Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-03-1986 City Council Minutes MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL TIME: September 3, 1986 PLACE: ' Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga CA TYPE: Regular Meeting CLOSSED SESSION: Personnel (City Manager Evaluation), Litigation (County Communications), and Offer to Purchase City-Owned Property - 5:30 P.M. 1. ROLL CALL: Mayor Hlava, Councilmembers Clevenger, Anderson, Moyles, Peterson 2. CEREMONIAL ITEMS: None. 3. ROUTINE MATTERS A. Au~roval of Minutes: Councilmember Clevenger requested a correction of the Minutes of August 6, 1986, page 9, paragraphs 4 and 5, change the word perimeters to parameters; on page 11, Reports from Individual Councilmembers, 3rd paragragh, final sentence to read, "The invitation will be referred to the Sister City." In the following paragraph, change the name Councilmember Clevenger to read "Councilmember Anderson.." In the paragraph, Item 1.B., delete all but the first phrase to read, "Item 1 .B., Councilmember Moyles abstained." In the following paragraph, deletion of a phrase to read, "Councilmember Moyles concluded by stating that depression of the corridor reflected the priority of the Council. In return Saratoga would concede the 46 foot median issue. Mayor Hlava stated that depression of the corridor is not assured at this time." Councilmember Anderson requested a change on page 5, second paragraph, sentence to read, "He proposed a change of the 5,000 sq.ft. per unit to the 7,000 sq. ft. per unit." City Manager reqested a change on page 11,. to read, "ADJOURNMENT at 11:17 P.M. to August 14, 1986..." HLAVA/ANDERSON MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF AUGUST 6, 1986 AS AMENDED. Passed 5-0 MOYLES/ANDERSON MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF AUGUST 14, 1986 Passed 4-0, Councilmember Peterson abstaining. B. Approval of the Revised Warrant List: Mayor Hlava noted that the Warrant List was revised; both Lists are dated September 3rd. Questions of Councilmembers were answered. PETERSON/MOYLES MOVED TO APPROVE THE REVISED WARRANT LIST. Passed 5-0. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: A. Claims I. Claim submitted by Young MOYLES/PETERSON MOVED TO DENY THE CLAIM AND REFER CLAIM TO THE CITY CLAIMS MANAGER. Passed 5-0. 2. Claim submitted by Guichard MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCII Page. 2 . , ' · ' SEPTEMBER 3, 1986 ~ CONSENT CALENDAR Continued { :~:' ' ' MOYLES/PETERSON MOVED TO DENY THE CLAIM. Passed 5-0 { 'B. OtherMatters 1. Planning Commission Actions August 13, 1986, Note and file Augnst 27, 1986, Note and file 2. Public Safety Commission Minutes: August I1, 1986 4. Construction Acceptance for SDR 1559 - Osterlund Development, 3 lots, Fruitvale Avenue 5. City Manager Attendance at ICMA Annual Conference, September 28, 1986, in S~m Diego 6. Staff Attendance at National Recreation and Parks Association Congress, October 16-20, 1986 7. Council and Staff Anendance at League of Califomia Cities Conference, October 19, 1986, in Los Angeles 8. Consl:ruction Acceptance~ Tr. 7655, J. Lohr, Cabemet Dr. 9. Request for Special Event~ Permit for Foo~ace, November 23, 1986 10.Resolution 36-B-217, Findl Acceptance, SDR 1419, J. Quarnstrom, 20619 Camiel 11. Final Map Approval, SDR11453, M. Conn, Vaquero Ct., (1 lot) 12. Final Map Approval, SDR11602, T. Copenhagen, Pike Rd., (1 lot) 13. Resolution 2366, Denying ~Suit Appeal heard August 6, 1986 14. Resolution 2367, Denying Kelly Appeal heard August 6 1986 15. Resolution 2368, opposing~California Fair Pay Initiative 16. lob Descriptions for Management Personnel 17: Notice of Completion for Telephone System 18. Resolntion 2347.3, Notice bf Completion for Reconstruction of Elva Avenue I 19.Convict to Provide Processing of parking Citations and False Alarm Ordinance Violations 20. Autho:dzation to Advertise Vacancy on Public Safety Commission 21. Planning Commission RespOnse to Letter from Bay Area Air Quality Management District Letter concerning Air Quality Element for General Plan. .. 22. Finance Committee Minutes - August 21, 1986, August 29, 1986, Note and file. Councilmember Clevenger requested ITEM 11 be removed from Concent Calendar. Councilmember Anderson requested ITEM 21 be removed from Concent Calendar. CLEVENGER/PETERSON MOVED TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR WITH ' REMOVAL OF ITEM 11 AND ITEM 21. Passed 5-0. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 3 SEPTEMBER 3, 1986 CONSENT CALENDAR Continued Councilmember Clevenger stated that Item 11 was discussed several years ago; since some requirements could not be met at that time, she requested a status report. City Attomey Toppel stated that the requirement in question has been met; the new h :ydrant being built will provide the necessary water supply. Concerning Item 21, Councilmember Anderson stated that in conjunction with sound requirements of the proposed Route 85, it is appropriate that an Air Quality Element be considered also. Planning Director Hsia stated that this item is not in the current budget, however, an amendment to the General Plan could be considered. It would be more appropriate to review an Air Quality Element in the next fiscal year; Noise Element and Safety Element are currently being updated. In response to discusesion of the Council, he stated that an Air Quality Standard is part of the General Plan, incorporated in the Conservation Element. The Planning Commission and the Staff recommend that when the General Plan is updated, as is required every 4 to 5 years, the Air Quality Standard will be reviewed and updated as necessary. Councilmember Clevenger challenged the statement that air quality is not a special problem for the City, stating that Saratoga has been cited as one of three cities having the worst air quality in the Bay area. She questioned the accuracy of the General Plan and noted that due to the building of Route 85, a proposed General Plan Amendment should be reviewed by the Council. Councilmember Moyles concurred with the recommendation of the Planning Commission; the suggestion that a separate Air Quality Element advanced by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District is not persuasive. He is not convinced that the General Plan of individual cities will address the problem of air quality, except on strictly parochial basis. The General Plan of Saratoga will not deal with issues that are regional problems; he is not supportive of asking Staff, nor hiring consultants, to work on the Air Quality Element of the City's General Han at this time. Councilmember Peterson concurred. The Mayor asked that Items 11 and 21 be voted on separately. PETERSON/MOYLES MOVED TO APPROVE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 11. Passed 5-0. PETERSON/MOYLES MOVED TO APPROVE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 21. Passed 3-2, Councilmembers Clevenger and Anderson opposed. 5. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS AND THE PUBLIC A. Oral Communications from the Public and Commissions Col. E.T. Barco, Camino Barco, Saratoga, presented a letter from Mr. David Taylor, Student Body President, West Valley College, Saratoga, and read a prepared statement to the Council. The Mayor stated that a meeting will be held at West Val!ey College on the issue of home games; the Chanceilor of the College will recommend against this item. In response to letters submitted to the Council, Col. Barco stated that, in his opinion, City Maintenance crews are doing a fine job. Mr. William Clark, 19405 Shubert Drive, Saratoga, expressed his concern regarding the 72 hour parking code of the City and requested that the Code be amended to keep abandoned vehicles off the road, rather than citing cars parked in front of the ownerg homes. He presented the two citations he received by the Code Enforcement Officer. B. Written Communications from the Public Letter from Ken and Karen Colson with objections to pavement maintenance. The Council accepted Staff Recommendation to refer to the Maintenance Director for reply. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIl, Page 4 SEPTEMBER 3, 1986 COMMUNICATIONS Continued i Letter from Allen C. Kipple with objections to pavement maintenance Councilmember Clevenger requested ~ Staff reply to the letter from the resident at 18640 Aspesi Ct., and noted that she has heard a number of comments regarding the paving of this slreet. The Council accepted Staff Recommendation to refer to the Maintenance Director for reply. Letter from Paul and Marion Friedi requesting rescission of fee. The Council accepted Staff Recommendation to deny request and inform the Friedls of the reason therefor. MOYLES/CLEVENGER MOVED TO ACCEPT STAFF RECOMMENDATION; COPIES OF REPLIES TO BE SUBMITTED TO COUNCIL. Passed 5-0. 6. OLD BUSINESS A. Ordinance 71.5, Amending Ch. 15 of the City Code by amending Section 15-10.010 concerning designation of zoning districts, adding Art. 15-21 to establish the Multiple Use Planned Development Zoning District, and amending Sections 15-35.020 and 15-35.030 concerning parking 'facilities (second reading). The Mayor acknowledged receipt of letter from the Saratoga Area Senior Coordinating Council, requesting the addition of the phrase, "common dining and recreation facilities" in the definition of senior citizen housing. City Attorney Toppel confirmed that this is not a substantial change; rather the phrase clarifies what has already been implied in the Ordinance. Consensus reached by Councilmembers. CLEVENGER/MOYLES MOVED TO 'ADD THE WORDS "COMMON DINING AND RECREATION FACILITIES" TO ORDINANCE 71.5, ALLOWABLE MIXED USES. Passed 5-0 1 CLEVENGER/MOYLES MOVED TO READ TIIE ORDINANCE BY TITLE ONLY, WAIVING FURTHER READING. Passed 5-0 CLEVENGER/MOYLES MOVED TO ADOPT THE ORDINANCE 71.5 AS READ BY TITLE ONLY WITH CORRECTION. !Passed 5-0 B. Report on Des'gnation of Maytr and V'ce Mayor by Ordinance -I City Attorney Toppel stated that Councilmember Clevenger contacted him with regard to the proposed change in the Ordinance; City Attorney stated that them was nothing in the City Codes addressing this portion of the Ordinance, nor were there state law restfictions that applied. The Councilmember's suggestion was based upon this advice. However, upon additional review of theI State Elections Code and other cities' policies, there is only one section which deals with the Designation of Mayor and Vice Mayor. Memorandum, dated August 25, 1986 was presented to the Council. Councilmember Clevenger stated that with the above clarifications, a Resolution was in order. Mayor Hlava stated that she wished to review the procedures of other cities and discuss possibilites in a Study Session before voting on a Resolution. Councilmember Peterson concurred and noted that them is not a s~nse of urgency in formulating a Resolution since a procedure is already set up. City Attorney stated that the City has a motion in the Minutes establishing a rotation policy for the Mayor. Councilmember Peterson compllmentedlthe City Attorney on the Memorandum prepared for the Council on this item. ' Consensus to discuss at Study Session in November; Staff was directed to obtain documents from other cities oft their rotation policie~s. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 5 SEPTEMBER 3, 1986 OLD BUSINESS Continued C. Memo from Chairman of Finance Committee on Investment Policy In response to Councilmember Moyles' question, The City Manager stated that them is a specific reference in the Government Code to the limitation of investments of active funds; when the limitation is enacted, funds may not be invested for periods of more than one year. However, it has been common pactice for cities to declare certain funds inactive and to set limits on the amounts of inactive funds available for long term investment. This is the mechanism which enables cities to invest for longer periods of time while insuring adequate, active deposits for cash flow purposes. MOYLES/PETERSON MOVED TO ADOPT THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE FINANCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO ESTABLISH INACTIVE DEPOSES ACCOUNT IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $2,250,000 WITH A MAXIMUM MATURITY OF THREE YEARS. Passed 5-0 7. NEW BUSINESS A. Vacation of a Portion of Marion Road Offered for Dedication as a Public Street The City Attorney stated that the City Engineer and the Planning Department concur that this portion of the