Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-15-1986 City Council Minutes MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL TIME: October 15, 1986 PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga CA TYPE: Regular Meeting 1. ROLL CALL: Mayor Hlava, Councilmembers Clevenger, Anderson, Peterson present at 7:09 P.M. Councilmember Moyles absent. 2. CEREMONIAL ITEMS: A. Resolution 2380 Reappointing Parks and Recreation Commissioners PETERSON/CLEVENGER MOVED TO REAPPOINT ROGER CLEMENS, MARK PIERCE AND JOHN SAUNDERS TO THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION. Passed 4-0. B. Administration of Oath of Office to Reappointed Parks and Recreation Commissioners Mayor Hlava stated that the City is pleased to have citizens willing to serve on the various Commissions. The Commissioners have worked on the renovated Congress Springs Parks project. The Oath of Office was administered and congratulations offered. C. Proclamation conceming "Red Ribbon Week" requested by Community Against Substance Abuse (CASA) Mayor Hlava announced the ceremony of Friday, October 17, 1986, placing a Red Ribbon on one a tree, indicating the City's support for the program. PETERSON/ANDERSON MOVED TO APPROVE THE PROCLAMATION CONCERNING "RED RIBBON WEEK" SPONSORED BY COMMUNITY AGAINST SUBSTANCE ABUSE (CASA). Passed 4-0. 3. ROUTINE MATTERS A. Approval of Minutes: Minutes of the Ciyy Council Meeting of October 1, 1986, were approved as submitted. B. Approval of Warrant List: The Warrant List of October 15, 1986, was approved as submitted. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: A. Planning Commission Actions, October 8, 1986, - Note and f'de. B. Library Commission Actions, September 24, 1986, - Note and fie. C. Resolution 2381 Approving Recommendation against General Plan Amendment / 86-002 D. Resolution 36-B-219 Final Acceptance, SDR 1536, T. Whitney, 14880 Sobey Rd. MEETING OF THE C1TY COUNCIL Page 2 . OCTOBER 15, 1986 .... CONSENT CAI.ENDAR Continued E. Final Acceptance, SDR 1510, M. Oudewaal, 14375 Saratoga ' ':' F. Final Map Approval, SDR ~1604, D. Miner, AIm Vista Ave. (2 lots) G. Notice of Completion, Overlay Certain City Streets - Raisch Construction H. Awant of Contract for Civic Center Storm Drain to Pacific Underground for $11,067.50 , I. Resolution 2347.5 Approval of Modification of Shadow Oaks Way/Douglas Lane/ Saratoga Avenue Councilmember Anderson asked that ITEM F of Consent Calendar be removed. CLEVENGER/PETERSON MOVED THE ADOPTION OF CONSENT CALENDAR WITH THE REMOVAL OF ITEM F. Passed 4-0. In response to Coancilmember Anderson's question, the City Attorney stated that approval is being sought for a lot division only. In response to Councilmember Clevenger's question, the City Manager confirmed that both lots: are legal lots of record. CLEVENGER/ANDERSON MOVED TO APPROVE CONSENT CALENDAR F. Passed 4-0. 5.-COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS AND THE PUBLIC: A. Oral Commissions from th~ Public and Commissions: Mr. Clark Bassett, 19401 Crisp Ave., Saratoga, representing the residents of the area bordered by the east side of Fruitvale Ave., Burgundy Way and Crisp Ave., submitted a written petition to the Council. Mr. Bassett noted. that Halloween usedl to be marked by pranks; neighbors cleaned up the area the foliowing rooming. However, in the last five years, Halloween has turned into an incredibly ugly and dangerous mob se6ne; hundreds of high school teenagers, uncostumed, .participated in violence that could not be controlled. Residents were terr~ed by the danger to their children, their persons, homes and property; substantial damage was incurred last year. Because of these concerns, a complaint has been made to the Safety Commission. Ms. Penny Masuga, 14899 Granite Wa~, Saratoga, stated that she felt as if in Viemam; teenagers were an:ned with gas bombs and there was violence. Police at the scene said they could do nothing since they would hav~ to catch individuals in the act; unfortunately, the explosives went off before the police Were on the scene. I . Councilmember Peterson stated that he ~advised Mr. Bassett to appear before the Council at thxs time due to cireun~stances of the situation and the time constraints. He asked that the matter be looked into and measures taken before 300 teenagers gather on any neighborhood street--it is too late to call the sheriff then. The use of a barrier blocking City streets was discussed. In response to Councilmember Clevenger's question, the City Manage~ stated that he did not know of other areas in the City experiencing incidents of the magnitude presented in this petition. Use of a barrier blocking residential streets coald be tried, however, a barrier of itself would probably be ineffective. City Manager was reluctant to have citizens man the barriers; this is a law enforcement responsibility. Captain Thomas of the Sheriffs Department has been contacted; law enforcement efforts will be doubled on Halloween to insure that such a situation will not occur. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 3 'OCTOBER 15, 1986 COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE COMMISSIONS AND THE PUBLIC Continued Mayor Hiava asked that a letter to the Principal of the local High School will be sent, informing him of the situation and serving notice to local high school students that malicious vandalism will not be tolerated. In response to the requests from the audience, Mayor Hlava stated that all concerned agree that the mob should not be allowed to gather whether this is accomplished through use of a road barrier or through use of additional law enforcement personnel. The City Council has informed law enforcement personnel that this situation is not to occur again; the Council accepts the decision of law enforcement regarding the most effective way to accomplish the objective. Community Services Director Argow stated that the Sheriffs Department will utilize personnel most skilled in dealing with similar situations and expressed his confidence that a reoccurren6e will not take place. B. Written Communications from the Public 1. From County Parks and Recreation Comrrfission requesting support from County Measure A providing funds for parks. Mayor Hlava summarized the report presented to the Council and urged the Council to endorse the resolution. CLEVENGER/PETERSON MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2382 SUPPORTING THE AMENDMENT TO THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY CHARTER AMENDMENT MEASURE "A". Passed 4-0. 6. OLD BUSINESS A. Fee Schedule Resolution Mayor Hiava summarized discussions of the Fee Schedule, noting that Councilmember Clevenger questioned the Fee for Appeals. Councilmember Clevenger stated that the former Council reduced the Appeal Fee from $100 to $50; however, with the addition of the Public Noticing Charge, the fee still totaled $100. The former Council felt strongly that it was important that residents of the City have access to elected officials at reasonable cost. According to her calculations, an Application Fee of $1650. would cost as much as $825 to appeal; even a cost of $212 to appeal a variance may be excessive for individuals unprepared for such an expenditure. This is not a good precedent; in the past, the City fostered access to officials at reasonable cost. Councilmember Clevenger favors retention of the current fee schedule on appeals. Mayor Hlava concurred with the above; however, she stated a concern that the City may be required to underwrite noticing costs which it has no control over. She will accept retention of the fee schedule on appeals for this year, pending further review. Current fee schedule for an appeal is $50; with public notice, an additional $50 is required. The City Manager's proposal is a sliding fee scale equaling one haft the original application fee. The City Attorney noted that on other applications requh-ing a public heating, mail noticing fees are attached to the Application fee for the purpose of obtaining a public hearing deposit of between $150 - $250; the Council should be aware that $50 is not the amount usually scheduled for a public hearing deposit; on most applications requiring public heating, a deposit for the estimated cost of the public hearing is required; this deposit was a minimum of $150. Thus $50 appeal cost and $50 public hearing cost would not coverthe actual cost to the City. Some Councilmembers understood that $50 appeal and $50 for public hearing was charged, with no additional cost for noticing; this was confumed by Deputy City Clerk Cory. Councilmember Clevenger stated that it was her intention to continue a fee schedule which would not exceed $100. Mayor Hlava will continue the $50. appeal fee without increase due to the philosophical belief that citizens have a right to access elected officials at a reasonable cost; the city must undenvrite some of the cost. The Mayor wishes to further consider whether the City should underwrite the cost of noticing, i.e., costs over which the City has no control. The City Manager clarified that cost of appeals which require public hearing would no longer be two separate charges, but one fee of $ 100. !MEETING OF 'THE CITY COUNCIL Page 4 (~OCTOBER 15, 1986 OLD BUSINESS Continued · The Fee Schedule 'under consideration uses the minimum average cost of a public hearing; this will avoid the cost of small refund checks which cost more to write than they are written for. Councilmembex Clevenger accepted this proposal and restated her belief that fees for appeals need to be maintained at a minimum level to provide accessibility to the citizens of Saratoga. In response to Councilmember Clevenger's questions on Cost Recovery Fees proposed for subdivisions of ten or more lots, the City Manager stated that costs for the first ten units of a subdivision show an excess of revende over cost; this is applied to larger subdivisions. The subdivision Map Act is written as such under state law; the City does not have control of the amount of this flee. The Councilmember stated that, philosophically, recovery of fees should approach 100% with the exception of fees for appeals. Councilmember Peterson stated that While in favor of subsidizing citizen appeals on a conceptual basis, he has a fundamental quarrel with subsidizing costs. Councilmember Anderson noted that since June of 1986, the City has had only one appeal from a neighbor. A review of the costs showed that over the space of a year, the loss might come to ten thousand dollars in a five :million dollar budget, by allowing the $100 maximum on an appeal fee; it is so important that citizens have an opportunity to come forward without trc~expense that possible cost to the City is worth the benefit to;citizens. Mayor Hhva noted agreement among the Council to approve the proposed Fee Schedule with the retention of the $100 cost of appeal. I The City Attorney noted a correction On Exhibit "A" Fee Schedule, page 3, Halcone Park. Security deposit !o read, $200 and delete the word "new" under Park Fees. HLAVA/CLEVENGER MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 2383. ESTABLISHING A SCHEDULE OF FEES WITH THE EXCEITHON OF APPEALS WHICH IS TO READ $50 FEE