Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-07-1988 City Council Minutes MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL' DATE: December 7, 1988 - 7:30 P.M. PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting 1. Roll Call: Mayor Anderson, Councilmembers Clevenger, Peterson, Stutzman present at 7:34 P.M. Councilmember Moyles absent. 2. CEREMONIAL ITEMS: A. Resolution 2524 commending Bob Clancey as Board Member, Saratoga Community Access TV Foundation. PETERSON/CLEVENGER MOVED APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 2524 Passed 4-0. Mayor Anderson presented the Proclamation honoring Mr. Bob Clancey. Councilmember Peterson commended Mr. Clancey's volunteer efforts on behalf of the City. B. Administration of Oath of Office to Youth Commission. Mayor Anderson administered the Oath of Office to the new Youth Commissioners. Councilmember Clevenger added that the Youth Commission was Saratoga's effort to insure that young people had an opportunity to participate in the City; she expressed pride in the new Commission Members. 3. ROUTINE MATTERS: A. Approval of Minutes: Meetings of November 16, 1988, and November 22, 1988. CLEVENGER/STUTZMAN MOVED APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 16, 1988, AS PRESENTED. Passed 4-0. PETERSON/CLEVENGER MOVED APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 22, 1988, AS PRESENTED. Passed 4-0. B. Approval ofWarrant List: CLEVENGER/STUTZMAN MOVED APPROVAL OF THE WARRANT LIST. Passed 4-0. C. Report of City Clerk on Posting of Agenda Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on December 2, 1988. 4.CONSENT CALENDAR: A. Planning Commission Actions, November 23, 1988 - Meeting Cancelled. B. Heritage Preservation Commission Minutes, November 2, 1988, - Noted and filed. C. Public Safety Commission Minutes, November 14, 1988, - Noted and filed. D. Parks and Recreation Commission Action Minutes, November 7, 1988, - Noted and filed. E. Referral of Green Valley Performance Audit to Rate Review Committee. F. Resolution 2525 Certifying Election ReSults of Nover.tSer 1.988 Election on Advisory Measures L and M. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 2 DECEMBER 7, 1988 CONSENT CALENDAR Continued G. Resolution 2526 confirming Denial of Appeal for Permit to Sell Concealable Weapons heard November 16, 1988. H. Resolution MV-178 prohibiting parking along portion of Saratoga Ave. at Lutheria Way. I. Resolution MV-179 establishing stop intersection at St. Charles St. and Sixth St. J. Resolution 2527 Supporting San Francisco Bay Area Ridge Trail. K. Proclamation commending Actors who presented "Life in Saratoga" in Muko-Shi, Japan. L. Proclamation commending John Tauchi for making arrangements for Sister City trip. M. Acce tance of Project and Notice of Completion, Reconstruction and Overlay of Cortain City ~treets (Raisch Construction). N. Acceptance of Project and Notice of Completion, Overlay of Various City Streets, 1988-89 (Raisch Construction). O. Confirmation of Policy Development Calendar for1988-90 P. Construction Acceptance and Release of Cash Bond and Monument Bond. Tr. 7833, Budcnall and Saratoga Ave. (A.M. Homes, Developer) Q. Final Building Site Approval, SD 87-021, Alta Vista Avenue (D. Eshleman, Developer) R. Final Building Site Approval, SD 88-012, Oak Place (C. Cheatham, Developer) PETERSON/STUTZMAN MOVED APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR. Passed 4-0. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR II - CLAIMS: A. Claim of Karen Monia in connection with collision of bicyclist with CSO Vehicle CLEVENGER/PETERSON MOVED TO DENY THE CLAIM OF KAREN MONIL Passed 4-0. 5. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS AND THE PUBLIC: A. Oral Communications from the Public and Commissions Mayor Anderson announced that the Freeway Agreement Negotiations scheduled to be discussed in a Closed Session was being considered for discussion under Old Business of the Agenda. The City Attorney noted for the record that the City Manager and City Engineer had met with the Traffic Authority earlier' in the day regarding issues requiring discussion and response by the Council; the meeting with the Traffic Authority occurred after the agenda was posted. PETERSON/CLEVENGER MOVED TO AGENDIZE FREEWAY AGREEMENT NEGOTIA- TIONS UNDER OLD BUSINESS. Passed 4-0. 1) Presentation by William Gissler, West Valley Sanitation District - Big Basin Way Trunk Sewer Reconstruction Project. Mr, Gissler reviewed the Big Basin Way project, presented maps and the projected Work schedule. Councilmember Clevenger requested a policy directive from the Council regarding payment of the laterals located in the street, usually considered pan of the Sanitation District infrastructure; individual property owners had r/ot previously been assessed for this portion of the laterals. Item to be agendized for the December 21, 1988, Meeting of the City Council. Judge Read Ambler, Superior Court, presented the need for Trial Court Funding, demographics of justice system and current needs of the CoUnty; he .urged support of this Trial Co.urt Funding. Mr. George Kennedy, Office of the District Attorney, urged that a compromise be reached on the issue of State Trial Court Funding for the safety of County residents. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 3 DECEMBER 7, 1988 COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS AND THE PUBLIC Continued Mr. James Towcry, President, Santa Clara Co. Bar Association, summarized that the justice system had seriously deteriorated; the efficiency of the court system rested on trial court funding. Col. E. T. Barco presented a copy of the San Jose News article, "A Fair Hearing" and stated that he would defer his comments to another Meeting due to the length of the agenda. Mr.-Dennis V~-ni~ Green Valley Disposal Company, requested representation at San Jose Plan- ning Commission on December 14, 1988, to support the expansion of the Guadalupe landfill. Councilmember Peterson will represent the Council at this hearing. Mr. Norman Bowman, Post Commander, San Jose Post 89, American Legion, reiterated the request stated in their letter listed under Written Communications of the agenda. Mr. Keith Adamson, Grand Master of Odd Fellows of California, reviewed services offered to the community by the Odd Fellows; he asked that they be allowed m continue holding such events. Mayor Anderson proceeded to Public Hearings. 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Request for Certification of Environmental Impact Report, General Plan Amendment and Rezoning of Property for former Paul Masson Winery site at 13150 Saratoga Ave. The proposal is to amend the land use element of the General Plan from M to MU-PD and rezone the property from L-1 to MU-PD. (Applicant, Les Maisons ProvencaD (GP 88- 002; ZC 88-001) Planning Director Emslie presented the Memorandum of December 7, 1988. Mr. MaleDine Sprau, LSA Associates, was available for questions on the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). City Attorney advised that rezoning an adjacent site was not under consideration at this hearing. The Public Hearing ~as opened at 8:46 P.M. Mr. Andy Beverett, Senior Coordinating Council, heartily endorsed the Planning Commission's recommendation to certify the Environmental Impact Report for the Les Maisons Provencal site. Col. E. T Barco, Camino Barco, Saratoga, commented as follows: - Location of the proposed senior citizen complex was the wrong place Traffic already had, would be made worse as a result of this project - Air Quality was already not in conformance with State standards EIR did not address the effects of a Route 85 interchange on Saratoga Ave. - Asked that the EIR he sent back for further study of the above issues - Asked that before project approval, there he a contract with a continuing care administrator Ms. Peggy Corr, Senior Coordinating Council, stated that when studied years ago, a central location for the senior complex was decided upon; the property in question was the site chosen. Similar facilities in the area were consulted and seemed to have no objection to the proximity to freeways. Ruling out a senior facility for air pollution was a "tempest in a teapot." PETERSON/CLEVENGER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:55 P.M. Passed 4-0. Councilmember Peterson asked Mr. Sprau to address the concerns raised by Col. Barco. Mr. Sprau stated that in a Supplement to the Draft Environmental Impact Report, a letter dated October 10, 1988 addressed the effects of traffic air quality and noise generated by a freeway interchange adjacent to the project. Conclusions oithe Supplemental Report were summarized. In response to Mayor Anderson, Mr. Sprau stated that air quality impacts were predicted using computer models based on known generation rates; field samples were not taken. Coundlmember Clevenger commented as follows: - Reviewedthehistoryofthisprojectduringthepast~veyears - After study, a commitment was made to developing a senior citizen complex On this site - In the meantime, Route 85 and an interchange in Saratoga became a reality - The question at hand was, is this still a suitable site for the complex originally planned MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 4 DECEMBER 7, 1988 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Councilmember Clevenger continued as follows: Seniors still felt this was a proper site for location of a complex; however, controversy existed The best place might be the country but most seniors did not want to move away from the City Saw no reason to alter the decision already made; the need for senior housing still existed In addition, the majority of Saratogans had voted to have an interchange at Saratoga Ave. EIR said in effect, that there was no other use for the site which created less traffic; project was possibly the best use of the site insofar as not creating more traffic than 26 acres would generate Felt that the project under consideration would not have a deleterious effect Cited Bay Area Air Quality Management District letter and asked the City do everything possible in the way of mitigations for residents; consideration to be given to special ventilation systems Stated that she would Vote to certify the Environmental Impact Report Councilmember