HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-02-1989 City Council Minutes MINUTES
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
DATE: Wednesday, August 2, 1989 - 7:30 P.M.
PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA
TYPE: Regular Meeting
1. Roll Call: Mayor Clevenger, Councilmembers Moyles, Anderson, Stutzman present at
7:34 P.M.; Councilmember Peterson present at 8:23 P.M.
2. CEREMONIAL ITEMS: None.
3. ROUTINE MATTERS:
A. Approval of Minutes: Meeting of July 5, 1989
ANDERSON/MOYLES MOVEDAPPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF JULY 5, 1989, AS PRE-
SENTED. Passed 4-0-1, Councilmember Peterson absent.
B. ApprovalofWarrantList:
MOYLES/ANDERSON MOVED APPROVAL OF THE WARRANT LIST. Passed 4-0-1,
Councilmember Peterson absent.
C. Report of City Clerk on Posting of Agenda
Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on July
28, 1989.
4. CONSENT CALENDAR:
A. Planning Commission Actions, July 12, 1989, and July 26, 1989, - Noted and filed.
B. Heritage Preservation Commission Minutes, June 7, 1989, - Noted and filed.
C. Saratoga Community Access CATV Foundation Board of Directors Minutes, June 20,
1989, - Noted and filed.
D. Public Safety Commission Minutes, July 10, 1989, - Noted and filed.
E. Parks and Recreation Commission Minutes, July 10, 1989, - Noted and filed.
F. Construction Acceptance, SDR 88-004, 14840 Sobey Rd. (Developer, R. Jones)
G. Final Acceptance of SDR 1616, Cox Avenue (Developer,
Prince of Peace Lutheran Church)
H. Final Acceptance of Tract 7763, Prospect Rd. at Stelling, with Resolution 36-B-237
Release of Bonds (Developer, Dividend Development)
I. Final Building Site Approval, SD 88-011, Saratoga Ave. (2 lots) (Developer, Ainsley
Development, Inc.)
J. Final Building Site Approval, SD 89-002, Encina Ct. (1 lot) (Developer, McMullin
Developmeno
K. Final Map Approval, SD 88-016, Prospect Rd. (7 lots) (Developer, P. Tai)
L. Final Building Site Approval and Reimbursement Agreement, SD 88-006, Pierce Rd., (3
lots) (Developer, R. Saviano)
M. Resolution 2587 Appointing Members of Hakone Foundation Board
MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 2
AUGUST 2, 1989
CONSENT CALENDAR Continued
N. Authorization for Attendance at League of Califomia Cities Conference, October 22-25, in
San Francisco for Councilmembers, City Manager, City Attorney and Community
Services Director, with reasonable and necessary expenses
O.Authorization for Attendance at I.C.B.O. Annual Business Meeting, September 10-14, in
Palm Desert, for Chief Building Inspector, with reasonable and necessary expenses
P. Resolution 2588 approving Santa Clara County Hazardous Waste Management Plan and
certifying the Environmental Impact Report
Q.Change in allocations for 1989-90 HCDA Funds to Reprogram $10,450 to Saratoga Area
Senior Coordinating Council Operating Support
R. Award of Contract for Reconstruction and Overlay of Various City Streets to Grade-Way
Construction in the amount of $434,402.95
T. Award of Contract for Bohlman Road Landslide Repair to Granite Construction Company
in the amount of $34,200.00
U. Final Acceptance and Notice of Completion for Handicap Picnic Area in Quito Park -
Collishaw Construction, Inc.
V. Final Acce lance, Notice of Completion and Appropriation Resolution 2575.1 in the
amount of ~1,843.00 for Quito Park Renovation - Collishaw Construction, Inc.
Councilmember Anderson requested removal of Consent Calendar Items D. and R.
MOYLES/ANDERSON MOVED APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT CALENDAR WITH RE-
MOVAL OF ITEMS D AND R. Passed 4-0-1, Councilmember Peterson absent.
Councilmember Anderson cited the Public Safety Commission Minutes of July 10, 1989, and
commented that it did not appear the Public Safety Commission had addressed the Council's direc-
tive to consider and recommend action dealing with problems associated with disruptive parties.
Community Services Director Argow responded that under Cost Recovery_ Feasibility Study the
topic was discussed; he confirmed the Commission understood the Council's interest in this matter.
Councilmember Anderson called attention to Fire Services Report (Saratoga Fire District~ and noted
the severity of a recent fire in Parker Ranch area; she asked if "draft stops" would be reintroduced.
Community Services Director Argow responded that there was extensive discussion on this item.
Chief Building Inspector Oncay provided a report on modification of the current requirements.
Councilmember Anderson cited R., Award of Contract for Reconstruction and Overlay of Various
City Streets to Grade-Way Construction in the amount of $434,402.95 and requested information;
The City Manager responded that Item S., Award of Contract for Slurry Seal II and Cape Seal on
Various City Streets to Graham Contractor in the amount of $247,343.14, was the correct item in
ANDERSON/MOYLES MOVED TO APPROVE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS D. AND R.
Passed 4-0-1, Councilmember Peterson absent.
5- COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS AND TItE PUBLIC:
A. Oral Communications from the Public and Commissions - None.
B. Written Communications from the Public
1) Clarence Neale, 14165 South Highway 85, requesting fee waiver
MOYLES/STUTZMAN MOVED TO WAIVE PARK AND RECREATION FEES PER STAFF
RECOMMENDATION. Passed 4-0-1, Councilmember Peterson absent.
MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 3
AUGUST 2, 1989
COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS AND THE PUBLIC Continued
2) H.A. Beaudoin, EO. Box 55, Saratoga 95071, concerning area near intersection of
Pierce Road and Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd.
/Mr. Marc Kocir, 12795 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd., Saratoga requested information on the intersec-
tion and cited concerns regarding safety at this location. Mayor Clevenger invited the speaker to
submit suggestions in writing, which would then be incorporated in the upcoming Staff Report.
The City Manager noted that Mr. Beaudoin's request was to landscape a triangular area on Pierce
Rd., and had nothing to do with alignment of the road and/or street improvements.
Mr. Jerry Kocir, 12855 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd., Saratoga, reviewed the history of a lack of main-
tenance of this triangular area; he contended that the area never had been maintained properly and
asked that residents be asked to discuss this situation and work out a solution.
Councilmember Moyles stated he was reluctant to become involved in this situation; in the past, the
Council acted in response to area petitions which indicated a hig.h level of consensus among resi-
dents wishing to be relieved of this responsibility. Intervening ~n a situation where only one or
two property owners were petitioning may cause the Council to be perceived as proactive and pos-
sibly, forcing additional tax burden on citizens. If the speakers presented a petition from area resi-
dents, the Council could consider the request. Councilmember Anderson agreed.
Consensus reached by the City Council not to investigate an inclusion in landscaping and lighting
assessment district to cover cost of capital improvements and ongoing maintenance; letter to Mr.
Beaudoin to incorporate the Council's discussion.
6. OLD BUSINESS:
A. Skateboard Report from Parks and Recrcation Commission
The City Manager presented the Report to the Mayor and City Council dated July 31, 1989.
Councilmember Moyles stated he favored Staff Recommendation with the understanding that this
project would not take precedence over other projects already scheduled for completion,
MOYLES/ANDERSON MOVED THAT A $4,000.00 APPROPRIATION BE SET ASIDE FOR A
WOODEN SKATEBOARD RAMP AT THE REAR OF CONGRESS SPRINGS PARK TO BE
CONSTRUCTED BY VOLUNTEERS UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF CITY STAFF. Passed
4-0-1, Councilmember Peterson absent.
B. Pre-Sale and Change of Use Occupancy Inspection
The City Manager presented the Report Re: Pro-Sale and Change of Use Occupancy Inspection. In
response to Mayor Clevenger's question, he stated that information had been sent to the Board of
Realtors for comment; however, thj. s laeest re~x~rt had not be~n s~m~:.
Chief Building Inspector Oncay confirmed that meetings with the Board of Realtors had taken place;
they were enthusiastic about the Use Occupancy Inspection from the standpoint that AB 986
required disclosure of Permits issued.
Councilmember Moyles stated he had misgivings about the proposed action; his only remaining
interest in this issue was having the commercial properties listed on an inventory. However,
voluntary programs for residential sales would entail a tremendous amount of paper work and he
was skeptical whether Staffcould accommodate such, given their current work load. Finally, the
City may become in some manner, guarantors and be involved in potential legal action; he saw no
compelling reason in favor of the proposal which would override the concerns expressed.
Councilmember Anderson commented that it was her understanding the City wished to have the
permit verification done; the building inspections could be handled by an independent party.
Councilmember Stutzman questioned the burden this requirement would place on Staff time; the
City Manager cited Staff Report, Fiscal Impacts and confirmed that full cost recovery would occur.
Councilmember Anderson favored the voluntary program; in addition, she suggested a disclosure
clause be added to the draft Ordinance to inform the public of this requirement.
MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 4
AUGUST 2, 1989
OLD BUSINESS Continued
Chief Building Inspector Oncay stated that the Building Department received requests to verify
whether structures were up to Code and if permits had been issued. Presently, there was no avenue
to make the necessary site visit; the Use Occupancy Inspection would provide the vehicle.
Chief Building Inspector Oncay added that he understood the concerns raised by Councilmember
Moyles; the program would be designed in such a fashion that legal concerns would be limited.
Mayor Clevenger, Councilmembers Stutzman and Anderson favored Staff Recommendation;
Councilmember Peterson was absent. Consensus reached to direct the City Attorney to prepare an
ordinance to amend the Building Code and direct the City Clerk to advertise the Ordinance for
hearing on September 6 1989. St.B.,ff was dj,.rect~cl tD forda,rd its repoFl: c~ this it,,~a
to the Rea/e,] ~ for its information.
The Council then proceeded to Public Hearings.
Councilmember Peterson present at 8:23 P.M.
8. PUBLIC BEARINGS:
A. Amendment to Zoning Ordinance Article 15-19 and other related City Code sections to
implement the Saratoga Village Plan and to revise certain regulations pertaining to the
commercial zoning districts; the a plication also involves the rezoning of certain Village
properties in accordance with the ~illage Plan as shown on the map on file in the Planning
Department. A Negative Declaration has been prepared for this application. This
application was reviewed and recommended for approval by the Planning Commission at
its June 14, 1989, meeting.
The City Attorney presented the Report Re: AZO-89-002, ZC-89-001 dated August 2, 1989.
Planner Young provided additional information per request of the Council.
The Public Hearing was opened at 8:31 P.M. There were no speakers.
The Public Hearing was then closed at 8:31 P.M.
ANDERSON/STUTZMAN MOVED TO INTRODUCE AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ARTI-
CLE 15-19 AND OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE CITY CODE TO IMPLEMENT THE
SARATOGA VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN AND TO REVISE CERTAIN REGULATIONS
PERTAINING TO THE COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICTS. Passed 5-0.
