Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-17-1986 City Council Minutes MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL TIME: September 17, 1986 PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga CA TYPE: Regular Meeting 1. Roll Call: Mayor Hlava, Councilmembers Clevenger, Anderson, Moyles, Peterson present at 7:06 P.M. 2. CEREMONIAL ITEMS: A. Resolun.'on 2370 commending Mr. and Mrs. WiHys Peck on Heritage House Tour B. Resolution 2371 commending Mr. and Mrs. Woodrow Lomas on Heritage House Tour C. Resolution 2372 commending Mr. and Mrs. Cor Bregman on Heritage House Tour D. Resolution 2373 in memory of Mr. Fran Lewis, Public Safety Commissioner CLEVENGER/PETERSON MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTIONS 2370, 2371, AND 2372. Passed 5-0. Mrs. W. Peck read a letter on behalf of her husband, Mr. Willys Peck, which stated that it had been a pleasure and a privilege to cooperate with the Saratoga Heritage Preservation Commission in presenting the 1986 Heritage Home Tour. While affording the owners the mandate of tidying up the premises, more importantly, the Tour provided an opportunity for reflection on local history and a realization that Saratoga has a historical heritage. The Heritage Preservation Commission deserves the support of the City. The tenth anniversary of the Saratoga Historical Museum to be observed September 21, 1986, was noted. CLEVENGER/PETERSON MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 2373. Passed 5-0. 3. ROUTINE MATTERS A. Approval of Minutes: Councilmember Anderson requested a correction of the Minutes of September 3, 1986, page 11', third paragraph, first sentence, delete the word "review", to read, "Councilmember Anderson wishes to consider the proposed issues separately;..." Councilmember Clevenger requested a correction on page 14, third paragraph from the bottom, delete the first sentence and replace with, "A proposal to change the division of monies to a 70-30% split is on the H.C.D. agenda; the 30% is a discretionary fund:' Councilmember Peterson requested a change on page 11, fourth paragraph, fourth sentence, delete the words "concurred and" to read, Councilmember Clevenger noted the unfairness of the reslriction..." City Attorney Toppel requested that on page 4, second paragraph, second sentence of Item 6.A., delete the word 'applied" to read, "..rather'the phrase clarifies what has already been implied in the Ordinance." MOYLES/CLEVENGER MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 3, 1986, AS AMENDED, AND THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 9, 1986. Passed 5-0. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 2 SEPTEMBER 17, 1986 ROUTINE MATTERS Continued B. Approval of Warrant List: MOYLES/HLAV.A MOVED TO APPROVE THE WARRANT LIST. Passed 5-0. CONSENT CALENDAR: CLAIMS: .A. ClaimsubmittedbyCSAAonbehaifofSanchez MOYLES/CLEVENGER MOVED TO DENY THE CLAIM SUBMITFED BY CSAA ON BEHALF OF SANCHEZ. Passed 5-0. B. Claim submitted by Jacobs HLAVA/ANDERSON MOVED TO DENY THE CLAIM SUBMITtED BY JACOB& Passed 5-0. CONSENT CALENDAR: OTHER ITEMS: A. Planning Commission ActionS, September 10, 1986, Noted and fded. B. Public Safety Commission Mi~,utes, September 8, 1986, Noted and fried. C. Final Bufiding Site Approval, SDR 1617, Chester Avenue, 1 lot - J. Houston D. Construction Acceptance, SDR 1478, Brookwood - J. Politi E. Authorization to purchase Medium utility Truck for Parks Department from Cerrito Chevrolet for $9341.79 I F. Financial Reports I I 1. Investment Report - July I 2. Revenue and Expense Report - August 3. Treasurer's Report - AugUst G. ResolutionMV-168 Prohibiting Parking on Portion of Allendale Avenue H. Amendment to Article 7-05 of the City Code to modify the requirement for mandatory garbage collection service and io require a deposit upon the commencement or reinstatement of Service (second reading) (Ordinance 71.6) I. Resolution 2374 Reversing Ddnial of Seid Application (heard September 3, 1986) J.Resolution 2375 Reversing Delnial of Needman Application (heard September'3, 1986) ' K. Agreement with West Valley COllege for Television Local Origination/Public Access L.Award of Contract for Addition and Alterations to Village Library to Andero Concrete in amount of $10,849.00 ~ . . Request by Councilmembers to remove; ITEM K from Consent Calendar. MOx~LES/ANDERSON MOVED TO APPROVE CONSENT CALENDAR WITH REMOVAL OF ITEM K. Passed 5-0. ~ -.~ MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 3 SEPTEMBER 17, 1986 CONSENT CALENDAR Cont'mued ' Community Serqices Director Argow noted in the Agreement between West Valley College and the City of Saratoga Local Odgination and Public Access, Article II, deletion of the phrase "at no charge to the Volunteers." West Valley College has requested this phrase be removed; minimal costs will be charged to the volunteers. In response to Councilmember Moyles' question regarding the purpose of the agreement, the City Manager stated that the immediate concern of the City was to establish some forrealized relationship with West Valley College and to create a mechanism by which the community access channels operation could be .managed. The first event will probably be the Parade on September 28, 1986; a written statement setting up the flamework of the cooperative effort is desirable. The City Attorney and Mr. Argow, Community Services Director have reviewed the proposal. Councilmember Moyles stated that he has reviewed prototype agreements for other colleges and community access channels. He noted the variety of length and specific detail of agreements reviewed; he will accept the proposed agreement with the understanding of future review of conditions. The City Manager stated that once the governing body is established and the program is intitated, the nature of the relationship can be further defined to the mutual advantage of both the City and the College. Councilmember Moyles suggested sending a letter to the College, not'me that the City wished to further define the agreement and suggest a deadline for constituting the governing body. Mayor Hlava noted her reluctance to the appointment of another committee. She questioned the necessity of setting up another governing body and asked that, if it is necessary to do so, the appointment of this board be time limited. Councilmember Peterson will accept a sunset limitation on the existence of the board; he noted the benefit of the various commissions in overseeing the completion of projects of the City. He noted the potential benefit of the Public Access Station and favored the appointment of the board. Councilmember Moyles noted the on~ year limitation in the proposal. MOYLES/PETERSON MOVED TO APPROVE THE AGREEMENT W1TH WEST VALLEY COLLEGE FOR TELEVISION LOCAL ORIGINATION/PUBLIC ACCESS. Passed 5-0. 5. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS AND THE PUBLIC A. Oral Communications from the Public and Commissions: None. B. Written Communications from the Public 1. Letter from David Campbell with request to lease City property; Cox/Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd. CLEVENGER/ANDERSON MOVED TO ACCEPT STAFF RECOMMENDATION, AUTHORIZIN_G- -.l- THE CITY MANAGER TO INDICATE THE CITY HAS NO INTEREST IN LEASING PROPERTY EXCEPT FOR ACTUAL DEVELOPMENT OF SITE. Passed 5-0 ,.. 6. OLD BUSINESS '" A. Reconsidemtion D.U.I. Grant In response to questions raised by Councilmembers, the City Manager stated that the City has the option to terminate this agreement after the second year. The funding impact was noted by Councilmember Clevenger;, third year funding would come solely from the City. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNC]L Pag~ 4 SEPTEMBER 17, 1986 OLD BUSINESS Continued The City Manager stated all necessary information from the Sheriffs Deparmaent has beea obtained for the City to make an adequate analysis of the probable impact of the proposed program. If the program operates as proposed, he expects the program will sustain itself; there is a two year evaiuation period. The City Manager recommended approval of the program at this time. Ms. Dede Sandler, Saratoga Commun!ty Against Substance Abuse, (C.A.S.A.), stated tl'tat C.A.S.A. was fonnded in June of 1986; the purpose of C.A.S.A. is to change current attitudes toward chug and alcohol use ~ the community and provide aitemative activities. The first meeting was attended by representatives of a number of community organizations and services, public schools; support of the proposal was unanimous. She noted the statiistic;~l data presented in the Community Service DLrector's "Report to Mayor and City Council"., dated September 11, 1986, and asked 'for approval of the proposal by the City Council. In response to questions of Councilmember Peterson, Con~'nunity Service Director Argow, stated flint the figlEeS shown in the Report are a projection based on the year to date accidents as of August, 1986. Councilmember Peterson noted his concern regarding the accidents attributable to driving under the inflence of alcohol. In response to confirrnation offigures presented on page three of the report, Councilmember Peterson urged that intervention be initiated in the school system; he will support this proposal. Councilmember Moyles stated that originally the Council was concerned that approval of this program would duplicate services already funded through the Sheriffs Department; this proposal differs in that the program wil! reportedly pay for itself. He requested assurance from the Community Services Director and the C~ty Manager on this point. The Community Services Director :~tated that Staff is confident the proposed program will generate more revenue than cost; the unknown variabl~ is whether the program proves to be more successful than anticipated, ie., the incidence of drivers under the influence of alcohol will decrease and the sheriffs department will be unable tb maintain a consistent arrest record. The goal of the program is to eliminate the incidence og D.U.I. ~ Dxr t In response to questtons asked, Commun ty Serwces ec or Argow stated that figures shown in the Financial Impact Statement anticipated a start up date