FOR APPEALS WHICH DO NOT REQUIRE PUBLIC HEARING.AND $100 FOR APPEALS WHICH~REQUIRE PUBLIC HEARING. Passed 4-0. B. Report from Planning Commi ssion on Second Units Planning Director Hsia read the Report Mayor and City Council dated September 30, 1986; a copy of the unapproved Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting of October 8, 1986, : presented for review by the Council. ~Mayor Hlava noted that a Public Hearing had already been held on the R-I-IO,O00 zoning, however, since requests were made from the audience to speak, testimony was taken. ~ Mr. Frank C 'age, President of the Good Government Group, stated that the executive body supports the Planning Commission's unanimous decision to retain the age requirement mad urged the City (33uncil not to forget the original intent behind the second unit Ordinance. One the characteristics of Saratoga is the feeling of spaciousness, which is the result of prudent decisions on zoning and building requirements preserving both aesthetic and monetary values. The density of housing in Saratoga shbuld be kept at minimum consistent with the needs of the community; consequen~y to allow second units in R-l-10,000 zoning district is inconsistent. They recommended denial of the proposed Ordinance as worded. He noted that one could argue that existing zoning provisions are unnecessarily restrictive and unfair in cases where a second unit could be added without significant adverse effect on the community or the neighbors. The proposed modification to the zoning Ordinance does not address this situation; rather it opens the R-l-10,000 zoning district to second units subject only the limitation of five per year. The suggestion was made that, if deemed necessary to change the Ordinance making it more responsive to hardship cases, the foilowing modifications be added: v -Language that spells out the special requirements that apply to second units located in the R- 1 - 10,000 zoning district. Provisions of waiver requirements and variance procedures so that the Planning Commission and the Council can ~xereise judgment in specific cases. With special provisiOns applying to R!I-10,000 zoning district, inequities can be eliminated while avoiding overbnilding and cona estion in Saratoga neighborhoods. The Variance procedure provides a channel for pubtc opinion to be heard on a case by case basis. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 5 !OCTOBER 15, 1986 OLD BUSINESS Continued Ms. Margaret Russell, 12776 Saratoga Glen Ct., Saratoga, stated that the current General Plan was designed to protect the quality of existing neighborhoods from traffic, crowding and crime. The present street system cannot withstand increased traffic and some neighboi-hoods are already. overcrowded; crime follows overcrowding. Removing the age restriction on second units opens these units to the competitive market. From 1983 second units have been placed on smaller lots and have been reduced in size; the smaller the size of the unit the greater the impact. These units become in effect, duplexes. Mr. Jack Lucas, representative of the Wildcreek Homeowners Association, expressed wholehearted disagreement with 'elimination of age restriction for second units. He reiterated the findings of the State Legislature Senate Bill 1534, August 30, 1982, and noted that the intent of the law was not to introduce pro~teering or zoning changes. He stated that the difference between duplexes and second units is the age restriction; elimination of this restriction will permit spot zoning, which is in contradiction to the General Plan and changes the character of Saratoga. He cited a 1984 Ordinance of the City Council and voting decisions made by Councilmembers on the issue raised; he encouraged the Council to retain the age restriction. Mr. Andrew Beverett, 19597 Via Monte Dr., Saratoga, reviewed the position of the Saratoga Senior Coordinating Council. While the Senior Council has not changed its position, initiation of a a review process may be order to insure that second units conform to City standards. Ms. Harriet Handier, 13385 Ronnie Way, Saratoga, questioned placing an age restriction in an Ordinance approved by the Council and the Planning Commission; age restriction in second units is a non-issue. Councilmember Anderson concurred with state law requiring an age restriction and saw no compelling reason to make the Ordinance less restrictive than state law requirements. Councilmember Clevenger concurred, stating that second units were originally proposed as granny units; there is no compelling reason to change. While Councilmember Peterson accepts the age requirement; he noted the potential difficulty of dealing with an individual who is just under the age limit and requires the use of a second unit. However, he views second units as a non-issue and does not see a demand in Saratoga to build second units. He favors the limitation of number of second units allowed in Saratoga. Mayor HIava noted concern regarding the enforcement of an Ordinance with an age restriction. Her primary interest is to see a mechanism allowing hardship cases in the R-l-10,000 zoning district to be heard; use of a variance procedure may address the issue. The City Attorney noted that usually a use restriction cannot be modified by a variance; he suggested that the Council set up special standards for the R-l-10,000 zoning district. Councilmember Peterson noted that this is a Conditional Use Permit requiring public hearing. In response to Councilmember Anderson's question, the City Attorney stated that Section 15-56.040 contained a list of