Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-06-1986 City Council Minutes MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL TIME: August 6, 1986 - 7:00 P.M. PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fmitvaie Avenue, Saratoga CA TYPE: Regular Meeting 1. Roll Call: Mayor Hlava, Councilmembers Clevenger, Peterson present at 7:03 P.M. Councilmembers Moyles, Anderson delayed due to Policy Advisory Board Meeting. 2. CEREMONIAL ITEMS: A. Resolution 2360 ConfnTning Appointments to the: Planning Commission; Karen Tucker, term expiring January 1989 L. Dans Callans, term expiring Jm~uary 1989 Finance Committee; Glen Douglas, term expiring December 1986 Heritage Preservation Commission; Richard Tyrrell, term expiring April 1990 Elizabeth Ansnes, term expiring April 1987 B. Administration of Oath of Office to Commissioners Mayor Hlava administered the Oath of Office to Ms. Karen Tucker and Mr. L. Dans Callans. The Oath of Office was administered to Mr. Glen Douglas at 7:30 P.M. C. Resolution 2361 Commending John T. Bail as Former Chief of Police CLEVENGER/PETERSON MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 2361. Passed 3-0 Councilmembers Moyles, Anderson absent. D. Resolution 2362 Commending Carol Karlson as Recipient of Teacher Recognition Day Award (sponsored by Mayor Hlava) CLEVENGER/PETERSON MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 2362. Passed 3-0 Councilmembers Moyles, Anderson absent. 3. ROUTINE MATTERS A. Annroyal of Minutes: Councilmember Clevenger requested a correction on page 4, C. sentence, "The Mayor stated..." to read "The Mayor stated that the conclusion of this discussion is that the City will accept the 46-foot median in the San Jose portion of the corridor, where the light rail system will likely be installed; in the Cupertino, Los Gatos and Saratoga portion of the corridor, there is no justification for installation of the light rail system." Councilmember Clevenger requested a correction on Page 6, paragraph 7, change of the word "elimination" to read "She aiso favored continuation of Office Use since this category represented such a smail percentage of the project.,, Councilmember Peterson requested a correction on page 7, paragraph 7, to read, "Councilmember Peterson feels Office should be included as a Use, possibly located near the railroad and/or freeway, to function as a buffer for the rest of the property; Retail can be - utilized as a corollary Use for other possible types of Uses only." .. ,: CLEVENGER/PETERSON MOVED TO ADOPT THE MINUTES OF JULY 16, 1986 AS AMENDED. Passed 3-0, Councilmembers Moyles, Anderson absent. Councilmember Anderson in attendance at Council Meeting, 7:12 P.M. MEETING OF TltE CITY COUNCIL! Page 2 AUGUST 6, 1986 ROUTINE MATTERS Continued B. Approval of Warrant List: CLEVENGEP,/PF, TERSON MOVED TO APPROVE THE WARRANT LIST. Passed 4-0 Councilmember Moyles absent. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR I: CLAIMS A. Consideration of Claim - Easterling ANDERSON/PEq.'ERSON MOVED TO DENY CONSENT CALENDAR I - CLAIMS. Passed 4-0, Councilmember Moyles absent. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR H - OTHER ITEMS A. Planning Commission Actions, July 23, 1986, - Note and file. B. Library Commission Actions, J,uly 23, 1986, - Note and file. C. Parks and Recreation Commission Actions, July 28, 1986, - Note and file. D. p rt from Mmntenance DtrecFor on Pavement management System - Note and file. Re o ' ' E. AuthorizationforStaffAttendahceatEducationandCodeDevelopmentConference F. Investment Report - June 1986 I G. Resolution 2363 declaring Equipment Surplus H. Acceptance and .i~cknowledgement of Donation to Hakone Gardens - Helmholz I.Resolution 85.9-70 Adjusting Employee Salaries and Benefits for Non-management Employees: J.Authorization ofConstmction of Fmitvale Ave. Bike Path/Pedestrian Walkway by Cushman Construction for $5,835. K. Final Map Approval, SDR 1370, F. Irany/J. Day, Mt. Eden Rd. (1 lot) L. Final Map Approval, SDR 1541, C. Heil, Farwell Rd. (1 lot) M. Final Map Approval, SDR 1616, Prince of Peace Lutheran Church, Saratoga Ave. (1 lot) I N. Final Map Approval, Tr. 7811, !St. Charles Street Investors, St. Charles St. (4 condos) O. Resolution 2364 and letter supporting Fall Parade sponsored by Mayor Hlava P. Resolution 2365 accepting Hakpne Foundation Financial Report Q.Report from Planning Director on City Geologist's Report on Natural Slope of 19288 Bainter Avenue (Hwang property) R. Report from Saratoga Representative to Advisory Council of County Council on Aging Mayor Hlava requested ITEM C be removed from Consent Calendar. Councilmember Clevenger asked ITEM J be removed from Consent Calenda/~:" CLEVENGER/PETERSON MOVED FOR APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR WHI-I THE REMOVAL OF ITEM C AND ITEM J. Passed 4-0, Councilmember Moyles absent. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 3 AUGUST 6, 1986 CONSENT CALENDAR Continued C. Parks and Recreation Commission Actions, July 28, 1.986 - Note and file. Mayor Hlava stated that she wished ITEM C removed from Consent Calendar to comment publicly on: The parking lot on P.G.