager on Contract Policing . City Manager explained that the statement in the report that the Transportation Institute study had not recommendedna '~)rlving under the Influence" program was incorrect, since the study had indeed made such a recommendation. Councilmember Fanelli pointed out that the Sheriffs contract stipulated that the Sheriff would 3-6/18/86 enforce drunk driving laws. City Manager quoted statistics that indicated 247o of Saratoga accidents in 1985 involved drunk driving in 1986, with similar figures for 1983, 1984, and the first six months of 1986. Mayor Clevenger stated she wished a drunk driver program to be port of the regular contract, but City Manager stated that was not possible. After further discussion of facts necessary to make informed decisions, there was consensus to direct City Manager to obtain further information on drunk driving statistics from previous years to determine whether number of accidents would decrease if enforcement were increased. Councilmember Fanelli expressed the hope that the Sheriff could be persuaded to bring pressure on CalTrans to reduce speed limits where excessive speed causes accidents. Mayor Clevenger asked whether the City could join the DUI program next year; City Manager stated that he did not know if the program would be. terminated in the future. There was consensus not to modify the Council's previous decision against porticipoting in the DUI program. As to the substation, City Manager stated he knew of no interest in using it as a holding area for prisqners. He felt that the Sheriff might not be passing on to Saratoga the savings resulting from use of the substation. Councilmember Fanelli believed Saratoga paid a 10% surcharge for the substation, but City Manager stated the City had poid that before the substation opened. 7. N~W ~3SINESS A. Request from Chamber of Commerce for Permit for Fall Parade on 9/28/86, waiving all fees Councilmembers discussed parade and decided to approve subject to approval of public safety agencies and obtaining encroachment permit from CalTrans. Community Services Director stated that in past years the fee had not been waived. There was consensus to handle fee waiver request as in the post. B. Letter from l~ilip D. Assaf requesting decision on bond attorney status in light of dissolution of Assaf's firm (added at meeting~ City Manager explained letter, and Councilmanhers discussed situation. CLEVENGERYMOYT.E.q MOVED TO SEEK NEW BOND COUNSEL THROUGH REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS BUT TO CONTINUE WITH ASSAF FIRM FOR LLA-1 ANNEXATION UNTIL THAT PRO3ECT IS COMPLETED. Passed 3-0. " C. Report from City Attorney on Extension of ~rge~cy Ordinance Pertaining to Radio Antennas pursuant to Government Code Section 6585(a) (added at :~ meetin~ - Noted. .?~ City Attorney distributed report, which was noted by Council. ~ 8. P[mt,~c }]F~,: -5 A. A~peal of cooditioo of desiE~m re~-~ew approval requiring reduction in size .,~ of home at Lot 9, Tr. 6628, Deer Springs Court, to 6200 sq. ft. '~: (Appellant/applicants, Frank a~ Marie Saude) (A-1189) < Planning Director Hsia explained chat th~ applicant had submitted revised plans ii showing a reduced ~squsre footage, but staff had not been able to review them because -2~!~i the applicant had not submitted enough copies for staff. He recommended that the /:. matter be referred back to the Planning Commission. After discussion, there was · '~'~ consensus to take input from the applicant and the public tonight. :~!; The public hearing was opened at 8:08 p.m, Mr. Saude explained his revised plan, saying it had been reduced by 1,000 square feet and that the height had been reduced over the garage. He requested that the Council act quickly, since he would not be .~ able to build the house this season if the process were delayed much longer. He ~, stated that there were homes larger than his in the area. He also stated that he ,,.:. had not had an opportunity to negotiate with the Planning Commission on his house ~' because he had not been given a copy of the staff report explaining staff · "'~ objections. Planning Director stated that, as far as he knew, the applicant had "!!! 