Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-15-1989 City Council Minutes MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL DATE: Wednesday, March 15, 1989 - 7:30 P.M. PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting 1. Roll Call: Mayor Anderson, Councilmembers Clevenger, Moyles, Peterson, Stutzman present at 7:35 EM. 2. CEREMONIAL ITEMS: A. Resolutions 2552, 2553 commending Gandrud and Kanemura for Service on Library Commission Mayor Anderson presented the Resolution commending Ms. Kanemura to her. B. Resolution 2554 appointing Mills and Moloney and reappointing Dyer and Newby to Library Commission CLEVENGER/PETERSON MOVED APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 2554 APPOINTING MILLS AND MOLONEY AND REAPPOINTING DYER AND NEWBY TO THE LIBRARY COMMISSION. Passed 5-0. C. Administration of Oath of Office to above Library Commissioners and to Henry Murakami as Finalnee Advisory Committee Member Mayor Anderson administered the Oath of Office to Mr. Mills, Mr. Moloney, Mr. Dyer and Mr. Newby as Library Commissioners and to Mr. Murakami as Finance Advisory Committee Member. D. Proclamation commending Bill Carlson Mayor Anderson read into the record the Proclamation commending Mr. Carlson. 3. ROUTINE MATTERS: A. Approval of Minutes: Meetings of March 1, 1989 and March 7, 1989 Councilmember Clevenger asked that on Page 5, her comment read, "...two adjacent homes.." On Page 7, she asked that her comment be amended to read, "The City had not had applications with minimal access roads for several years." Councilmember Moyles asked that his comment on Page 6 be amended to read, "Summarized his philosophy on land use as perhaps more laissez-faire than others"; secondly, he asked that the final phrase in his comments read, "such was not a controlling factor in the analysis of an issue." CLEVENGER/MOYLES MOVED APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF MARCH 1, 1989, AS AMENDED. Passed 5-0. CLEVENGERglOYLES MOVED APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF MARCH 7, 1989, AS SUlt~'rx.~tL Passed 5-0. B. Approval of Warrant List: PETERSON/MOYLES MOVED ADOPTION OF THE WARRANT LIST. Passed 5-0. C. Report of City Clerk on Posting of Agenda · Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on March 10,1989. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: A. Planning Commission Actions, March 8, 1989 - Noted and filed. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 2 MARCH 15, 1989 CONSENT CAI .F. NDAR Continued B. Heritage Preservation Commission Minutes, February 15, 1989 - Noted and filed. C. Ordinance 71.57 revising Heritage Preservation Ordinance (second reading and adoption) D.Ordinance 71.58 changing minimum site area requirement for MU-PD district and chang- ing requirements for issuance of a PD permit (second reading and adoption) E. Ordinance 71.59 eliminating Light Industry zone district in Saratoga (second reading and adoption) F. Ordinance 7-1.60 establishing limits of authority and procedures for purchase of certain supplies and services (second reading and adoption) G. Award of Contract for Purchase of articulated Fom'-Wheel Drive Loader to Western 'Tra :tion in ~he amount of $58,451 H. Approval of Amended Parcel Map for R. Kemp, Continental Circle, Tr. 6528 I.Authorization to attend State Historic Preservation Conference, April 20-23, Los Angeles, with reasonable and necessary expenses J. Resolution 2555 Accepting Dedication of Easement (Developer, T. Binkley) K. gfo? ?bf2%r.C 8!toParkaeno ,ation co e c :S. on L. Notice of Completion for Concrete Repair for 1987 and 1988 - Hydrotech Pipeline M. FinancLal Reports - January, February N. Investment Report - January, February , O. Treasurer's Report - January, February P. Proclamation commending Dorothy Day The City Manager stated that on Consent Calendar Item K, a bid analysis was presented for con- sideration and recommended the contract be awarded to Collishaw Construction at $69,020.00. Per request of the Council, the City Manager reviewed Consent Calendar Items' M, N., and O., Financial, Investment and Treasurer's Reports for the months of January and February. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR II - CLAIMS: A. ClaimofJohnMerjanian, property owner whose shrubbery allegedly affected visibilitY at intersection where automobile accident took place MOYLES/CLEVENGER MOVED TO DENY THE CLAIM OF MERJANIAN. Passed 5-0. 5. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS AND THE PUBLIC: A. Oral Communications from the Public and Commissions - None. B. Written Communications from the Public 1) Mary E. Drake, 20509 Gordon Court, requesting permission for Memorial Day Ceremony, May 29, 1989 Ms. Drake reviewed the above request and the petition cited in Written Communications 6). CLEVENGER/PETERSON MOVED TO AUTHORIZE A CROSSING GUARD TO ASSIST WITH STREET CROSSING. Passed 5-0. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 3 MARCH 15, 1989 CONSENT CALENDAR Continued 2) Petition regarding incorporation of left turn lanes in traffic median outside Park Saratoga shopping center PETERSON/MOYLES MOVED TO DIRECT STAFF TO REPLY THAT THIS REQUEST WAS. LrNDER STUDY BY A CONSULTANT. Passed 5-0. 3) Senator Alan Robbins, California Legislature, requesting support for SB 103. Consensus reached to adopt Staff Recommendation that no action be taken on this request. 4) Robert Mulford, 12750 Glen Arbor Ct., resigning from Public Safety Commission. Consensus reached to accept resignation and authorize advertising and posting of vacancy notice. 5) Jeffrey Johns, Los-Gatos Saratoga Board of Realtors, 20454 Blauer Dr., concerning difficulty of obtaining records. PETERSON/MOYLES MOVED TO AUTHORIZE SENDING REPLY DRAFTED BY CHIEF BUll .DING INSPECTOR. Passed 5-0. 6) Peggy Corr, Saratoga Area Senior Coordinating Council, requesting use of Council's name in connection with senior seminar. Consensus reached to adopt the Recommended Motion, directing staff to respond that use of the Council's name as cooperating group is acceptable. Mayor Anders6fi proceeded to Public Hearings. 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Adopt regulations on water use to be effective immediately City Manager reviewed the Report Re: Water Conservation Ordinance and City Water Conserva- tion Plan,. dated March 15th; Staff recommended this Item be continued to an Adjourned Meeting on March 28, 1989. Mayor Anderson reviewed discussions held at the Santa Clara Water Commission Meeting. Mr. Jack Sutclifffe, Santa Clara Water District Drought Coordinator, updated the Council on the status of negotiations on obtaining water for the Santa Clara Valley. He confirmed that a 45% reduction in water would be required if current negotiations were not successful; however, if such were successful, a 25% reduction would be in place. Even with a 25% reduction, some replenish- ment of the groundwater would occur. Councilmember Clevenger felt that a 25% cut back in water usage was reasonable. Councilmember Peterson stated that his perception was that the Northern California region should be on a 10-25 % long-term water conservation program; he noted the lack of such information. Mr. Dick Balocco, San Jose Water Company, Manager of Customer Service, agreed that water was a limited resource; he reviewed efforts to obtain water from other districts. These efforts in- cluded water conservation at all levels; one planning effort necessary would be to evaluate land- scaping plans at industrial parks and other similar sites and, secondly, current irrigation programs would have to address the usage and the need for water. In response to a further question, he agreed that the need for long term water conservation was not fully grasped by the public. In response to Mayor Anderson's comments, he noted that misinformation was being put forward; however, at the November hearings on rate increases, not one customer or public agency represen- tatlye came forward to testify. Furthermore, use of water by businesses had to be addressed. Councilmember Moyles asked that the various allocation methods, namely, per person allocation or percentage reduction of prior use, be addressed. Mr. Balocco expanded on his letter of March 8th, providing examples of the allocation methods. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 4 MARCH 15, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mayor Anderson noted that no method of a/location was entirely fair; however, a per gallon house- hold allocation would result in numerous appeals. Allocation by a percentage reduction would not. Councilmember Moyles stated he reserved judgemerit on this issue; however, the ercentage re- duction seemed to be the favored method. If such were adopted in Santa Clara ~unty, would monthly reading of water meters, eliminating alternating estimates of water use, be done.9 Mr. Balocco responded that such was not anticipated at this time; two month allocations werc plan- ned. Information to assist customers on conservation measures and reading of meters was planned. The proposed penalty process for excessive water usage was reviewed. San Jose Water Company anticipated a decision from Yuba County at the Water Commission Meeting of March 23, 1989; there was no projected date for the decision by Southern California. Councilmember Moyles responded that projecting the decision time was important; he did not wish to establish policy in a vacuum. He cautioned that critics of the Water Company and the Water District charged that the entire matter was a way to increase rates. Mr. Balocco noted that the Water District was a regulated public agency; they had nothing to gain by such methods. It was establishe. d that California, especially the Bay area, had a serious water shortage; solutions