road should be vacated; this property was originally dedicated when Maxion Road was to be a through road to the connecting property. The property in question has since been developed. CLEVENGER/PETERSON MOVED TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION 2369 OF THE CITY COUNCIL VACATING A PORTION OF MARION ROAD OFFERED FOR DEDICATION AS A PUBLIC STREET. Passed 5-0 B. Approval of Settlement Agreements 1) Stipulation for settlement of pending litigation relating to SD 1356 (Cocciardi/Mt. Eden Estates Subdivision) and SD 1368 (Cocciardi/Chadwick Subdivision) 2) Settlement agreement and mutual general release pertaining to the Quarry Rd./ Quarry Creek Repair Project The City Attorney noted copies of ongoing correspondence and a memorandum placed in the packet for discussion of this item. He stated that with respect to the second agreement, this settlement is being further reviewed and there may be further changes. Any changes of substance will be presented to the Council for review. The only change at this time is a request from two of the attorneys representing insurance car- -.:~a_ers- that the agreements be expanded to include a release by the insured of their own insurance carriers; this has been eliminated by the City Attorney in this agreement. This request is under discussion. There have been no other major changes requested. ~ MOYLES/PETERSON MOVED TO APPROVE THE i~ROPOSED STIPULATED AGREEMENTS. Passed 5-0 Councilmember Moyles stated that the Council as a whole wished to communicate their satisfaction with the efforts of City Attomey Toppel during the lengthly and difficult process of reaching these agreements; of special note is the litigation on Measure A which was used to resolve the problem on Quarry Creek Rd. and offer residents of this area safe access to and from their homes. The Council acknowledged their appreciation to the City Attomey. C. Report from Planning Director on Residential Development Review Process Planning Director Hsia read the "Report to Mayor and City Council", dated August 21, 1986, and stated that the Planning Staff has prepared two proposals for review. The City Manager noted that this is a complex issue; he suggested that the Council may wish to discuss this proposal at the City Council meeting in two weeks. Copies of the proposals have been sent to the Planning Commission. Councilmember Peterson.had asked the Staff prepare additional examples for review by the Council. The City Manager cautioned the Council that the information submitted for review was not intended to be comprehensive nor exclusive; proposals submitted have differing features and different implications. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 6 SEPTEMBER 3, 1986 NEW BUSINESS Continued Councilmember Peterson noted that paragraph 2, on page 2 could be the objective of the existing design review process, ie., a nlethod to relate house size and coverage to lot size and slope rather than arbitrary standands based on zoning districts. He favors the concept that any request beyond the standards set, becomes a Variance. Mayor Hlava stated that she is sm>ngly ' opposed to a Variance procedure for the development review process. Councilmember Moyles suggested scheduling a Study Session with a variety of models for discussion and review by the Council. Study Session will be held on Wednesday, October 29th. Mayor Hlava proceeded to Public Hearings. 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Appeal of denial of Variance to allow impervious coverage to exceed 40% on a lot at 13917 Camino Barco in the R-1-40,000 zoning district (Appellant/Applicant, J. Needman) (V-739) Planning Director Hsia read the "Report to Mayor and City Council", dated August 26, 1986. CouncilmemberC. levenger quesfioned whether other houses on Camino Barco were developed under different impervious coverage standards; placement of the house suggests that a tennis court was to be added. Councilmembers questioned when the house was built; the applicant was asked to address the issue. Councilmember Anderson asked what ihe impervious coverage standard was for R~ 1-10,000 as opposed to impervious coverage standard for R-1-40,000; Planning Director Hsia explained the difference. The City Manager' stated that a basic zoning issue, namely, the intensity of development was involved in this Appeal. The pupose of having Variations in lot sizes for zoning is specifically to lessen the intensity of development in certain areas of the City; therefore, the coverage allowances in the larger zones are correspondingly less of the percentage of the property. This figure is relative to the size of the lot, arid does not relate to absolute figures. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:20 P.M. Ms. Janet Needman, 13917 C 'n arco, Saratoga, stated that the house was built in 1979 amx o B when there were no egulat'ons for impervious coverage; in March of 1983, the rule for impervious coverage became effective; tin February of this year the 5% was added. The Appellant presented printed material the plan for the house, a map of the area pictures of the property and a signed neighborhood petition requesting that this Variance be granted. · t Before purchasing the property, whxch was listed as ha(,ing room for the tennis court, the Appellant inquired at the Planning Department as to whether there were any requirements for installing a tennis court. She was informed that there were two requirements; the property met both of these requirements. She then p~rchased the. ~ouse. Ms. Needman rewrote the Findings as follows: PraCtical Difficulty orl~aneow:,~tt~hVsical Hardship; alternatives of a grass court or a P1 Clay court, as suggested by the an~ing Commission, are not feasible. Replacement of the driveway with paving stones poses a financial and safety hardship. The driveway covers 1500 sq. ft.; impervious coverage would still exceed the requirement by 8%. Exceptional Circumstances: the appellant is the second owner of the house, built before the March of 1983 impervious coverage requirement. (~gmm0n Privilege: The 8 houses in this location were built before the impervious coverage became effective; others in the area installed swimming pools and tennis courts. The house in question has 1200 sq.!ft. less space than other houses; there are no Variances on record for the houses On Camino Barco since these houses were completed by March of 1983. Granting this Variance grants common privilege. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 7 SEPTEMBER 3, 1986 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Snecial Privilege: Granting this Variance will not grant special privilege but will make this property consistent with the other properties in neighborhood; 4 of these houses have swimming pools or tennis courts. The appellant requests that she be able to develop her property according to the privileges granted to neighbors. Public Health and Safe_W: as stated in Exhibit A-l; Ms. Needman stated that the house is situated to allow for proper drainage; the tennis court would be installed to insure proper drainage and percolation of the water. The County Assessors Office assessed this propery at $150,000 higher than purchase price due to the fact that this parcel of property is on a level acre of land in Saratoga. Mr. Les Nederville, 13926 Camino Barco, spoke in favor of granting this Variance. PETERSON/MOYLES MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:29 P.M. Passed 5-0 In response to Councilmember Peterson's question, the City Manager has stated the rationale for the 40% impervious coverage. The Councilmember stated that he could make the necessary Findings and will support the appellant on this appeal. Councilmember Moyles disagreed with the above, stating that he cannot make the Findings. If the 40% impervious coverage is inappropriate, then the Ordinance should be changed. The lack of a tennis court is not a hardship and cannot be applied as a Finding of Unnecessary " Hardship. The Councilmember subscribes to the Staffs Recommendation and the Planning Commission's conclusions.- The fact that 4 of the 7 homes have tennis courts is an example of a situation where the Ordinance should be applied to prevent further coverage of impervious surfaces. Councilmember Clevenger stated that she supports the 40% impervious coverage Ordinance. However, this house was built before the Ordinance and the house was placed with a tennis court in mind. Hardship occurs when current guidelines are applied retroactively. She will support this appeal, recognizing the special circumstances of this case. Councilmember Anderson concurs with the above; the amount of impervious coverage will not impede drainage, the appellant has planned for proper drainage, the house was planned for the installation of the tennis court and before impervious coverage was a factor. Thus, the Councilmember will support this appeal. Mayor Hlava stated that after a site visit, she sees a practical difficulty in the fact that the house was designed for a tennis court and even the removal of the legally installed driveway will not bring the impervious coverage within the requirement. The fact that the house faces in two directions because it is lot can be viewed as exceptional circumstance. Provision for proper drainage, the amount of foliage and lawn, the fact that the lot does not appear to be intensely developed meets the intent of the Ordinance; the Mayor can make the necessary Findings. HLAVA/PETERSON MOVED TO REVERSE THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND MAKE THE FINDINGS: 1: PRACTICAL DIFHCULTY AND UNNECESSARY PHYSICAL HARDSHIP, REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT OF A DRIVEWAY IS NOT PRACTICAL AND AN UNNECESSARY PHYSICAL HARDSHIP. 2: EXCEPTIONAL OR EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES, THE HOUSE WAS BUILD PRIOR TO IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE STANDARDS AND THE HOUSE IS ON A CORNER LOT THAT HAS TWO DRIVEWAYS. 4:SPECIAL PRIVILEGE: THE HOUSE WAS BUILT IN 1979, IS ON A CORNER LOT AND HAS TWO DRIVEWAYS. 5: PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY OR WELFARE: DRIVEWAYS ARE NEEDED FOR OFF STREET PARKING, THEREFORE, CANNOT BE REMOVED. INTERLOCKING PAVEMENT ON THE DRIVEWAY MAY CAUSE A SAFETY HAZARD TO MOTORISTS. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIl., Page 8 SEPTEMBER 3, 1986 I PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued I THIS IS THE MAXIMUM IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE ALLOWED; ANY FLIRTHEFt IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE, ESPECIALLY A REQUEST FOR A SWIMMING POOL, WILL NOT BE ALLOWED ON THIS PROPERTY. Passed 4-1, Councilmember Moyles Opposed B. Appeal of denial of Variance for identification sign at 20444 Prospect Rodd, (Appellant/Applicant, R. Seid) (V-737) Planning Director Hsia read the Report to Mayor and City Council, dated August 26, 1986, and noted the change requested by the appellant that the proposed sign would be 3 ft. 9 in. rather than 6 ft. as proposed in the original application. Staffrecommen~that the Council uphold the Planning Commission's denial of this Variance. Councilmember Peterson confirmed that the height of the sign was changed after the Planning . Commission hemring. A map was presented to show the Council the placement of the proposed sign. C. ouncilmember Anderson commented that with explicit directions, the building could be found; however, thei numbering system on the street is not evident to a motorist. Councilmember Peterson stated that the sign Ordinance was changed recently to allow monument signs for certain shopping centers; Planning Director stated that use of monument signs does not apply to a professional office complex· In response to further questions, the City Attorney stated that the Owens project has a monument sign due to a special provision. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:50 P.M. Ms. Elaine Seid, Attorney, spoke on behalf of the Appellant. She requested a clarification on on the zoning and was informed by the Planning Director that this building is in a commercial ' zone, not a professional zone as incorrectly stated in the Staff Report The speaker statext that this was an appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of Dr. Seid's application for a 'Variance to permit free standing identification sign for an office building. 