HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-01-1989 City Council Minutes MINUTES
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
TIME: Wednesday, November 1, 1989 7:30 p.m.
PLACE: civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue
TYPE: Regular Meeting
1. ROLL CALL
Councilmembers Anderson, Moyles, Peterson, Stutzman and Mayor
Clevenger present at 7:30 p.m.
Mayor Clevenger announced that under Old Business, Item 6A, would be
heard after the 8:00 Public Hearings because one of the speakers would
be unable to appear until after that time. She reported that an
attempt was made to notify all interested parties of that agenda time
change.
2. CEREMONIAL ITEMS -
A. Resolution Commending Sharon Landshess for Service on Heritage
Preservation Commission. Mayor Clevenger noted that Ms.
Landsness was not present.
PETERSON/MOYLES MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2605 COMMENDING SHARON
LANDSNESS FOR SERVICE ON HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION. Passed 5-
0.
B. Resolution Appointing Steven Benzing to Heritage Preservation
Commission
STUTZMAN/PETERSON MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2606 APPOINTING STEVEN.
BENZING TO HERITAGE PRESERVATION COM}IISSION. Passed 5-0.
C. Administration of Oath of Office to Mr. Benzing
Mayor clevenger administered the Oath of Office to Mr. Benzing. She
thanked him for his willingness to serve on the Commission and
reported that his architectural expertise is most needed.
3. ROUTINE MATTERS
A. Approval of Minutes - 10/18
Councilmember Moyles requested that on Page 4, his comments in support
of curbside recycling be included as a last paragraph during
discussion of that item.
Mayor Clevenger amended paragraph 6, Page 6 to read, "Mayor Clevenger
opposed the ordinance..."
City Attorney Toppel requested that on Page 4, third paragraph from
the bottom, the words "...two of those sections." be replaced with the
words "... other sections that may permit local modifications."
Councilmember Peterson amended paragraph 3, Page 11 to read,
"Councilmember Peterson indicated he would be in favor of taking a
look at changing the General Plan..."
There was consensus that the Minutes be amended and re-submitted for
approval at the next meeting.
B. Approval of Warrant List
PETERSON/MOYLES MOVED TO APPROVE AS SUBMITTED. Passed 5-0.
C. Report of City Clerk on Posting of Agenda
Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agendafor this meeting wa~
properly posted on October
4. CONSENT CALENDAR
1
City Council Minutes Page 2 NoVember 1, 1989
A. Planning Commission Actions, 10/25 - Noted and filed.
B. Parks and Recreation Commission Minutes, 10/2 - Noted and
filed.
C. Public Safety Commission Minutes, 10/13 - Noted and filed.
D. Saratoga Community Access CATV Board, 8/22; 9/19 - Noted and
filed.
E. Library commission Minutes, 10/25 - Noted and filed.
F. Policy and Procedures Statement for Human services Grants for
FY 1990-91
G. Resolution 2607 upholding Planning Commission Decision on odd
Fellows Appeal heard october 18
H. Resolution 2608revising slope easement, Lot 16, Tr. 7761, Mt.
Eden Estates
I. Construction Acceptance and Release of Cash Bond, SD 87-006,
sunset Drive (Developer, D. Ralston)
J. Award of Contract for Street Lighting, Tree Lighting,
Landscaping and Irrigation for Big Basin Way to Steiny & Co. in
the Mount of $155,231.60.
K. Final Acceptance and Notice of Completion, Handicap Access to
Government Buildings - George Johnson construction
L. Re-authorization to go to bid for re-roofing of Community
Center
M. Informational Report on Earthquake Damage
PETERSON/MOYLES MOVED TO APPROVE CONSENT CALENDAR. Passed 5-0.
4. CONSENT CALENDAR II - Claims
A. Claim of shin in Connection with tree limb which allegedly fell
on automobile in Hakone Gardens Parking lot
CLEVENGER/MOYLES MOVED TO DENY CLAIM. Passed 5-0.
5. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS AND THE PUBLIC
A. Oral communications from the Public and Commissions
1) A package of material was presented by Mr. E.T. Barco who
requested that the contents be distributed later to the City
Councilmembers.
2) There was consensus to hear Mrs. Diane Jefferson, wife of
the appellant for Item 6A Velinsky/Jefferson, appearing on her
husband's behalf. Comments are included in the Minutes in the
discussion portion of that item.
