Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-04-1989 City Council Minutes MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL DATE: January 4, 1989 - 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 7:30 P.M. Councilmember Moyles absent. 2. CEREMONIAL ITEMS: A. Presentation of Resolution 2532 Commending David DeCarion as Finance Committee Member Mayor Anderson presented the Proclamation commending Mr. DeCarion. 3. ROUTINE MATTERS: A. Approval of Minutes: Meeting of December 21, 1988 Councilmember Clevenger asked that on Page 7, her comments be amended to read, "The issue had been raised whether Nelson Garden was intended to be kept as a 'public use'. She assured the public that full market value for the property would be paid if the City purchased the property." CLEVENGERfPETERSON MOVED APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF DECEMBER 21, 1988, AS AMENDED. Passed 4-0. B. Approval of Warrant 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 30, 1988. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: A. Planning Commission Actions, December 28, 1988, - Meeting Cancelled B. Ordinance 71.49 Amending City Code Concerning Alarm Systems (Second reading and adoption) C. Ordinance 71.50 Amending City Code Relating to Off-Street Vehicle Operation (Second reading and adoption) D. Ordinance 71.51 Amending City Code Relating to Unauthorized Use of Garbage Collection Service (Second reading and adoption) E. Ordinance 71.52 Amending City Code Regarding Minutes of City Council Meetings (Second reading and adoption) F. Ordinance 71.53 Amending City Code Relating to the Vesting of Tentative Maps as applied to Commercial Projects (Second reading and adoption) G. Ordinance NS3-ZC-96 rezoning certain territory of the City of Saratoga and amending the Zoning Map, APN 389-11-04, 05, 08-10 (Paul Masson Property) (Second reading and adoption) H. Notice of Completion, Komina Storm Drain - Manuel C. Jardim, Inc. I. Construct/on Acceptance and Release of Cash Bond, 20713 St. Charles St., Tr. 7811 (Developer, St. Charles St. Investors) (Continued from December 21, 1988) MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 2 JANUARY 4, 1989 CONSENT CALENDAR Continued J. Final Building Site Approval, SD 88-020, Third Street, 2 lots (Developer, J. Waller) K. Report on Availability of School Facilities for Recreation - information only L. Authorization for Heritage Commission to attend preservation Seminar, De Anza College, January 27, 1989, with reasonable and necessary expenses PETERSON/STUTZMAN MOVED APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR. Passed 4-0. 5. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS AND THE PUBLIC: A. Oral Communications from the Public and Commissions Dr. Ann Waltonsmith, 21060 Saratoga Hills Rd., Saratoga, suggested an "Appreciating Saratoga Month" with participation of local community groups to showcase City neighborhoods. B. Written Communications from the Public 1) Michael E Kaufmann, 18868 Aspesi Dr., concernin .design of Saratoga Avenue inter- change. - Received, filed and acknowledged-wj-th ~:eff.~ rep:l.y. 2) Judith and Larry Peden, 18130 Constitution Ave., Monte Sereno CA 95030, requesting abandonment of easement. PETERSON/CLEVENGER MOVED TO SEND THE' DRAFT REPLY AND PROCEED WITH -ABANDONMENT OF EASEMENT. Passed 4-0. 6. OLD BUSINESS: A. Request for General Plan Amendment of 5.1 acres of partially developed property at 20851 Saratoga Hills Rd. to change the land use designation from Open Space, Outdoor RecreatiOn (OSOR) to Medium Density Residential (M-12.5) in order to construct a maximum of 9 new homes. (Applicant, Ainsley Development; Owner, Nelson Foundation) (GPA 87-003) (Continued from December 21, 1988) · The City Manager noted the following letters received: Mr. Les Hausrath, Attorney for Nelson Foundation, January 3, 1989 Ms. Linda Callon, Attorney for Ainsle Development, January 4, 1989 Ms. Ann Waltonsmith, Ph.D., 21060 ~aratoga Hills Rd., Saratoga, December 29, 1988 Councilmember Clevenger favored resolving the Application before the Council in a timely manner; alternative proposals required consideration if the Nelson Gardens were not available to the City. Councilmember Peterson felt that granting the request of Ainsley Development for a continuance of this Item to February 1, 1989, was appropriate; he added that continuances had been granted to the Friends of Nelson Garden. He noted the opportunity available to the City to install a demon- stration orchard which would be a showcase for Santa Clara County. Mayor Anderson concurred. Councilmember Clevenger responded that she was persuaded to grant the Continuance requested. Councilmember Stutzman commented that Nelson Gardens was an entity separate from a heritage/ demonstration orchard; the Gardens included a hillside, wooded area with a variety of trees on-site worth preserving. Contrary to Councilmember Moyles' comment at tbe prior City Council Meet- ing, more small parks within City limits were needed; the General Plan stated that the City had only .40% of parklands the County considered acceptable. He noted the future scarcity of park space; the preservation of the Nelson Gardens was much more valuable than any money obtained for its sale. He had no objection to a continuance of this Application per request of Ainsley Development. PETERSON/ANDERSON MOVED TO CONTINUE GPA 87-003 TO FEBRUARY 1, 1989. Passed 4-0. B. Final Map Approval, SDR 1470, Park Drive (Applicant, R. Kocher) (Continued from December 7, 1988) Mr. Shook, Consulting Engineer, reviewed the Report to Mayor and City Council. The City Attorney noted that Councilmember Stutzman would abstain from voting on this Item. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 3 JANUARY 4, 1989 OLD BUSINESS Continued Mayor Anderson recognized the following speakers. Mr. I.,arry Tyler, Representing the Applicant, commented as follows: - Noted the cost and time involved and the number of hearings artended by the Applicant - Reviewed the differences between the original and new contour maps and stated that the 62% slope Was the point where a small landslide had occurred since the 1980 maps were completed - Noted the slightly different methods of calculations which showed a 27% maximum slope on Parcel B in 1980 and 23.9% maximum slope On the recent contour map - Prospective home owner, Mr. Allen, was a contractor and intended to engineer a retaining wall at the point of the land slippage and restore the property to its original slope; he did not intend to build his house at the steepest point of the slope - Staff Report stated that "...had it been clear that the average slope of the site was in excess of 10% it would have triggered the use of the slope-density formula..." - Original overall slope was 9.82% while the slope shown on the new contour maps was 13.5%; in either case, use of the slope-density formula required parcel in excess of one acre - Itwas~learthatthesl~pe.densityf~rmulawasn~tintendedf~rtheR.1.2~~~~~z~ningdist~ict - Reviewed the history of the Application as follows: ~ Mr. William. Cotton, in his letter dated November 10, 1983, mentioned that the slope of the lot was indeed greater than shown on the contour map - At the November 27th, Planning Commission Hearing, letters from both Mr. Cotton, William Cotton Associates, and a Senior Planner recommended approval of the lot split; Mr. Cotton's letter was discussed at length by the Commission and the lot split approved ~ In 1985 when Mrs. Kocher requested an extension in time, the above letter was included and again discussed at length; however, due to a change in requirements, the Commission did not approve the extension requested - Contended that the statement that the Application was based on faulty data could not be made; both the Commission and Staff were well aware that the map did not show the true contours - Asked that the Mrs. Kocher be granted approval of the Final Map Ms. Nancy Allen stated that TerraTech Inc., Engineers were hired to oversee the property; they assured her there was a viable building site on the parcel. She asked that objections of Council- member Stutzman be overruled; he had objected to any development of this site. She requested approval of this Application. Mr. Shook, responding to Councilmember Clevenger's questions, confirmed that the slope density formula applied to all properties in excess of a 10% slope, i.e., all hillside lots. He clarified that the City Geologist was responsible for the eology of the site not whether a slope was adequate for development; such was defined in City ~des. He confirm~l that while there may have been an isolated instance where the City permitted development on a slope in excess of that allowed, generally the City had not allowed development in such situations. Councilmember Clevenger added that she could not recall any instance where the Council approved an application to build on a slope in excess of that allowed nor could she think of an instance wherein the Council approved a subdivision based on a variance of the slope under a building pad. Councilmember Peterson asked if the survey map contained or the Applicant had presented a build- ing footprint that did not require a variance. Mr. Shook answered that such had not been presented; he did not think there was a footprint on-site that would not require a variance application. Councilmember Peterson summarized that two variances would be needed for this site, one for the a~reagerequired(l.2where~.1existed)andavarianeef~rthesl~peunderthebui~dingf~~t~rint. Mr. Shook added that the reason the average site slope was 13.5% was that the larger, upper portion of the property was fiat; however, the remaining portion of the lot was very steep. Councilmember Stutzman stated that the original data was probably incorrect. An assumption was being made that slide activity occurred in 1980; however, he had lived adjacent to this property since 1963 and to his knowledge there had been no earth movement or slide activity. The site was covered with vegetation and was exactly the way it was when the contour map was prepared; the data originally supplied was inaccurate. This was very unfortunate for the Applicant, Mrs. Kocher. Mr. Tyler cited zoning regulations (City Code 1.5-45.010), regulating development on hillside lots. The City Attorney responded that the Section referred to was from the Design Review Ordinance; the Application before the City Council at this time came under the Subdivision Ordinance. Furthermore, the slope density formula was in the Code at the time of the Tentative Map approval; there had been no change in the slope density formula as applied in the R-1 zoning districts. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 4 JANUARY 4, 1989 OLD BUSINESS Continued Councilmember Peterson suggested that surveys completed on properties which triggered the slope density formula be confirmed by a second opinion. The situation was unfortunate, especially for the Applicant, Mrs. Kocher; he could not approve this request and suggested the Item be referred to the Planning Commission with a recommendation to rescind the Tentative Map approval. A variance for the excessive slope under the building footprint was more important to him than the fact that the slope density formula required 1.2 acres rather than 1.1 acre of this parcel in order to subdivide the lot; he could possibly make the necessary Findings for the latter. Mrs. Kocher, Applicant, presented her original letter to the Council written in 1983, requesting that the property be left in half acre zoning; this zoning existed the entire time she owned the property. Had applicants acted on this fact, there would have been a house on Parcel B now; the City had given a tentative building permit despite Mr. Cotton's information on the contour map. Mr. Tyler felt it was unreasonable to ask an applicant to have a house plan before the lot existed; Mr. Alien had stated he could build a house on-site with a less than 40% slope under the footprint. Councilmember Clevenger responded that although Mrs. Kocher had a large lot, the slope density formula would have prevented subdivision of the parcel even in 1983, if there had been an accurate contour map; she could not recall the Council approving a lot split based on a variance and was not favorable to such a procedure. Mayor Anderson cited the number of variances required; she could not approve the Application. The situation was unfortunate; something would have to be done to prevent a similar incident. CLEVENGER/ANDERSON MOVED TO RESCIND THE TENTATIVE MAP APPROVAL SDR 1470; ALL FEES AND BONDS SUBMITTED TO THE CITY IN CONNECTION WITH FINAL MAP APPROVAL SHALL BE RETURNED TO THE APPLICAbFE. Passed 3-0-1, Councilmember Stutzman abstaining. Mayo,r Anderson proceeded to Public Hearings. 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. 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 (Continued from December 7, 1988). Planning Director Eroslie reviewed the Memorandum dated December 29, 1988. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:54 EM. Break: 10:38 - 10:50 P.M. Ms. Jan Harris, Planning Commissioner, questioned .whether Minutes of October 26 th Cornmrs- sion Meeting were complete; there was discussion regarding yield of the property to be subdivided. 'Councilmember Clevenger noted that the crux of the question before the Council was whether three lots with repair of the slide or two lots were to be permitted on this parcel; this did not appear to be the issue addressed at the Planning Commission Meeting. The City Attorney responded that under the City Code, if the slide were not repaired and certified by the City Geologist to be reclassified, only a two-lot subdivision would be allowed. Councilmember Stutzman was concerned that accurate information was unavailable to the Planning Commission durin their deliberations. The original site designation was Ps/Sun with the slide area determined to be - ~g7 acres; upon reexamination the slide was designated Md and constituted almost 40,000 sq. ft. The City should have some recourse when inaccurate information was provided. Mr. William Cotton, City Geologist, responded to questions addressed by the Council as follows: Original designation of the slide was done in the late 1970's from an aerial, geologic map Original map scale was i" = 300'; map recently completed by the Applicant's consultant was 1" = 50' which had a greater chance of being accurate ' In addition, the region had become highly activated after the original mapping - Differences between the original map and the Applicant's may be a function of scale and time MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 5 JANUARY 4, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Cotton, City Geologist, continued as follows: Consultants had reviewed the proposed repair which consisted of buttressing the base of the slide, which would act as a dam and installing a drainage network to remove the excess water Repair justified a change in the designation on the geological maps from Md to Pd Recognized that an upper slope, off-site, area