B. Appeal ofbuilding site and lot line adjustment approval on parcels at 20271 Merrick Dr,,
in the R-l-10,000 zone district. The lot line adjustment involves the transfer of approxi-
mately 16,081 sq. ft. from Parcel A to Parcel B; building site approval is requested for
Parcel A. (SD-89-005; LL-89-003) (Applicant, Espeseth; appellant, Seacrist et al.)
The City Manager read the Application into the record and reviewed the Repor~ dated August 2nd.
Planning Director Emslie reviewed the history of the Item and discussed Staff Report Issues and
Lot Line Ad_iustment Findings.
In response to Councilmember Anderson's question, the Planning Director stated that the addition
to the home which extended over the property line was constructed in 1964 and was built with
permits; records did not indicate any requirement to merge the lots.
Councilmember Peterson noted that insofar as he could recollect, this was the first time the General
Plan Open Space Element had been raised as an issue in an application for a lot line adjustment.
Planning Director Eroslie responded that concern centered around the fact that there were a number
of subdivisions created around a larger lot' this configuration was a common element in the City,
not an isolated example. He conceded the bpen Space Element was not very clear and was prone
to discussion; the policy relied heavily upon a similai .,'ca configuration; it was not clear whether
such areas were to be preserved and/or addressed with special care.
Councilmember Peterson stated that if he followed such logic, would he not conclude that because
of the Open Space Element, any similarly configured area was precluded from subdividing or a lot
line adjustment? The Planning Director responded that no; he would not take it to that degree; the
~oroperty could be developed in a manner that the impacts were not so significant. The Planning
remission recognized these impacts and found it difficult to reach its conclusion.
Councilmember Moyles commented that it was the first time he had seen the Open Space Element
relied upon in this manner and questioned how such might be applied in the future.
MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 5
AUGUST 2, 1989
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued
Councilmember Moyles observed that he could not think of a home which would pass the test out-
lined in the Staff Report; however, discussion indicated there would be qualifying circumstances.
Councilmember Anderson cited the comment in the letter of the Applicant's Attorney, which stated,
"The Saratoga General Plan (p. 3-28) states that 'Private residential open space includes all the
building sites which are one acre or larger' (emphasis added)" While the property in question was
two legal lots of record, could the subject property be considered one building site since the exist-
ing home extended over the property line? The Planning Director responded that there was one
building site until the City granted approval for another.
The City Attorney added that the quote c/ted above was one interpretation; however, there were
two legal lots of record. The Applicant had the option of demolishing the existing structure and
building two new homes, in which case, the single building site would change and separate build-
ing sites would exist on each lot. Since the p~rcel had been developed with an apparent disregard
for the existing lot line, he thought the Council could cite this physical circumstance and treat the
lot as a single building site because the property owner had treated the site in like manner. He
· confirmed that the owner could dispel the notion of the single building site by demolishing the
existing home; he added that a small remnant parcel being merged was not in question.
The Public Hearing was opened at 8:50 P.M.
Mr. Tore B. Dahlin, Attorney for the Appellant, commented as follows:
Stated his comments were a supplement to comments made at the Planning Commission hear-
ings and added he was very surprised at the reversal of the Commission's position on this issue
When the Application was approved, Planning Commissioners stressed that they had no choice
but to grant the request; the Memorandum of August 2, 1989, Conclusions was cited
- Contended the Commission abandoned its discretionary power and yielded to legal opinion; be
added that he thought members of the community wished to see the Commission exercise its
discretion and instruct the City Attorney to back up their decisions
- Noted that therexa~:'ealways two legal arguments on an issue; his argument was as follows
- Planning Commission's ability to make a decision on this Application was rooted in the Zoning
Ordinances, the California Government Code and court case law
- App~icantc~ntendedthatsincehe~wnedtw~IegaII~ts~frec~rdhewasentit~edt~bui~dan~ther
house; there was no absolute right to develop property and thus cities had zoning laws
- Cited decisions of the California Courts and called attention to the California Government Code,
Section 65-851, and conceded that general welfare referenced in this section was a broad term
- Sta~Rep~rtC~nc~usi~nsstatedthat"Thedeve~~pment~fanadditi~na~h~mewiI~haveaseri~us
impact on the surrounding area..."; this spoke to the general welfare and indicated the City's
hands were not tied in this matter
- A land use decision, denying the construction Of a second house, could be made
- Cited California Government Code Section 66.412 which dealt with the ability of local agencies
to approve lot line adjustments; such was not just a ministerial act,but rather a discretionary act
- Cited the local Zoning Ordinances, Purpose, and contended that while technical compliance was
achieved in this Application, the Ordinance intent had not been met
- The Merrick Estate was a fully developed, oddly shaped residential property; a strictly technical
approach cannot and need not be taken
- Suggested the City had lost sight of the Zoning Ordinance Purpose in a maze of technicalities
and the threat of a lawsuit against the City; the courts would uphold a good faith decision
Councilmember Anderson asked whether Mr. Dahlin agreed that if the Application were denied,
Mr. Espeseth had a right to tear down the home's addition which extended over the property line
(family room and garage) and construct new houses on the existing and the legal, second parcel.
Mr, Dahlin responded that it was his Understanding the Applicant would have to make application
to the Planning Commission to do so; the Commission would still have discretionary power.
Councilmember Peterson noted that every applicant had to submit to Design Review; the above
response was not an answer to the question asked by Councilmember Anderson. The Applicant
had two legal lots of record; if Design Review Approval was given, could a second house be built?