that were least detrimental to both residentS and the economy were being sought. The Public Hearing was opened at 9:15 EM. Col. E.T. Barco, Camino Barco, commented as follows: Agreed with Mayor Anderson that no system of water conservation, was entirely fair However, the system recommended by the Water District and the Water Company was the most unfair since it rewarded those who wasted water and penalized the conservationlstS Long time residents of the Valley understood the rcoccurring drought cycle and conserved water on an on-goipg basis; examples in his neighborhood were cited East Bay MUD system allocated water on the basis of three people per household which engen- dered numerous requests for ~xemptions; such would not work in his neighborhood either While he had faith in the community, a number of residents were unconcerned about conservation - Proposed that water be allocated on a six months basis without prohibitions on specific uses - Favored residents deciding for themselves on water usage; such encouraged conservation - Presented a list of examples for water conservation to the City for use in educational materials - An ordinance should address education, positive actions and opportunities; penalties deemed necessary should become progressively tougher; he advised against unenforceahle prohibitions - Droughts had been going on for years, yet responsible agencies had not determined an appro- priate average individual usage - Favored action at the Stat~ level, including exploring the option of desalinization, readjustment of low value agricultural use and a slow down of growth until long term solutions were in place Mr. Batty L. Cohn, Representing Green Industry Water Council, presented a statement by ~S~.tt McGil~ay from the Water Council; he noted efforts to meet with officials about the water shortage and reviewed conservation alternatives available without destroying the landscaping industry. Ms. Gladys Armstrong, Good Government Group, stated the Executive Board met recently and had the following comments on the March 3, 1989 Water Issues for Saratoga: 1. Prohibit turf irrigation on school and City o~anized sport playing ar~s.9 The Board questioned the City's jurisdiction over school propert and water usage on these sites; furthermore, they were concerned about allocation of water for ~ity parks and asked that the pro- posed water conservation program he made available for their review. They wished to see the active parks maintained for the ~nefit of the children, especially during the summertime. 2. Prohibit issuanc~ of grading permits? The Board favored this prohibition. 3. Prohibit issuance of pool permits7 The Board favored this prohibition. 4. Prohibit operation of decorative fountains? The Board favored this prohibit/on. 5. Prohibit outdoor watering from December 1, 1989, to March 31, 1990.9 The Board favored this prohibition. 6. Prohibit outdoor watering from dawn to dusk.9 The Board favored this prohibition. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 5 MARCH 15, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Ms. Armstrong, Good Government Group, continued her comments as follows: 7. Prohibit installation of new irrigation systems? The Board questioned the application of such a prohibition. Mayor Anderson responded that the Water Commission also raised questions on 7. and 8. after testimony from those in the landscaping field who stated that such prohibitions were unreasonable. 8. Prohibit installation of new landscape areas? The Board had similar questions on this item. 9. Prohibit the filling or refilling of pools and ponds? Clarification on this item was requested. 10. Prohibit all construction which requires use of water? The Board favored this prohibition. i. Prohibit all construction which requires use of water unless the contractor uses a non- potable supply? The Board favored this prohibition. 2. Do we put all of our capital improvement projects on hold until the drought is over? The Board asked the City to review and prioritize capital improvement projects. 3. What about things like cleaning of sewer lines and flushing of storm drains? The Board suspected that health reasons were involved in this item and wished to see such continued. 