Stutzman commented as follows: Recognized that his comments may not be well received However, after the practice of medicine specializing in the respiratory system and the elderly, be felt the proposed location was not suitable for the elderly The elderly and children were designated in the EIR as "receptive sensors" i.e., they were pre- dominantly affected by substances such as carbon monoxide; properties of such described The EIR did not adequately address the impact of the freeway on these elderly people Effect of carbon monoxide on the elderly was not well studied; carbon monoxide was a cum- ulative substance in the body; possible side effects were described While a senior citizen complex was needed in Saratoga, this was the worst possible site for such Would not accept the EIR if the Report did not address the issue raised Mitigations addressed some impacts; however, carbon monoxide could not be filtered out with- out a prohibitive financial cost Asked that a monitoring station be located in Saratoga Mayor Anderson questioned the EIR, 10., I~llII~lT~C~]li~; Mr. Sprau responded while not a site planner, the parking currently proposed was insufficient. The Mayor questioned (d) ~ ~ statement that the proposed Route 85 freeway and the southern site boundaries had inadequate spacing. Mr. Sprau responded that this statement was included in the EIR prior to any negotiations on the right-of-way and purchase of propcrty; the statement was no longer up to date. MayOr Anderson commented as follows: Was concerned that the traffic study conducted had not been based on a Route 85 interchange With respect to air quality, she preferred that figures presented be based on field measurements rather than on computer generated models Once the air quality baseline was established, including the Route 85 interchange in Saratoga, then recommendations on mitigations could be addressed and costs projected Was not prepared to certify the EIF, until concerns raised could be addressed While unfavorable to commercial development on-site, she had concerns about senior housing Site proposed for senior housing provided amenities such as proximity to shopping, transpor- tation, medical facilities and community activities; there were no other sites like this one Wished to insure that individuals defined as sensitive reeeptors were protected and that.suitable requirements be placed on the building of this facility to properly filter the air PETERSON/CLEVENGER MOVED TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION CERTIFYING AN ENVIR- ONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE LES MAISONS PROVENCAL AT 13150 SARATOGA AVENUE. Failed 2-2, Mayor Anderson, Councilmember Stutzman dissenting. Mr. Sprau, LSA Associates provided information on methodology of measuring air quality; they could not provide the data r~quested to assist the Council in their decision by going out and taking samples. He confumed that a year or more was required to. obtain field surveys. Councilmember Peterson felt it would be unfortunate to delay the project a year. Councilmember Stutzman reiterated that he felt that the issue had not been property studied. Mayor Anderson asked that LSA Associates provide more information on impacts of air pollution on the elderly and present ways to mitigate these impacts. Councilmember Clevenger concurred. The City Manager noted that the task of the consultants (LSA Associates) was to recommend addi- tional mitigation measures to be applied to construction of the facilities to insure. that the interior air quality would be acceptable: Mr. Sprau added they could not provide the information requested by the December 21st Meeting. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 5 DECEMBER 7, 1988 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Dennis Reichardt, Managing General Partner, Les Maisons Provenc~l, noted the severe time constraints in negotiating the site in question and asked for the earliest possible hearing date. As presented, Applicants were prepared to adopt every mitigation measure contained in the EIR; if further mitigation measures were added, Applicants would have to be prepared to accept such. Councilmember Stutzman stated that if carbon monoxide levels in the complex could be mitigated to levels found at a one mile distance from the freeway, he was prepared to certify the EIR. Mayor Anderson was prepared to vote on the EIR with the additional information requested; Councilmember Peterson added that this was one of the best EIR's he had ever seen. B~d Card questioned Councilmember Stutzman on figures presented on the affinity of oxygen versus carbon monoxide; the Councilmember requested references cited by the speaker. Application to be brought back at the December 21st Meeting due to the lack Of certifying the EIR at this hearing. Report from LSA Associates to be presented January 4, 1988. Break: 9:35 - 9:50 P.M. B. Appeal of design review approval to construct a 988 sq. ft. second story addition in the R-I-40,000 zoning district at 19521 Douglass Lane. (Applicant, Leckrone; appellant, 5150 Homeowners Assn.) (DR 88-079) Planning Director Eroslie reviewed the