Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-20-1989 City Council Minutes MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL DATE: Wednesday, September 20, 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 P.M. 2. CEREMONIAL ITEMS: A. Proclamation honoring Manny Fernandez PETERSON/ANDERSON MOVED APPROVAL .OF A PROCLAMATION HONORING MANNY FERNANDEZ. Passed 5-0. 3. ROUTINE MATTERS: A. Approval of Minutes: Meeting of September 6, 1989 ANDERSON/STUTZMAN MOVED APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 6, 1989. Passed 5-0. B. Approval of Warrant List: ANDERSON/STUTZMAN MOVED APPROVAL 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 September 15, 1989 4. CONSEI~T CALENDAR: A. Planning Commission Actions, September 13, 1989, - Noted and filed. B. Heritage Preservation Commission Minutes, August 9, 1989, - Noted and filed. C. Public Safety Commission Minutes, September 11, 1989, - Noted and filed. D. AuthorizationforattendanceofMaintenanceSuperintendentatMaintenanceSuperinten-' dent's Association Conference in Sacramento, October 11-13, 1989 with reasonable and necessary expenses. E. First Amendment to Maintenance Agreement with Hakone Foundation F. Final Map Approval, SD 89-003, Prospect Rd. (1 lot) (Developer, J. McDonald) G. Final Map Approval, SD 89-004, Saratoga Hills. (2 lots) (Developer, p. Bray), and acceptance of Open Space Easement - 1--1.Resolutic, n 2594 renewinc, Disadvanta~,ed Business Enterprise Program through September ~o, I. Resolution 2595 reversing Denial of Variance for Noller Project (appeal heard September 6, 1989) J. Acceptance of1989 Audit dated January 20,1989 from Peat Marwick K..Ordinance 71.68 amending the Building Code to provide for mandatory pre-occupancy ~nspection for all non-residential uses and a voluntary inspection for residential uses (second reading and adoption) MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 2 SEPTEMBER 20, 1989 CONSENT CAI .F. NDAR Continued L, Resolution 2383,6 amending Fee Schedule to Include Fee for Mandatory Property Inspection established by Ordinance 71,68 M, Proclamation on United Nations Day N, Proclamation on Red Ribbon Week PETERSON/ANDERSON MOVED TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR, Passed 5-0, 4. CONSENT CALENDAR II - CLAIMS: A. Claim of Brozda alleging damages to utility lines because of construction work. ANDERSON/PETERSON MOVED TO DENY THE CLAIM OF BROZDA. Passed 5-0. B. Claim of Southern Pacific for indemnity in case where automobile was damaged in crossing railroad tracks. PETERSON/ANDERSON MOVED TO DENY CLAIM OF SOUTHERN PACIFIC. Passed 5-0. 5. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS AND THE PUBLIC: A. Oral Communications from the Public and Commissions Ms. Mardi Bennett, 38 Alpine Ave., Los Gatos, requested the aid of the Council in preserving a historic building in the City of Monte Sercno, namely, the John Steinbeck House; a model resolution of support for this effort was presented for the Council's consideration. Consensus reached that this Item would be placed on the October 4, 1989, Consent Calendar. Col. E. T. Barco, Camino Barco, informed the Council where a free copy of the Federal Code on the care of the U.S. Flag could be obtained. Mr. Tom Reddick asked that leaf blowers be banned in the City of Saratoga duc to noise impacts; secondly, hc suggested a curfew be imposed on persons under the age of 18, effective at 10 P.M., due to the disturbanee of the pcaee which occurred. Mr. Bill. Carlson, Saratoga Village Association, read a prepared statement asking that the Post Office not be closed and to encourage the Postmaster to kccp Merchants informed of the situation. Mr. Charles Mirrione, Postmaster, stated that hc would continue to be in communication with the Merchants; he noted budget constraints, but stated that hc would do whatever possible to keep the Village Station open, cvcn if on a limited basis. Councilmember Moyles reviewed the history of the concerns surrounding the closing the Village Post Office; decisions were based on the commitments made that the Post Office would remain open and that the "Saratoga" postmark would be available to residents of the City. Ms. Marilyn Hoyt also had concerns regarding the limiting of hours of the Village Post Office. Mr. Reddick asked that the comparison of the cost of Community Service Officers (CSO's) and the Sheriffs Deputies be made available to him and published in the Saratoga News; he noted that the CSO's could only be reached at some hours of the day, by dialing 911. The Council oroceeaed to the Public Hearings. 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Appeal of approval of Design Review to construct a new 5,073 sq.ft. two-story single family home at 15839 Hidden Hill Rd.in the R-I-40,000 zone district,. (DR 89-013) (Applicant, Velinsky; Appellant, Jefferson) Planning Director Emslie presented the Memorandum dated September 20, 1989. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 3 SEPTEMBER 20, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Councilmember Peterson cited the Staff Report, Back~ound which listed one of the neighbor's concerns as "The depiction of the slope was incorrect in that the ravine was much steeper than shown on the applicant's plan." He asked whether Staff was satisfied that the current survey depicted the slope correctly. Planning Director Eroslie responded that Staffs degree of comfort stu~'?.ed from the casual observation of the City Geologist and an independent engineer; both opmmns Were based on observations while walking the site, not on a survey. In response to further question, the Planning Director stated that Staff did not have the resources to double cheek the survey's accuracy; the only way to assure accuracy was to survey the entire site. Councilmember Moyles commented that if Staff entertained doubts of any significance about the accuracy of the survey, why was the Item scheduled for a Public Hearing? The Planning Director stated that this concern was raised to the Applicant; furthermore, the Council could require that an extensive survey be completed prior to a decision being reached. Councilmember Moyles questioned whether Staff was satisfied with the information provided. Planning Director Emslie responded that yes, in his opinion the survey was accurate to within several degrees and was sufficient to discuss the design review issues under consideration; he acknowledged that there were fine points that could be determined by a survey of the entire site. In response to Mayor Clevenger's question, the Planning Director stated that there was more than one type of survey; the survey under consideration was based on an aerial survey, which could have a degree of discrepancy. Councilmember Peterson noted that the degree of comfort with the survey submitted was at issue; the contour lines were signed off by a registered civil engineer and could be addressed by him. Per Councilmember Anderson's question, the Planning Director confirmed that the Applicant's Civil Engineer had submitted more detailed information for the building pad area, not the entire site. Councilmember Peterson stated that his remaining questions revolved around how the survey was done and the degree of accuracy of the slope density; such would determine the size, placement and configuration of the house. In response to Councilmember Anderson's question, the Planning Director confirmed that Staff was confident that there was no slope steeper than 40% under the building pad. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:20 P.M. Mr. James E. Jefferson, 15895 Ravine Rd., Los Gatos, Appellant, commented as follows: - Staff Report adequately covered a number of points, namely, that the proposal would have a significant effect on the topography, impacts on views of residents as well as from the valley - Staff Report noted that these impacts could be minimized by applying a more unobtrusive de- sign, consistent with the the City's design objective to eliminate massive and bulky appearances - For properties to the south of the subject site, this bulky appearance was very significant; from his home a large 3, 600 sq. ft. profi!e would be seen - His objectives in his Appeal of the Commission's decision was based on several considerations, i.e., the fact that the structure would be placed on the highest portion of the south east Saratoga ridgeline, visible from the scenic highway; such would degrade the view of adjacent homes - The fact that the lot was a non-conforming lot under HCRD regulations and the fact that the topography of the site could not accommodate a large structure Proposed house was extremely large, expansive and had an appearance of at least 2,000 more square feet than the footprint would indicate This was a flag lot surrounded by modest, one-story homes; the square footage of these homes "u::,:,_2 L__:: !'., :~.F2 ~:i- f' :': i:'~? :-:,. ft., thus t'__: ,::'oposed _~_:~:.~ ':,v_s cut cfsiz~ for the area The house would be strung out in sections; although it was one-story, the south elevation floor would be 11 ft off the ground, giving the appearance of a two story structure There was an extremely long cul-de-sac of approximately 1,100 sq. ft. with no secondary access There was no easement for a storm drain; runoff would drain directly in the creek which was of great concern; this creek-side ravine was well known for slides and should not be disturbed Drainage provisions for the project were such that it would dump extra water on Ravine Rd., which flooded during the winter storms of 1982-83 Water drainage from the subject property into the ravine would threaten five properties below and cause flooding and erosion of the stream banks; the ravine was a natural water shed for the area - Disruption of view, privacy impacts would result; in addition, the area was a habitat for wildlife MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 4 SEPTEMBER 20, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Jefferson, Appellant, presented a petition and concluded that there were very few open space areas left; some properties would be seriously degraded from the house proposed; he urged that these open space areas be preserved. Mr. Veilrisky, Applicant, commented as follows: - Reviewed the history of his selection and purchase of the property; noted the length of time involved in being annexed to the City of Saratoga and the numerous revisions made to the plans -Presented an aerial sketch to show that the setbacks had been fully observed; a petition signed by over 100 individuals and a map showing adjacent homes that were over 5,000 sq.ft. in size - Stated he had spoken to every neighbor at length, some of whom made a site visit before signing the petition -Noted his efforts to follow all the guidelines opposed and strongly opposed designing a house that would require a variance; in addition? he wished his neighbors to be happy with the project Mr. William Heiss, Consulting Civil Engineer, commented as follows: -Presented a topographical map and stated that the topography presented in the original drawings was based on a photo metric survey which was done as part of the original subdivision in 1965 -Pointed out the swale on the edge of the Velinsky property, which was incorrectly referred to as a creek; this localized swale area was a very small segment of a large drainage area -Presented a drainage area for the area and noted that there was more than one alternative plan that could be designed; the original proposal was to channel the drainage into this swale area - If such were considered a problem, it would not be very difficult to design a plan in such a manner as to not increase the flow that currently drained into the swale; runoff from the upper part of the property and the bulk of the surface water could be channelled onto the driveway, and discharge on Hidden Hill Rd., which connected to a storm drainage system - A Condition requiring that no additional water drain into the swale could be imposed; such would require two drainage lines and would not add any additional runoff to Ravine Rdo - Due to the concerns about topography, a point survey was prepared; in addition, by way of field survey a contour map was prepared which computed the average slope of the building footprint o The average slope based on the field survey was 24% while the the aerial map showed a 20% slope; the brush on site probably influenced the outcome of the original photo metlie map -The other issue was whether the average slope of the entire lot varied from the aerial survey; in his opinion, it did not Mayor Clevenger asked why a ground survey was not done. Mro Heiss responded that the aerial survey was the survey of choice; under usual conditions it would be expected to be a very accurate. In addition, a ground survey would be difficult due to the poison oak and other brush on-site. In his opinion, the proposed house was well designed for the property; the linear structure which was sited along the contours of the site. This was a reasonable and appropriate design. Mr. Kurt Anderson, Architect, presented slides showing the site from several perspectives. He suggested that shifting the house 20 ft. would reduce the steephess of the slope under the building pad from 24% to 20%, reduced the rear elevation to the south 3-5 ft. and pulled the house 13 ft. from the ravine; however, two trees on-site would be lost. Dr. Richard Sogg, 19262 Hidden Hill Rd, Saratoga, presented a statement outlining his concerns regarding the size of the house for the buildable lot area and secondly, the instability of the slope. In response to Councilmember Moyles, he stated he was totally opposed to shifting the house. Ms. Margarite Fisher, 14520 Fruitvale Rd., Saratoga, urged that wildlife in the area be protected. Mr. Ronald Jolson, 18542 Rancho La Cimas Wy., Saratoga, felt the Applicant had done everythng possible to satisfy the Planning Commission; this proposal was not unusual, the house not over- sized, nor would wildlife be impacted by one more home. He suggested the Applicant may have been singled out when in fact, he had complied with all requirements imposed. In response to ,, -- ~,fi::~i{::~.,.~:~cr. Arid~rson's quesiion, he s~ated he had not been on the'site in-qt/est~:~:,, Mr. Arthur Slemmons, 19655 Redberry Dr., Saratoga, thought a significant amount of runoff would be diver;tetl to a catch basin adjacent to Ms. Alexander's property; in most states it was against the law to concentrate runoff; permission for the Applicant to do so could not be granted. Dr. Janot, 15901 Ravine Rd., Saratoga, thought the house would be beautifully situated and was not ostentations in comparison to other, surrounding homes. This was the least wooded lot in the area; the installation of landscaping would probably prevent erosion. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL "' Page 5 SEPTEMBER 20, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Gil Erickson, 15803 Hidden Hill Rd., Saratoga, stated the prior development had not affected the wildlife in the area; drainage plans appeared to be well designed. Mr. Len Parham, 15785 Hidden Hill Rd., Saratoga, strongly favored the Applicant's request which complied with applicable Code requirements; drainage would not be a problem and the wildlife had free run of the area. Mr. Glen Machtyre, 15774 Hidden Hill PI., contended that the process was being misused by a mischievous few; arguments presented by these individuals were specious. A resident 200 ft. from the Velinsky property stated there was adequate screening of homes and yards provided by landscaping. The Applicant should not be denied his request. Mr. Jim Pendergaast, Consulting Civil Engineer, commented as follows: A site visit to the Velinsky property did not show a discrepancy with the survey/maps presented The ravine, properly classified a swale, did not have a bond with the subject property and was vegetated with various plants and grasses Runoff from the home site and paved areas would only change the character of the drainage into the swale, not the quantity; the alternate drainage plan suggested by Mr. Heiss may even reduce the amount of runoff into the swale Mr. Chuck Watson, 19120 Austin Wy., Satagora, stated he was dismayed at the procef_Aings; he agreed that specious arguments were being used and urged that non-engineers not be listened to. Mr. Mann, Ravine Rd., Saratoga, noted a desire for privacy and freedom from noise that would occur from construction; during the heavy rains water was pumped from the basement of the home he rented. He felt the aerial survey was inaccurate due to the large amount of brush in the ravine. Mr. Will Houde19292 Bainter Ave., Saratoga, was dismayed at the proceedings and urged that if the Applicant was not violating any rules, he be granted approval of this request. Mr. Albert Zecher, Attorney for Mr. Velinsky, cited the example of Galileo and noted the opinions cir.cu. lating about the problems that would be caused by development of this site; these various opinions were unsupported by fact. The City Council would have to base its decision m facts. Dr. Prolo, Glen Una Dr., Saratoga, was in opposition to the Application; the main problem with this property was that it was not flat, but curvao~ns. The issue was the size of the proposed house with respect to the lot size and limited flat area; in addition, he had reservations about engineering reports and cited an example of a house that slid despite the reports. Finally, he noted that Ms. Alexander would never be able to do much with her property if this house were built. Ms. B..l. Hagland, 18358 Hidden Hill Rd., stated she would like to see the property developed; the decision of the Planning Commission was being challenged despite months of study. They wished to see a house on the subject site that was compatible with the existing homes; this beautiful house would be an asset to the neighborhood. Mr. John Weiss, 15968 Hidden Dr., found it incomprehensible that an applicant had to go through this procedure to obtain approval for a house on his own property; a small group of neighbors were against any development. fithey wished a park, they should purchase the property. Mr. Jake White, 16521 Lomas Lane, stated he endured the same situation with the County of Santa Clara when he wished to build his home; in his case, lies and factitious stories were told about his property. The opposition by a few who had their homes was totally unfair. Mr. Robson, Ravine Rd., Saratoga, commented as follows: Believed in tkc righta of adjacer;t property owners and i' '~: ' · ' ~ ".:~ ri,,h,. "" ~,!-,-~ '~- 7;,:-~ ' The properiy was annexed to the City in 1988 in orde;"toprotect ih ell;iri3ilm nially sen~itiv~ ' " portion of the San Tomas watershed from improper development The application before the City was for a maxi-house on a small thrill, flag lot that would not have been buildable by today's standards; the bulk and incompatibility of the house did not meet the requirements of the Infill Ordinance, Design Review Guidelines or the General Plan The appearance of the house would be about 12,000 sq. ft.--placed at the top of a ridge and visible for miles; the southern facade was about 3,620 sq. ft.--larger than City Hall's facade The proposed house appeared to be over four times larger than adjacent homes MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 6 SEPTEMBER 20, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Robson continued his comments as follows: Residents who had walked these steep slopes for years believed the survey maps were inaccurate Commented the Planning Department in working with this Application Urged denial on the basis that the Application was incomplete and inaccurate Mr. John Standard, Bainter Ave., Saratoga, was very concerned about development on the ridge; he urged that the City try and preserve this area. Ms. Diane Jefferson,. 