had a potential for continued problems Confirmed that the slide's area of influence included the upper slope area although the landslide per se did not extend to this off-site area Agreed that if the upper slope failed, it would come down on the area being stabilized Upper region was designated as having a higher potential for failure than the site in question; however, the upper region could also be corrected, but it was not on this property Confirmed that the Applicant's property was in danger from the upper, off-site region; how- ever, siting the houses as shown on the Tentative Map would not place them in danger; a failure of upper region did not have the potential to affect the proposed houses Agreed that if proper inx;estigation and engineering were applied to the repair of the upper sites, such would further reduce any material coming off the property and onto the Applicam's site Stated that repair of the Applicant's site helped the upper properties; furthermore, upper proper- ties could be stabilized irrespective of whether repairs were done on the Applicant's site Did not recommend allowing the third lot requested if the repairs were not made; however, a two-lot subdivision was fine even if the repair were not made Mr. Willera Kohler, Pierce Canyon Homeowners Association, commented as follows: Questioned how a slide designation on the Applicant's property after a repair could be changed if the upper, off-site portion remained unchanged; a moving deep slide would still exist Secondly, he asked for Mr. Cotton's opinion on the cost of the proposed repair Felt that neither Staff or the Planning Commission were well informed; Appellants had done the work on this issue Responding to Councilmember Peterson, he stated the slide should be repaired if it were a danger Mr. Russ Crowther, Norada Ct., Saratoga, commented as follows: Understood that the reason the designated Md areas were were to be deducted from the gross acreage was that it was difficult to repair Md (moving-deep) slides Did not feel the change from an Md to Ps designation of the landslide on-site was correct The question remained, what was the potential of a future landslide? - The answer depended upon factors for which the data was unavailable Strongly opposed the process wherein repair of Md landslides was used as a basis for increas- ing the number of subdivision lots permitted Mr. Steve de Keczer, 13415 Pierce Rd., Saratoga, commented as follows: Criticisms included the fact that the critical debate at the October 26th Planning Commission Meeting concerning increased vs. decreased density due to the removal of slide area was com- pletely absent from the Minutes; asked that the tapes of these meetings be retained - Advi::e given to the Commission and Council pertaining to density calculations was incorrect No Planning Commissioner, City Attorney or City Manager seriously questioned this advi e~ City Geologist, while credited with conducting a detailed geological and geotechnical investiga- tion, did not report a change in slide designation nor the increased slide area to the Commission Saratoga residents reqtiired top notch service from paid public officials and were not getting it It was made clear at the two Planning Commission hearings that the slide could not be repaired without the cooperation of the adjacent two neighbors; now there was a new story The Northwestern Hillside' Specific Plan clearly limited this parcel to a two lot subdivision unless the slide were repaired with cooperation from the two adjacent property owners Partial correction of a slide could only result in problems and litigation for new property owners - Asked that building pads be moved as far from Pierce Rd. as possible without trapraging on slide or flood areas; also, he asked that pads be separated as far as possible from each other Density formulas arrived at were obtained by a series of compromises - The question remained, a two or three lot subdivision; if three lots were allowed, the developer should be required to do a lot more in the way of improvements; suggestions were provided Mr. H. Hunzinker, Saratoga, was very unhappy with the Staff Report for the following reasons: Council was asked to affirm the decision of the Planning Commission and approve a sub- division without any idea of the environmental impact a slide repair would create - ~ stated, "The aesthetic impact the correction will have on the surrounding environ- ment cannot be determined until specific corrective measures are approved by the Geologist." The Council would be completely in the dark about what the slide repair actually meant Cited example of another geologic repair where the hillside was cut completely flat Noted that the cost of repair on this site had not been determined; such may not be feasible ' MEETING OF TI-IE CITY COUNCIL Page 6 JANUARY 4, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Hunzinker continued as follows: - Alternatives stated, "Therefore, staff has concluded that the reduction in development achieved through