B. Written communications from the Public - None.
6. OLD BUSINESS
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-1-40,000 zoning district (DR 89-013) (Applicant,
Velinsky; Appellant, Jefferson) (continued from September 20)
Mayor Clevenger continued this item to later in the meeting.
B. Report on Local Ordinance Relatin~ to the Purchase of ~led Pa~er
and Paper Products
2
City Council Minutes Page 3 November 1, 1989
Finance Director Patricia Shriver reported that the City Council
referred Delaine Eastin's letter of 9/22/89 recommending the
procurement of recycled goods to City staff for evaluation and
recommendation on use of recycled paper and paper products. The
research findings show recycling as a feasible option, one which can
contribute toward a conservation effort for the City of Saratoga.
Costs are within the current budget. Mrs. Shriver recommended the
Council direct the City Attorney to prepare an amendment to the
Purchasing Ordinance based on the Santa Cruz County Model as proposed
by Assemblywoman Eastin.
Upon the suggestion by City Manager Harry Peacock, there.was consensus
to waive the Public Hearing Requirement on the ordinance.
PETERSON/ANDERSON MOVED TO DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE THE
PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE PURCHASING ORDINANCE. Passed 5-0.
C. Ordinance amending Uniform Building Code to adopt minimum Class
C roof covering for all residential buildings without height,
size, occupancy or setback exceptions (second reading and
adoption)
Jeffrey B. Johns, Los Gatos Saratoga Board of Realtors, addressed the
council in'his own behalf and to voice concerns from many members of
the Board of Realtors and homeowners in the community who were unable
to attend the meeting because of the recent earthquake. He suggested
the Council reconsider reconvening the Public Hearing.
Mayor Clevenger reported that she also received similar calls from
many constituents. She briefed Council on the procedure for
reconvening a Public Hearing.
Councilmember Stutzman expressed his support of the ordinance but
stated that it may be practical to apply the code to areas only where
considerable shrubbery and trees exist. He agreed with the fire
department on the point that if there were a conflagration, the fire
would spread quickly from roof to roof whether there were trees in the
area or not. He stated he would not be adverse to a reconvening of
the Public Hearing.
STUTZMAN/ANDERSON MOVED TO RECONVENE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE
ORDINANCE AMENDING UNIFORM BUILDING CODE TO ADOPT MINIMUM CLASS C ROOF
COVERING. Passed 3-2 (Moyles, Peterson opposed).
Mayor Clevenger advised the audience that the Public Hearing will be
re-noticed.
Councilmember Anderson suggested rather than having the code changed
to involve every street in Saratoga, that the Council explore the
possibility of perhaps just changing the boundaries which the
ordinance would address.
Mayor Clevenger requested staff to provide information for the Public
Hearing regarding the status of a like ordinance adopted by the City
of Los Altos.
Councilmember Peterson expressed his opinion that the two issues
stated above should either be referred to the Public Safety Commission
for further consideration or should be agendized to a Council study-
session. There was consensus to agendize the issue to the next
study-session on November 28 in the Community Center and to allow
attendance by those interested persons.
7. NEW BUSINESS
A. ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL OF HOUSE NUMBER ASSIGNMENT AT 12524
Northampton Court (Applicant/appellant, Yen)
City Manager Peacock reported on a request to change a house number of
an existing home. The Chief Building Inspector's report indicates
3
City Council Minutes Page 4 November 1, 1989
denial of the request. In response to a question from Councilman
Moyles, Mr. peacock stated that staff is concerned with the problems
which could occur in changing some house numbers under the County's
grid pattern system. He noted a long list of public, County, State
and Federal agencies which must be notified of the change and pointed
out that all the building and planning records existing since the home
was built would also need to be changed. He pointed out that this is
a relatively expensive and time-consuming process. ~
Councilman Stutzman commented on religious beliefs relating to numbers
and agreed with Mr. Peacock that from a practical point of view
approval of this request would set a precedent and lead to an
unacceptable expense and confusion in records.
Councilman Moyles stated he was not sure the issue would be as
complicated as feared and that he did not believe this type of request
has come before.the Council. He felt he would be willing to allow the
change.