Mr. Dahlin responded that a house could be built if it were approved by the Commission; he
reiterated that the Applicant would have to go through the Design Review process.
Councilmember Anderson noted that if the family room/garage were demolished, the garage could
be rebuilt on Merrick Drive; would area residents prefer viewing a garage over a second house?
MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 6
AUGUST 2, 1989
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued
Mr, Dahlin questioned why the Appellants were being forced to make such a decision
review process in place; he agreed the Applicant had some options regarding home improvements.
Whether the Applicant had an absolute right to make the drastic changes suggested was up to the
Planning Commission; the Commission could deny such radical requests.
Councilmember Moyles commented that when he and Mr. Dahlin had spoken earlier, the latter
indicated that if the lot line adjustment were denied, all development on-site would be thwarted; he
questioned by what authority the City Council might pursue that objective? Now the suggestion
was made that the Design Review process, which the Applicant would be subject to, might be used
to stop a proposal to construct a second house on-site. He asked that Mr. Dahlin address the issue.
Mr. Dahlin responded that the Planning Commission could decide whether an application would
adversely impact an area or not.
Councilmember Moyles noted that the Commission could decide the relocation of a garage; he
asked whether in Mr. Dahlin's judgemerit, Design Review could be used to prohibit the construc-
tion of a garage? Mr. Dahlin responded that a garage was a much different thing that a 3,000 sq.
ft. house; in his opinion, yes, Design Review could be used to deny approval for a house.
Mr. Sam Espeseth, Applicant, reviewed the Planning Commission bearings; the current proposal
eliminated the need to alter the farmhouse which could be restored in its present configuration. A
new house built on the existing second parcel would have reater impacts on the adjacent residents
than the proposal to place the new house on Merrick Dr. Tgt~e application was reviewed; he felt the
current proposal would be compatible with the neighborhood and an asset to the community.
Mr. Lawrence Klose, Applicanfs Attorney, cited his letter of August 1, 1989, Re: SD-89-005,
LL-89-003. Espeseth. Anneal of Seacrist et al, Our File: 05054-001.and added that his client was
entitled to the lot line adjh~tment requested.
Mr. Fred Wise, Bohlman Rd., Saratoga, pleaded with the Council not to approve this Application;
if such were approved, he would make application to build a second house on his half acre lot. He
also spoke on behalf of Ms. McFarland and presented a petition opposing this request.
Mr. Curtis Wilson, 2251 Merrick Dr., Saratoga, would not object to the construction of a second
house on the subject site, if it were not for the driveway to the rear of his property; the driveway/
parking area would be elevated and, without a buffer, would severely impact his home. He asked
that landscape screening required by the Planning Commission, not be deciduous trees and plants.
Ms. Lea Wilson, Appellant, asked that this lot be considered one building site; she objected to the
visual and noise impacts from cars on the driveway and individuals in the parking and garage area.
Councilmember Anderson suggested the driveway be some material other than gravel.
A resident on Blauer Dr., Saratoga, was dismayed at the rudeness the Espeseth s were subject to at
previous hearings; he contended that one additional house on Merrick Dr. would not have an
impact. He noted the efforts of the Applicants to accommodate their neighbors.
Ms. Patricia Kahn, 13710 Calle Tacuba, Saratoga, felt she would lose her privacy due to the
elevation of the second parcel on the Applicant's site; in addition, there would be noise problems.
Mr. Bill Hitchpath cited a similar situation that had occurred in his neighborhood, wherein the
same objections were raised; however, the Planning Commission allowed the home and there had
been very little impact that had resulted. He noted the quality of the homes constructed by Mr.
Espeseth and asked that this Application be approved.
Mr. Tom Wyatt, 13682 Saratoga Vista Ave., Saratoga, supported the Application and agreed the
Espeseth s had a legal right to build a second structure; he contended that those opposing the Item
did not wish to see an additional home and were unfavorable to any change on the subject site;
perhaps they thought the Applicant would not consider removing that portion of the existing house
which extended over the property line or demolish the entire structure and build two new homes.
Building a house on the second parcel would be an unsatisfactory solution for everyone involved.
The fact that the Planning Commission now supported this Application was an indication that the
Applicant had gone to great lengths to lessen the impacts and address the neighborhood concerns.
MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 7
AUGUST 2, 1989
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued
Mr. Don Murphy, Appellant, noted resident s' interest in that part of the petition which stated that
approval of the Application represented a trend toward subdividing the large estates located in older
residential neighborhoods; large homes on small lots were out of character with the existing homes
and destroyed the little open space left. He objected to the density resulting from some proposals;
the City would have to decide not to allow four houses per acre throughout the entire City.
Mr. Bill Seals, Saratoga, felt that if he did not like Route 85 which would be built near his home,
his option was to move; he did not expect someone else to solve his problem. This was a situation
wherein a neighborhood had organized to oppose an Application; he felt the Applicant was dealing
with a situation acquired when he purchased the property.
Mr. John Campbell, Saratoga Vista Ave., Saratoga, noted the great efforts of the Applicant to
address the neighbors' concerns. He cited examples on Oak Place, Park Place and Saratoga Vista
Ave. where lot line adjustments were approved and houses built on very small lots. This was not
the case here; these were considerably larger lots. He contended that misinformation was given to
signers of the petition, specifically, that a two-story house would be built on-site.
Mr. William McMillan, 13748 Saratoga Vista Ave., Saratoga, encouraged the Council to approve
the Application; neighbors had an opportunity to purchase the subject site if they so wished.