'been sent a copy of the staff report. He estimated that normally it would take 6-8 4-6/18/86 weeks for the Planning Commission to calendar the item if it were referred l~ck to them, but it could be scheduled as early as July 9. Bob McBain, P.O. Box 2903, spoke as the designer of the project. He stated that the applicant had not had a chance' to have a study session on the matter where the plans could have been revised to the CommisSion's satisfaction. Mr. McBain also felt that the Commission tended to approve projects everywhere except the HR zone. He stated that other applicants had larger homes on smaller lots. He further stated that there was no negatiw-~ impact on neighbors, and no one had objected to the project. He felt the Council had more important things to attend to than this matter. Jessie McGuire, 5350 Bestview Court, ~ook issue with the last statement, saying that it was an important function of the ;Council to uphold standards and protect the citizens of Saratoga. She believed it possible that some future neighbor might be negatively impacted hy the project. No one further appearing to speak, the public hearing was closed at 8:24 p.m. Mayor Clevenger felt the' lot and building site were small compared to nearby lots. She feared the project would set a precedent and therefore encourage others to request proportionatE;ly larger projects. She preferred to return it for a staff report, but if she voted tonight she planned to vote against it. Councilmember Fanelli stated that the Planning Commission did not really deny the design, but only the square footage. Because of that, as well as the fact that the applicant had cut down the house as much as possible without destroying the integrity of the design, she felt she' could vote on the project tonight~ She stated she did not agree with all of Mr.~ McBain's statements, but she did feel the applicant did not get enough direction. Councilmember Moyles also felt that not all Mr. McBain's comments were applicable; he felt there were good reasons to view houses in his district differently from houses in others. He believed, however, that the project did not impact neighbors. Few houses were visible because of ~dense foliage, he said, and those that were visible were large. In sum, he fel~t the revised house was compatible with the neighborhood and met the spirit of the guidelines. Planning Director s~ted that the staff felt the revised design was a good attempt to reduce the bulk of the house. The Planning Commission, he said, had felt the house was too bulky for the small lot. Councilmember Fanelli suggested that in the future the Commission give the applicant more direction and. request that the redesigned 'house be :returned to the Commission without the necessity for the appeal process. She then moved to approveithe appeal under certain conditions (motion appears after discussion below). The City Manager sta~ed that he preferred to have the re~sed plan reviewed by staff and the motion made in the form of direction to staff to prepare a res~lutlon granting the appeal after review to~ ensure that the plan is as represented. The resolution would be ~gendized at the hext meeting under Old Business. Councilmember FaneXli repeated her ~concern that the applicant should have had an opportunity to work out the concerns of the Planning Commission with the commission. Don Peterson rose to s~peak as a Planning Commissioner, saying that while he has been on the CommissiOn an applicant always had an opportunity to continue his project to a study session if it appeared that it would be deni~.~. FANELLI/MOYLES MOVED TO DIRECT STAFF ;TO PREPARE A RESOLUTION GRANTING THE AEPEAL ON A-1189 ON THE BASIS OF THE NEW DESIGN SUBMITtED IN PLANS MARKED EXHIBIT A SHOWING A HOUSE OF 6796 SQUARE ~:~.'1' WITH REDUCTION IN HEIGHT TO 15 1/2 FEET OVER GARAGE AFI~R STAFF REVIEW OF EXHIBIT A TO ENSURE THAT IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COUNCIL'S UNDERSTANDING OF ITS CONteNTS. Passed 2-1 (Clevenger opposed). 9. CIT~ (X}tI~IL I~Et~ A. Discussion of Oral Cua~micat-'ions not referred to Staff - None. B. Reports f--ca~. Individual Counciln~hers .-Councilmember Fanel:Li inquired as t6 memo from Public Safety Commission regarding 5-6/18/86 parking on Oak St.; City Manager replied that a later staff report would give complete information. She then inquired as to letter from Traffic Authority signed by Moyles; consensus to agendize later. Mayor Cleven~er reported on League of California Cities meetir~ in Sacramento. She then inquired whether City Manager were aware of any further developments on negotiations concerning garbage rates. City Manager replied he had nothing to report yet. This being Councilmember Fanelli's last regular Council meeting, Mayor Clayenter complimented and thanked her for her many years of work on Planning Commission and City Council. 10. AD.JO~ At 8:56 p.m., the meetin~ was adjourned in memory of Douglas Miller to 7:30 p.m. on 3une 25 at 1555 Berger Dr., San 3ose, for the Route 86 Policy Advisory Board meeting, then to 7:00 p.m. on June 26 for the purpose of conflrmin~ the canvass of ballots and for Council reorganization. Respectfully su~itted, Grace E. Cory Deputy City Clerk