'A sketch and the dj.mentions of the propbsed sign were presented; the sign will be made of redwood with gold lettering and will compliment the appearance of the neighborhood. The setback from the street will be 10 ft. Photographs were presented. Ms Se · id stated that the factors for consideration are: A freestanding sign is needed to cdmpensate for the physical characteristics of the location Front parkinl; I 40 mph speed limit on Prospect Aye. Evening appointments for patients~ New patients, unfamilar with the area Complaints Erom patients unable 16 locate the office The Staff Report describes the physical limitations of the location and concludes that a sign is necessary; the proposed location of the sign is the only logical altemative. The safety and. welfare of the public will not be adveriely affected, visibility of motorists will not be obstructed by the sign and the character of the neighborhood will be preserved. Examples of pemaitted signs were cited; Ms. Seid noted the difficulty in understanding the denial of a sign request for a dental office. A petition from Saratoga residents favorable to the - proposed sign was presented. The CoUncil was urged to reverse the decision of the Planning Commission, which was based on erronous assumptions that the sign would be 6 ft. in height, that prior appointments of patients eliminated the need for an identifying sign and the contusion surrounding the placement of the sign.. In response to Councilmember Peterson's question, Ms. Seid stated that mature vegetation obscures the building. CLEVENGER/ANDERSON MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:01 P.M. Passed 5-0 I MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 9 SEPTEMBER 3, 1986 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued In response to Councilmember Clevenger's questions, the Planning Director stated that the Planning Commission voted on this application with the knowledge that the office was in the visitor/commercial zone. There was no confusion regarding the height of the sign; it was a request for a 6 ft. high, free standing sign at the Commission Heating. In response tO comments by Councilmembers, he stated that the location of the sign was the issue upon which the Planning Commission denied the Variance: Commissioner Pines was invited to represent the Planning Commission on their decision; the Commissioner confumed that the sign was 6 ft..in height. He stated that he would have denied the request for a Variance regardless of height; however, he stated that he could not speak for other Commissioners on this matter. The Commission felt that a monument sign with names on it would impact the neighborhood; patients would need only an address. A sign with the address on it would have been acceptable; names of the dentists could be mounted on the building wail. In response to Councilmember Moyles' question, the City Attomey stated that the fact that the sign is free standing created a problem. He noted that this application is an example of an anomaly of the Ordinance, namely that a retail operation would be allowed to have a monument sign in this commercial district; there is no provision for office or personal service use with reference to the zoning ordinance. The issue of signage in a commercial zoning district, for office use, was not discussed by the Planning Commission when signage for shopping centers was liberalized. Councilmember Moyles noted the problem of substantive alterations of appeals to the Council; this appeal is a minor issue, nonetheless, it is the same procedure and renders meaningless the Planning Commission's activity. He favors returning this appeal to Commission on this principle. If, however, the Council feels that this appeal is an anomaly in the Ordinance, the remedy is to change the Ordinance and let this appellant be the first under the new Ordinance. Mayor Hlava accepted Findings of the Staff Report. Councilmember Anderson favored making a decision on the appeal rather than delay the applicant with a retum to the Planning Commission; Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of July 23, 1986, indicate that the height of the sign was not an issue. Councilmember Clevenger stated that ~he had reservations regarding the placement of names on the sign. However, identification is necessary; she will support this appeal for the granting of a Variance. The majority of Councilmembers favored voting on the appeal. HLAVA/ANDERSON MOVED TO REVERSE THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MAKING THE FINDINGS AS STATED IN THE REPORT OF THE PLANNING STAFF AND NOTING THAT THE SIGN IS 3 FT. 9 IN. IN HEIGHT, NOT 6 FF. Passed 3-2, Councilmembers Moyles and Peterson opposed. Councilmember Peterson stated, for the record, that he would not have opposed a monument sign with the address on it. PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued " Mayor Hlava recessed the meeting from 9:20 to 9:34 P.M. C. Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to permit establishment of new second units in the R-l-10,000 zoning district subject to a limitation of no more than 5 such units per year (first reading) City Attorney Toppel stated that the proposed amendment started with a Council review of the second unit Ordinance; recommendations were submitted to the Planning Commission for a limited allowance of second units in the R-l~10,000 zoning district. This recommendation was accepted by the Commission. The City Attorney noted that Section 3 had been deleted. The Public Heating was opened at 9:37 P.M. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL~ Page 10 SEPTEMBER 3, 1986 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Andy Beverett, 19597 Via Monte Dr., Saratoga, stated that he was speaking for Mrs. Louise Cooper, Chairwoman of the Sehior Co-ordinating Committee; Mrs. Cooper has · reviewed this Ordinance with the CounCil. The concept of this Ordinance should be extended to the R-l-10,000 zoning district for the following reasons: - To prevent any appearance of discrimination on the part of the City Council Need of senior citizens for second Unit options may be as great as, or greater than, any other segment of the community - .The City is protected by a 5 per year limitation on second units in the R-l-10,000 district The Committee does not expect numer6us applications; an in-depth study of the use of the second unit by particular segments of the population was suggested. The Committee favors deletion of Section 3. Ms. Harriet Handler, Ronnie Way, Saratoga, stated that she has found three senior citizens cooking in their bathrooms since this was the only source of water in the unit. The danger of electric appliances: and water is evident2 Those with illegal second units in the R- 1 - 10,000 need a grace peric~:l to come forward and rectify the situation; both the Council and the Planning Commission have denied the fight of these owners to legally rectify this situation. Ms. Adna Engle, 1.8645 Me Farland AVe., Saratoga, reviewed her experiences and stated that she has worked all her life. She appealed for second units which allow individuals to be self sufficient and retain theft independence~ Mr. Shelly Williams, 11951 Brookridg~ Dr., Saratoga, favors the motion and noted that them are a number of owners of second units lwho have not Come forward since they do not realize that the law has been changed. Lack of applications at present may be due to the fact that the laws prohibiting second units have bee~ so tough. PETERSONTMOYLES MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:52 P.M. Passed 5-0. In response to Councilmember Moyleg question, City Attorney stated that the age restriction is not mentioned in the noticing; the Council may 'address the issue. This would constitute a modification of the Ordinance and the Ordinance would then be sent back to the Planning Commission for consideration since an 'age requirement had not been discussed nor considered by the Commission. In response to quegtions by the Mayor, City Attorney clarified that he was speaking about the procedure in the! state planning law relative to the adoption of a zoning Ordinance; where them is a change, particularfly with reference to noticing and hearing provisions, a referral to the Commission' for a recommendation is required if the Commission has not previously considered this issue, Councilmember Peterson stated that on July 9th, 1985, the Planning Commission presented a number of changes in the second unit Ordinance; the Commission recommended allowing second units in the R-l-10,000 with a cap of 5 units. Other provisions suggested by the Commission are: ! -,- No more than 600 sq. ft. be allowed for a second unit in the R-l-10,000 zoning district Second units may not change the exterior of the house The Planning Commission could expand the 600 sq. ft. limit to 800 sq. ft. upon review Councilmember Peterson urged that thes;e provisions be included in the Ordinance. Mayor Hlava confirmed that rules that apply to other districts will apply to the R-l-10,000 zoning district. I The City Attorney related the historical background of the Ordinance for the information of the Council. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 11 SEPTEMBER 3, 1986 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued . Councilmember Moyles requested a deferment of this item until an appropriate referral to the Planning Commission can be made and requested the deletion he proposed. Mayor Hlava suggested that the reluctance of the Council in accepting Planning Commission recommendations was due to the fact that a separate set of standards was proposed; the enfomement and comprehension by staff who enforce Ordinances was complicated. The Council felt that the Ordinance was sufficiently strict.' Councilmember Peterson will accept the consensus of the Council in this matter, although he feels there is merit to the provision which prohibits detached units in the R-1- i 0,000 zoning district. Councilmember Clevenger reiterated her concems that she will not support deletion of the age requirement for second units nor will she support second units in the R-l-10,000 zoning district. Although the emotional appeals are persuasive, Saratoga is not an appropriate place for two family units in single family homes. Councilmember Anderson wishes to review the proposed issues separately; the age requirement should be considered furst and then consider the R-l-10,000 zoning district. It appears that the residents of Saratoga do not want duplexes and that there will be only a few specialized cases of request for the second units. Councilmember Peterson clarified his position, stating that he wished to refer the Ordinance to the Planning Commission for review of the age issue; he feels that second units were a non issue three years ago and they are a non issue now. The Councilmember expressed concem regarding the exclusion of the R- 1 - 10,000 zoning district and questioned the fairness of such an exclusion. He supports this Ordinance. Councilmember Clevenger noted the unfairness of the restfiction of 5 units in the R-l-10,000 zoning district. In response to a suggestion that the Ordinance could be changed, to allow additional second units in the R-l-10,000, she stated that she sees increased applications for second units in the City and does not believe that this is the proper direction for the City of Saratoga. The City Attomey stated that he is more comfortable defending a numerical limitation of second units in the City than an age restriction. The numerical limitation has not been a problem. Councilmember Anderson noted that there is a disincentive in the City for owners of illegal units to come forward to legalize these units. The City Attomey outlined two choices for the Council to procede: Councilmember Moyles suggested that action be deferred pending advice from the Planning Commission regarding the deletion of the age requirement section of the Ordinance. MOYLES/PETERSON MOVED TO DEFER ACTION ON AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE PENDING REFERRAL TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR CONSIDERATION OF DELETION OF THE AGE REQUIREMENT. Passed 4-1~ Councilmember Clevenger opposed. D. Amendment to Article 7-05 of the City Code to modify the requirement for mandatory garbage collection service and to require a depOSit upon the commencement or reinstatement of service (first reading) 1) Amendment to franchise agreement with Green Valley Disposal Co. to implement above ordinance i City Attorney Toppel stated that the mandatory service and the lien procedures have not proved cost effective nor useful in creating good relationships between City and its residents and has been costly in time expended by Community Services Director. The Green Valley Disposal Co. has proposed dispensing with mandatory service and initiate a process of collection of . deposits. The proposed amendments address this issue and allows the Disposal Co. to '. · - terminate service at the end of the billing cycle for non payment of services rendered. The Public Hearing was opened at 10:20 P.M. There were no speakers. MOYLES/PETERSON MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:21 P.M. Passed 5-0. MEETING OF 7'HE CITY COUNCIL Page 12 SEPTEMBER 3. 