the exemption of certain slides result in relatively small decreases in allowable development in the NHR zone and that properties with the same topography should yield the same density." This, in effect, was a General Plan change. - Issue remained of when a slide should be corrected; the City Geologist earlier commented that, "anything can be corrected." Such was not the intent of the General Plan - Noted the importance of a footpath for resident's safety; such would connect to other paths - Residents did not want Pierce Rd. to be widened; trees would be lost by a road widening - Strong~y~bjectedt~theStaffRep~rtrec~mmendati~nagainstthefeotpathf~rsafetyreas~ns - In response to Councilmember Peterson's questions, he absolutely opposed removal of trees to install the footpath; there was 7 ft. of easement that could be utilized - Furthermore, he did not feel the slide could be repaired; however, it would not be a danger if the site was not developed - Councilmember Stutzman asked Mr. Cotton to respond to questions/'aised earlier in the hearing. Mr. Cotton stated that he did not have estimates regarding the cost of the repair of this slide; how- ever, the Applicant and hi~ geotechnical engineer were present and could possibly respond. With respect to the probability of successfully repairing this slide, engineering judgements were more appropriate; it was his professional view that if the buttressing and drainage were properly placed the risk of a moving landslide would be considerably lowered to a point where a hazard would not exist. The designation would 'always be a Pd not a Ps. Furthermore, reference to a landslide on the upper, off-site property was incorrect; it was a steep cliff base that could be stabilized. In response to Councilmember Peterson, Mr. Cottan confirmed he had reviewed preliminary repair plans presented in the Geotechnical Report. Councilmember Peterson questioned whether the City Geologist had stated that in his opinion the repair plan did not materially damage the environment. Mr. Cotton responded that with respect to landslide repair the plan proposed was the softest repair possible, i.e., installation of drains in the landslide area, ~;ot excavation of an entire hillside. The buttressing at the bottom of the slide would be less than that required ff the area were excavated and recompacted. The repair proposed was a minimum repair and would stabilize the existing body. Mr. Saviano responded as follows: - Stabilization and repair would eost about $50,000; he would do some of the work required - Cited..the preliminary repair plan which included the saving of a number of Oak trees - Noted efforts to elicit the cooperation of adjacent property owners to affect a complete repair - Differences in the size of the slide reported were due to the fact that Mr. Cotton included a buffer zone around the slide and secondly, the difference in scale of the maps drawn - ReviewedtheApp~i~ati~~'shist~ryandn~tedtheam~unt~fge~~~gicaIinf~rmati~nsubmitted - Cited benefits derived from the subdivision, namely, stabilization of upper, off-site property, elimination of an existing eyesore through repair and landscaping. the slide area, stopping the growth of the on-site landslide and a professionally completed repmr - Concluded that the above benefits could not be derived from a two-lot subdiyision - Density (3.6 acres per lot)was less intense than any of the sixteen ~urrounding properties - Contended that the slide designation should be a Ms not an Md; the Northwest Hillside Specific Plan defined Md and Mrf as an uncorrectable slide; the slide in question was correctable - Concerned about Staff Recommendation to repair the slide prior to Final Map Approval and cited financial impacts from this requirement - Contested Condition 16 requiring a replacement of the bridge over Calabazas Creek and recom- mended that future developments benefiting from this improvement also contribute - Summarized that a lot of time had been spent on this Application; all geological and Staff questions had been addressed Mr. Joe Crosby, Geotechnical Engineer, commented as follows: - Confirmed that the landslide situation was solvable - Slide repair was essentially two phased- unstable ground could be stabilized by drainage and buttressing; in addition there was an upper off-site portion had some degree in instability - Whatever would be do~e on the Applicant'~ property would benefit these adjacent properties but would not solve problems on the off-site parcels; this was a separate issue Had no concern regarding damage to three home sites proposed with completion of the repair CLEVENGER/PETERSON MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:11 P.M. Passed 4-0. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page JANUARY 4, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Councilmember Clevenger noteC :he issues surrounding this Application. The City Attorney reviewed discussions held at the Planning Commission hearings; he stated that the City could not require the Applicant to repair off-site properties, particularly since the City Geologist had stated that work on the Applicant's site was distinguishable from the upper sites. Councilmember Clevenger suggested this Application be returned to the Planning Commission; such would also allow the Applicant to pursue an agreement with adjacent property owners. Furthermore, she had concerns allowing a three lot subdivision when the City Geologist stated that repair of the Applicant's site was independent of the stabilization of the upper, off-site properties. Nonetheless, the Applicant had made a good faith effort in working with this difficult property. The City Attorney questioned what the Planning Commission's assignment would be, Councilmember Clevenger stated that the Commission did not have the slide designation and was unaware that density wo~; !d be reduced on account of the designation; the Council was being asked to make a decision o- '~ two or three lot subdivision when the Commission had not considered this question in the same way. She wished the Commission's expertise on this issue. The City Attorney added that the Commission would be considering the bridge and road improve- merits as well as Mr. Saviano's request for consideration of pro-rated cost of the bridge repair. Councilmember Stutzman cited Northwestern Hillside Specific Plan Ge~ Policies, 1; City Attorney responded that with respect to density, the Plan specified that uncorrectable geotech- hie hazards, designated Md or Mrf, should be deducted; his understanding was that if a slide could not be corrected either from an engineering and/or environmental point of view, such should be deducted. He did not recall that if a situation could be corrected, such would be left as it existed. He did not feel an Environmental Impact Report.~,E1Rt~ ould be required. Mr. Crowther noted that during discussions on the Northwestern Hillside Specific Plan, their in- tent was to define slides that were uncorrectable as Md and Mrf from slides that were correctable. The City Manager added that if an Md designation was defined as uncorrectable, then the landslide in question could not be so designated since according to the City Geologist such was correctable. Mr. Cotton responded to Mayor Anderson's question, that an Md designation referred to a slide deeper than 10 ft. and very large; the slide in question was only marginally deeper than 10 ft. With a little bit of effort, this landslide could be corrected by draining it; such would remove the hazard. The City Attorney, cited the Northwestern Hillside Specific Plan, ~ Policies, 5. "Especially sites on potentially moving slopes (Pmw, Ps, Pal) and moving slopes engineering analysis and design provided by the developer clearly demonstrate the long-term stability of such sites to the satisfaction of the City, its Geologist and other professional consultants" as the stand- ard the City relied upon. The Applicant's consultant and the City's Geologist agreed that there was long term stability to be gained by completion of the repair. Councilmember Peterson commented as follows: Was the slide correctable or not? He felt that the slide was correctable Did the City wish the slide as well as similar slides corrected? He could not imagine the City would not want these slides corrected Even if the repair of the slide triggered a third house, the proposed three lot subdivision was on a parcel in excess of 11 acres; furthermore, no houses were being approved at this time A three lot subdivision permitted improvements of a bridge repair and installation of a footpath Was satisfied with the consultants' evaluation that even if some material came down from the upper, off-site parcels, such would not endanger the homes on this site Although he previously stated he was in favor of the footpath and despite the fact that he was very familiar with Pierce Rd., the proposed path may possibly present more problems than it solved and did not really go anywhere; he concurred w:i.~d~ ~-_.b.e C5112z Engineer on this issue Asked the City Attorney and City Manager to address the issue whether correctable slide areas designated Md and Mrf, should be calculated in the allowable density; in addition, how should the Planning Commission exercise its authority when a slide was correctable Concurred with Applicant's request for a pro rata share of the bridge repair cost; it was unfair for this Applicant to bear the entire cost especially if other developable sites existed in the area Was favorable to requiring the repair of the slide prior to Final Map Approval Stated he was prepared to vote on this Application MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 8 JANUARY 4, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued City Manager noted that until the slide was corrected, the density formula could not be applied; he suggested the Application could be conditioned that Design Review approval could not be given until the slide repair were completed. He was concerned that the final map could be filed without the necessary