4. How about constrUction of new water lines and/or water storage tanks to serve new development, do we allow those to be constructed? The Board favored this prohibition. Mr. Bernie Brawner, California Spa and Pool Industry Energy, Codes and Legislative Council (SPEC), reviewed the information provided by the Council Re: Water Conservation Ordinances; industry representatives would be represented at the upcoming hearings by the City Council. Mr. James Ousley, 20707 Seaton Ave, Saratoga, commented as follows: Asked that rivate citizens not be "micro managed" in efforts to conserve water Asked the ~uncil be very concerned about not curtailing and/or destroying economic activity; efforts must be made to keep affected industries working A ereenta p g~redection system was the most fair due to the diversity of individual households; asked that residents be allowed to decide on the specific use of the water allocated to their home Was not favorable to estimated water usage; he intended to read his own meter very carefully Finally, he asked that any water conservation approach be even-handed The Public Hearing remained open with a Continued Public Hearing to be held March 28, 1989, at the Community Center, 19655 Allendale Ave. Break 10:00 - 10:14 EM. B. Appealofdenial oftentative map approval to create a two-lot subdivision of 1.5 and 1.35 acres of partially developed property at 19330 Saratoga-Los Gatos Rd. in the R-I-40,000 zone. (Applicant/appellant, Maynard) (SD-88-018) ' Staff recommended this Item be Continued to April 5, 1989, per request of the Applicant/appellant. PETERSON/ANDERSON MOVED TO CONTINUE SD-88-018 TO APRIL 5, 1989. Passed 5-0. C. Appeal of Building Site Approval for two parcels measuring 27,704 and 28,837 sq. ft. at addresses to be known as 14891 and 14917 Vine Street in the R-1-20,000 zone district. (The parcel as presently configured, where the applicant's residence is located, is known as 20411 Hill Ave.) (Applicant, Rivoir; appellant, Coats Consulting) (SD-88-013) The City Manager read the Application into the record. Planning Director Eroslie reviewed the Report Re: Appeal of SD-88-013, dated March 15, 1989. The City Attorney stated that the City did not have information whether the Smith garage was legally constructed in the first place; even if such were the case, its location on the right-of-way made the structure non-conforming; non-conforming accessory structures could not be grand- fatbered in. Whatever amortization may have applied to the garage, it had long since expired. The Planning Director presented for consideration an alternative plan showing a divided road off of Hill Ave. The Public Hearing was opened at 10:38 EM. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 6 MARCH 15, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Coats, Representing the Smith family, commented as follows: 'If 94 - o the best of their knowledge, the Smith garage was built in 1 1 with County permits and was thus, a legal, permitted structure insofar as permits had been issued - The history of these properties was well documented and would not be reviewed again - While the road had not been dedicated, an offer was first made to the County and later, to the City; however, he recognized that it was the City's policy not to accept an offer of dedication until improvements had occurred; the road was currently under private ownership - There remained a question whether the Smith garage was an illegal non-conforming or legal non-conforming structure; such could be determined by the various attorneys - Noted the direction provided by the City Council at the September 2, 1987, Meeting, namely: ~ A charge to work with the Applicant (Rivoir) to resolve issues; such had been done despite their inability to achieve a solution ~ Council determined that the hearing was not the appropriate time to take action on the appeal ~ The alternative of making Vine St. a private right-of-way was discussed at that time - Noted for the record that the Appellants did not oppose the development of the two Rivoir sites; the Appeal was based on concerns for Mrs. Smith's safety - Issues considered by the Planning Commission were discussed in the Staff Report; however, it was important to note that in order to create the Rivoir lots, the entire area was used - During negotiations, the Appellants received a list of conditions desired by the Applicant; upon agreement of these conditions, a rendering was prepared by the Applicant's architect, showing a new gated entrance which preserved the Oak tree and provided two separate entrances - Appellants agreed with the proposal and were ready to proceed; however, another diagram was then prepared showing the right-of-way entirely on the Rivoir property - Appellants also accepted this second diagram; however, it was determined by Staff that such was not a valid request and the Applicant was no longer willing to proceed in this manner - The benefits of the Appellant's proposal were reviewed and discussed Councilmember, Moyles commented that he did not recall an occasion where, as a condition of a building site ap~proval, the City upheld a transfer of land between two contiguous property owners. The City Attorney responded that such had not been done; in addition, Mrs. Smith was not the applicant in this case. The problem was that Mr. Rivoir was not deeding anything to Mrs. Smith. The proposed transfer of land was within the 40 ft. right-of-way; the Applicant had a right to use the entire area. Inherent in the Smith's