1986 NEW BUSINESS Continued MOYLES/ANDERSON MOVED TO'INTRODUCE ORDINANCE 71.6 OF THE CITY' OF SARATOGA A/VtEND1NG ARTICLE 7-05 IN CHAPTER 7 OF THE CITY CODE, RELATING TO GARBAGE DISPOSAL, TO REPEAL THE MANDATORY REQUIREMEN'I? FOR GARBAGE COLLECTION SERVICE AND TO IMPOSE THE REQUIREMEN'I? FOR A SECURITY DEPOSIT UPON THE COMMENCEMENT OR REINSTATEMENT OF SERVICE. Passed 5-0. MOYLES/HLAVA MOVED TO ADOPT THE AMENDMENT TO FRANCHISE AGREEMENT WTFH GREEN VALLEY DISPOSAL CO. TO IMPLEMENT THE ABOVE ORDINANCE. ]Passed 5-0 Mayor Hlava conunended that she has received citizen complaints regarding the increase in rates for garbage collection. She suggested scheduling a study session to review this issue. Neither Councilmembers Moyles no~ Peterson have received complaints at this time. Councilmember Moyles stated that he Wished to confer with Mr. Varni, Green Valley Disposal Co. regarding recycling and land fill concerns. The City Manager was asked to place these items on the Council agenda at an apprppriate date. E.Urgency ordinance amending Ch. 4 of the City Code to require permit for street vendors The Public Hearing was opened at 10:24 P.M. There were no speakers. ANDERSON/PETERSON MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:25 P.M. Passed 5-0 The City Manager stated that the Chamber of Commerce has requested that in such events, granting of street rending permits for special events be given only to the sponsor of the event, The City Manager noted the broader issue involved; namely, allowing street vending in the City. Street vending has been a continuing problem; current Ordinances are unclear whether street vending is allowed, and if so, under what circumstances. Councilmember Moyles questioned the! ' ~" 1) Legalityofwjthholdingpermitstofavorlocalentrepreneurs ' 2) Fairness to all vendors, allowing consumers to choose , 3) Urgency of this amendment The City Attorney stated that the principle of the first item is that the City of Saratoga is issuing one permit for a special event; this permit will cover all aspects of the activity. The receipent of the permit will be responsible for the enlire event including commercial activity. The City Attorney stated thi'ough an oversight o~ his part, this amendment is lacking the usu ai time sequence. The City Manager noted that the issue of fairness can be applied to the sponsor of an event, who has organized and promoted the activity, from which other individuals or organizations receive benefit without a !corresponding effort. I CLEVENGER/ANDERSON MOVED TO ADOPT ORDINANCE 3E-23, AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA PROHIBITING SALES ON PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY DURING THE CONDUCT OF SPECIAL EVENTS EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY THE SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT. Passed 4-1, Councilmember Moyles opposed. I F. Weed Abatement Hearing The City Manager stated that the City has an annual City wide weed abatement effort. , Notification to property owners was sent; non compliance with the order results in a County ~ Building Official ordering weed abatement; there were 111 parcels at a cost of almost $25,000. After public hearing, a tax lien can be pl'aced on the properties in question. '~ The Public Hearinl; was opened at 10:35 P.M. There were no speakers. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 13 SEPTEMBER 3, 1986 NEW BUSINESS Continued MOYLES/ANDERSON MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEAR1NG AT 10:36 P.M. Passed 5-0 MOYLES MOVED TO APPROVE THE RESOLUTION 2370 CONFIRMING THE REPORT AND ASSESSMENT OF WEED ABATEMENT CHARGES. Passed 5-0 NEW BUSINESS (Continued from before the Public Hearing) D. Request for Funding from Regional Child Protection Center. The City Manager stated that this item was discussed by the West Valley City Managers Pre-Agenda Meeting; this request will be presented at the West Valley Mayors and Managers Meeting. Mayor Hlava requested additional direction on this issue. Councilmember Peterson questioned the rationale of this request and asked if there had been a precedent already established; the City Manager stated that the letter he received was vague. He wished to hear the Council's ideas before pursuing this matter further. Councilmember Anderson requested investigation of county wide private services available before any decision is reached by the City. Councilmember Moyles stated that philosophically any request for social services by any other level of government gets back to the fact that Saratoga was incoxporated at a very low level of property tax rate; Proposition 13 has further added to this situation. Other levels of government take property taxes from the city; they are responsible to set t~ priorities that address the needs of the community. Virtually all social services are contracted by the City; it would be difficult to distinguish between this request and other requests. The Councilmember does not support funding this activity. Councilmember Clevenger questioned whether Saratoga is meeting all of the priorities that the City is required to meet; the question of taking on additional responsibilities was raised. Councilmember Anderson noted that agencies such as hospitals, are expanding their services to fill unused space. Mayor Hlava requested statistics on the number of children from the City of Saratoga who receive the services in question; Councilmember Peterson concurred. Councilmember Moyles noted that if it is established that a number of Saratoga residents are receiving