15895 Ravine Rd., Los Gatos, stated they were not against all development. Ms. Wanda Alexander, 15879 Ravine Rd., stated she was very sad the very real issues addressed in the Staff Report had been used in a divisive way to pit neighbor against neighbor; she noted the confusion surrounding this Application. The proposed house would have the impact of a four story structure; her property would be devalued from the view of a huge wall which would destroy her privacy, view shed, increase noise and reduce the light, sun and air. In addition, the creek bank would be alestabilized and the water flow disrupted, causing more flooding. She wished to discuss the myth of real estate values in the area; the County Assessor's Officer listed the average size of homes in the Hill tract at about 3,270 sq. ft. while the homes in the surrounding hillside area were about 2587 sq. ft. Having open space on-site was beginning to significantly increase the value of a property. She concluded with information on the Berrocal Fault which ran through these properties. Ms. Dresden Erickson, 15803 Hidden Hill Rd., Saratoga, felt that new residents should be wel- comed to the area; in addition, the Applicant had conformed to all applicable requirements. The Public Hearing was closed 10:02 EM. Councilmember Anderson presented a verbatim excerpt of the City Council Meeting of November 16, 1988, in which Mr. Velinsky stated in part, "Why be concerned about the architectural control of the house when the land is basically flat, slightly sloped, and I'm going to do very little grading and cutting and filling. I have a very, very fight budget to do this with and I can't afford to do very extensive foundation work, so rm not doing it. rm going to do it on the flat part of the site and the other thing is that--and to quote from the docket--it says in here 'it is not particularly visible from the valley'. That is a question when he said it is visible form the valley floor. Which is correct? On three sides it is surrounded by trees and on the fourth side it faces Mr. Hwang's house which was the other lot that was mentioned. And that's it. In response to Councilmember Stutzman's questions, h&'. Velinsky responded that the proposed house would be about 3200 sq. ft. and that he did not intendto take out any trees." Councilmember Anderson felt that due to the proximity of the ridge line, the proposed house should be no more than one story in height. The alternative drainage plan to prevent additional runoff into the swale area was desirable; in addition, she had a report that previous construction had filled the creek with silt, causing problems during the winter rains. In conversations with the civil engineer, it was suggested that the most appropriate siting of the house was on the 660 contour line, which would bring the house within the flat portion of the site as the Applicant stated he intended to do when the property was annexed in 1988. She was most concerned that while the house did not pose problems to the majority of neighbors, and may in fact, enhance the area if it were not seen; the fact of the matter was that Ms. Alexander's property would have a view of a 157 ft. length of house, two stories in height, on a property elevated from hers. In her mind, this was tantamount to a .taking of a property; Ms. Alexander may be.unable to furthei :2_. f__,_ '~.f. Froperty !~ [~.~: 2"7.;":. C?~ ....:~-~'-'~ *" ~°° ° ~m~J~r house, moved out of the ravine and onto the flat portion of the site.. Councilmember Peterson noted the number of participants in the hearing who were favorable to this Application; such was unusual. He supported the decision of the Planning Commission and had not heard anything to preclude his support of their recommendation; however, he would consider shifting the house as suggested by Mr. Anderson. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIl Page 7 SEPTEMBER 20, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Councilmember Peterson continued his comments and stated that with reference to remarks made on the proposed size of the house, the Council recently approved a variance on a 4-1 vote, for a 33% increase of an existing 9,325 sq. ft. house in the City of Saratoga; now he was hearing that the 5,073 sq. ft. house proposed was huge. The Design Review Guidelines were drawn up in response to development at Parker Ranch subdivision; he felt that the Applicant's proposal generally followed the Guidelines and he had no problems with the size, bulk or compatibility of this structure. Councilmember Moyles agreed with Councilmember Peterson; in addition, Ms. Hagland's com- ments most closely reflected his own view. He usually relied on the Planning Commission's decisions unless he could determine that the information they received was incomplete and/or inaccurate; sometimes, information presented to the Council was not previously available. He