In response to a suggestion from Councilman Peterson that a monetary
value be set for such requests, Mr. Peacock indicated that the costs
are unknown and would depend upon many variables. Councilman Peterson
stated he wouldn't mind allowing for this type of request for new
homes.
Councilmember Anderson stated she wouldn't mind if the procedure could
be totally cost recoverable and sufficiently costly enough to
discourage this type of request. However, she expressed her concern
regarding the possibility of a rash of requests if the request for
change were free to the public.
STUTZMAN/ANDERSON MOVED TO DENY REQUEST. Failed 2-3 (Moyles,
Peterson, Clevenger opposed).
ANDERSON/PETERSON MOVED TO DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO INVESTIGATE A
POLICY THAT ALL TRUE COSTS OF THE RESEARCH AND REQUIRED CHANGE IN
DOCUMENTATION FOR A HOUSE NUMBER CHANGE BE FULLY RECOVERABLE BY THE
CITY FROM THE PARTY REQUESTING THE CHANGE AND THAT A REPORT BE BROUGHT
BACK TO THE COUNCIL. Passed 5-0.
Mayor Clevenger ordered that this policy apply to the request from Mr.
Yen.
Mayor CleVenger moved the agenda to the Public Hearings, since the
hour of 8:00 p.m. had arrived.
8. PUBLIC HEARING8 - (8:00 p.m.)
A. Repeal of Sunset Clause of Utility User Tax
Mr. Peacock reported that the Utility Users Tax expires on July 1,
1990. Under consideration is an ordinance amending the City Code
concerning utility user taxj He reviewed the report noting that
currently funds are used solely for street maintenance under the
Pavement Management Program and that loss of this revenue source would
reduce street maintenance expenditures to $700,000 (35% of the average
expenditure by Santa Clara County cities). Loss of this source would
also deprive Saratoga of additional property tax revenue in the future
because the City's tax is tied to the property tax transfer provisions
of the recently enacted trial court funding act which would create
additional revenue to the city in the form of increased share of
property tax over the next few years from the current 3 cents on the
dollar tax rate to 7 cents on the dollar, beginning in 1992. The
report shows that the tax extension, over the next 8 fiscal years,
will raise an additional $7 million for the City. Staff recommended
that the Utility Users Tax be extended to assure long-term financial
stability and to assure continuation of existing services and
programs. Mr. Peacock stated that the report prepared by the
Maintenance Director, Mr. Dan Trinidad, and by the Finance Director,
Mrs. Patricia Shriver, indicate that the City is carrying out the
program as adopted by the City Council and the revenue measures which
4
City Council Minutes Page 5 November 1, 1989
the Council put in place in 1985 are used solely for the Pavement
Maintenance Program.
Councilmember Anderson expressed the importance for the public to
understand how much of their utility bill is toward taxes. Mr.
Peacock reported that 3 1/2 % tax is included in P.G.&E. bills. The
average household in Saratoga is paying approximately $50.00 per year
for taxes supporting maintenance of City streets. There is a
provision in the ordinance excluding low-income individuals from
paying the tax.
The public hearing was opened at 8:19 p.m.
E.T. Barco of Saratoga, read a two-page statement in strong opposition
to continuation of the Utility User Tax. He objected to the
continuation because, as he understood it, the tax was to be for five
years only and then automatically terminated.
S.A. Aspey, 12421 Lolly Court, spoke in support of the Utility User
Tax for street maintenance but suggested the Council prepare a
financial account which would verify those expenditures to the voters
in the City. He stated that any extension should include another
sunset clause and perhaps a cap on the dollar amount to be taxed could
be set (perhaps a specific percentage of a person's total utility bill
would be the more reasonable dollar amount cap.)
John Haufe, 21210 Canyon View Drive, referred to his letter to the
City Council dated October 26, 1989 which he said expresses his
opinion on the issue.
Marjorie Foote, 20910 canyon View Drive, a member of the Los
Gatos/Saratoga/
Monte Sereno League of Women Voters, referred to a letter from the
League in support of the extension of the Utility User Tax.
Karen Dowdie of Brook Lane, representing the Westbrook Homeowners'
Association, reported the Association favors extension of the Utility
User Tax, however, would like to have the Pavement Management Program
and the User Utility Tax rate (left at 3 1/2%) brought before the
voters via a public hearing process at a specified interval so that it
is in a constant state of review. The Association does not favor the
issue as a ballot measure.