& E. property to be completed by the time the park will be opened for public use; Mr. Shook reported to the Mayor that delays have occurred. The Mayor expressed concem regarding the delay and stated that the park is not fully functional without the availability of this adjacent parking lot. She requested that the Staff work to complete the construction by the time the park is opened October Ist. The bids on the Saratoga/Sunnyvale Median Landscaping project were to be awarded on August 20, 1986; the City Council Meeting is cancelled on this date. City Attorney Toppel suggested the August 14th meeting to open bids and award the contracts; the project could then be started. The Council agreed to the date of August 14, 1986, at 5:00 P.M. J. Authorization of Consauction of Fruitvale Ave. Bike Path/Pedesh-ian Walkway by Cushman Consauction for $5,835. Councilmember Anderson asked about the removal of any trees due to proposed consauction. Councilmember CIevenger stated that she requested removal of ITEM J to review the Conditions of approval; she asked if approval of a bike path/pedestrian walkway requires removal of trees. City Attorney assured the Council that no trees will be removed to complete this project. PETERSON/ANDERSON MOVED TO APPROVE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM C AND ITEM I. Passed 4-0, Councilmember Moyles absent. 5. COMMUNICATION FROM COMMISSIONS AND THE PUBLIC A. Oral Communication from the Public and Commissions Mr. William Neubauer, 19703 Vineyard Lane, Saratoga, stated that in December of 1985, a petition regarding the use of the Paul Masson Winery Site was presented to the Council; a copy of this petition was made available for review. Mayor Hlava thanked Mr. Neubauer and stated that the petition was in the agenda packet. Mr. Paul Black, 12750 Paseo Presada, Saratoga, E1 Quito Park Homeowners Association, stated that the Association has no complaints with proposed plans for the Masson property. The Association favors residential Use and asks that there be no school nor an athletic club be located on this site. The request was made that Alton Ave. remain closed. Ms. Glenda Rossi, Kenosha Ct., Saratoga, asked for information regarding the West Valley games and requested that the Council uphold the Ordinance prohibiting games at West Valley College. City Attorney stated that City ordinances prohibit establishment of a stadium; however, West Valley College does not need City approval to conduct games on their field. Any games held would be in the absence of a stadium, or that which constitutes a stadium, namely, temporary seating, sound systems, concession stands. Mayor Hlava stated that only through a ballot initiative can approval for a stadium be given. Ms. Fran Franklin, Saratoga Parks and Recreation Commission, thanked the Council for the rapidity with which the request for restrooms for E1 quito Park was met; Mr. Paul Black, E1 Quito Homeowners Association, concurred and noted the number of participants in various. sports who are already taking advantage of the park. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 4 AUGUST 6, 1986 COMMUNICATIONS Continuedi B. Written Communication from the Public 1) Letters from Saratoga Village Association and Optimist Club supporting placement of Hunon house on Wildwood Park. The Council accepted Staff Recommendations. 2) Letter from Bay Area Quality Management District supporting amendment of General Plan to include air quality element The Council accepted Staff Recommendations. 3) Letter from Carol Hooper, relating experience with Highway 87. Councilmember Clevenger expressed the concern that experiences related in Ms. Hooper's letter could occur in Saratoga with the proposed Hwy. 85; City Attorney stated that, in his opinion, this experience would not be repeated. 4) Letter from Bob and Tamara Shepherd supporting second units under certain conditions The Council accepted Staff. Recommendations. 5) Letter from Alexander T. Henson informing Council that City is to be sued in connection with Hwang dwelling. The Council accepted Staff Recommendations. 6) Letter from Joyce Mitakedes objecting to street closure procedure. In response to Councilmember Clevenger's question, Acting City/vlanager Shook stated that no written reply has been sent to Ms. Mitakedes; a request was made that she be sent a copy of the July 25, 1986, Memorandum to the City Council from the Director of Maintenance. · - Councilmembers concurred. Councilmember Clevenger asked about the inadequate notice given residents and observed that · I the area worked on was not clearly marked. Mayor Hlava suggested a two week notice whenever possible. The Acting City Manager stated that the County did not give the City sufficient notice and thus residents of Sahtoga received untimely notices. 