repair work in place. Councilmember Peterson responded with a request that a policy decision be considered requiring any major repair work to be completed prior to Final Map approval. Councilmember Clevenger suggested the Planning Commission be asked to reconsider the repair of the Calabazas Creek bridge, pro rating the repair cost, a two versus a three-lot subdivision in relationship to the improvements to be gained, the footpath and other issues raised at the hearing. Councilmember Stutzman asked that members of the City Council and Planning Commission make a site visit if they had not already done so. From his prospective, this was not a desirable lot; it was fraught with many difficulties, i.e., slides, potential for flooding from Calabazas Creek; such required further consideration. He was favorable to referring this Application back to the Planning Commission for their reconsideration; in addition, the Council would have more time for review. This was one of the first applications under the hillside initiative and the decision was crucial; policy decisions in the future would be based in pan on the decision on this application. He was not satisfied with what h.e heard at the hearing and did not feel all the information was available. Mayor Anderson agreed this Item should be returned to the Commission for reconsideration of issues cited by Councilmember Clevenger and outlined in the Staff Report. CLEVENGER/STUTZMAN MOVED THAT SD-88-006 BE RETURNED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR A REPORT TO BE PROVIDED TO THE COUNCIL WITHIN FORTY DAYS, AT THE FEBRUARY 15, 1989, MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL. Passed 4-0. CLEVENGER/ANDERSON MOVED TO DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE THE AMENDMENTS NECESSARY TO ENSURE THAT THE GOALS OF THE NffR DISTRICT WERE UPHELD. Passed 4-0. Break: 10:38 - 10:50 P.M. Mayor Anderson returned to Old Business. C. Trial Court Funding - Proposed Settlement City Manager reviewed the Report Re: Trial Court Funding Negotiations - Proposed Settlement. CLEVENGER/ANDERSON MOVED TO APPROVE SETTLEMENT WHICH WOULD TRANSFE ~o SARATOGA, 55% OF THE F[/'aDS WOULD THE ORIG~' LEGISLATION. Passed 4-0. SARATOGA HAVE RtI2EIV]I) UNDER Mayor Anderson commended the City Manager for his role in negotiating this settlement. Councilmember Peterson stated that while not criticizing the settlement reached, he was concerned about the loss of 45% revenues the State intended for the City. Consensus reached by the Council to communicate hy letter with the L~ague of California Cities regarding concerns expressed by Councilmember Peterson. D. Freewa~ Agreement Negotiations Report Mayor Anderson reported on the rec~nt meetings held on the Freeway Agreement Negotiations. 7. NEW BUSINESS: A. Proposal for Hiring Former City Engineer as Consultant CLEVENGER/PETERSON MOVED TO RETAIN BOB SHOOK AS CiTY ENGINEER ON A CONSULTING BASIS AT $55.00 AN HOUR THROUGH MARCH 31, 1989. Passed 4-0. B. Revision of Hakon¢ Garden Master Plan PETERSON/CLEVENGER MOVED TO APPROVE THE HAKONE GARDENS MASTER PLAN AS A/V/ENDED. Passed 4°0. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 9 JANUARY 4, 1989 NEW BUSINESS Continued C. Customer Service Training Project Councilmember Clevenger commended Staff for their enthusiasm in pursuing the program. PETERSON/CLEVENGER MOVED TO ACCEPT ACTION PLANS FROM CUSTOMER SERVICE TRAINING TASK FORCES ON EMPLOYEE DEVELOPMENT, SERVICE STANDARDS, AND PROCEDURES/RULES/REGULATIONS. Passed 4-0. D. Publicity for Upcoming Hearing - CDBG Hearing PETETSON/CLEVENGER MOVED TO ACCEPT STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON PUBLICITY FOR UPCOMING HEARING - CDBG PROJECTS. Passed 4-0. E. Approval of City-Owned Tree Inventory, Tree Care Guide, and Tree List PETERSON/CLEVENGER MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 2540 ESTABLISI--ILNG A LIST OF APPROVED TREES FOR PLANTING IN THE CITY'S STREET RIGHTS OF WAY. Passed 4-0. 9. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS: A. Agenda Items for Meeting with Heritage Preservation Commission Consensus reached that the Draft List of Discussion Items for Joint Meeting Between Heritage Commission and the City Council be accepted. B. Reports from Individual Councilmembers Councilmember Peterson requested consideration of limiting time of speakers at Council hearings; he agreed to attend the upcoming ICG Afternoon Me~ting in Mayor Anderson's absence. C. Set study session for January 24, 1989, to meet with property owners adjoining Saratoga- Sunnyvale Rd. improvement project, Prospect Avenue to SPRR Crossing Scheduled Study Session date of January 24, 1989, was agreeable to Councilmembers. D. Report from Councilmember Clevenger on West Valley Sanitation District Councilmember Clevenger reviewed the Report Re: Manager/Engineer's Report on District, dated December 27, 1988, and summarized discussions at West Valley Sanitation District Meetings. The Meeting of the City Council was adjourned at 11:40 P.M. Respectfully submitted, C~obstC..~augh~e~L/