proposal was an abandonment of the dedication by the City; such involved a planning decision that under no circumstances did the City foresee the need for the dedication. He recommended the City obtain a reaffirmation of the dedication on Vine St. until development of the area was complete; the City did not wish to relinquish any options on available rights-of-way. However, if the two parties voluntarily came to an agreement, the City could ratify and incorporate such into the project approval. Mr. Coats confirmed that their concern was Mrs. Smith's safety. Pictures were presented of the area and of Ma's. Smith's garage and driveway; Appellants contended that approximately 25-26 ft. was required for the back out area. Mr. Bill Heiss, Consulting Civil Engineer, Representing the Rivoir family, commented as follows: Presented slides of the Bonnie Brae subdivision and noted the current lot configuration after the reversion to acreage was granted to the Rivoirs Applicant was not required to merge the legal lots of recorch but did so in a spirit of cooperation Vine St. was a dedicated right-of-way and the only means of access to the Rivoir parcel; there were other means of access to the Smith property The Applicant's proposal was felt to be reasonable and fair; shifting the road within the Vine St. right-of-way allowed a full 20 ft. of clearance for the Smiths; this would be a safe situation Typical parking lots had 24 ft.; in this case, a 20 ftZ area, free of traffic was being provided Mrs. Smith would not back into the travel lane until she could see the road was clear; this was not a situation where, immediately upon backing out of the garage, one was in the travel lane In addition, narrowing the road at its entrance, and the required 90 degree turn onto Vine St. would slow traffic down; finally, only two other houses would be serviced by this road Pictures of driveways in the Village were presented; Applicants contended that the area available to the Smith residence was not usual, was comparable to other driveways in the City, and was in fact, a common situation for the average home dweller Applicants felt splitting the road had many drawbacks including the extra paving required, the difficulty of joining with the Rivoir driveway and the necessary grading and retaining walls Felt their proposal was a reasonable compromise and provided a safe solution for the Smiths MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 7 MARCH 15, 1989 PUBLIC HEARII~GS Continued Mr. Norm Matteoni, Attorney for the Applicants, commented as follows: - The Rivoir s'two Iota had a private legal right to the Vine St, right-of-way based on the original subdivision which showed that Vine St. had been offered for dedication as a public street - With the subsequent sale of these Iota based on the subdivision map, under California law, such created a private right-of-way within the offer for a dedicated right-of-way - The Smith garage was considered an illegal non-conforming structure - To accept either the Appellant's or Staffs Alternative was unreasonable because such deprived the Rivoir g two lots of their full legal right of access through the Vine St. right-of-way - Either alternative proposed took something from the Rivoirs to serve an illegal structure; any amortization period for the Smith garage had long since expired - It would be an unreasonable condition to shift the road toward the Rivoir property; in addition, there were engineering considerations which had already been addressed by Mr. Heiss Mr. Hank Hillbush, Landscape designer, stated he became involved with the Rivoir property fif- teen years ago and had since become interested in its historical aspects; according to Mr. Willis Peek, the site was scheduled to be reviewed for possible inclusion in the historical register. A packet of information, including a petition askin that the road be centered on Vine St. to prevent disturbance of the hillside, was presented to the ~a~uncil. The Public Hearing was closed at 11:42 P.M. - Mr. Bartie Coates, City Horticulturist, noted the limited number of middle aged and young Oaks in the Saratoga/Los Gatos area; any solution resulting in the least damage to the several young trees on the property should be the solution used. Mr. Keith Miller, 14900 Vickery Ln., Saratoga, stated his family lived at this address since 1910; he used Vine St. as the access and asked that the area be preserved with as little impact as possible. Mr. S. Smith, Son of the Appellant, reviewed the history of the Smith property and reiterated his concerns for his motber's safet~ she had a car that was 20 ft. in length and there was a blind corner at Vine St.; he realized the City did not wish a traffic hazard at this location and felt that the solutions already proposed were not the best possible ones. The Public Hearing was closed at 11:42 EM. The City Manager