fully considered the latter possibility but had not heard testimony to that effect; neighbor's speculations that the contour maps were invalid, that excess runoff would occur or that harm would come to the wildlife in the area were not sufficient to overturn the decision of the Planning Commission. His responsibility was to act on the record; he had advised those in opposition to present data proving their complaint; a factual rebuttal of the Commission's decision had not been presented. Concerns appeared to be chatter, rumor and insinuation. He was concerned that if the Council failed to approve this Application, they would be engaged in a gross overreaching of governmental powers, an interference with an indiVidual's right to be at peace in one's own home and property. The Planning Commission engaged in a careful and extended analysis which led to effective miti- gation of the undesirable impacts of this development; the project complied with Ordinance require- ments. Evidence suggested that area homes were larger in size than that proposed. He questioned how anyone could argue that moving the structure into the 20 ft. setback area would reduce the privacy impact to an adjacent home and favored siting the' house as proposed. In addition, moving the house required more grading, not less, eliminated specimen trees and increased the view intrusion from the Valley floor. The proposed siting followed the contours of the land. Councilmember Stutzman commented on the following issues of concern as follows: Placement of the house on an extremely prominent and visible ridgeline; the General Plan, Aes- thetics and Scenic Oualit_v 3. addressed the question of protection of the ridgelines For this reason, any house built on the site should be unobtrusive and fit with the environment; too often the Aesthetics and Scenic Ouality requirement of the General Plan was neglected and allowed structures to be built near the ridgeline; in the future there may be no ridgelines to view While property rights were considered sacred, residents of the community also had a right to try and maintain some scenic element in the environment in which they lived; neighbors had rights as well as property owners - .Furthermore, he was concerned regarding some of the information presented; there were times when decisions were based on inaccurate or incomplete data presented by certified engineers Stated he had made several visits to the site; while he was not an engineer, his calculations indicated a 47% slope in thi~ area where the garage would be constructed - In addition, statements indicated that the survey map presented did not show an accurate slope determination of the entire property; the City was entitled to a certified survey - The original 1965 map contained the disclaimer "Field verify before construction"; due to the debris in the swale area, the data obtained from the aerial photograph was not accurate - The Applicant represented that his house would be one of the smallest homes in the area and the data presented indicated that such would be true; however, a check of the Assessor's records of the square footage in the adjacent eight homes was 2,537 sq. ft. and the average size of the seventeen homes in the Hidden Hills tract was 3,250 sq. ft. - The data did not agree; he disliked having people tell him things that were unveri~able - Mr. Cotton referred to the swale as an ephemeral creek, i.e. dry during most of the year but very active creek during the winter rains; flooding could occur at these times - Soil in the area was subject to erosion due to the underlying fault and any excavation had to be · ' ' ~,~ ..... ~,~i~ a Siit~'.;~,. ~.~,.j..~, ;~ .3~'..~ ~.~....:. _ _~.::~r:,.~_'75 ~, ;: ~!:~ ~;-, ' ' ': ' ' '. i;.~':"'~'~"'!~*.iC'~, r?c +~'~ite - CommendedthePlanningDirectorfortheReport;Staffrecomn~ezldationwasexcellent _ _ - After completion of a new survey, the issues of bulk, neighborhood compatibility, runoff, etc. could be addressed Mayor Clevenger commented that a site visit indicated that the residents of Hidden Hill Rd. would not be the most dramatically impacted; this was a question of equity. ff the Hidden Hill residents were impacted as Ms. Alexander was going to bo, they may also appeal the decision; the question of impact was presented to the Applicant for consideration. It did not seem fair to require such a high price from the adjacent resident, Ms. Alexander, who had two buildable sites. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 8 SEPTEMBER 20, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mayor Clevenger continued her comments, stating that she had voted against another application when she thought there was too much house for the lot. This Applicant originally envisioned a 3200 sq. ft. house on the flat portion of the site; this proposal would be much more realistic. The question at hand was which argument had the most merit: the Planning Department who had consistently told the Applicant that the house proposed could not be recommended for approval; this position was very convincing. With respect to the contention that the Applicant had met all the City's requirements, such was only the beginning; there were design review considerations. In her view the house-proposed was bulky and would encroach on Ms. Alexander's privacy. She would accept Staffs recommendation to uphold the Appeal; if a variance allowing some encroach- ment into the setback area were required, the fee should be waived for the Applicant. Councilmember Anderson had reservations regarding encroachment into the setback area; in response to Councilmember Stutzman's previous request for a certified survey, she noted that siting the house on the flat portion of the site (660 contour line) would eliminate the need for such. ANDERSON/STU.,~i~IAN MOVED TO CONTINUE DR-89-013 TO NOVEMBER 1, 1989, AND REMAND THE APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION WITH SPECIFIC DIRECTION THAT THE HOUSE BE SITED ON THE 660 CONTOUR LINE, AND BE LIM1TED TO A ONE-STORY ELEMENT,, AND THAT THE ALTERNATIVE DRAINAGE PLAN DIRECTING SOME OF THE RUNOFF TO HIDDEN HILL RD. BE CONSIDERED. Passed 3-2, Commissioners Moyles and Peterson dissenting. Councilmember Moyles stated that he had a report of a conversation held on September 12th, that the above Item had been already settled and that the Application would be remanded to the Planning Commission; if such were true, the role of the elected officials was meaningless, the Public Hearing was a sham and there was the possibility of a violation of the Brown Act. Councilmember Anderson responded that the conversation referred to was in jest and referred to a number of recent actions taken by the Planning Commission that had resulted 3-3 votes; there was no intent to imply that the Applicant would not have a fair hearing nor that a decisio~ had been made in advance. Mayor Clevenger noted a long history of decision making as a Councilmember; Council watchers could probably predict how she would vote. She never committed her vote prior to the hearing; in many cases, she changed her mind due to the information submitted at the hearing. There was always the opportunity to change one's mind during a public hearing and, this hearing was an example of such. Councilmember Stutzman commented that with regard to ~he ~nsj~qt~tion beLr~ ra~de ~b~t Councilmembers conspired on this decision, he had not discussed the item with any other Council- member; he arrived at his own decisions independently and believed in doing a great deal of investigative study. Break; 10:50 - 11:00 P.M. The Council then returned to Communications from Commissions and the Public. B. Written Communications from the Public 1) Margaret Sherrill, 14290 Paul Ave., with questions about Council's plans for Springer Tract. Mayor Clevenger noted that conversations with Ms. Sherrill indicated that she felt any decision · reached by. the Policy Development Conference in 1990 on the size of homes allowed in the .... ~th`"~``~``.c~`~`~`i``i`~i~`~iatetoeffec~ive~yaddresstheconcernsbeingraised. "- Planning Director Eroslie commented that the Planning Commission already held a Study Session on the intrusion of second story additions to homes in predominantly one-story neighborhoods; Staff was directed to prepare design guidelines that could be added to the Residential Design Hand- book; in addition, Staff was directed to schedule a mini-retreat on long range planning issues. Consensus reached to forward Ms. Sherrill's letter to the Planning Commission for consideration at the October 14, 1989, mini-retreat; reply to be sent indicating the action being taken. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 9 SEPTEMBER 20, 1989 COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS AND THE PUBLIC Continued 2) Robert Weinmann, 2040 Forest Ave. #4, San Jose 95128, similar to above. Consensus reached to forward Mr. Weinmann's letter to the Planning Commission for consider- ation at the October 14, 1989, mini-retreat; repl' y to be sent indication the action being taken. 3) Todd Walsh, 12759 Plymouth Dr., objecting to Deputy's citing of his daughter. Received, filed and acknowledged. 4) Russell G. Perry, Saratoga Chamber of Commerce, P.O. Box 161, requesting fee waiver for various events scheduled for Celebrate! Saratoga. Mr. Perry reviewed the request for a fee waiver and asked for assistance with costs incurred by the Sheriffs deputies; the cost of services by the Sheriffs Department was unknown at this time. Mayor Clevenger suggested consideration of use of volunteers to direct traffic and man barricades; while she was willing to waive fees, she was reluctant to make financial commitments for an un- known cost. Consensus reached to work with the Public Safety Commission on this latter request. Councilmember Peterson was favorable to the request for a fee waiver; however, he had reser- vations regarding the use of volunteers for the set up and control of parade activities. Councilmember Anderson stated she lacked sufficient information on this issue; however, she felt the amount requested was more than ever discussed. She was unwilling to vote at this time on the request to waive the cost of the Sheriffs deputies, the amount of which was unknown. PETERSON/ANDERSON MOVED TO APPROVE A FEE WAIVER FOR VARIOUS EVENTS SCHEDULED FOR CELEBRATE! SARATOGA, NOT TO INCLUDE A WAIVER OF FEES FOR SERVICES BY THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT. Passed 5-0. 