Memorandum of December 7, 1988. The City Attorney noted that CC&R's were a private contract in which the City was not involved; the claim that the City violated the Architectural Control Committee of the CC&R was not an issue before the Council. The Public Hearing was opened at 9:55 P.M. Mr. Ken Rothmuller, President, 5150 Homeowners Association, commented as follows: Presented area slides and a model of the Leckrone house with proposed second story addition Reviewed the character of the homes in the area and the provisions of the CC&R's Residents concerned about this Application were not present at the Planning Commission Hear- ing since they were unfamiliar with the process; in addition, plans of the proposed addition was not available to the Homeowners Association until the Commission hearing Cited the character of homes in the area and reviewed the changes for the Leckrone's home Unlike many second story additions which were used for bedrooms and had limited usage during the da, y, the Leckrone second story addition would be used as a family/recreation area A balcony, vtsible from the adjacent street and to the immediate neighbor, was to be added Excessive bulk: the addition would create and an abrupt transition in the roof line Privacy impacts to the rear yard neighbor were cited Landscaping was required by the Planning Commission to address privacy and view impacts; however, this remedy only covered up the problem and further contributed to the view impact - The majority of home owners voted that this design was inappropriate for the neighborhood - CC&R's were not executed as required and the plan was contrary to Design Review Guidelines Mr. Edward Hinshaw, 19576 Kenosha Ct., Saratoga, respectfully disagreed with the City Attorney's comments. He reviewed the history of the CC&R's, noting that the City imposed the such upon the home owners. He submitted that the CC&R's were relevant to this issue. Ms. Leander Nandis, Real ~cor, stated that the view of the Santa Cruz Mountains from the Welch's home would be impaired; trees would not mitigate the loss of the view. ff the CC&R's did not protect the Welch's, then who would they protect? Buyers of one acre properties typ!cally wished an unobstructed view and p;ivacy; the addition as proposed obliterated the WelcWs privacy. Ms. Glenda Rossi, Kenosha Ct., Saratoga, requested information on the plans approved by the Planning Commission; she now opposed the addition proposed. There were no other second story additions over garages or second story decks on existing homes. Mr. Leckrone, Applicant, commented as follows: · Did not wish to address issues concerning the Architectural Control Committee of the CC&R's Cited examples of a 200 ft. distance similar to what existed between the Welch's and his home Portion of the addition visible over the existing vegetation toward the Welch's home, was a "window" of approximately 10 ft. high and 15 ft. long at a 200 ft. distance MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 6 DECEMBER 7, 1988 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Leckrone continued as follows: - View: no part of the proposed addition would rise above the existing tree horizon; only a portion of the addition would rise above the near horizon between the two homes - This latter portion would be eliminated by the landscaping required by the Planning Commission - Privacy: cited the narrowness of the view window; in addition, an existing hedge on his pro- perry could be allowed to grow taller if needed - Bulk and height: proposed addition was designed and later modified by architects - 20% of existing structures in the Douglass Ln. neighborhood were two story homes - CC&R building restrictions or building requirements had not been infringed in any way Mr. Aviles,~chitect, was contacted by Applicants to address the bulk and mass of the addition designed by a previous architect; there had been concern on the part of the Planning Commission regarding such. Design modifications included reducing window size on front and rear elevations, altering the caves line and height and adding architectural elements to ease the transition in the roof line. Modifications were made in response to comments made at the Commission hearing. CLEVENGER/STUTZMAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:34 P.M. Passed 4-0. Councilmember Clevenger commented as follows: Stated that she had not found anything during her site visit which inclined her to overturn the decision of the Planning Commission; they had considered all relevant information Confirmed that the distance between the two houses was extensive Felt that the Leektones had done everything they could to contact neighbors Reversing the Planning Commission's decision now would be unfair to the Applicants Mayor Anderson commented as follows: W - ith the exception of one neighbor, impact for the neighborhood would be ra~j.