addressed the Council on the issue, stating that his concern was whether a mini- mum access road at this location was legal; there were more than four lots being served by Vine St. Although there was no development on some of the lots at this time, the lots existed and could be developed in the future. A recent application on Horseshoe Ct, where the minimum access road became the primary issue was cited. He felt a 26 ft. road width would have to be required by the City and installed within the 40 ft. right-of-way; this was the issue to be addressed by the Council. Mr. Coats stated that Mrs. Smith would agree to a reversion of acreage for her five lots, creating one large parcel which included her home; any future access would be taken from Montalvo Rd. While her home would continue to take access from Vine St., this action would eliminate the need for a 26 ft. road width. Any necessary papers could be signed the following day. In response to questions of the Council, Mr. Coats stated that if the garage were required to be relocate, d, it would be serviced off Hill Ave. or Montalvo Rd. Councilmember Clevenger felt Mrs. Smith's offer would be an advantage; she was reluctant to see a 26 ft. road width on Vine St. and did not feel that such was appropriate for the area. Councilmember Moyles noted that even if a reversion of acreage occurred on the Smith parcel, what would prevent a future owner from applying for a subdivision which accessed on Vine St? While this was an intriguing offer, it was not before the Council at this time. Mayor Anderson concurred with Councilmember Clevenger's reluctance to see a 26 ft. road width on Vine St; if the adjacent property owners could work out a private agreement, the Council could remove itself from negotiations between the individual parties. Mr. Matteoni commented that if the Council were to take action, he assumed Staff would be di- rected to prepare a resolution, containing a formal reversion to acreage agreement on the pan of Mrs. Smith; .in two weeks time, the resolution could be adopted. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 8 MARCH 15, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Councilmember Petenon noted that the key issue appeared to be one of safety; he could not make a finding that there was a significant safety hazard involved. This was a request for a two-lot sub- division and he was unwilling to split the road and/or remove Oak trees for such a request. He was favorable to the Applicant's proposal, with an 18 ft. minimum road width for Vine St; in addition, he had reservations whether any future subdivided lots from the Smith parcel, could access Vine St., due to the topography of the site. He agreed the road could be curved away from Mrs. Smith's driveway after passing the Oak tree. The City Attorney advised that a Condition could be imposed requiring a 26 ft. road width be constructed; however, if prior to Final Map approval there was a reversion to acreage on the Smith property, the width could be reduced to 18 ft. in a configuration determined by the Council. He agreed with the City Manager that a 26 ft. width should be required at this time in the absence of an application for a reversion to acreage and the potential for seven lots to be serviced off of Vine St. Councilmember Clevenger reiterated that she wanted to maintain the character of the area and did not wish a 26 ft. street width since such would probably not be necessary; however, she noted that in the Rivoir s' application to develop their property, Mrs. Smith was making all the concessions. She wished to see greater equity involved, namely that the Applicant be allowed to develop his property without installation of a 26 ft. width street and Mrs. Smith be able to use her garage with- outundue concern for her own safety. She favored the StaffA/ternative of splitting the road with a provision that if the Smith lots were developed, they not take access from Vine St; such would be a good compromise. She wished to retain the stone entry way to Vine St. which was very attractive. In response to Mayor Anderson's inquiry why Mrs. Smith did not accept Mr. Rivoir's offer to rebuild the garage, Mr. Coats responded that there was not another location immediately adjacent to the house or one which had a similar ease of access. Councilmember Peterson noted that there was an existing 40 ft. right-of-way; he questioned what Mr. Rivoir wa~aking away from Mrs. Smith since the Applicant had a right to use such, Councilmember Moyles questitChed his former position on this issue; the solution previously advocated could do more harm than good. Constructing a high/'oad on the Rivoir property seemed more intrusive to the Oak trees, more visible and would require retaining walls; letters from the neighbors clearly outlined these impacts. The Staff Alternative of a split road did not eliminate the