Ms, Barbara Seacrist, Appellant, felt there was only one building site on the property; the neigh-
borhood considered this to be the case. Saratoga needed to consider what was happening in the
City. As a Realtor, she was not opposed to development per se, but property values would not be
increased by squeezing homes in where ever possible. No one could argue that an additional
house on this site would enhance the neighborhood; open space would be reduced and the beauty
and natural environment destroyed. The Applicant was not a long time resident of the property;
she contended he was a builder who moved into the neighborhood with the sole intention of mak-
ing money; she did not understand why the neighborhood should see their quality of life dimin-
ished for the purpose of one person's financial gain.
A resident of 20239 Metrick Dr., Saratoga, felt this proposal would impact privacy and hurt her
parents' property values; she favored placing the new house on the opposite side of the site from
her parent's home. She was concerned that approval of this Item would encourage the Applicant to
subdivide the property again.
Mr. Warren Held, Project Architect, felt that the early development policy for Saratoga was logical
· and had been carried out as intended. Placing the new house on Parcel B would affect more indi-
viduals than locating a structure on Metrick Dr., as approved by the Planning Commission~ the
former would be a long narrow home, less attractive architecturally and would overlook a number
of existing homes. The Merrick Dr, design would be compatible with the neighborhood. He
wished to see the original farmhouse saved and restored; the lot line adjustment would allow such.
Mr. Michael Kenrich, 20270 Merrick Dr., Saratoga, stated he was greatly distressed to see this
Application. This was a large, irregularly shaped lot with a large home centered on it; he wished to
preserve its' character, the historical structure on-site and was opposed to carving up the lot. A
flag lot configuration would destroy the property. Open space could not be created, it could only
be preserved. He asked that someone have the courage to prohibit further development on-site.
Ms. Lynn Prendergast, 12695 Calle Tucuba, Saratoga, stated they were assured by Mr. Merrick
that his property would retain its open space; they were not informed of the subsequent subdivi-
sion. Now neighbor was being pitted against neighbor regarding the siting of a second house; she
wished to see the historical home preserved and felt that any building on-site would be a detriment
to the neighborhood. ff the house were built adjacent to her property, she asked that no doors or
windows face her home; in addition, drainage problems would have to be addressed. Finally, she
cautioned that in the past, several beautiful trees were lost due to the carelessness of a contractor.
The resident of 13764 Calle Tacuba, Saratoga, was opposed to this development.
Mr. Bill Heiss, Consulting Civil Engineer, felt the building site approved by the Planning Com-
mission was a much better solution; he reviewed the modifications to the existing driveway which
would result in very little runoff. The current proposal would set the house into the ground, lower
than the existing home, reducing privacy intrusion to adjoining neighbors and visual impacts to the
historical structure.
Mr. Dahlin noted the implication that if the Application were not approved, the existing home
would be torn down to the regret of all concerned; such assumptions should not be considered.
MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 8
AUGUST 2, 1989
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued
Mr. Dahlin added that the proposal did not meet all zoning requirements since the purpose of zon-
ing was to have a harmonious development that promoted the general welfare; this was a condition
of any application.
The Public Hearing was closed at 9:50 P.M.
Councilmember Stutzman stated that there were several considerations that should be addressed:
Historical considerations:
The history of the old Pollard site was reviewed; this house represented one of the most impor-
tant elements in the background of Saratoga; such considerations should be respected
The Heritage Preservation Commission prepared a Heritage Resource Inventory which included
the Reverend Pollard's Ranch House; the reasons for selecting this home were reviewed
When the property was subdivided, he felt it was not the understanding or intention of previous
property owners that the present condition of the house would occur, namely, that the house
would extend over the property line or that the property line would intersect the house
He felt it was not their intention to deface and/or to disfigure this house
Property Rights:
He understood the Applicant was a Saratoga resident and a respected builder, and agreed the
architectural design proposed for the new house was beautiful and would be appropriate on
another 10,000 sq. ft. lot; however, this was not the proper place for siting an additional house
Neighbors:
Most of the residents had owned their homes for many years; when they purchased their
houses, they felt the area was built-out and the community stable
Homes were purchased at this location partially because of the ambiance of the neighborhood
and the existence of open space, a great deal of which was contributed by the Merrick Estate
The Heritage Commission noted that any form of development on this property would have a
significant impact on the historic integrity of the structure and its acreage
Several large trees would have to be removed; it appeared that a minimum of eleven trees would
have to be cut down; the eucalyptus in front of the home should not be removed
Considerable grading may be required to set the house on the property and a retaining wall built
- The new house would sit directly in front of the existing home and impact the privacy of the
neighbors, eliminating a large share of the view of the historic structure from the street
- In essence, the significance of the existing structure would be destroyed; the new house would
not in any way enhance the neighborhood
Conclusion:
- The questi~n was whether pe~p~e had a right t~ determine the ~~mp~siti~n ~f their neighb~rh~~d
- In this regard, the law was often harsh, inflexible and unsympathic to people and how they lived;
it frequently allowed the past to be destroyed and forgotten
- Of the letters favorable to the request, only one came from a resident in the immediate neighbor-
hood; on the other hand, there was a considerable ground swell of opinion on the part of
petitioners who wished to see properties such as the one in question, preserved
- The subject property was far more valuable intact than the sum of its parts; the addition of a new
structure would represent a decrease in the prestige and desirability of Saratoga
- Preservation of Saratoga required review of the past and consideration of the future; thinking
only of how much could be extracted from present holdings left nothing for future generations
- Stated that he would uphold the Appeal
Councilmember Anderson commented that she wished to agree with the above comments but had
some questions; the City Attorney confirmed that the Council did not have the right to prevent the
demolition of a house listed in the Historic Inventory, or the addition to that house.