~d. There were no comments or objections from neighbors across the street There was at least one other home in the area that had a second story addition There was impact to the Welch's rear yard; however, trees could be installed to mitigate such Suggested the trees required by the Planning Commission not be deciduous - There was minimal loss of view of the hills - The main issue was privacy impact into the rear yard area Councilmember Stutzman stated that the issue came down to whether or not the CC&R's were in effect and whether the City had any responsibility in this matter; if the City were not responsible for maintaining the CC&R's, tl~n the decision of the Planning Commission would prevail. The City Attomi~y clarified that he had not said the CC&R's were not in effect, certainly they were in effect; the question was who enforced the CC&R's. CC&R existed as an enforcement agency for maintenance and ownership of common areas with the ability to levy and collect assessments for maintenance of such common/open space and to put subsequent buyei's on notice regarding regulations affecting the development of their property. This was not the issue in the Appeal; the Homeowners Association contended that before the Applicant filed an application with the City, he should have first obtained approval from the Archi- tectural Control Committee established by the CC&R's. The City did not require creation of this Committee; developers usually created such committees to control the type of homes in a project. The question of whether the Applicant obtained the proper approval of the Committee was not an issue before the Council; he confirmed that Appellants could seek civil litigation if they so chose. Councilmember Peterson commented as follows: - Agreedtberewasnotsufficientreasontooverturn'thedecisionofthePlanningCommission - Perception of bulk and mass was in .the eyes of the beholder; he did not view the house as bulky - Was not persuaded that privacy or view was impacted at a 200 ft. distance between the homes - Would vote to uphold the decision ofthe Planning Commission, denying theAppeal Mayor Anderson asked that trees to be installed per requirement of the Planning Commission, be required to be evergreen. CLEVENGER/PETERSON MOVED TO DENY THE APPEAL AND AFFIRM THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION WITH AN ADDED PROVISION THAT EVERGREEN TREES BE PLANTED AS LANDSCAPE SCREENING. Passed 4-0. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 7 DECEMBER 7, 1988 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mayor Anderson asked that Item 8.D. be heard due to a member of the public with small children who wished to testify on this Item; Appellants for Item 8.C. were agreeable to such. D. Appeal of denial of design review approval of a new two-story single family home in the NI-IR zoning district and denial of variance to allow 7,661 sq. ft. floor area where 5,220 sq. ft. is the maximum allowed.l (Appellant/applicant, Achkar) (DR 88-055; V 88-017) Planning Director Eroslie reviewed the Memorandum to the City Council of December 7, 1988. The Public Hearing was opened at 10:48 P.M. Ms. Virginia F nelli, Representing the Appellant, presented slides and commented as follows: - Reviewed the Application and noted that Staff felt the Variance Findings could not be made - At the time of the 1985 Amendment to the CC&R's an agreement was reached that the finished house not exceed 981 ft. elevation, in order to protect the adjacent neighbor's privacy and view - The pad at 960 ft. with a 21 ft. house height would not exceed the 981 ft. agreed upon - Only area where the height exceeded the 21ft. limitation was excavation to be done in order for the garage and basement to be placed under the house, thus, stepping the house into the hillside - Compatibility with surrounding homes: comparison made with two homes in the area which exceeded by 50-58% the square footage currently allowed - Application exceeded allowable square footage by less than either of the above approved homes' - Staffs statement that this home should be compatible in size with smaller homes in the adjacent district was the same as saying that property owners of R-I-40,000 lots should build homes similar in size to R-I-20,000 if they were adjacent to this zoning district - Appellants felt the house would be compatible with adjacent properties; neighbors concurred - Square footage was not the only, nor a very good criteria for assessing the compatibility of a house with adjacent homes; other factors included setbacks, height and architectural elements - Application met criteria set forth in the new Design Review Handbook; in addition, setbacks were in excess of those required for this zoning district - All criteria had been met with the exception of allowable floor area ratio; Variance Findings were very difficult to apply to the floor area ratio - Furthermore, the method of calculating floor area ratio had some inequities in applying such from one property to another; examples were cited Mr. Thomas Frizell, 21281 Canyon View Dr., Saratoga, reviewed the history of the Appellant's lot; any concerns he had regarding development of this lot adjacent to his property were satisfied. Ms. Lynn Sprague, 14605 Bougainvillea Ct., Saratoga, commented as follows: - Felt this house would set a precedent and asked that Design Review Guidelines be honored Proposed size of the house