of January 1, 1987, thus the two year proposed program will mn through three fiscal years. He confirmed that the City has the option of terminating participation in the program at the end of the two year grant. The City will make an assessment at that time to determine whether the program is beneficial for the City and ff so, a decision will be made, ~onfinuing participation in the program. The participation of Saratoga is not essentiai~to the survival of the pr~ogram itself; the program will continue to be administered to other cities that wish to participate:- Contingency plans have been drawn up in such a case. In response to Councilmember Clevenger's question, the Community Services Officer stated that the main thrust of the program is sp6cialized training of officers to recognize subtle signs of possible D.U.I. suspects; improved efficiency of enforcement and the addition of new personnel are the primary thrust of the prlogram. Incidental to the main goal, is the public education and awareness program. , Councilmember Moyles endorsed the prbgram in the fight of the analysis provided; however, he retains his skepti~cism and requested a~review in ten to twelve months. Mr. Argow stated that figures in the information presented Were based on statistics from several communities, the . county and the District Attorney's office~ a special statistical tracking mechanism has been requested to specifil:ally identify the influence and benefits of the program. The Council will be presented with very accurate figures regarding the performance of this program. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 5 SEPTEMBER 17, 1986 OLD BUSINESS Continued Mayor I-Ihva concurred with the skepticism expressed by Councilmember Moyles; however, she will support this program at this time. Councilmember Anderson questioned how the City has the assurance from the sheriffs department that the number of hours promised will be provided; Mr. Argow responded that the grant is by contract between the councy and the state and hours of service will be provided. The costs will be shared, based on the number of arrests and accidents that occur within each jurisdiction. Saratoga's estimated share is 26%; this is the current ratio. The assumption has been made that if the enforcement effort is applied evenly throughout the contract cities, the ratio will not change; however, Saratoga will only be charged for services used. Councilmember Anderson was assured that the percentage of hours allotted to Saratoga will be based on the above percentages; she stated that she will support this proposal. Mayor Hlava stated her appreciation for the Community Services Director and City Staff for the research done on this proposal; she noted that the proposal had been denied in the past, due to lack of complete information when presented. Mr. Argow stated that the grant mechanism · requires the establishment of a special tracking mechanism; these figures will be kept separate from general reporting of information. The Office of Traffic Safety requires this information to demonstrate the effectiveness of the grant. HLAVA/ANDERSON MOVED APPROVAL OF THE D.U.I. GRANT, AUTHORIZING PARTICIPATION AS PROPOSED, INCLUDING ALLOCATING $32,135 AS A MATCH DURING SECOND YEAR OF PROGRAM. Passed 5-0. 7. NEW BUSINESS A. Delegation of Set~ement Authority to City Manager for Certain Claims. The City Manager stated that this report requests two actions on the part of the City Council; Adopt a Resolution delegating settlement authority to certain claims to the City Manager. Adopt an Appropriations Resolution wansferdng funds to establish a reserve fund and other fmancial management for paying claims cost under the deductible under the ABAG Plan, established by the Board of Directors. The City would have exposure with respect to self insured reterfcion and must operate as ff serf-insured in settlements and costs. The agreement with the ABAG Plan, which the City entered into, delegates settlement authority for certain claims to the Plan. As a matter of policy, property damage-only claims, less than $2,500 in Saratoga, would not be handled by the authority or the claims adjuster. In the interest of saving time and money; these claims would be delegated to individual cities. All claims will still be presented to the City Council for disposition in terms of deniai or acceptance. The only change will be that after a denial of a claim by the City Council, the City Manager would have the authority to attempt to settle the ' claim. In response to the Mayor's question, the City Manager confumed that all of the cities, including Saratoga, report claims made and the settlement including amounts awarded. A risk management histoxy of the pool of funds is thus assured~ The City Attorney stated that the authority has already been delegated to the ABAG Plan.' " In response to Councilmember Moyles' question, City Manager stated that the deductible for the City is $25,000; the recommended reserve to cover anticipated costs under the deductible is 1.2 the annual rate of the deductible. $30,000 will be reserved for insurance under Financial Activity in the Budget. MOYLES/PETERSON MOVED ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION 2376 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA DELEGATING SETILEMENT AUTHORITY FOR CERTAIN CLAIMS TO THE CITY MANAGER. Passed 5-0. MOYLES/PETERSON MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 2347.4 Passed5-0. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 6 SEPTEMBER 17, 1986 [ , NEW BUSINESS Continued B. Annexation of a parcel of land conl stituting a portion of future Tr. 7761 (Mr. Eden Estates Subdivision)--Petition of Harborbuilders Co., Inc. City Attorney Toppel stated that upon reviewing the final map of the proposed Mr. Eden Estates Subdivision, a parcel of land 6xists between Mr. Eden Rd. and the City limit line. It appears that after Tentative Map appro~,al, the owner of the subdivision acquired this small parcel of land from the adjacent land owner. Although a small parcel, the land is located within the county; the f~nal map, reviewed by the City and approved by the Court, includes this parcel of land. It is appropriate that the City annex this land. The County Surveyor has reviewed the final map. No public hearing is necessax3r. In response to Councilmember Clevenger's question, the City Attorney stated that the annexation will be completed first so that the properties will be incorporated into the City under common ownership; then a recommendation of the final map will be made. PETERSON/MOYLES MOVED APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 2377 ANNEXING A PARCEL OF LAND CONSTITUTING A PORTION OF FUTURE TR. 7761. Passed 5-0. C. Conditional Final SubdivisioniMap Approval forTr. 7761 (Cocciardi/Harborbuilders Co., Inc. City Attorney stated that the Condition, because the signing and recording of the building restriction agreement has not yet been done, provides that no building pennits will be issued for the construction of any residential structures until certain conditions are satisfied. This is an unusual situation; the developer is agreeing in order to get started on the repair project. There are four things that have not been cleared, which at the final map approval stage would ordinarily be completed; three of these ,t~gs are expected to be received within the coming week or two. : The four things necessary for completion of this application, are: Clearance letter from the Water Company Clearance letter from the Cupertin6 Sewer District - Approval by the Planning Commilsion of landscape plans, design for the easement, and design of the :retaining wall I Drawings and! Report from TerrateCh indicating proposed landslide repair on the property ubrm 1 final map approval; the City Attorney stressed This application is s 'tted rather than de ay that this was an extraordinary process hy reason of the fact that it is directly related to a repair · project. Without the map, the conslruction lender will not fund the project; the map is the trigger for obtaining money, not only for the subdivision, but also for the repair project. With the understanding that this is not precedent setting and should not be viewed as such, the request was made to the City Council tO approve the Final Map. · I PETERSON/MOYLES MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 1539-02 OFTHE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA GRANTING CONDITIONAL FINAL MAP APPROVAL FOR TRACT 7761. Pasled 5-0 .... MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 7 SEPTEMBER 17, 1986 8. B I · A. Appeal of denial of Use Permit to legalize exisfing second unit at18710 Aspesi Dr. . _ (Applicant/appellant, C. Batson) (SUP 86-001) Planning Director Hsia stated that on Xugust 13, 1986, the Planning Commission conducted a Public Hearing on the request. The Use Permit was denied at this Heating for the following reaSOnS: -- · Non-compliancewith Standards: -setback. requirements, minimum lot size. Creation of parking and congestion problems in the neighborhood; the loss of front yard lawn to create additional driveway. Noise Impact Staff recommended that the Council uphold the decision of the Planning Commission. "The Public Hearing was opened at 8:05 P.M. Mr. John Carroll, Attorney, representative for the Appellant, stated that he has known the Batson family for a number of years and has been on the property several times. He reviewed the chronology of events that concem this appeal. The subdivision was built before 1963; the original owners secured a permit to build a second, detached unit on the property. A packet of information was submitted by Mr. Carroll, demonstrating that building permits were applied for and issued; the second unit contained living room, bathroom and kitchen and was occupied by a senior member of the original owner's family. In October, 1967, the Batsons purchased the property; in November of the same year, a building permit to add a bedroom was applied for and granted. A senior member of the Batson family occupied this unit for eleven years, until her death; one of the sons of the Batsons then moved into the