7) Mayor Hlava introduced a letter from an individual who stated that twelve minutes elapsed from the time of the phone call to arrival of the Saratoga Fire Department to a neighbor's home which was on fire. A copy of this letter will be sent to the Fire Marshall. The Council accepted Staff Recommendations. 6. OLD BUSINESS A. Ordinance airlending Ch. 15 of the!City Code by amending Section 15-10.010, Conceming Designation of Zoning District, adding article 15-21 to establish the Multiple Use Planned Development Zoning District, and amending Sections 15-35.020 and 15-35.030 concerning Parking iFacilities (furst reading).. City Attorney presenu~ the revised draft of the Planned Development Ordinance, dated July 18, 1986, and reviewed the changes incorporated by the Council. This Ordinance will be called the Multiple Use Plam~ed Developri~nt Ordinance. Councilmember Clevenger questioned the p~ssibility of this site being used for non-residential Use. Since the Council intended residential, Use of this property, she suggested a condition requiring at least 50% of the site will be residential Use. Flexibility in developing this site would be maintained, while assuring the CoUncil that residential Use would not be lost. Secondly, other cities place fairly suingent re, quirements regarding off-site improvements on -, arcels of ro ertv similar to the Paul Masson Winery Site; Councilmember Clevenger .- ' - q~uueg~fi~n P P · ed whether the'proposed Multiple Use Planned Development Ordinance will preclude the Council from exacting necessary off-site improvements. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 5 AUGUST 6, 1986 OLD BUSINESS Continued The City Attorney responded that the Ordinance specifically incorporates the Design and improvement requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance and will not limit the abLlity of the City to obtain needed exactions. Development agreements are used by other cities to obtain exactions that go beyond what the State law provides. Th~ City would be required by State law to adopt procedures for a Development agreement; he stated his view that a development agreement might not be necessary in view of the process established in the Ordinance of approving conceptual plans before approving site plans. Developlment agreements are appropriate when the project extends over a relatively long period of time; phased developments are examples of appropriate use of development agreements. Councilmember Clevenger stated that Saratoga has been lenient in not requiring developers to make considerable off-site improvements. Councilmember Peterson stated that the maximum number of units allowed on the Paul Masson Winery site is 378 residential units. He assured the Council that developers will bring in projects with maximum units ailowed and cited examples from his experience as a Planning Commissioner. The market will require residential development of this site. There is a critical point of density that must be met in order to make the proposed senior citizen project feasible. Councilmember Peterson stated his concern with the R-i-5,000 because this allows 118 small units rather than 80 or 90 large, luxury townhomes. These luxury townhomes will meet the need of the current owners of half acre sites who are interested in selling their property. He proposed a change of the 5,000 sq. ft. per unit to the 7,000 sq. ft. per unit. Councilmembers Clevenger and Anderson concurred. Mayor Hlava stated her concern that a 50% residential requirement reduces flexibility and can only occur with a 50% school requirement. The Mayor opposes school Use on this site; such Use removes it from the City's tax base. She sees no public school looking at the site; private non-profit schools pay neither utility nor property tax. The City cannot afford the loss of tax base. When the Ordinance included Hotel/Motel Use, sufficient income from this Use would be derived to off-set school Use. She proposed deletion of the 50% school Use rather than require 50% residential Use. Consideration was given to reopening the Public Hearing at future Council Meetings; while the Public Hearing was not open at this Council Meeting, the Council allowed comments from the public. Mr. Andy Beverett, 19597 Via Monte Dr., Saratoga, Co-chairman, Senior Coordinating Council, Special Housing Committee, stated that senior citizens hope that residential Use will include senior housing with common spaces. He requested that the Ordinance be flexible to acccommodate these requirements. Commissioner Moyles in attendance of the Council Meeting at 8:04 P.M. Mr. Don Skinner, PMC Associates, stated that the original conception of the Planned Development Ordinance was to set up a process of negotiation; the Council was urged to retain the flexibility of the process. He cautioned the Council against the temptation of designing the project; design should be left to the creativity of the developer. In response to questions by the Council, Mr. Skinner stated that he could not estimate the value of the property. Ms. Lynn Belanger, Chairwoman for the Paul Masson Winery Study Committee, cailed