Helen Kane, 12418 Palmtag Drive, stated that the Council had a valid
cause five years ago which was taken to the voters and that cause
should once again be taken to the voters. She expressed concern that
the public will become further alienated from the politicians if faced
once again with a temporary tax situation which becomes permanent.
Councilmember Anderson stated that five years ago Measure G received
55% voter approval. The Council then implemented the Utility User Tax
because the majority of the City supported the idea of repairing the
roads. She clarified that there were some differences in what the
voters voted upon and what the Council adopted later.
Max Rasmussen of Woodward Court, representing Foothill Homeowners
Association, reported the Association favors extension of the Utility
User Tax for a five-year period provided the money is used for road
repair and the Pavement Management Program. The Association is not in
favor of extending the tax to obtain money for construction of a new
Council Chamber.
Gary Hart reported that he campaigned for Measure G and supported the
enactment of this ordinance for two reasons: 1) to repair and bring up
to standards the City streets (not maintenance) and 2) it contained a
sunset clause. He objected to continuation of the Utility User Tax
because the sunset clause exists and objected to use of money from the
tax for construction of new Council Chambers.
Glen Douglas, 20570 Reid Lane, Chairman of the Saratoga Finance
Advisory Committee, reported that after study of the issue at several
meetings, the Commission unanimously concluded that the funds from the
5
City Council Minutes Page 6 November 1, 1989
Utility User tax are required to continue an efficient and effective
Pavement Management Program. Saratoga residents'would lose over
$500,000 per year in the property transfer taxes to the County General
Fund, as well as the revenue from the Utility User Tax which would
devastate Saratoga's tightly balanced budget. The Committee also
unanimously concluded that the tax issue need not be submitted to the
electorate because a public vote is not required. Mr. Douglas
referred to various overhead projections and reported, in detail, the
effects of the discontinuance of the Utility User aX.
Jeff Schwartz of San Marcos Road, reported he was part of the
discussions five years ago and was informed the Utility User Tax was
to be for bringing the roads up to standard and that the tax would
sunset. Me encouraged the Council to sunset the ordinance and place
the issue on the ballot. He expressed concern that there is no data
in the consulting engineer's Executive Summary (Attachment #3 of the
meeting packet) to indicate whether the Pavement Maintenance Program
was efficient or effective and expressed concern regarding the methods
utilized and costs for repair which he felt have been ineffectual. He
questioned why the City arrived at a budget which assumed the tax
would continue in perpetuity and which must have assumed, prior to
solving the problem with the County, that the City would have "pass-
through" new property tax money from the County. He expressed his
opinion that there are at least two alternatives to obtain the County
money without having to maintain this Utility User Tax.
Richard Drake of Gordon Court, representing the Good Government Group,
reported that the Good Government Group Board of Directors supports
continuation of the Utility User Tax, providing that continuance can
be done legally and providing that no increase in the current rate of
3 1/2% be made either at the time of the extension or later and that
continuation be reviewed by public hearing at two-year intervals
following the extension. Mr. Drake read a letter dated November 1
from the Good Government Group.
Bill Murphy, 12150 Saraglen Drive, representing the Los Gatos-Sarat0ga
Board of Realtors, reported he participated five years ago and stated
his recollection was that the money would be utilized for major
reconstruction and that the ordinance would sunset in five years. The
Board of Realtors supports a two-year extension, a 3 1/2% (or less)
cap, and would like to request a resolution from the Council
supporting that position.
Vic Monia of Granite Way, commended the Council on the successful
implementation of the Pavement Maintenance Program and encouraged the
Council to sunset the Utility User Tax. He suggested that if more
revenues are needed to implement other jobs a public hearing should be
held to request such from the public.
Gene O'Rorke of Shadow Oaks Way spoke in favor of the budget process
of the City of Saratoga. He pointed out that the budget planning
process is announced to the public and held open for public comment.
At the time of review of expenditures was held, there was no public
audience. He pointed out that the items at issue tonight are items
which should be brought up at the time of budget review, not as a
single issue. He encouraged the public to be more active at budget
time to express opinions then, rather than after the fact. He stated
that the proposed Council Hall is a multi-use purpose facility and
that the staff is working in crowded conditions. He commended the
Council on implementation of the Pavement Maintenance Program and
encouraged continuance of the Utility User Tax.