services, the Council has conceded in advance, the responsibility of the City to provide the required services; cities may be required to fund entire programs. Limits would be difficult to establish once cities began subsidizing activities that have historically been the responsibility of counties. Councilmember Peterson stated that he would like to see the statistics. Mayor Hlava will communicate to the West Valley Mayors and Managers Meeting what is esentially the viewpoint expressed by Councilmember Moyles; information on available resources, facilities and numbers of individuals using services will be pursued. E. County Communications Billing The City Manager stated that this item is io request authority from the City Council to pay the 1986-1987 communications billings as they are received: based upon the modified formula for costs, worked out over the last several months. He called attention to the Menorandum of August 18, 1986. The City Manager answered questions presented. Councilmember Moyles complimented City Manager Peacock. MOYLES/HLAVA MOVED TO AUTHORIZE AND DIRECT PAYMENT TO THE COUNTY AS BILLED EXCEPT AS MODIFIED TO ACCOUNT FOR FUTURE ADJUSTMENTS AS CALCULATED IN ~ CITY MANAGER'S MEMORANDUM OF AUGUST 18, 1986. Passed 5-0. F. Designation of Voting Delegate for League of California Cities Annual Conference HLAVA/ANDERSON MOVED TO DESIGNATE THE MAYOR OF THE CiTY OF SARATOGA AS DELI~ GATE FOR LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES ANNUAL CONFERENCE WITH THE VICE MAYOR AS SECOND DEL/~GATE. Passed 5-0 MEETING OF THE CITY COUNC Page 14 SEPTEMBER 3, 1986 NEW BUSINESS Continued k G. Approval of Master Plan for Hako e Gardens Mr. William Glcnnon presented the Master Plan for Hakone Gardens. The only changes from the preliminary draft submitted a week'ago, is the addition of a fold out map. Mayor Hiava stated that she is favorable to approval of the Master Plan; however, she wishes to exclude the Construction Cost Estimates. HLAVA/ANDERSON MOVED TO APPROVE THE MASTER PLAN FOR HAKONE GARDENS WITH THE EXCLUSION OF THE CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATES Passed 5-0 9. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS A. Discussion of Oral Communications not referred to Staff 1. Col. Barco, West Valley College Student President letter: The City Attorney stated that the City hhs taken an official position through a letter from the City Attorney in regard to the legal interpretation of activities on West Valley College Campus; copies of the letrex' were sent to officials of the College. The City Manager was asked to transmit the City Attomey's letter outlining the City's position to the College. 2. Mr. W. Clark, request for amendment of 72 hour parking code: The City Attorney affnTned the constitutional fight of the City to adopt an Ordinance regulating public streets, parking on the public right-of-way and procedures for removal of vehicles parked for 72 consectutive hours. He made himself available for additional information to the applicant. No action taken on this request. B. Reports from Individual Councilmembers Councilmember Moyles stated that wheh he called the City Manager with two constituent concerns on Tuesday, he was told by ofie of the constituents on Tuesday'evening that the problem was resolved. He stated his appreciation to staff. Councilmember C evenge eques ed Council direction on the following two items: Sanitation District 4: The situation was reviewed for Councilmembers and the question raised as to why the City of San JoSe is included in District 4. By-laws, requiring that participants in District 4 hold property in the District, were cited. Councilmember Clevenger voted to uphold the by-laws, and not have San Jose represented on the Board.. At present, it is difficult to bbtain a quorum since the representative of San Jose is absent on many occasions. Cotmcilmembers concurred tha 1 h 1 h t the by- aws sou d be up eld. Housing and Community Development: Background of this agency was reviewed for the Council and the guidelines and procedures for disbursement of monies for each of the jurisdictions was explained. Non e~titlement cities which can apply for monies am Campbell, Cupertino Morgan Hill,l Gilroy Los Gatos, Milpitas. A proposal to change the division dmonies to a 70-30% split is on the H.C.D. agenda; the 30% is a discretionaxy fund. This is meeting with resistance from county supervisors; some of the cities, who receive disc~e ' ary money are also resisting any change in tlon allotment. There is a possibility thaf the City of Milpitas will discontinue its participation in this agency; if more than two cities drop out, the agency will no longer be viable. Councilmember Clevenger stated that in the best interest of the City, she will support the 70-30% split. She requested comments or questions from other Councilmembers. The Mayor suggested that the issue could be discussed at the Mayors and Managers Meeting. The Council supports the vote in favor of the 70-30% division of monies involved; no decision reached on the Housing Trust Fund, pending further information. MEETING OFTHE CITY COUNCIL Page 15 SEPTEMBER 3, 1986 CITY COUNCIL ITEMS Continued Councilmember Anderson stated that she had a tour of the light rail system at Expo 86; a booklet on the system was presented for review by the Council. The Councilmember noted that the rail system runs into the heart of the downtown urea, has 40% ridership, and 80% of public support along the right-of-way. Further information will be available on methods of informing the public during the construction of this light rail system. Mayor Hlava noted: A letter of sympathy and flowers were sent to Mrs. Fran Lewis on the death of her husband. A letter of sympathy was sent to Ms. Polly Hillis on the death of her mother. A letter of congratulations was sent to Mrs. R. Weiss, Principal of School honored as one of the twelve exemplary elementary schools in the United States. She will meet with the President of the United States. Retreat scheduled for next week with the Intergovernmental Council. Draft of the Village Plan has been received. 10. CLOSED SESSION: None. 11. ADJOURN: The Meeting of the City Council was adjourned at 11:30 P.M.in memory of Mr. Fran Lewis.