f'mdings that would have to be made for any second unit. The Council could require additional findings for second traits in the R-l-10,000 zoning district; the City Attorney recommended this approach. Mayor Hlava questioned whether language used in Section 15-56.040, A., could be applied to application for a new second unit in the R-l-10,000 zoning district, i.e., special circumstances or hardship. Councilmember Clevenger understood that unusual circumstances would also qualify. Consensus reached that the age requirement would be voted on; the Ordinance would be considered further at a study session; Mr. Gage was asked to present a copy of comments made at this hearing and invited to be present for the study session. CLEVENGEP,/ANDERSON MOVED TO RETAIN THE AGE RESTRICTION ON SECOND UNITS. Passed 4-0. C. Warner HuRon House Options presented in the Memorandum from the City Manager dated October 9, 1986, were discussed. Councilmember Peterson favored option 3, and volunteered to serve on an ad hoc committee. Mayor Hlava noted concern regarding time entailed in the creation of a committee and completion of a report. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 6 OCTOBER 15, 1986 OLD BUSINESS: Continued Options previously presented were not.acceptable to the Mayor, she preferred that Staff report on alternative locations for the Warner Hunon House; she suggested consideration of a downtown location. She does not view the House as a City maintained facility on City property. Counci~nember Clevenger concurred that the Warner Hutton House is not a proper structure adjacent to City Hal/; however it could be a suitable meeting place for local groups. Councilmember Peterson stated that th~ City would have to take a leadership role to insure that the House would be preserved. Consensus reachl~ that public hearing~s will be held, local groups will be invited to speak:, and Staff and the Heritage Preservation Commission will present reports. Councilmember Anderson stated that houses available!in the City of San Jose were advertised and the City received numerous offers on the houses available. The public heating will be held on November 19, 1986. Mayor Hlava proceeded to the Public Hearings. 8. PUBLIC HF. ARINGS A. Amendment to the General Plan to change land use designation from M-12,5 (medinm density residential with maximum net density of 3.48 dwelling units per net acre) to M- 10 (medium' density residential with maximum density of 4.35 dwelling units per net acre) and rezoning from R-1-12,500 to R-1-10,000 as recommended by the Planning Commission. Property located off Herriman Ave., Lot l, Tr. 7499. Request is to accommodate transference of property to construct a sound wall. (GPA 86-3, C~230, Osterlund) Planning Director Hsia read the Report to Mayor and City Council dated October 8, 1986. The Public Heating was opened at 8:~0 P.M. Mr. M~rk Robens, Osterlund Enterprises, stated that the General Plan Amendment is to facilitate a lot line adjustment It was his understanding that the lot line adjustment had nothing to do with the soland wail; the lot line adjustment was done because a portion of the property under consideration was behind a sound wall and immediately adjacent to another property owner. The space behind the sound ~vall was dead space for Osterlund Enterprises; the adjacent property owner, however, w~s interested in the space. PETERSON/CLEVENGER MOVEDI TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEAR/NG AT 8:32 P.M. Passed 4-0. PETERSON/CLEVENGER MOVED ?O GRANT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION. Passed 4-0. CLEVENGER/PETERSON MOVED nTO APPROVE RESOLUTION 2384 AMENDING THE GENERAL, PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT FOR A 3,562 SQ. FT. PORTION OF LOT 1, TRACT 7499, HERRIMAN AVENUE (APN 397-29-02). Passed 4-0. PETERSON/CLEVENGER MOVED[TO INTRODUCE THE ORDINANCE REZONING THE PROPERTY. Passed 4-0. B. Append of denial of variance for a 3 ft. side setback for a detached garage where 6 ft. is required and appeal of Condition 7 of the design review approval requiring an asphalt shingle roof for a s~cond story addition to an existing single family residence at 14684 Oak St. in the R-~-10,000 zoning district (DR 86-015, V 86-005) (Appellant/applicant, J. Gregory) Planning Directca: Hsia read the Report to Mayor and City Council dated October 6, 1986, and answered questions of the Council. Councilmember Clevenger noted that it was difficult to understand from the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of September 10, 1986, why the Planning Commission came to the decision reached. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 7 OCTOBER 15, 1986 PUBLIC HEARINGS' Continued The Public Hearing was opened at 8:38 P.M. Mr. James Gregory, Appellant, requested that the question of roofing material and side yard setback be considered separately. With regard to the roof, it is a cedar shingle roof that is being requested not a cedar shake roof; he explained the difference for the Council and pointed out three homesin the area that have a cedar shingle roofs. Of the homes on Alemeda, 13 of 15 have cedar shake or cedar shingle roofs which demonstrated compatibility with the neighborhood. Pictures were submitted by the Appellant. In response to questions asked by Councilmembers, both Mr. Gregory and the Planning Director confro'ned that the distinction between cedar shake and cedar shingles was not made clear at the Planning Commission Hearing; Mr. Gregory stated that he was not always precise in the terminology he used. The question of side yard setback of the garage