Robert Barr, 13194 Camino Barco, spoke in support of ending the
Utility User Tax because of the sunset clause included the ordinance
and expressed his belief that Council should follow the provisions of
any ordinance.
Jeff Kalb, 14617 Carnelian Glen Court, stated that he believes:
Measure G received 55% community support because the sunset clause was
included; that it is inappropriate to compare Saratoga streets and
roads with costs for other cities to maintain their roads~ that it was
city Council Minutes Page 7 November 1, 1989
a mistake for the Council to place the Utility User Tax revenues into
the General Fund but rather should have placed them into a separate,
identifiable fund wherein clear transfers could be documented; and
that in order for the Council to maintain credibility and integrity
that the issue be brought before the voters.
Jeffrey Johns, Los Gatos/Saratoga Board of Realtors, referred to his
letter of November 1 in support of continuation of the Utility User
Tax if it were accomplished through an extension of the sunset clause
rather than it being repealed. Extending the tax for two years will
allow this public forum to analyze the status. He agreed that a
resolution from the City Council clearly outlining that the funds will
be used for road maintenance is needed.
No one further appearing to speak, the public hearing was closed at
9:20 p.m.
In response to a question from Councilmember Moyles regarding the
legality of implementing a special or restrictive accounting procedure
to track the Utility User Tax more accurately, Mr. Peacock reported
that the budget clearly indicates the proceeds from that tax are
earmarked for maintenance and would be shown on the revenue side of
the budget.
Councilman Moyles expressed concern with certain remarks made this
evening which allude to broken promises, and the credibility of the
Council. He expressed his opinion that five years ago he and the
Council were quite clear in saying the sunset clause was an artificial
control point and that in all probability there would still be a need
for maintenance and for revenue in year 6. He stated that the Council
acknowledged complaints from the public relative to repair methods and
responded appropriately. He reported on legislation passed that
allowed no and low property tax cities like Saratoga to get more
dollars if they maintain the current tax effort. He stated if the
User Utility tax is cut, the revenue will be reduced dollar for dollar
on other property tax transfer money. Councilmember Moyles assured
the public that he will continue to speak candidly to all issues, will
act accordingly and will be held accountable for the decisions he
makes. He thanked several groups present which contributed
constructive suggestions. He encouraged the Council to consider not
repealing the ordinance but instead extending the sunset clause five
years (concurrent with the budget review) to allow for public
participation, and that a cap of 3 1/2% be placed into the ordinance.
He agreed there should be a required periodic public audit process.
He expressed a willingness to act tonight on a first reading of the
ordinance.
Councilmember Anderson expressed the importance of having the review
of the Utility User Tax concurrent but separate from the budget review
and that the public be made aware of that review. She stated that if
the tax is not continued it would be necessary to tap into the capital
budget although that wouldn't'work for very long. She spoke in
support of expansion of the City Hall office space which is a definite
need and spoke in support of extension of the Utility User Tax.
Councilmember Peterson spoke in support of Pavement Management Program
and stated that although the money is placed into the General Fund it
is earmarked specifically for the program. He reported that Saratoga
has been paying out money since the passage of Proposition 13 and will
now have an opportunity to regain it. He stated that he could not
support a decision which would jeopardize this tax money which will
come back to Saratoga through property tax transfer beginning in 1992.
He stated that he fully supports continuing the User Utility Tax with
a cap of 3 1/2% and will support.another review in five years..
Councilmember Stutzman stated that although the tax passed five years
ago included a sunset clause, unfortunately, the projections for
needed monies were inadequate and the marked increase in traffic from
five years ago created a need for continued maintenance of those
streets. The Utility User Tax cost of $50/year per household is
necessary. He stated he would support continuing the tax for road use
7
City Council Minutes Page 8 November 1, 1989
with a new sunset clause for one or two years. He believes that
taking this to the voters in June would be costly and would require
great expense although he feels it would be the most honorable and
diplomatic best way. However, he stated that an extension of the tax
would be in the best interest of the community with a sunset clause
included and a direct commitment as to how the money is to be
allocated.