attention to the survey completed in the fail of 1985, and affirmed the position that residential , Use should be a priority of, or mandated by the City Council. Letter of Mr. C.H. Robbins, Good Government Group, was acknowledged; MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 6 AUGUST 6, 1986 OLD BUSINESS. Continued Councilmember Peterson stated the m :ket will dictate that school Use will not occur on this site; this property will be developed residential Use. He concurs with comments that urge the Council to maintain the flexibility of the Ordinance. While favorable to proposed senior citizen housing, Councilmember Peterson is reluctant to require the Use; he prefers to allow ; developers and designers to exercise their professional expertise. He is not in favor of the 50% residential Use requirement. The rezoning of the site to 20 units per acre, 13 acres, suggests · that the Council is favorable to the senibr citizen project With its requirement of common space; it is up to the designers to complete such projects. City Attorney advised the Council that ihey could make substantiative changes since the Ordinance had not yet been.intreduced~ Mayor Hlava stated that she had been informed by citizens that they wished input on changes; the deletion of the Hotel/Motel Use was cited as an example. Councilmember Mdyles favors the 50% residential Use Requirement; while he favors the senior citizen project, he does not wish to mandate the project. The Council has built incentives into the: Ordinances. CLEVENGEP,./PF. TERSON MOVED TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION. Passed 5-0. CLEVENGER/ANDERSON MOVED~TO CHANGE THE DENSITY STANDARD OF THE MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING TO 7,000 SQ. PT. PER UNIT, AND THAT THE ORDINANCE INCLUDE THAT HALF OF THE SITE BE USED FOR RESIDENTIAL, DEVELOPMENT. Passed 5-0. HLAVA/ANDER SON ON ORDINANCE 71.5, MOVED TO INTRODUCE AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING CHAPTER 15 OF THE CITY CODE BY AMENDING SECTION 15-10.010 CONCERNING DESIGNATION OF C" '. ZONING DISTRICTS, ADDING ARTICLE 15-21 TO ESTABLISH THE MULTIPLE USE I i PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT, AND AMENDING SECTIONS .... 15-35.020 AND 1.5-35.030 CONCERNING PARKING FACILITIES AS AMENDED BY COUNCILMEMBER CLEVENGER'S MOTION. Passed 5-0. Councilmember Moyles requested that ia press release be prepared for the San Jose Mercury News by the City Manager's Office. 7. NEW BUSINESS - None. 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS I A. Appeal of Condition of Planhing Commission approval of a structure at 18915 Devon Ave.. the Condition being that the portion of the hobby room extending to the west side beyond the wall ofi the garage as it previously existed shah be removed (V-735. Appellant/Applicunt, T Suit) Planning Director Hsia reviewed the "Report to Mayor and City Council", July 31, 1986. The Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of June 17, 1986, were cited. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:2~ P.M. Mr. Tom Suit, 18915 Devon Lane, Sarhtoga, Appellant/Applicant, requested that he be allowed to retain the structure on the w6st side of his garage. He felt that tearing the structure- down would not n',ctify the complaint; the roofline, which was the cause of. the complaint !' ~: initially, would remain the same. The appellant offered to plant trees around the existing garage. He presented pictures of the property. Mr. Suit stated that Staff informed him that the square footage of the room could be retained the ceiling height was reduced by installing a flat roof; however, he incurred substantial expense to install ,'t hip and valley roof which is aesthetically pleasing and matches the neighborhood. In response to Councilmember's Moyles question, Mr. Suit stated that the .. addition does not ~nake a substantial difference in the amount of space between the garage and the fence; the space is currently 6 feet; iemoval of the addition would add only a foot. The setback requirement is 10 feet. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 7 AUGUST 6, 1986 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued In response to questions, Mr. Suit explained the use and set up of this room which is a hobby room. The absence of this room requires the appellant to use the garage and adjoining open space, moving equipment back and forth; there is not substantial difference in noise levels nor does he work in the hobby room on a daily, or even a weekly basis. Mr. Suit stated that the area of the building added on to was severely damaged by a fallen tree. When rebuilding the damaged area, he extended the room to break the monotony of a large yard; the room was more useful than open space. In response to Councilmember Moyles, he said he was unaware of a Permit requirement for rebuilding the structure; the appellant did not consider this an addition to the house, for which he was aware that a Permit would be required. The expansion