critical traffic movement, namely, the blind turn; while a split road would reduce traffic by half and segregate it, the traffic removed was not that which caused a hazard to Mrs. Smith. The Applicant's proposal had simplicity on its side--this was the dedicated right-of-way which was originally planned and was currently being used as envisioned. With respect to the Appellant's offer to apply for a reversion to acreage, such was an intriguing and generous offer, but was not before the Council at this time. He supported the Planning Commission's decision; if additional lots were to take access on Vine St., the road could be brought up to the full 26 ft. width. In the meantime, the minimum width road would provide Mrs. Smith some measure of safety; with a reversion to acreage, the road could remain as it presently existed. Councilmember Stutzman noted that no matter how the Council decided the issue, the parties involved would feel something was lost; he was adverse to a split road which would cut into the bank, require the installation of retaining walls and result in the loss of trees. While the Planning Commiasion's decision would require some sacrifice on the part of Mrs. Smith, there would be comparative safety provided, especially if the portion of paving between her driveway and Vine St. were removed to prevent traffic from straying off the road. Furthermore, the road could be curved away from her driveway to provide some additional turning room and consideration given to the installation of barricades or speed bum s to prevent speeding. Cars from the opposing direction had sufficient visibility to provide Mrs. ~mith the maximum safety. This alternative would provide the least disruption to the environment and provide the full road width if needed in the future. He would accept the recommendation of the Planning Commission. Mayor Anderson wished to see the road fully widened with consideration of relocating the Oak tree; other Councilmembers were not amenable to this suggestion. The Mayor responded that her concern was to maintain the public safety. CLEVENGER MOVED THAT VINE ST. BE 18 FT.. WIDE TO HILL AVE. AND THAT THE OAK TREE AT THE INTERSECTION OF HILL AVE. AND VINE ST. BE REPLACED BY TWO FIFTEEN (15) GALLON SPECIMEN OAK TREES. There was no second to this Motion. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 9 MARCH 15, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued ANDERSON/CLEVENGER MOVED TO ACCEPT THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, WITH THE MODIFICATION THAT VINE ST. BE 18 FT.. WIDE AT ITS INTERSECTION WITH HILL ST. AND THAT THE OAK TREE AT THE INTER- SECTION BE RELOCATED AT THE APPLICANT'S EXPENSE; l~ THE OAK TREE DIED, TWO REPLACEMENT SPECIMEN TREES WERE TO BE INSTALLED. Failed 2-2-1, Councilmembers Moyles and Peterson dissenting, Councilmember Stutzman abstaining. MOYLES/PETERSON MOVED TO UPHOLD THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COM- MISSION AND DENY THE APPEAL, ADDING A CONDITION THAT IF ANY ADDITIONAL LOTS TAKE ACCESS OFF OF VINE ST., THERE BE A MECHANISM IN PLACE TO BRING THE ROAD LIP TO THE STANDARD 26 F'E WIDTH. Mrs. Smith, Appellant, interjected that while everyone wished to reach a fair decision, the discus- sion on her garage was treated rather li htly in comparison to the discussion on the possible re- location of the Oak. She felt that if Mr. ~ivoir had to locate part of the road on his property and the Oak tree had to be removed, such was just pan of the deal Vine St. was intended to be used by the Rivoir and Smith properties; others accessing Vine St. had no right to do so. If Mr. Rivoir installed a road on his lower driveway, he would find that it would be better for him, a more attractive access for the future home owners and provide her with the turn-around room she needed. She confirmed that any subdivision occurring on her property, would take access off of Montalvo Rd. Mayor Anderson called for a vote on the Motion, Failed 2-3, Mayor Anderson, Councilmembers CleVenger and Stutzman dissenting. Councilmember Stutzman offered a modification of the MOtion as follows: "THAT THE PLANI~I~IG CCI~IISSIGN DECIS2I(BN' BE AFFIRMED AS ST/It'.ell) ABOVE BElT THE, ROAD- ;a3.y BE NO LESS THAN EIGk. t't:/~I ~ AND CURVtiD AIrwAY FRCM THE SMITH PROPERTY TO PROVIDE ADDED; B/x/?.KING ROOM." The City Manager stated that th~ Motion on the floor clearly indicated that both of the lots of the Rivoir subdivision would be conditioned to agree to participate in an assessment district to widen Vine St. to the full 26 ft. standard width should such be necessary in the future. He advised that the A plicant's Civil Engineer be directed to prepare a drawing showing the reconfiguration of Vine ~t. (curving away from Mrs. Smith's driveway); map to be incorporated in the Resolution. The City' Attorney asked that the entire right-of-way be rededicated