was a great deal larger than square footage allowed House would hang off the pad causing the western side of the house (facing the road) to appear very large; the visual impact and bulk of the house was a two story structure Furthermore, this was a ridge line property Mr. Don Steinbach, 14600 Bougainvillea Ct., Saratoga, commented as follows: There did not appear to be any attempt to accommodate the City's requirements - Visual perception of bulk: proposed house appeared large to him Asked that Design Review requirements be adhered to PETERSON/CLEVENGER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 11:10 P.M. Passed 4-0. Councilmember Clevenger would affirm the Planning Commission's decision; Variance Findings would be very difficult to make. Efforts to revise the Design Review Standards were cited; she was reluctant to approve such a drastic change in square footage. Furthermore, she did not subscribe to the idea of allowing a 6,000 sq. ft. house when the hill top had been graded flat; applicants should abide by the rules set down. Secondly, she opposed the building of houses on major ridge lines, especially if a house were 50% in excess of that square footage allowed. Councilmember Peterson commented as follows: - The house was too large by current standards; if the court yard area were covered over and a · second story added, the U-shaped design would create an 11,000 sq. ft. house - TheredidnotappeartobeaneffortonthepartofApplicanttoaccommodatedesignstandards - While he agreed there were inequities, this proposal was not a good example of such; the foot- print of the proposed house was almost 9,000 sq. ft. (including the courtyard) MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 8 DECEMBER 7, 1988 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Councilmember Stutzman was in agreement with the above comments; he was not supportive of building on a ridge line. Guidelines set down should be adhered to; furthermore, he had major concerns regarding the setting of a precedent with this Application. Mayor Anderson concurred with the above speakers and added her concern regarding preservation of the newly revised Design Review Guidelines. STUt"LMAN/CLEVENGER MOVED TO DENY THE APPEAL, AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. Passed 4-0. Mayor Anderson returned to Item 8. C. C. Appeal of approval of subdivision of approximately 11 acres of undeveloped property at 13602 Pierce Road into three lots, each lot to be approximately 3.6 acres in size. (Applicant, Bowie; appellant, Pierce Canyon Homeowners Assoc.) (SD 88-006) Planning Director Eroslie reviewed the Memorandum of December 7, 1988. Councilmember Stutzman questioned the accuracy of the Contour Map submitted on this Item; City Engineer Shook responded that the City relied on the Applicant's engineer for this Map; he added that when geotechnical problems were eliminated from the area calculated, the site contours were also eliminated; therefore, a reduced area resulted. The Public Hearing was opened 11:27 P.M. NIx. Willera Kohler, Pierce Canyon Homeowners Association, commented as follows: - Cited Slone Density Calculations: the crucial int was that the larger slope had to be calculated - Cited No~'thwesterh Hillside Specific Plan~ SP~tion 2. A., statement that calculation of slopes shall be done for the entire parcel prior to the slope density calculation - Insisted that an independent geologist calculate the slope on this property - Planning Commission did not have the information now presented when making their decision - Wished to see Measure A, approved in 1980, upheld in this instance Mr. Steve de Keczer, 13415 Pierce Rd., Saratoga, commented as follows: - Cited the Northwestern Hillside Specific Plan~ Slope Density Calculations and reviewed the urpose of this Section; he contended that the Applicant should be allowed two, not three lots - ~ite in question was of poor quality; number of lots allowed should be reduced, not increased - Flooding that occurred to the front of the site with mud slides to the rear of the property Siting of the proposed houses was unusually close to each other and directly opposite his home 'City Manager reviewed the definition of the net site area in response to questions of the Council; the proposal begged the question of whether the net site area as defined in City Code included the slide area; in fact, the net site area did not include the slide since the area had not been classified by the City Geologist as Md or Mrf. Mr. de Keczer responded that acreage should be subtracted; the sIope would not be subtracted resulting in the same slope with less land area; when slope density calculations were done, less buildable area would result; such was the intent of the Northwestern Hillside S_necific Plan. The City Attorney stated that Staff based their assessment on the City Geologist's Report; how- ever, Staff also had concerns about the slide on this site and required a supplemental letter from the City Geologist to confirm that the slide was solely independent of any development. In addition, a Condition of Approval was added that the Applicant take corrective measures to control the slide. Mr. de Keczer cited a Memorandum that stated that an "existing, active landslide is located" on-site; he asked that this slide area be clearly designated. He cited traffic hazards on Pierce Rd. Mr. H. E. Hunzinker, 13925 Pierce Rd., Saratoga, commented as follows: Strongly disagreed with Staff Report and felt the slope density formula had been misapplied ; His main concern was the pedestrian safety issue; he favored the installation of a foot path - Objected to the use of a l980 map of the area in determining slides on the site Ms. Judy Jackson cited concerns regarding drainage into the creek and felt that traffic hazards would occur from the proposed driveways out onto Pierce Rd. next to Surrey Ln. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 9 DECEMBER 7, 1988 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Ralph Saviano Applicant, commented as follows: - Driveway layout included shaving the ground cover along Pierce Rd. to increase traffic visibility Reviewed the history of this Application and noted the numerous reports on this site - Without the proposed subdivision, there would be no slide repair, no road or bridge improve- ments nor any shaving of the ground cover along Pierce Rd. for traffic safety - Application was becoming the remedy for problems in the area; cited the numerous Conditions imposed and the cost of required improvements - The slope density was calculated on the applicable City Codes; if calculations were done as the above speakers suggested, the number of lots would be slightly increased - Eleven acres existed on-site with a three lot subdivision proposed; of the 17 lots surrounding the property, only one was larger than the 3.6 acres proposed on his site . - Questions brought up at this hearing had previously been raised at the Commission hearing PETERSON/CLEVENGER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 12:09 A.M. Passed 4-0. Councilmember Peterson stated he would vote to deny the appeal; he was satisfied with the geo- technical calculations made on this site and the Planning Commission's review of this Application.. He concurred that a footpath was desirable. Councilmember Stutzman stated that the Flood Control District had not designated this area a being a floodplain; he had no way to verify claims that deep flooding occurred on site. He did not see how the slide could be stabilized especially since three separate properties were involved; further- more, he questioned the accuracy of the Contour Map. In the future, he wished to see independent analysis of a site and not rely on the Applicant's engineer. He would uphold the Appeal. Councilmember Clevenger expressed concern regarding the fact that this was the first lot to come under the Measure A rules; secondly, she also had concerns regarding the accuracy of the Contour Map submitted and wished tO see an independent analysis of this site. Mr. Saviano responded to the Council's question that an independent analysis of the site would cost $10,000 - $12,000; the aerial topographical map had been done by an independent consultant. Councilmember Clevenger reiterated concerns about this site and noted the neigh~r's testimony. Mayor Anderson suggested an alternative be offered, namely, a two lot subdivision or completion of an independent analysis. Councilmember Clevenger felt that such would be an arbitrary decision. Consideration given to Continuing the Item pending additional information; Mr. Saviano objected. The City Manager suggested the City Geologist, Win. Cotton Associates, review the site and ma ~ an appropriate recommendation. CLEVENGER/PETERSON MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 12:27 A.M. Passed 4-0. CLEVENGER/PETERSON MOVED TO CONTINUE SD-88-006 TO JANUARY 4, 1989, TO JANUARY 4, 1989, PENDING INFORMATION ON THE SLIDE DESIGNATION AND THE PROPOSED FOOTPATH. Passed 4-0. E. Protest Hearing for Weed Abatement The Public Hearing was opened at 12:29 A.M. There were no'speakers. CLEVENGER/PETERSON MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 12:29 A. M. Passed 4-0. PETERSON/ANDERSON MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 2531 ORDERING ABATE- MENT OF A PUBLIC NUISANCE BY REMOVAL OF HAZARDOUS WEEDS. Passed 4-0. Mayor Anderson returned to Communications from the Commissions and the Public. B. Written Communications from the Public 1) Mickey Chiu, 19163 Via Tesoro Ct., requesting street lights in Saratoga. PETERSON/CLEVENGER MOVED TO REFER TO POLICY DEVELOPMENT CONFER- ENCE; ACKNOWLEDGE AND HLE LETTER. Passed 4-0, MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 10 DECEMBER 7, 1988 COMMUNICATIONS FROM TI--HE COMMISSIONS AND THE PUBLIC Continued 2) J. Frank Cage, 14060 Shadow Oaks Way, requesting that Council take action as a result of election. - Received, acknowledged and filed. 3)Tom Bauer, Kilbride Dr., suggesting on-ramps only for freeway. Received, acknowledged and filed. 4) Marcia Fariss, 18983 Saratoga Glen Plaee, expressing concerns about election on interchanges. - Received, acknowledged and filed. Written Communications Items 5-9 acted on in one Motion. 