didn't seem large enough to warrant concern and neighbors knew for two months that this work was going to be done. Mr. Vidanage, the neighbor to the west of the appellant's property, stated that he advised Mr. Suit not to put the building up since it would be too close to his property and informed him of the necessity of building permits and review by building inspectors. The garage was damaged by the fallen tree; the whole of the hobby room was added. This was established at the Site visitation. Mr. Vidanage contested the view presented in the pictures taken from the Owens property by Mr. Suit; he presented pictures taken from his property. Mr. Vidanage stated that Conditions existing at the original Hearing are still present and the building is in violation of cede requirements. He stated that the view from his back yard has been limited by the hobby room; real estate agents inform him that the view limitation is a loss of property value. His fights as a property owner have been violated and he questioned the existence of Code Regulations if Planning Commissions and City Councils can sanction violations of the Code with granting of Variances. Mr. Vidanage stated that he was the one who reported the violation. Planning Director Hsia stated that the addition of the hobby room almost doubled the size of the garage. Mr. Suit said that testimony taken at the Planning Commission Hearing stated that a room existed before he rebuil~ the damaged structure; part of the room was finished and the other portion was a lean-to with wails. CLEVENGER/ANDERSON MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:42 P.M. Passed 5-0. Councilmember Clevengcr stated her concern regarding a neighborhood controversy such as this one; she stated that her decision was not influenced by the testimony of Mr. Vidanage. She feels that the decision of the Planning Commission was generous considering the lack of a required building permit and the infringement of setback requirements. She upholds the Planning Commission's decision. Councilmember Peterson heard this application at the Planning Commission Hearing and his No vote remains the same. Councilmember Moyles concurred with Councilmember Clevenger. He noted that the property had been improved; however, he could not excuse the appellant from the requirements of City Building Codes. The Planning Commission and City Council have tried to ameliorate the hardship inflicted. Hardship inflicted on the neighbor was demonstrated by the photographs presented; the Council cannot ask the neighbor to bear the weight of the hardship and excuse the appellant. Councilmember Moyles upholds the Planning Commission decision. Councilmember Anderson concurred; she noted that building an addition clearly re~/uires a building permit. To allow the addition would set a precedent. Mayor Hiava stated that Variances cannot be granted because people build without permits. PETERSON/CLEVENGER MOVED TO DENY THE APPEAL. Passed 5-0. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCI~ Page 8 AUGUST 6, 1986 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued 8. B. Appeal of Condition of Planning Commission approval of a Tentative Map for a 5 lot residential subdivision at 13500 Saratoga Avenue, the Condition being that all the homes should be single-story (SDR 1622, Appellant/applicant, B. Kelley) ' "" Planning Director Hsia directed the Cot~ncil to the "Report to the Mayor and City Council' ', July 30, 1986; the Planning CommissiOn made single story structures a Condition for the entire subdivision due to the requests from residents on Ronnie Way that the character of the neighborhood be preserved. Councilm~mber Cievenger questioned the reason the Planning Commission made: the decision at this time rather than at the design review level; Planning: Director Hsia stated that the Planning Cbrnmission felt strongly about maintaining the integrity of the neighborho~xt and informed the developer of the decision in favor of one story houses. Councilmember Clevenger noted that th~ Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting were inadequate since discussions that reportedly were held on this issue were not recorded in the Minutes of this Meeting. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:52,P.M. Mr. Brian Kelly, Appellant/Applicant stated that on June 25, 1986, the Tentative Map was presented to the Pl~mning Commission. In meetings with Staff, it was understood that the question of one or two story houses wodld be reviewed at the design level review, not at the Planning Commission Meeting. Mr. Kelly stated that he was unprepared for this discussion and was unable to present plans for the development to the Commission. Information was prepared and sent to Councilmembers, so that setbacks will be clear to the Council. The appellant stated that his position on this site is that: The cul-de-sac created a neighberh&d in an of itself; with the addition of three lots owned by Mrs. Kerwin, the cul-de-sac willSserve 8 lots. The configurations