Councilmember Anderson stated she was not so much concerned about the possibility of a lawsuit
as what would happen to the property if the Application were denied. Since two legal lots of record
existed, the property owner may take whatever steps necessary to utilize two building sites; once
the addition were demolished, there was no way to deny an application to construct a second house
on Parcel B. The City had not been able to deny development on hillside properties in excess of a
30% slope, despite the desire to do so; they had only be able to limit the size and impact of such
structures. She asked whether there were legal grounds for denying the Application.
The City Attorney stated he had a similar conversation with the Appellant's Attorney. The as-
sumption seemed to be that based on Zoning Ordinances, the City could deny development ap-
proval on an otherwise buildable lot; he respectfully disagreed with Mr. Dahlin on this point.
MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 9
AUGUST 2, 1989
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued
The City Attorney added that there were circumstances where a legal lot of record existed and the
City could deny development approval; for example, geotechnic conditions or other hazards which
made the site unsafe and unab~e t~ be mitigated~ ~r ~ther physica~ circumstances ~f that nature. No
evidence was resented to the Planning Commission identifying the second parcel as constituting
such a piece oFproperty. While there may be circumstances to deny the Application, the mere fact
that the neighbors were opposed to such did not change the fact that this was a legal lot of record.
Councilmember Anderson questioned if the Application could be denied on the basis that this
parcel was considered one building site and which exceeded one acre in size; such a parcel would
come under the General Plan guidelines for "Private residential open space".
The City Attorney responded that an analysis would have to be made of the intent and the appli-
cation of the Section cited; he confirmed the City did rely on residential lots as a source of open
space. The question being raised was, if there were legal lots of record with an encroachment on
one of them, did such prevent development on the second lot because of the General Plan Open
Space Element? Again, it was his conclusion that the Applicant could not be prevented from de-
veloping the second lot if the encroachment were removed.
With respect to the position of Mr. Klose, the Applicant's Attorney, he conceded that State Law
limited Design Review to a determination whether the parcels in question conformed to applicable
zoning and building regulations. The City's Subdivision Ordinance contained an additional Find-
ing; it was this Finding that Staff relied upon as the basis for their recommendation to the Planning
Commission, namely, the lack of consistency with the General Plan Open Space Element.
ha response to Councilmember Anderson's question, Planning Director Emslie stated that the lot
split preceded the addition to the house; there was no record of a requirement to merge the lots.
The City Attorney noted that this building application was processed by the County of Santa Clara.
Councilmember Anderson speculated there would be so much expense involved in removing the
addition to the home and the pool in order to eliminate the encroachment, that such may be
economically infeasible; thus, she could make a Finding that this property had been considered a
single building site by owners of the property for more than twenty years, rather than treated as
two legal lots of record. She agreed with the assessment that further development of the property
would detract from the intent of the original subdividers as well as the City's open space policy.
Councilmember Moyles stated he was prepared to offer a motion denying the Appeal and uphold-
ing the Planning Commission's decision; testimony given at this Hearing was entirely consistent
with that given at the Commission Hearings. There was no new information to be considered and
the lot line adjustment was as well designed as possible; the sole dissenting Commissioner felt that
relocating thesecond parcel on Metrick Dr. increased the impacts and possibly, she had giyen
lesser weight to the historical nature of the home than other members of the Planning Commission.
He would defer to the majority of the Planning Commission in the decision they had reached.
He was not persuaded that denying.the Application would thwart development; the Applicant gave
no indication he would not develop the second parcel. To believe otherwise was a sad delusion
and overrated the power given to City Government; in addition, the State severely circumscribed
the City's discretion on this issue. He agreed with the Applicant's Attorney in citing Government
Code Section 66412 (d), "A local agency.,. shall limit its review and approval..."
The only disagreement centered around Staffs Finding that there was an inconsistency with the
General Plan Open Space Element; with all due respect, he disagreed with Staff on this issue.
There was no empirical basis for the conclusion reached; to say that this development would have
an impact would be to define policy to say that any development violated the City's Open Space
Element; such was a "no growth" position in the extreme. The consequences would be absurd and
there was probably no single home that would survive such a test. The proposed development was
less dense than the homes being impacted; he dismissed the threat of lawsuit and based his decision
on the facts presented and his judg merit of what was best for the neighborhood.
The paradox was that if the City Council overturned the decision of the Planning Commission,
more harm would be done to the neighborhood; the development of Parcel B would inevitably
follow and create a home on elevated ground that overlooked the rear yards of several adjoining
properties; such a risk could be avoided entirely.
Councilmember Peterson noted there was nothing to add to Councilmember Moyles' comments; as
discerned from his opening questions, he had a fundamental problem denying a lot line adjustment
in order to preserve open space.
MEETING OF THE CITY COUNC1L Page 10
AUGUST 2, 1989
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued
Councilmember Peterson continued his comments, stating that one house on a 10,000 sq. ft. lot
was comp. atible with the neighborhood; a 16 ft. high structure, set down on the site, would not
impact privacy. Design Review would address the specific proposal for the house.