6. OLB BUSINESS: A. Ordinance amending Section 16~06.090 of the City Code defining the term "basement" and amending Section 15-45.060 concerning design review and approval of the Nega- tive Declaration. The City Manager recommend~xl a Continuance of this Item in order to complete the Staff Report. 7. NEW BUSINESS: A. Resolution amending Fringe Benefits for Management Employees PETERSON/ANDERSON MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 85.9-81 REVISING FRINGE BENEFITS FOR THE MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES. Passed 5-0. B. Authorization of Publicity for Upcoming Hearings: Magnuson Appeal of Butler Project; Sawyer Appeal PETERSON/CLEVENGER MOVED TO ADOPT STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON PUBLIC- ITY FOR UPCOMING HEARINGS. Passed 5-0. C. Review of Summary of Draft Environmental Impact Report for El Paseo Redevelopment prepared by the City of San Jose Planning Director Eroslie informed the Council of the Subcommittee made up of Planning Com- missioners, who would develop a response to the Draft Environmental ~rnpact Report (DEIR) Col. E. T. Barco read into the record two possible responses to the Draft EiZR~ "' ' ": Councilmember Peterson felt the Planning Commission should study the issue and make a recom- mendation to the City Council; he suggested the Mayor present the Response to the Draft Environ- mental Impact Report at the City of San Jose's Planning Commission hearing. Councilmember Anderson noted IGC's concerns over the Congestion Management Plan, which related to the proposed development; she noted the limitations of the Draft EIR. Consensus reached to receive the Report of the Planning Commission on October 4, 1989. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 10 SEPTEMBER 20, 1989 NEW BUSINESS Continued D. ExpirationofTermsofDouglasandMurakamionFinanceAdvisoryCommittee MOYLES/STUTZMAN MOVED TO DIRECT STAFF TO ADVERTISE IN ACCORDANCE WITH RECOMMENDED SCHEDULE. Passed 5:0. E. Resolution supporting Clean Air and Transportation Improvement Initiative The City Manager updated the Council on the status of this Initiative and reviewed the proposal. Councilmember Moi~les suggested the Initiative not be supported until the City was ready to act on the Gas Tax. Mayor Clevenger noted the support already secured from various groups and persons; she saw no reason to withhold support, especially if the City's endorsement could help at this critical time. Councilmember Peterson urged that the City not be unduly hasty in offering an endorsement. CLEVENGER/ANDERSON MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION' 2596 SUPPORTING CLEAN AIR AND TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT INITIATIVE. Passed 3-2, Council- members Moyles and Peterson dissenting. 9. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS: A. , from Individual Councilmembers Councilmember Anderson reported on the recent IGC meeting and the recent meeting of the Policy Advisory Board. She asked that the ordinance allowing 8' fences on Cox and other streets be agendized by the Planning C~,,~ssion. Councilmember Peterson reported on the Stcer~3g Committee for the Celebrate! Saratoga event; he noted that fla~s would be installed along Big Basin Way. MOYLES/PETERSON MOVED TO AUTHOR/ZE THE PURCHASE OF FLAGS ALONG BIG BASIN WAY FOR THE CELEBRATEM SARATOGA EVENI P~ed 5-0. Councilmember Moylcs reposed on the Special Meeting of the City of Cupert~o City Council to take testimony on Route 85~ Item was conthlued for a period of ninety days. Mayor Clevenger reported on the ~Vest Val|ey Sanitation D~trict. She informed the Council of upcoming evenm of interest to them and noted that only one application for the Parks and Recreations Commasion; consensus reached to readvert~. B. Congestion Management Plan - Inclusion as part of the Circulation Element - Oral Report from Councilwoman Anderson (Continued from S~ptember 6, 1989) No action taken at [h~ t~me per the recommendat]on of ~e City Manager. C. Discussion of Changing Hours allowed for Watering Under Water Conseuvation (~d~ Consensus reached that restrictions on burs of waterin~ ~n~.d no longer be ~forced. The City Attorne was directed to prepare an ordinance to that effect. The Me~ting of ~e City Council was adjourned at 11:50 R~vLto closed session on personnel for pu~ose of the evaluation of the City Manage~ Res~.,tfUll~, surSmit-ted, ' .... Carol A. Probst-Caughey