of the lots are unique due to the depth of the lots and lend themselves to two story. Average depth is 220, 222, 260 ft. The footprint demonstrates mar yard~ setbacks of approximately 115 ft.; adding the approximate 45 ft. for the connecting residence results in an excess of 150 ft. between houses. Two story setback in the R~20 zoning is 45 ft. Two story houses already exist in the area. Examples were cited. Mr. Kelly stated that the City has a Design Review Ordinance and developers have a right to meet the criteria of the Ordinance. The P, lanning Commission's decision requiring one story houses has removed his right and the opportunity to conceive a plan and present it to the City for review. The fac~: that the developmen't borders three single story houses seems an unfah' criteria in giving a blanket endorsement for single story houses in a planned development. The Site Plan and photographs of the properties were presented to the CounCil; the mature vegetation on the properties will act as an Teffective screening device in addition to the generous setbacks being allowed. In response to the question, Mr. Kelly stated that proposed two story houses would be 26 to 28 feet. Mr. Robert Cooper, 13655 Ronnie Way, Saratoga, presented a petition and a map of the area for deliberation by the Council. The map underscored the fact that the neighborhood is primarily made up of single story houses ;(353 single story houses, 6 two story houses). The petition requested the Council to: 1) Perrr~,'t only single story residences. The second request has subsequently been resolved; the requests were made to preserve the privacy of the neighborhood and the low density of the area. There is concern that this decision will set a precedent for the area. Mr. Harrry Pitkoff, a real estate agent, stated that some of the most beautiful areas in Sarafoga have both one and two story houses. -~-~ MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL . Pa~e 9 AUGUST 6, 1986 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Gunter Machol, Ronnie Way, Saratoga, presented photographs and a copy of the Revised Schematic presented at the Planning Commission Meet'mg to show the 17 possible sites. He stated that allowing two story houses will set a precedent and give rise to a congested area. Mr. Machol asked that the decision of the Planning Commission be upheld. Mr. Don Bowden, 13551 Ronnie Way, Saratoga, stated that his home would have a two story house direcfiy in back; he prefers his view of the mountinns to a view of a roofiine. However, there are larger issues of impact on the community as a whole; he commended the Planning Commission for their sensitivity to residents of the area and stated that the Commission grasped the significance of the location. Saratoga Avenue is a major entry to the Village and reflects the image residents wish to convey. The rural character of Saratoga is valued by residents of the City. Mr. David Cooper, 13668 Ronnie Way, Saratoga, stated that though not impacted directly by the proposed development, he would be affected by a precedent being established. Side setbacks have not been discussed; houses to the side also block the view. He questioned the height of the proposed houses which will be placed on elevated lots. Mr. Kelly stated that pad elevations will have n9 effect on the height on the finished house. He stated that Saratoga has areas where one and two story houses commingle; it is a question of good design and variety which are the aims of the proposed development. PETERSON/CLEVENGER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:23 P.M Passed 5-0 Councilmember Moyles stated his concern regarding the question of process. Although he does not disagree with the decision reached by the Planning Commission, he feels the decision was reached prematurely. Use of the Design Review Process would have allowed Staff and Commissioners to focus more attentively on the design review process. The Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting clearly indicate Mr. Kelly's protest that he was unprepared to discuss the issue at the hearing. This is of concem to Councilmember Moyles since the issue of fairness has always been addressed. The record does not demonstrate fairness to the applicant nor that the issue was vigorously discussed. While the objections are clear, Mr. Kelly's case was not presented in the record. Councilmember Moyles stated that he looks for compatibility with the neighborhood as a guiding yardstick in making decisions; he favors leaving the process open, utilizing the procedure with its checks and balances. Mr. Kelly should have the opportunity to respond to the neighbors. Councilmember Peterson questioned what has happened to California designed single story ranch houses; he concurred that the decision was premature and questioned whether a few feet will make significant difference in the view of the mountinns when houses have 200 ft. setbacks. This area has some of the largest buildings in Saratoga. Councilmember