restfits from the fact that the square footage of the house is being increased by 50%; the house meets City Ordinances with a 6 ft. side setback. While the garage does not meet the required side yard setback, it is compatible with the area. Other garages have 3 ft. or less side yard setback. In the opinion of the Appellant, the garage does not present a fire hazard. However, he has spoken with his contractor and a double wall of two 5/8 in. sheet rock could be installed in the garage; this would make it a one hour burn wall. He stated that the fire department, while not giving an official opinion, told him that the proposed double wall would be acceptable. Mr. Gregory stated that he is considering installing a pool in the back yard; with 6 ft. side yard setback requirements and a 21 ft. garage, only 17 ft. of yard remain. The 3 ft. in question makes the difference between putting in the pool comfortably and squeezing the pool in the lot. Councilmember Clevenger raised the issue of impervious coverage; the issue was discussed briefly with the Appellant~ He stated that aesthetically, with or without the pool, the yard looks better with the garage placed with a 3 ft. side yard setback. The size of the garage at present is inadequate for use as a double garage, thus the increase in the size of the proposed garage. Mr. Gregory stated that he had gone to a lot of work to make the house compatible with the area. PETERSON/ANDERSON MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:45 P.M. Passed 4-0. Councilmember Clevenger conf'nTned that the house and garage of 3,000 sq. fL did not exceed allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR). Councilmember Peterson noted that the desire to install a pool is not a reason to grant a variance. With respect to the appeal regarding roofing materials, he questioned why the City would encourage individuals to use less expensive materials. It would seem that the City would encourage individuals to use cedar materials rather than asphalt. Secondly, he expressed concern that the City was even involved in such decisions; he will support the appeal on use of cedar roofing materials. With respect to the garage, he will uphold the Planning Commission; since the garage is being torn down, he preferred not to grant a variance. Councilmember Clevenger noted that the property between the adjacent garage and the Appeilant's garage is unusable; she will vote to grant the variance allowing a 3 ft. side yard setback. She stated that she understood the decision of the Planning Commission with regard to the asphalt roof; however, upon review of the pictures submitted, she will vote in favor of the appeal regarding roofing materials. Councilmember Anderson saw no problem with the use of cedar shake or cedar shingle roofing; the adjacent area has a number of houses with cedar roofing, upgrading the neighborhood. It appears that the neighborhood in general is undergoing upgranding and she wishes to encourage this. With respect to the appeal for a variance, the neighbor is agreeable to the Appellant's request. Councilmember Anderson noted that the Appeilant's house and the neighbor's house were probably built as mirror images; a requirement of 6 ft. side yard setback for one of the houses would off-set the design. Mayor Hlava stated that she concurred with the concern expressed that the City was even involved in such decisions as materials used for roofing; she will uphold this appeal. She expressed her concern. of the second appeal; there are options to accommodate the installation of a pool, without exceeding impervious coverage requirements and still comply with required 6 fL side yard setbacks.' Since the garage is being completely rebuilt, the City should not allow a Variance. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 8 OCTOBER 1:5, 1986 I PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued: Councilmember Clevenger stated that the one time a variance may be justified is on older lots, which have a number of restrictions. The space in question will be wasted, whereas an additional 3 ft. of livable space in the rear yard will be beneficial. The Mayor cited examples of decisions recently made by the Council and noted that there are options for placement of the 1 garage, types of surface to be used dn the driveway and sill allow the possibility of installing a pool in the yah:l; ~ HLAVA/PETERSON MOVED TO REVERSE THE DECISION OF THE PLA~qlNG COMMISSION ON CONDITIONSiOF APPROVAL DR-86-015, CONDITION 7 UPHOLDING THE APPEAL OF ~ APPELLANT. Passed 4-0. The City Attorney confirmed that the Variance was denied because the Planning Commission was unable to make the required findings and was concerned about setting a precedent. The City Attorney noted that under City Code, 50% or more expansion requires a design review of an existing dwelling and triggers a review of accessory structures as well affording an opportunity for the City to review the entire site. The Mayor stau',d that the Commission and Staff were able to make the Findings with the exception of: Strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of the setback requirement would result in technical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship Granting of a Variance would not be detrimental to Public health, safety and welfare. HLAVA/PETERS ON MOVED TO UPHOLD THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING THE VARIANCE APPLICATION ON SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT: Failed 2-2, Councilmembers Clevenger, Anderson opposed. The Mayor stated that the Public Heating would be left