unit. In 1980, another building permit was issued for repair work in the unit. In July, 1983, a state law was enacted, government Code section, 65852.1 and 65852.2 which provided for authorizing second units in single family resident zoning; this legislation was significant. In July, 1984, the City of Saratoga enacted a zoning ordinance which allowed the city to grant twenty use permits per year. In June of this year, Mrs. Batson applied for a low interest loan to improve her house and the second unit; she discovered at that time that she must legalize this second unit. Mr. Carroll challenged the term "legalizing" second units. This property has since been inspected by building inspectors and the fire department, compliance with building cedes was established and Staff recommended the granting of a use permit. The' appellant will accept any provisions or conditions placed on improvement of the property; Mr. Carroll reiterated these provisions. The state law authorizes second units; however, neighborhood residents are sometimes fearful of these units. Mr. Carroll read the guidelines for second units. He noted that some objections centered around the occupancy of the unit by a son of Mrs. Batson; he will be moving out of the unit and into a place of his own the furst of the new year. Other objections center around renting this unit to a non-family member. Mr. Carroll summarized the above by stating the unfairness of having something legal today and illegal tomorrow. Them have been no objections to occupancy of this unit all these years. Mr. Jack Lucas, Wildcat Creek Homeowners Association, 18696 Aspesi Dr., Saratoga, challenged the statement that there have been no complaints; there may not have been written complaints. A great effort has been made by neighbors to remedy the situation through local law enforcement groups for many years He thanked the Commission for the opportunity to speak on this issue. MEETING OF THE C1TY COUNCIL Page 8 SEPTEMBER 17, 1986 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Lucas stated that many letters hav~ already been presented to the Commission for review. In reference to Section 15-56.030 D, hE questioned whether this unit complies with building, health and fare codes. As the Planning Commission observed, this second unit could be a serious fare hazarrl to adjacent properties. In addition, this unit is uncompatible with the neighborhood, is visible from the strtet and there is no landscaping on three sides. Unreasonable noise, traffic congestion~ parking congestion and security problems will result from the rental of this unit. These problems will be difficult to control or monitor. Mr. Lucas stated that granting variances must be done with the utmost caution and study and can cause unintended incon:gistency in future decision making; he urged the Council to give full consideration to the packet presented by residents of the area and deny this appeal. Photographs of the area were presented. Mr. Robert Culp, 13638 Riverdale Ct., Saratoga, clarified that members of the Wildcat Homeowners Association are not against second units; the Association is concerned about the setting of a prece~lent and violations of the Code. The objections raised include: Size of the lot in question which is below standard for the zoning district; second unit requirements for lot size have not been met The required addition of a concrete slab for parking will reduce the 39 ft. frontage to 14 ft. of lawn; this driveway expansion !s delrimental to a neighborhood of single family homes. Mr. Emil Nedemstek, 18665 Aspesi Dr., Saratoga, stated that permiting this second unit to become a rental unit will set a precedent allowing other substandard units to be legalized. It is the City's responsibility to make decisions and enfome laws on what is to the benefit of the community as a whole; clearly, substandard housing does not belong in this beautiful city. Legalizing this second unit will be injurious to the neighborhoodi allowable second units must conform to ordinances without variances. Mr. Cliff Lucas, 18852 Aspesi Dr., Saratoga, stated that he is not opposed to second units which meet the guidelines of the City. i The appellant is asking for permission to conduct a second business at her home; she operates a flower business out of her garage which prohibits the parking of a second car in the garage The rental of the second unit will create a second business. This will be a safety hazard ~o others in the neighborhood. Mr. Fred Ryalls, 13631 Riverdale Dr., Saratoga, stated that the second unit in question impacts the privacy of adjacent landowners. N6 attempt seems to have been made to plant proper · landscaping to insure privacy; it is questionable whether anything will grow in this area. He noted objections to rental of second units to non-family members and lack of required setbacks. Mr. Bob Franconi,. 18713 Me~er Ct., Saratoga, stated that he is employed by the City of Mountain View for Plan Review and Plan Checking; plans submitted must meet City Codes or building permits will not be issued. While having no objection to second units, these units must meet Code to be approved. I .'