including the area where the road would be curved; adding a further Condition that there be a rededication of the right-of-way. Councilmember Clevenger stated she would not approve the Motion under consideration; the question before the Council was more than a land use ,sue. Staff understood the complexities of this situation, namely, the two property owners had not been able to resolve this issue; to ask for cooperation on this road would not solve the problem' rather the problem would be perpetuated. The Council should have taken such into consideratinn'~hen determining the solution. STUTZMAN/PETERSON MOVED TO AMEND THE ABOVE MOTION TO REQUIRE THAT THE ROAD BE CONSTRUCTED IN THE LOCATION SHOWN IN THE DRAWING ATTACHED AS AN EXHIBIT AND THAT THERE BE A REDEDICATION OF THE RIGHT- OF-WAY. Passed 3-2, Mayor Anderson, Councilmember Clevenger dissenting. Mayor Anderson returned to Old Business. 6. OLD BUSINESS: A. Approval of Policy Development Conference Proceedings Report Mayor Anderson cited the Conference Notes 15, .~LTI~.~L~h~ and commented that it was not her understanding that sole reliance would be on T2000 process; rather, the Transportation Commission would also be used as a resource. She asked that this item be amended. Councilmember Moyles questioned 10. Hakone Gardens. funding allotment; he requested clarifi- cation for his report to Hakone Gardens Board of Directors. MOYLES/ANDERSON MOVED TO CONFIRM THE POLICY DEVELOPMENT CONFER- ENCE NOTES AS AMENDED. Passed 5-0. B. Ordinance Rezonihg 14 100 sq. ft. of developed property at 12764 Saratoga Ave. from R- 1-10,000 to RM-3,000,'Generai Plan PDR (Planned Development Residential). (ZC-88- 002) (Applicant, J. Lohr) (second reading and adoption) MEETING OFTHE CITY COUNCIL Page 10 MARCH 15, 1989 OLD BUSINESS Continued MOYLES/ANDERSON TO READ THE ORDINANCE BY TITLE ONLY, WAIVING FUR- THER READING. Passed5-0. MOYLES/ANDERSON MOVED ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE REZONING CERTAIN TERRITORY WITHIN THE CITY IDENTIFIED AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 386- 59-30 FROM R-l-10,000 TO RM-3,000. Passed 4-1, Councilmember Peterson dissenting. C. Approval of Professional Services Agreement for Appraisal Work on Quito Road Bridge replacement Project - Lefmann, Martin & Assoc. PETERSON/MOYLES MOVED TO APPROVE THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREE- MENT FOR APPRAISAL WORK ON THE QUITE ROAD BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT. Passed 5-0. D. Modification of Contract With Wilsey and Hamm for Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road Median Design PETERSON/MOYLES MOVED TO APPROVE 'MODIFICATION OF CONSULTANT CON- TRACT TO PROVIDE A LUMP SUM CONTRACT OF $105,400 RATHER THAN PARTIAL LUMP SUM. Passed 5-0. E. Resolution 2556 confirming Planning Commission approval of Prolo project approval heard March 1, 1989 MOYLES/ANDERSON MOVED APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 2556 UPHOLDING A DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. Passed 5-0. F. Resolution 2557 reversing Planning Commission approval of Pierce project, heard March 1, 1989 MOYLES/PETERSON MOVED APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 2557 REVERSING A DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. Passed 5-0. 7. NEW BUSINESS: A. Authorization for Publicity for Upcoming Hearings - Heritage Resource Designation Ordinance (HP-16) Consensus reached to accept Staff Recommendation on Publicity for Upcoming Hearings. B. Consideration of Draft Request for Proposals for Operator of Curbside Recycling Service in Saratoga, Monte Sereno, Campbell, and Los Gatos Mr. Dennis Varni,' Green Valley Disposal Co., reviewed the Curbside Recycling Program. PETERSON/CLEVENGER MOVED TO AUTHORIZE THE RELEASE OF THE RFP ON APRIL 3, 1989. Passed 5-0. C. Rehabilitation of Brookglen Park CLEVENGER/STUTZMAN MOVED TO AUTHORIZE APPROPRIATION OF $25,000 FROM PARK DEVELOPMENT FUND TO CURRENT YEAR; AUTHORIZE STAFF TO PURCHASE CLIMBING STRUCTLFRE FROM ROSS RECREATION EQUIPMENT; APPROVE BUDGET - AMENDMENT RESOLUTION ADDING BROOKGLEN PARK RENOVATION TO THE CAPITAL PROJECTS BUDGET, DIRECTING STAFF TO PREPARE A BUDGET ADJUST- MENT RESOLUTION TO BE PRESENTED AT THE APRIL 5, 1989, MEETING. Passed 5-0. 9. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS: A. Reports from Individual Council Members · Mayor Anderson asked for information on the issue of open burning; item to be agendized. The Ci!y Attorney provided .the update requested. The City Manager reported on a recent lawsuit filed by five Southern California ci~:j.es j.n S~.a~e Supreme Court on the distribution of property tax monies among cities in the state. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 11 MARCH 15, 1989 ADJOURNMENT: The Meeting of the City Council was adjourned at 1:10 A.M. to 7:30 p.m., l~l~arch 28, 2_989. Res tfully sub ' , ,, /