Mayor Clevenger noted her interest in preserving open space and had carefully reviewed this
request; she considered herself a realist and was reluctant to risk the adjoining property owner's
privacy. Denying the Application would probably result in the development of Parcel B, to the rear
of several resident's homes; given an option, she preferred the second structure to front on Merrick
Dr., with a prohibition of windows and doors on the side facing Mrs. Kahffs home, the driveway
positioned in such a way as be the least impactful, grading of the building site to create an elevation
similar to other homes on the street and with landscape screening along the driveway.
While she would go to great lengths to preserve the property as it currently existed, there were two'
legal lots of record; the issue was where the second structure would be sited. In conversations
with members of the Planning Commission, they indicated they would have preferred to see the
Merrick Estate remain as it presently existed; however, the choices were very limited. The least
impact would result from placing the second house as the Planning Commission had decided.
MOYLES/PETERSON MOVED TO DENY THE APPEAL AND UPHOLD THE DECISION OF
THE PLA COMiMISSION ON SD-89-005 AND LL-89-003.
Mayor Clevenger asked that the mitigations requested above be included in the Motion.
The City Attorney responded that such could be included in the building site approval.
Councilmember Peterson a~ked that the request for site grading be noted in the record and not
made a condition of approval; the design review process could fully address the impacts of such.
Mayor Clevenger added that the elevation of the site made the lot stand out from the neighborhood.
Councilmember Peterson commented that unforeseen impacts may result without full consideration.
The City Manager asked that any conditions be attached to the development of Parcel A. The
property owner could sell this parcel; applicable conditions would need to go with the land.
Councilmember Anderson asked that the concerns about drainage also be addressed. Coun-
t 5.3.raember Moyles also had reservations about imposing conditions without full consideration;
the City Manager suggested the City Attorney be directed to prepare an appropriate Resolution.
The City Attorney reviewed the Resolution adopted by the Planning Commission.
The City Manager summarized the modifications to the Resolution already adopted.
The Chair called for a vote on the Motion.
Passed 3-2, Councilmember Stutzman and Anderson dissenting.
Break: 10:38 - 10:44 P.M.
C. Appeal of conditional use permit approval to allow outside groups to use the picnic
grounds at the Odd Fellows Home, 14500 Fruitvale Ave., for the 1989 picnic season
(UP-89-003) (Applicant, Odd Fellows Home; Appellant, Schwartz)
Planning Director Emslie presented the Report Re: Appeal of UP-89-003, dated August 2, 1989.
The Public Hearing was opened at 10:45 P.M.
Mr. Jeff Schwartz, Appellant, cited his letter of June 30, 1989; he was concerned that the Odd
Fellows consistently ignored regulations imposed by the City and/or agreed upon by neighbors; he
cited examples which illustrated his contention. He supported Staff Recommendation which
seemed reasonable.
Mr. Martin Galinski, V. EW., noted that picnics had been held for thirty years and asked why the
City discriminated against the Odd Fellows; he objected to the restrictions placed on the picnics.
Mr. Michael Borquez, V. EW., objected to the loss of the picnics; many Saratoga residents who
had served their country were represented at these events.
Mr. Bill Goehner, Veteran of Foreign Wars, was appalled that their picnic would not be held this
year and asked that consideration be given to them to the future.
MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 11
AUGUST 2, 1989
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued
Mr. Don Richiuso reviewed the history of the Administrative Guidelines which were in place the
previous year; he noted that the Odd Fellows' list of picnics did not agree with that in the Guide-
"' lines and included virtually every weekend during the summer. He faulted the administration of
the Odd Fellows with the problems encountered and he favored Staff Recommendation.
Mr. Robert Zachar, Hungarian Reform Church, stated that if the August 27th picnic could not be
held, it would be a hardship for the Church.
Mr. Richard Bernardo, Representing Retirees of Lockheed, stated that they held an annual picnic at
the Odd Fellows; it would represent a loss for them if these picnics could not be held. A number
of activities enjoyed by the retired and senior groups were being cancelled in the various cities and
in the county; the open, recreational areas were being closed or had deteriorated.
The Public Hearing was closed at 11:10 EM.
Mayor Clevenger suggested the Administrative Schedule be adopted, with the inclusion of the
August 27th picnic of the Hungarian Reform Church.
PETERSON/STUTZMAN MOVED TO UPHOLD AND MODIFY THE DECISION OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION TO ALLOW PICNICS THROUGH SEPTEMBER 5, 1989,
SUBJECT TO THE CITY COUNCIL'S ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES.
Councilmember Stutzman commented that the Odd Fellows pre-existed the surrounding residential
area; as density increased, more problems would result and available open space would disappear.
He empathized with members of the American Legion; however, there was much public pressure
brought to bear on this issue and the public demanded that restrictions be placed on such activities.
Councilmember Anderson asked that the Community Service Officers continue to offer surveil-
lance to ensure that rules were followed, especially the prohibition placed on amplified sound.
The City Manager noted the inconsistencies between the Administrative Guidelines and the sched-
ule approved by the Planning Commission; he requested direction from the Council.
Councilmember Anderson noted that if the August 26th picnic (San Jose Goldiggers) was not ap-
proved, there would not be picnics held on three consecutive days as prohibited by the Adminis-
trative Guidelines. Mayor Clevenger agreed three consecutive days was an intensive use of the site.
Councilmember Peterson commented that if the neighbors were not complaining and there were not
noise impacts, what was the significance of prohibiting picnics on three consecutive days?
CLEVENGER/ANDERSON MOVED TO AMEND THE ABOVE MOTION TO PROHIBIT THE
AUGUST 26, 1989, (SAN JOSE GOLDIOGERS) PICNIC. Passed 3-2, Councilmembers
Moyles and Peterson dissenting.