. Ms. Roni Rabedeau, 18631 Harleigh Dr., Saratoga; stated that as previously noted, all _ ~,. necessary permits were applied for and 'secured. This is a legal unit. She stated that Mrs. Batson is a sincere, responsible, rellabl~ citizen. Mrs. Batson cared for her husband while he ":"., was ill before his death; there wasn't time or energy to complete landscaping jobs. She intends ' to remedy this situation now. Ms. Shirley Nickel stated that since Mrs. Batson has become a widow, there have been many problems to deal with. Ms. Nickel's spoke of the integrity of Mrs. Batson and assured the Council that the appellant would comply with any requests made. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 9 SEPTEMBER 17, 1986 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. John Carroll rebutted the above testimony, stating that the appellant has a two car garage and there is space in the garage for both cars; the driveway will accommodate an additional two cars. She will comply with any requests made by the City. With regard to landscaping, her intention is to put additional shrubs in front of the lot and along the side. This will improve the appearance of the neighborhood. 'Code requirements will be met. Monitoring of the rental unit can be done through the required presentation of'a Certificate showing that compliance with the conditions of the use permit are being met. In response to Mayor Hlava's question, Mr.. Carroll stated.that Mrs. Batson .works for.a bridal service and provides floweres to this service. She has a refrigator in the garage for this purpose. This is a residential type occupation; there are no signs nor is them foot traffic. Mrs. Batson stated that she has only a wedding or two a month; this entails one individual coming tO her home to make necessary arrangements. She has a license from the City to operate this business. Two cars can be Parked in the garage. PETERSON/ANDERSON MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:43 P.M. Passed 5-0. In response to Councilmember Clevenger's question, the City Attorney stated that copies of permits were placed in the packet for review by the Council; however, it is impossible to tell the nature of the secondary structure. On the second permit, the structure is referred to is a "guest house"; guest houses are a permitted accessory uses in residential districts and the distinction usually made is whether or not the unit has a kitchen. The City Attorney noted the notation on the second permit stating that the kitchen in older part of the unit was not approved by the building depamnent. The proper action at that time would have been an order for the ramoval of the kitchen; however, this was 20 years ago. The fact that them is an accessory structure on the property and permits have been isssued for it does not mean that it was created as a second unit with a kitchen, i.e., as a separate, self contained unit. While the structure may have been legally constructed, he questioned the kitchen in the unit. The permits do not constitute evidence that this structure was operated as second unit, only that it may have been a lawfully created second structure characterized as a guest house. Councilmember Clevenger questioned whether the essence of question was the convers!on of a bedroom unit to a second unit and whether the City would allow such a conversxon. Councilmember Moyles was unable to conclude on the basis of permits issued whether or not the kitchen was lawfully installed; the fact of the matter is that the zoning ordinance has always prohibited second units in this zoning district. Councilmember Moyles concurred with Councilmember Clevenger's observation that an accessory structure was convened into a second unit. In response to Councilmember Anderson's question, City Attorney Toppel stated that if the Council grants the use permit, the Council could modify setback requirements for the second unit; approval of this application would constitute a modification of the setback requirement. If the permit is denied, the appellant would be required to remove the kitchen so that this sh"ucture would no longer be a second unit. However, the su'ucture could be maintained on the property; in this case a variance would be required since it is a non-conforming structure. While single family residences have been grandfathered in, accessory structures have not been grandfathered in. The appellant would have several choices with regard to this structure. Information on the setback requirement of 20 years ago was unavailable at the Hearing. In response to Mayor Hlava's question regarding variance requirement for an accessory structure, the City Attorney stated that the time when regulations were changed would have to be reviewed to determine the amount of time expired and whether the time required for amortizing non-conforming structure had passed. The City is not proactive in the sense of seeking out violations; however, when a violation is known, the City enforces setback requirements in a residential district. The application for a loan was the trigger for this issue. This is not a variance process; it is a use permit process since the Council has the authority to modify regulations in granting a second unit use permit. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 10 SEPTEMBER 1'7, 1986 PUBLIC HEAR11'qGS Continued Councilmember :Peterson was assured!that if the Council upholds the Planning Commission decision (denial of the second unit), the loan application will not be negated; a loan application is separate from ,'my action of the Cotmcil. ' Council Moyles uoted findings on Exhibit B: the City Attomey stated that the findings presented are derived from the Ordinance itself. The findings referred to by Mr. Carroll are ' that the proposed second unit will not!unreasonably interfere with the privacy otherwise available to residents of the adjoining properties. Privacy impact is number'l. Proposed second units are designed to be compatible with the exterior appearance and character of an existing main dwelling Second unit are designed to be compatible with the existing neighborhood in form, bulk, height, material and landscaping Units will not cause unreasonable noise, traffic congestion, parking congestion nor overload existing public facilities. ' These findings are listed in the Zoning,Ordinance and are the basis for the fmdings in the Staff Report. Councilmember Moyles restated the City Attomey's comments as, permits would be of effect as interpreted by the City Attorney, because they do not appear to authorize a second unit, ie., the notation on the second permit revealing the existence of a kitchen. If the initial permits had referenced a kitchen, would there be a change in the City's position? The City Attorney replied that further research was necessary to determine when the restriction against two residential uunits on a single site first went into the zoning ordinance. The distinction is between structure and use; kitchens have always been the benchmark in determining the difference. A permit can be obtained ahthorizing a structure, but the permit does not necessarily authorize use as a residential unit. As a detached accessory structure, it is not grandfathered in. ' Councilmember Peterson stated that the issue of second units included two aspects: What will be allowed in rm f n~ ' ' te s o ew umts How does the City encourage people to legalize existing second units thus bringing these units up to code If the question in l:his case is whether the City will allow a fairly large second unit on a very small lot; the answer is no. The councilmember will not support this appeal. Councilmember Clevenger cannot support this appeal; it is inappropriate to have a second structure as a unit on a lot of this size. There are situations in Saratoga where existing second units can be legalized, but it would be a tnistake to allow this unit to be legalized. Councilmember Anderson stated her concern that the findings regarding privacy, even with restrictions on the second unit, cannot be met. This unit is not compatible in constxuction to the existing house no/' is it compatible to the neighborhoed. She expressed concern regarding the exterior appearance of the house with the requirement of additional driveway. She cannot find for this appeal. · . I .. nl Councilmember Moyles explmned h~s conel sons to the appellant, Mrs. Batson. He stated that he had come to the conclusion, reluctantly, that he could not vote to overram the decision of the Planning Commission; this is a difficult appeal. He explained that this case is the first of many cases resulting from the state's intervention on this issue· Previously, issues were left to individual neighborhoods to work out solutions; now, however, cities are required to intervene. An Ordinance was developed that reflects a good faith attempt to balance the City's quality of life with the State Mandate tol create more housing for seniors and others having difficulty finding affordable housing in desirable communities. One of the undesirable side effects is that units that were never a problem now come under review of the law. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 11 SEPTEMBER 17, 1986 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Councilmember Moyles has reviewed this appeal thoroughly and cannot make the findings required to grant the appeil. The specific problems of this appeal are compatibility with the neighborhood and the privacy impact. Residents of this neighborhood are enfified to expect a stracture that is more compatible with the neighborhoed and more attractive. With respect to the impact on-privacy, putting a detached second unit on a substandard lot is unwise. Thus Councilmember Moyles cannot make the necessary findings; City Attorney Toppel has related the policy judgment at the conception of this Ordinance. Mayor Hlava concurred on the difficulty of this appeal; however, the Mayor cannot make the finding on unreasonable noise, traffic and parldng congestion due to the shape of the lot and the curb that it is located on. Aestheficially, it would be impossible to establish the necessary parking required for a family and an additional person. The safety problems were also apparent on a site visit. PETERSON/ANDERSON MOVED TO DENY SUP-86-001 THE APPEAL FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION. Passed 5-0. 9. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS: A. Discussion of Oral Communications not referred to Staff. None. B. Reports from Individual Councilmembers Councilmember Moyles reported that the Policy Advisory Board on Route 85 met September 17, 1986. The City of Los Gatos presented a modification which in essense agreed to 6 lanes with the stipulations: 1. Saratoga would accept an interchange and 2. the request of Los Gatos for more specific commitments to land use procedures, balancing transportation and development along the Route 85 corridor. No motion was made that would modify the position previously supported and adopted by the group and no action was proposed. Councilmember Clevenger stated that at the Sanitation District 4 Meeting, the Board voted to observe the by-laws of the State; thus there will no longer be a representative of the City of San Jose on the Board. On H.C.D., the 70-30% split, Saratoga was in the minority. Cupertino, Campbell and Saratoga were favorable to the 70-30% split. Intensive lobbying was done by the housing corporations in favor of a 50-50% split. Councilmember Anderson noted the discussions of the Transportation Commission. Regarding the issue of Child Care in the City of Saratoga, she noted that Saratoga has only limited after school child care. The Saratoga School District has after school child care but other school districts have only limited programs olin some cases, no programs at present. Mayor Hlava noted that she is on the I.G.C. Solid Waste Commiuee. Completion of an Annual Report is a goal of this committee. The Cities of Sunnyvale and Santa Clara are conducting major studies on waste/energy plants. West Valley Managers and Mayors Meeting, a presentation will be made to the Saratoga City Council on October 1, 1986, "Current Planning on the Strategic Plan" from the Traffic Authority. On the Regional Child Protection Center, Saratoga was appirenily the only Council to have discussed this proposal. Similiar concerns as expressed by Councilmember Moyles were expressed by other cities. She asked that a "send back" form be included in the forthcoming Newsletter. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 12 SEPTEMBER 17, 1986 CITY COUNCIL ITEMS Continued [ Mayor Hlav.'~ stated that in the meeting with Planning Director Hsia and Planning Chairwoman Burger, Chairwoman Burger expressed concern regarding the: Seid appeal, questioning why ithe appeal which had been changed after the Planning Commission Hearing, was ndt referred back to the Commission. Request from the Planning Staff to design Planning Commission Packet so that if Staff recommends denial of an application, Conditions need not be included in the packet. ff the Commission votes to approve such an application, the application will be returned to the Planning D~partment for Conditions to be written. The Conm~ission has discussed this request and have come up with a compromise, namely, that the Planning Staff will include a list of issues which Staff views as necess~, to be discussed and which Staff requests direction from the Commission. The proposed change affects the Council in that if the decision of the Planning Commission is overturned on appeal, there would be no Conditions in the packet when receivea by the Council. The Mayor noted her concem that the process of application is already lengthly 'and tedious. The City Manager feels that with this change, no condition will be approved without having the Commission's review of it fwst. The,' City Manager noted the confusion of the applicant and the public when a denial is :recommended with conditions listed if approved. The Mayor responded that the Staff is in the position of viewing an application from all sides; the fact that Staff may recommend denial does not preclude the writing of conditions of approval. She noted that when an application is returned to the Commission, it must be pan of a Public Hearing. Consensus reached that the decision will be made by the Planning Commission. Mr. Robert Shook stated that construction on medians on Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd. has been delayed due to lack of the encroachment permits from the state. Regarding the Congress Springs Parking Lot, verbal approval for use of right of way has been obtained from P.G.& E. The agreement has not been received yet; agreement and award of contraCt will be presented at the October 1, 1986, meeting. A ree f ' nacmaent o the accident on Fruitvale and Saratoga will be held. This intersection will be closed for approximately an hour on Thursday evening September 25, 1986. 10. ADJOURNMENT: at 9:3 P. . ~o a 4 M Clossed Session to discuss negotiations with the City of San Jose re: annexation/detachment and tax sharing.