Clevenger views the area as a single story neighborhood and concurs with the Planning Commission's decision to set the l~rameters at the beginning of the development. Mr. Kelly has bought a parcel of land which is not totally isolated property; this property is part of one neighborhoed and adjacent to another neighborhood. It is unrealistic not to be bound by the constraints the existing neighborhood presents. The placement of large two story homes 4 -. opposite the historic orchards on Fruitvale Avenue changes the character of the area. Councilmember Clevenger stated that the concern seems to be the process. The Planning Commission was unanimous on this decision. The parameters should be established, so that neighbors will not have to protest each individual house. This seems to be a much fairer p~ocess and prevents the division of the neighborhood among itself. The Council needs to offer assurance that the existing neighborhood will be preserved and any new development will not impinge upon the present neighborhood MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL'; Page 10 AUGUST 6, 1986 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Councilmember Anderson stated that this area is primarily a one story neighborhood wi~h a view of the hills; it is important that the~e qualities be preserved. The 200 foot setback will not protect neighbors :from the view of neighbors in two story houses. There is a market in Saratoga for one story houses. Mayor Hlava spoke to the issue of process. The subdivision process is to make decisons on this level; the Mayor is not adverse to a process requiring the subdivision to have one story houses. This is a one story neighborhood and half acre zoning allows for large one story houses. A decision at this time saves Mr. Kelly the time and expense of numerous appeals; and the time and concern of the residents of~this neighborhoed. The Mayor stated that she would entertain a motion to uphold the Planning Commission. HLAVA/ANDERSON MOVED TO UPHOLD THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. Passed 3-2, CounciLmembers Moyles and Peterson opposed. Mayor Hlava recessed the Meeting from 9:37 to 9:50 P.M. C. Consideration of Special Assessments for Delinquent Gargage Collection Charges. Mr. Todd Argow, Community Services Director, stated that this Item is the process of transferring accounts which have resulted in the placement of property liens due to non payment of reftt~e accounts, moving these accounts from the recorded lien roles to the property tax bills; this is called a special assessment. The Public Hearing was opened at 9:52 p.M. Ms. Hortense E. Rozman, 20341 Chatealu Drive, Saratoga, stated that she does not use the garbage collection service. She stated thht she: received no letter notifying her that sgrvice was to begin was not informed of the payment rates was charged the: maximum rate initially received a bill fbr service when no service was being provided since she does not use garbage service has seen this company trespass on her property without permission Ms. Rozman understood that both the City and the Cargage Disposal Service have an obligation under the law to hill individuals by name; Green Valley Disposal Service failed to do this initially. She was uninformed of~ the law passed by the City. Her conversations with the disposal company revealed that she subsidizes others who have more garbage. Ms. Rozman is on social security disability. She is an organic gardener and recycles other waste products. Mr. Brent Holand, 13472 Ward Way, Saratoga, stated that he is a renter in the house on Ward Way. He received a letter stating there whs non payment for service from June through August 1985; however, in ate four years of rentifig, garbage has not been collected. Mr. Holland has disposed of the garbage himself. Now a lien has been placed on the house, however, the owner of the house is unaware of the lien~. Mr. Roy Boswirth, stated that in the 20 years of living in Saratoga, he has no complaint with Green Valley Disposal Co. Mr. Dennis Varni, Green Valley Disposal Co., addressed the complaint of Mr. Holland and stated that the special assessment is for the quarters of non payment. Mr. Varni noted that the City has passed a law requiring mandatory service. Notices were sent to every address in Saratoga. I In response to CounciLmember Clevenger;s question, the City Attorney stated that it is admired that thii method is not cost 'effective nor is it working as envisioned. Delinquent Accounts are charges for services already i'endered; elimination of these accounts' will require the Disposal Co. to recover losses. How6ver, the Council has the authority to delete or make adjustments on the Special Assessment report. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 11 AUGUST 6, 1986 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued CLEVENGER/ANDERSON MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:22 P.M. Passed 5-0 CLEVENGER/HLAVA MOVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL DELETE THE NAMES OF MS. HORTENSE E. ROZMAN, MR. RICHARD IPPISCH AND MR. JOHN N. AND I.J. DENNY FROM THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT FOR DELINQUENT GARBAGE COLLECTION CHARGES LIST OF AUGUST 6, 1986. Failed 1-4 Mayor Hlava, Councilmembers Anderson, Moyles, Peterson opposed. Councilmember Clevengcr stated that those who appeared before the City Council to explain convincingly should not be included on the delinquent list of special Assessment Charges. Mayor Hlava stated that the Dennys do not meet the criteria to be excused from this charge as the criteria used for other applicants. Councilmember Peterson stated that if the logic of the above motion be followed, everyone who wishes to address the City Council can be allowed to use the one can service. Councilmember Moyles stated that he applies a different criteria; the only individual who has a plausible excuse for being assessed is Mr. Holland. Other individuals presented persuasive reasons for disagreeing with the law of the City; this does not excuse individuals from complying with it. The City cannot allow individuals to exempt themselves and then request that the Council ratify the exemption. The policy may be changed subsequently but decisions for these individuals must be made from the prospective of the enactment of the Ordinance which is legal, enforceable and valid public policy. Exemption of a few individuals does an injustice to others who held the same beliefs but paid because of observance of the law. Those who were willing to observe the law but did not receive service have a contractual dispute that can be setfled between the parties involved. HLAVA/MOYLES MOVED TO ADOPT STAFF RECOMMENDATION WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT STAFF WILL DISCUSS A RESOLUTION WITH MR. BRENT HOLLAND AND ANY OTI{ER INDIVIDUALS VvTrH APPROPRIATE CONCERNS. Passed 5-0 9. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS A. Discussion of Oral Communications not referred to Staff The City Council conf'mned that it is committed to provide up to $50,000 to the addition of the Senior Community Center. B. Reports from Individual Councilmembers Councilmember Peterson requested stationary microphones that will allow the audience to clearly hear the City Council discussions. Mayor Hiava stated that a Resolution was passed in favor of the Fall Parade. Letters will be sent notifying others of the Council's support of this activity. Children in the Nature Camp Program will march in the parade. The Mayor announced the invitation received from Japan, The World Exposition of Historical Cities. The invitation will be referred to the Sister City. Councilmember Anderson stated that she was contacted by El Zocalo Institute and requested a Councilmember volunteer to meet with the Director to discuss a Walk they are having. Councilmember Moyles presented a copy of "Route 85 Policy Advisory Board Preferred Alternative Recommendation, August 6, 1986", and informed the City Councilmembers of the discussion of the Recommendation. Councilmember Moyles stated that during the voting, Saratoga's 'position was upheld. At his request, Item 1 .B., Preservation of the 46 foot median, was discussed separately. The balance of the issues were resolved with wording consistent with Saratoga's Council discussions. The viewpoints of other cities were reviewed. MEETING OF ZHE CITY COUNCIL' Page 12 AUGUST 6, 19~6 ] PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued On Item 2, the first sentence was left a~ approved by Saratoga Council. Los Gatos asked that one of the interch~mges be located in Saratoga; the board was informed that Saratoga would not accept a requireme;nt that an interchang~ be located in Saratoga as part of the preferred alternative recommendation. The group concurred. The second sentence of this Item is new. Item 3, wording changes noted. Councilmember Moyles made clear to the Board that Sar, ttoga would not entertain any compromise on land use policies. Saratoga has no support from other cities on the issue of land use policies. ! Item 1 .B., Councilmember Moyles abstained. Councilmember Moyles concluded by s~ating that depression of the corridor reflected the priority of the Council. In return SaratOga would concede the 46 foot median issue. Mayor HIava stated that depression of the corridor is not assured at this time. CLEVENGER/ANDERSON MOVED '~O ADOPT A MOTION THAT TI-IE MAYOR OF SARATOGA WRITE TO MS. S. WILSON, STATING THAT A REPORT FROM THE REPRESENTATIVE OF SARATOGA WAS RECEIVED AND ON BEHALF OF THE ENTIRE CITY CC,UNCIL OF SARATOGA RAT/F/ES THE VOTE CAST AT THE AUGUST 6, 1986 ;POLICY ADVISORY BOARD MEETING. NO FURTHER MEETING IS REQUESTED ON THIS ITEM. Passed 5-0 Mayor Hlava presented the draft of the Newsletter. With corrections and requested additions, the Mayor w~l present an updated Newsletter to be printed. ADJOURNMENT at 11:17 P.M. to kugust 14, 1986, 5:00 P.M., in the Council Office. Respecff'u~submitted, Carol A. Probst-Calaghey Recording Secretax3, '4