The Chair called for a vote on the Amended Motion. Passed 5-0.
D. OrdinanceAmendingCityCodeConcerningPlacementofGarbageContainersatCurbside
for Trash Collection.
The Public Hearing was opened at 11:20 P.M.
C.~rard Wen stated that his company supported the proposed Ordinance Amendment.
The Post Master for the City asked that garbage containers not be placed in front of the mailboxes.
The Public Hearing was closed at 11:22 P.M.
MOYLES/PETERSON MOVED TO INTRODUCE AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 7-
05.070 OF THE CITY CODE CONCERNING GARBAGE CONTAINERS. Passed 5-0.
E. Resolution 2590 Wee'dAbatement Hearing
The Public Hearing was opened at 11:24 P.M. There were no speakers.
The Public Hearing was closed at 11:24 P.M.
MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 12
AUGUST 2, 1989
MOYLES/PETERSON MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 25 90 CONFIRMING REPORT
AND ASSESSMENT OF WEED ABATEMENT CHARGES. Passed 5-0.
The Council then returned to Old Business.
C.. Interim Status Pepon on Hazardous Materials Cleanup at Recycle Center (Continued from
May 17)
7. NEW BUSINESS:
MOYLES/PETERSON MOVED TO APPROVE DEFERRED LOAN OF $100,000 OF CDGB
FUNDS TO MID-PENINSULA HOUSING COALITION FOR MULTI-FAMILY PROJECT IN
THE CITY OF CAMPBELL Passed 5-0.
B. Subordination Agreement - Saratoga Court Loan
PETERSON,q~IOYLES MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2589 APPROVING A SUBORDI-
NATION AGREEMENT WITH SARATOGA COURT, INC. Passed 5-0.
C. Pepon from Rate Review Committee on Status of Curbside l~cycling Program
City Manager reported that this matter had been discussed earlier
today by the cit managers with the Rate Review Committee and
with the West Valley mayors. As a result, city staff members
were to prepare further analyses of funding options. Three of
the four citxes were recommendin to their Cxty Councils that the
cities collectively be in ne o~iations with Green Valley on a
contract, with the method o~ reimbursement for the costs of
rec cling to be part of the contract. Other details would be
worked out
fee structure, he said.
resolution of the
pending
Councilmember Peterson commented that the cost of 82 cents per
month, locked in for five years, seemed extremely reasonable.
1 t n t
D. Contract {. the amount of $25,835 with Moore hcofano Go|roman
open space n~m~ su~ey and Re~|ution 2575.2 increasing budget ~ provide fund~ for
s~
The Cit Manager presented the Report Pe: Consultant Agreement for Community Open Space
Needs ~urvey.
ANDERSON/STUTZMAN MOVED TO APPROVE CONSULTANT AGREEMENT WITH
MOORE IACOFANO OOLTSMAN. Passed 5-0.
PETERSON/MOYLES MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2575.2 AUTHORIZING A
BUDGET ADJUSTMENT OF $10,835.00. Passed 5-0.
E. Agreement concerning Disbursement of Funds Hakone Foundation - Cultural Center
Building
Councilmember Moyles reviewed the Agreement concerning the Disbursement of Funds.
The City Manager summarized the Council's direction to set up a joint account between the City of
Saratoga and the Hakone Foundation and to authorize the transfer of funds, but not to allow the
dlsbq'sement of funds until an agreement between the City and the Foundation was in place
regarding the methods and purposes of the funa.
Consensus reached to differ: staff to revj.~e and resulxa.tt t_he acfceem~t.
9. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS:
A. Reports from Individual Councilmembers
1) Mayor Clevenger - Request from League of Woman Voters concerning the placement
of voter registration information on City forms
Corkseusus reached to indicate that the City was not interested in this proposal at this time.
2) Councilmember Anderson - Meetings to discuss soundwalls with residents of Saraglen
and residents of Sea Gull; sending notides to property owners rather than residents
Noted and filed
MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 13
AUGUST 2, 1989
CITY COUNCIL ITEMS Continued
B. Congestion Management Plan - Inclusion as part of the Circulation Element - Oral Report
from Councilwoman Anderson
Consensus reached to Continue Item to the Meeting of September 6, 1989.
Councilmember Petemon asked that an Item "Celebrate Saratoga" be added to the agenda.
PETERSON/ANDERSON MOVED TO ADD THE ITEM "CELEBRATE SARATOGA" BE
ADDED TO THE AGENDA. Passed 5-0.
C. "Celebrate Saratoga" Event
Councilmember Peterson reviewed the proposal to participate in the "Celebrate Saratoga" event.
Mr. Adrian Stanga; Chamber of Commerce, provided additional information and urged approval
of their request.
PETERSON/ANDERSON MOVED TO DIRECT THAT A RESOLUTION BE PREPARED
AMENDING THE APPROPRIATIONS OF THE CITY AND ALLOCATING $7,000 FOR THE
"CELEBRATE SARATOGA" EVENT AND THAT A PRffIiMATION IN HONOR OF THE
EVENT BE DRAWN UP FOR APPROVAL AT THE SEPTEMBER 6, 1989, MEETING
Passed 5-0.
ADJOURNMENT:
The Meeting of the City Council was adjourned at 11:55 P.M. to Closed Session for personnel
negotiations and then to a Meeting with the Chamber of Commerce at 7:30 P.M. on August 8th.
· -' Carol A. Probst-Cau