open; this appeal will be heard oa November 5, 1986, at the city council Meeting. C. Council Confmmation and. kuthorization to file Property Liens for the Purpose of Collecting Delinquent Garbgge Collection Accounts Co unity Services irecto gow ~al e attention to the Staff Report already submitted to mm D rAr ld the Council and emphasized that any individual making a settlement with the City after confirmation of the collection list, will have their names removed from the list. Considerable research was done to compile a comprehensive list. The Public Hearing was opened at 9:05 P.M. There were no speakers. ANDERSON/PETERSON MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:05 P.M. Passed 4-0. ~ HLAVA/PETERSON MOVED TO CONFIRM THE REPORT OF THE COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR. Passed 4-0. D. Urgency Ordinance Amending HazardOus Materials' Storage Ordinance City Manager Peacock noted the Staff Report submitted to the Council. He has not received a reply from the Hazardous Waste Unit of the Public Health Department, clarifying a the third point of the Recommendation in the Report, i.e.," Determine whether to seek an agreement with the County prior to November 1, 1986." He suggested to the Council that the Public Hearing be held and the proposed Ordinance be adopted; further clarification will be sought from the County on the Agreement allo~ng the City to reacquire authority in this area. Without an agreement on this issue, the'Council will have to consider whether or not a Resolution is to be adopted naming the City as a serf designated City. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 9 OCTOBER 15, 1986 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued The Mayor summarized that the City must amend the Hazardous Materials Ordinance. Secondly, failure to adopt self designation status by a specified date, will result in the City being unable to self designate without County approval. The City has maintained from the beginning that it is not qualified to deal with hazardous waste; the County has the authority to enact an Ordinance. The concem is that if the City self designates, the County may charge for services reendered. The City needs to adopt the Hazardous Materials Ordinance; the suggestion was made to continue the hearing and pass the resolution on self designation if needed at the Meeting of October 29, 1986. In response to a question by Couhcilmember Peterson, the City Manager confamed that the City is asking the County to deliver a letter of agreement stating that the County understands that if the City were to seek redesignafion as the enforcing agency, the County would not veto. The Public Hearing was opened 9:10 P.M. There were no speakers. HLAVAJCLEVENGER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:10 P.M. Passed 4-0. PETERSON/HLAVA MOVED TO ADOPT ORDINANCE 71.7E Passed 4-0. The Self Designation Resolution will be continued to the Meeting of the City Council of October 29, 1986, to determine the self designation passage E. Ordinance adopting and modifying the 1985 editions of the following cedes: Uniform Administrative Cede, Uniform Building Cede, Uniform Plumbing Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, Uniform Housing Code, and Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings (first reading) In response to a question by Mayor HIava, the City Attorney stated that the City of Saratoga, not the State of Calffomia, is requiring that all three car garages, attached to the dwelling unit have sprinkler systems. At present, the requirement for sprinklers in three car garages only applies to garages in hazardous fire areas. In discussions with officials from Fire Districts, there was agreement that sprinkler systems should be required in any three car garage regardless of location. The other change in the Ordinance, is to amend the dangerous buildings code; a dangerous building is defined as a building under consu'uction for more than two years. In response to an example cited, the City Attorney stated that he added an amendment to the dangerous building code that relates to other actions that can be taken, i.e., a lawsuit based upon a nuisances complaint. The only significant change is the expansion of the requirement of sprinkler system in three car garages to the entire city. Councilmember Peterson supported the proposed Ordinance stating that it was an excellent idea to add sprinkler systems to garages in which the highest percentage of fires start. The Public Hearing was opened at 9:22 P.M. There were no speakers. CLEVENGER/ANDERSON MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:23 P.M. Passed 4-0. Mayor Hlava questioned the proposed Ordinance and asked for additional information on the source of f'ues. Three car garages am standard in Saratoga and the Mayor considers the sprinkling of these garages to be cosfly. She is favorable to the rest of the Ordinance and expressed appreciation to the City Manager for the amendment of the dangerous building code. Councilmember Ande~on also asked for additional information regarding the cause and spread of fires in garages. Councilmember Clevenger stated that she will vote favorably; this .requirement on three car garages is a start in requiring sprinkler systems in all garages; it does not seems unduly expensive and is a precaution against fires. Councilmember Peterson stated that this is an excellent idea. 90% of new houses have three car garages and it is these new houses that are the focus for the Council. Consensus reached upon request of Mayor Hlava that Section 10 of the Ordinance be voted upon separately from the rest of the Ordinance. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 10 "OCTOBER 15, 1986 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued HLAVA/PETERSON MOVED TO INTRODUCE ORDINANCE 71.8 ADOPTING AND MODIFYING THE 1985 EDITIONS iOF THE UNIFORM ADMI/SrISTRATIVE CODE,, THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE, THE UNIFORM PLUMBING CODE, THE UNIFORM MECHANICAL. CODE, THE NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE, THE UNIFORM HOUSING CODE AND THE UNIFORM CODE FOR THE ABATEMENT OF DANGEROUS BUILDINGS, EXCLUDING SECTION 10, AMENDING SUBSECTION 16-55.040(a) OF THE GRADING ORDINANCE CONCERNING GRADING PLANS AND AMENDING SECTION 16-75.020 CONCERNING GEOTECHN:ECAL REPORTS. Passed 4-0. PETERSON/CLEVENGER MOVED; APPROVAL OF SECTION 10, AMENDING SECTION 16-15.110. Passed 3-1, Mayor Hlava opposed. Councilmember Clevenger asked that a copy of the Ordinance be sent to individuals who appeared at public hearings regarding a house on Miller Ct. Mayor Hlava recessed the Meeting from 9:28-9:39 P.M. The City Manage, r stated that the Building Code carren~y contains provisions that if a builder does not proceed with work on the buildings and call for an inspection a minimum of once every six months, the Building Permit lapses and Permit fees must be repaid. He cited an example of such an instance and stated that under the current Code, there is no authority tbr a city official to give this individual a refund or an adjustment. The Council was asked whether it wished to consider creating a mechanism to make an adjustment as warranted. In response to Mayor Hlava's qnestion, the City Manager Confro-ned that when a Building Permit has lapsed without application for an extension, City Building Officials can grant an extension of the original permit, when determined to be reasonable. The City Attorney stated that if this mechanism is to be on an ongoing basis, an amendment to the administrative code, establishment of permit fees, is required. Suggested provision to read, "The building official may, in exceptional circumstances upon showing of excuse, neglect or inadvertence or hardship, waive the requirement for payment of fee for review of the Building Permit." Consensus reach by Councilmembers on proposed Ordinance; said language to be included by the City Attorney in the final version df Ordinance prior to adoption on November 5, 1986. F. Ordina~qce amending Article 4-05 of the City Code to require a business license for the rental of property and e~tablishing a license fee for such business (fast reading) ~ sta th . discussed by the Council in the Policy The C ty Manager ted at this ~ssue was Development session in Mamh,1986. 'He noted a change in the Staff Report, under 1., delete $85 to read, "$125" This business licdnse Ordinance sets a flat fee of $75. for any business in the City. However, this has not been ihterpreted to include the rental of property as being engaged in business. The Ordinance performs two functions: 1. Defines the concept that an individual in the business of renting commercial or residential property constitutes a business under the circumstances described in the Ordinance. 2. There is a tax: for conducting such ibusiness; the basic fee is $75 which is consistent with other business license fees in the City and there is a threshold for which the $75 would apply. He cited examples to illustrate the above.. ,: The City Attorney noted changes and additions made in the Ordinance. The Public Hearing was opened at 9:50 P.M. There were no speakers. PETERSON/ANDERSON MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:51 P.M. Passed 4-0. Councilmember Clevenger'ques~oned the rates listed in Staff Report, 1. and stated that she favored a fiat fee. The City Manager stated that the intent was that those engaged extensively in business should pay more than others not engaged extensively in a business. HLAVAJANDERSON MOVED TO INTRODUCE AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ARTICLE zl--05 OF THE.CITY CODETO REQUIRE A BUSINESS LICENSE FOR ENGAGING IN q?HE RENTAL OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY AND ESTABLISHING A FEE FOR SUCH LICENSE. Passed 4-0. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 11 OCTOBER 15, 1986 PUBLIC HEARING Continued G. Ordinance establishing Speed Limit of 25 miles per hour on Austin Way (fast reading) Mr. Robert Shook, City Engineer, stated that it was a pleasure for him to bring an ordinance reducing the speed limit and he recommended that the Council introduce the Ordinance. The Public Hearing was opened at 9:53 P.M.' There were no speakers. PETERSON/HLAVA MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:54 P.M. HEAVA/PETERSON MOVED TO INTRODUCE AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 9 OF THE SARATOGA CITY CODE, DECREASING THE SPEED LIMIT ON AUSTIN WAY TO 25 M.P.H. Passed 4-0. Mayor Hlava returned to New Business on the agenda. 7. NEW BUSINESS A. Review of Request for Proposals from Noise Element Upd.ate Planning Director Hsia summarized the Report to Mayor and City Council dated September 30, 1986, and asked the Council to review "A Request for Proposals (RFP)." He noted a change in the RFP, page 4, 4.0, Proposal Submission Deadline to read, November 7, 1986. The Council noted approval of the report submitted and consensus reached to submit the "Request for Proposals" to the suggested Noise Consultants. - ~ 9. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS! A. Discussion of Oral Communications not referred to Staff - as noted above. B. Reports from Individual Councilmembers Councilmember Peterson made further comment on die Wamer Hutton house; Mayor Hlava suggested the Montalvo Program has an excess of land, is involved in a redecorating program and has artists in residence. Councilmember Clevenger stated that at SanitatiOn District 4 Meeting, the subject of grease traps used in restaurants was discussed. Of interest to the City of Saratoga are: the request that the Odd Fellows install a larger grease trap. There are limited resources to completed required inspections of restaurants; however, several restaurants in the District have already had a recommendation to install a larger grease trap. There have been two complaints of restaurants in the City; other restaurants may also receive similar recommendation upon review. Mayor Hlava suggested that the Council may endorse a fee structure to allow for regular inspection services. Councilmember Anderson stated that at the Transportation Commission Meeting, a mock up of the new light rail station was viewed. An invitation from Montalvo regarding their fund raising project, i.e., having individuals "buying" a seat in the park. Mayor HIava stated the two terms on the Finance Committee expire in December, 1986; Mr. Douglas was recently appointed and no doubt wishes to continue as a Memberof this Committee. She asked that both Committee members be reappointed; consensus reached that these positions will not be advertised unless Mr. Weiss does not wish to continue as a member of the Committee. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 12 OCTOBER 15, 1986 CITY COUNCIL ITEMS Continued Letter to the Editor of the San Jose Mercury News regarding the D.U.I. Program's use of speed traps, sobriety mad check points discussed. Information supplied by Councilmember Anderson that mpnthly mad blocks would be used by the Sheriffs Department, even though the information was not included in the materials pmsente& Cities may refuse this part of the service if they so wish. Mayor Hlava noted her concern that such in~nnation was not forthcoming from the Sheriffs department when presentations; were made to the Council. Consensus reached by the Council that the City will not participate in use of roadblocks; a letter will be sent to this effect. In addition., a letter from the City Manager will be sent to the Editor, San Jose Memury News and Mr. Martin, the writer of the letter to the Editor. West Valley Managers and Mayors Meeting Report: hazardous waste problem discussed and decision reached that Ms. Sally Reed will be invited to the coming meeting to discuss various issues. The City Manager added that the Police Chiefs are examining the special program at Valley Medical for abused children. The meeting of the City Council was adjourned at 10:21 P.M. to 7:30 P.M. on October 29, 1986. Respectfully submitted, ~ob~si_C. au~efl~L ' . Recording Secretary INFORMAL MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL' T~4E: Tuesday, October 7, 1986 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: CuL,LL~nity Center Meeting Room, 19655 Allendale Avenue TYPE: Ccnmittee of the Whole/Joint City Council-Planning Conmission Meeting Present: Mayor Hlava, Vice Mayor Anderson, Councilwtman Clevenger, Council- man Peterson, Cu~l~ssion Chair Burger, Conrnissioners Tucker, Pines, Guch, Callans, Siegfried; Staff Members Peacock, Hsia, Caldwell, City Attorney Toppel. The meeting was called to order by Mayor Hlava at 7:37 p.m. Itens discussed: 1. Items which are appealed to City Council where the applicant has changed the application after it has been heard by the Conmission - it was agreed that the Council should refer the application back to the Cc~mission for further review before the Council makes a decision unless the appeal on the changed application has policy consequences which could affect other applications in the future. 2. Notification on General Plan Amendments - in order to provide notification beyond the 500-fcot mailing limit~ it was agreed that property involved in a proposed general plan amendment should be posted by the staff. 3. Improved Cu~Lunication - it was agreed that Council should receive copies of all Planning cu~udsSion minutes once they are adopted by the Comnissien. 4. Need for Site Review Ccmnittee - Cc~nission was requested to review the continuing need for this cc~nittee as a part of the overall review being conducted on the Design Review process. 5. Status of direction on proposed site and design review - it was agreed . that the overall direction currently under study was generally what was desirable. 6. Age Limits on Second Unit Use Permits under Specific Circ~nstances - it was agreed the cu~t.{ssion would consider this idea in their overall reecr~nen- dation to the Council on doing away with the second unit'age restriction as a general requirement. 7. Status of Fencing Regulation Review - the CcrmisSion will be holding a study sessioh on fencing regulations on October 14, 1986, including front yard fencing and use of barbed wire as ai fencing material. 8. Ccrrr~ Definition of Terms - it was pointed out that even though certain terms were presently defined, the understanding as to what the definitions mean will continue to be individually interpreted depending on the nature of the case being heard. No agreement was reached on the changing of any of the current definitions. 9. Method of Citation for Municipal Cede Violations - staff was directed to leek into a change of wording on citations to avoid'confusion, specifically regarding references to bail for citations. The meet/rig was adjourned at 8:40 p.m. Respectfully sahnitted, City Clerk