5) San Jose Post 89, Inc., The American Legion, P.O. Box 1133, San Jose' 95108, requesting permission to hold event on Odd Fellows grounds. 6) Robert Foster, Veterans Employment Committee, 601 Kenneth Ave., Campbell 95008, supporting above. 7) Mere Maran, Veterans Coalition League of California, 1825 Cornstock Lane, San Jose 95124, supporting above. 8) Ray L. Clark, Fleet Reserve Association, 1035 Emory St., San Jose, supporting above. 9) Charles J. Framiglio, Disabled American Veterans, 4932 Alan Ave., San Jose 95124, supporting above. Consensus reached that on Items 5-9, Staff be authorized to send letters explaining zoning restrict- ions and explaining Planning Commission process, 10) MOT Park Civic Improvement Association, requesting upgrading of Fruitvale Ave. Consensus reached to refer to policy development and budget process. 11) ~ MOT Park Civic Improvement Association, requesting left turn access from Mon- tauk to Fruitvale. Consensus reached to refer to City Engineer and Public Safety Commission. 12) Marion Mitchell-Wilson, State Department of Parks and Recreation, approving Certified Local Government application. No action taken; information only. 6. OLD BUSINESS: A. Final Map Approval, S DR 1470, Park Drive, (Applicant~ R. Kochc0 (Continued from November 16, 1988) Item Continued per request of the Applicant; January 4, 1989, designated as the B. Resolution 2528 Required by AB 1600 for Continuation of Traffic Impact Fee for North- west Hillsides (Continued from November 16, 1988) CLEVENGER/PETERSONMOVED APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 2528 CONCERNING THE IMPOSITIONS OF A TRAFHC IMPACT FEE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF NEW DWELLING UNITS IN THE NHR ZONING DISTRICT.. Passed 4-0. C. Adoption of Policy on Public Participation at Council Meetings. PETERSON/CLEVENGER IMOVED TO APPROVE THE ADOPTION OF POLICY ON PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AT COUNCIL MEETINGS. Passed 4-0. D. Freeway Agreement Negotiations DiscussiOn. The City Manager reviewed recent discussions on the Freeway Agreement Negotiations. The Mayor recognized the following speakers. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 11 DECEMBER 7, 1988 Mr. J. R. Geddes, FACS, read into the record his letter to the City Council. Mr. Charles Butterfield presented the statement of Ms. Cheriel Jerksen dated December 7, 1988. PETERSCN/CLEV~GER MOVED APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIGN 2529 STATING THE COLI~CIL 'S INTENT TO MODIFY THE AGRE~4~qTS REGARDlinG STATE ROUTE 85 kND INCLUDING AN INTENUHANGE AT SARATOGA AVENUE. Passed 4-0. ADDITION 'ID AGENBA P~I'~RSON/CI~VElqGER MOVF. D TO PLACE EXPENDITURE FOR SUPPE ACCOUNTING FOR ANNUAL AUDIT PREPARATION ON THE COUNCIL AGBNDA. Passed 4-0. PETERSON/CLEV~NGER MOVED APPRDVAL OF AN EXP~rDI~URE OF $15,000 for SUP_PLFFd~EAL A/2COUNTING FOR ANNUAL AUDIT PREPARATION. Passed 4-0. 7. NEW BUSINESS: A. Appeal of denial of stockpiling permit (Appellant/applicant, S. Blum) The City Engineer reviewed the Report to the Mayor and City Council dated December 7, 1988. Mr. Sheldon Blum, Appellant, submitted a site diagram and reviewed the history of the incident; he stated he had neither consented or authorized the dumping of fill on his property. Approximately 18 truck loads of dirt had already been removed from the site. He asked to be allowed to winterize the remaining fill and felt that erosion would not occur; in addition, he was willing to post a bond to insure that no damage would occur. Councilmember Cleven er cited experiences where serious damage had occurred in the City; she felt that the laws of the 8~ty had to be upheld in order to protect citizens. Councilmember Peterson felt the Appellant should be allowed to winterize the fill on-site. CLEVENGER/STUTZMAN MOVED TO DENY THE APPEAL DIRECTING THE APPEL- LANT TO ADHERE TO THE DIRECTION TO REMOVE THE IMPORTED FILL. Passed 3-1, Councilmember Peterson dissenting. In response to questions raised, Council directed that the fill was to be removed in 10 working days; the amount of the remain ing fill to be removed was to be determined by the City Engineer. B. Request for Waiver of Use Permit Application Fee (UP 88-014) (Applicant, L. Thorsch) PETERSON/CLEVENGER MOVED TO DENY REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF USE PERMIT APPLICATION FEE (UP 88-014). Passed 4-0. C. Authorization of Publicity for Upcoming Hearings - Garbage Amendment, Minutes Amend- merit, Off-Road Vehicles Amendment. Consensus to adopt Staff Recommendation and Authorize Publicity for Upcoming Hearings. D. ResolUtion 2530 requesting revision of figures for Saratoga in connection with ABAG Housing Needs Determination. CLEVENGER/PETERSON MOVED APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 2530 REVISING THE HOUSING NEEDS DETERMINATIONS FOR THE CITY OF SARATOGA. Passed 4-0. 9. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS: A. Discussion of BOnus HOliday for Staff COnsensus to approve half-staffir~ for both December 23 and December 30; City offices to remain open during normal business hours. The Meeting of the City Council was adjourned at I:50A. M. Respectfully submitted, ' Carol A. Probst-Caughey