Mayor Clevenger reported that when Measure G did not receive 2/3
majority vote, the Council eventually adopted the Utility User Tax
which was not identical to what was placed on the ballot. The 3 1/2%
tax was considerably lower than the $100/cap. She recalled that five
years ago the public supported street maintenance. She agreed the
revenues from this tax should be used for pavement management and that
it would be "financial suicide" to remove the tax and risk losing
other monies and expressed her support for extension of the sunset
clause. She reported that originally she had suggested the clause in
order that the Council could have intensive review. She said in the
future she preferred to use the words "intensive review clause" rather
than sunset clause.
Councilmember Moyles suggested that the Council may wish to refine the
review concept. Mr. Peacock stated that since passage of Proposition
62 no tax can be raised unless it is taken to the voters but that
there is no reason why a 3 1/2% cap could not be included. He
commended the Finance Advisory Committee on the remarkable job in
documenting the needs of the City.
Discussion ensued regarding how many years the extension should be and
the reasoning for it.
Councilmember Anderson expressed concern with the possibility of
another misunderstanding in the future and that there may be public
interpretation of the new sunset clause as being a sunset as opposed
to an "intensive review". She strongly stated that the public must
understand that tonight the Council is not promising that in the
future the tax will not go on three years (five years as agreed to in
the motion) from now. She felt that there should be a public hearing
dedicated every year specifically to review of the Utility User Tax
which she felt would be sufficient as opposed to a sunset date. She
pointed'out that by having a yearly review there might come a day
where the Council discovers that this tax may no longer be needed and
the Council could reduce that tax.
Discussion ensued regarding language changes to ordinance and .to the
City code.
Mr. Toppel stated that if the Council is looking at a five year
extension, it would be amending Section 5-30.160 of the Saratoga
Municipal Code and that it would be repealed automatically on July 1,
1995. The other changes would relate to the section entitled "Annual
Review of Tax Rate". He suggested that language could read that
Council will conduct a separate public hearing on the Utility User Tax
prior to and separate from the Council's review of the annual budget.
The other change would be made at the end of that same section which
would read that nothing shall prevent the Council from reducing the 3
1/2% rate. He recommended that review of the tax be held in JanUary
because that time frame will give staff several months to prepare a
comprehensive report of the work during the previous calendar year and
projections for the next year.
PETERSON/MOYLES MOVED TO INTRODUCE BY TITLE ONLY, WAIVING FURTHER
READING, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 5-30.160 OF-THE SARATOGA
MUNICIPAL CODE EXTENDING THE SUNSET DATE OF THE UTILITY USER TAX FOR
FIVE YEARS TO JULY 1, 1995, THAT THE ORDINANCE LANGUAGE INCLUDE THAT A
REVIEW OF THE UTILITY USER TAX RATE SHALL.BE HELD ANNUALLY IN JANUARY
SEPARATE FROM REVIEW OF THE ANNUAL BUDGET AND THAT NOTHING SHALL
PREVENT THE COUNCIL FROM REDUCING THE 3 1/2% USER UTILITY TAX HATE.
Passed 5-0.
City Council Minutes Page 9 November 1, 1989
Mayor Clevenger declared a recess at 10:15 p.m. Upon reconvening at
10:30 p.m. the same Councilmembers and staff were present.
B. Appeal of approval of design review to construct a one-stozT,
2,925 sq. ft. slngle-family dwelling in the R-1-10,000 zone
district at 20271 Merrick Drive (DR S9-105) (Applicants
Espeseth~ appellant, Seacrist)
Mayor Clevenger opened the Public Hearing at 10:30 p.m.
Planning Director Emslie reviewed the issues, noting that the appeal
is based upon the Planning Commission approval of an adjusted design
for this home. The areas of appeal concern the amount and location of
landscaping between the driveway serving the existing house to the
rear of the subject parcel, as well as the fencing and landscaping
proposed for the perimeter of the property currently being developed.
The appellant is requesting additional landscaping to screen the
visual appearance of the driveway adjacent to their property and
objected to the provision allowing a chain-link fence (with a vine
growing which would eventually obscure the fence) with landscaping
around the side rear of the subject property. The Planning commission
modified the applicant's proposal by adding additional landscaping but
not to the extent as requested by the appellant. The Planning
Commission extended, approximately 50', a hedge of pittosporum species
that would provide the screen. The Planning Commission~s analysis
included a finding that the landscaping as modified would be
sufficient to mitigate and minimize the impact to the adjoining
property owner and felt it would not be a detriment. to that property.
The Planning Commission approved the design with the above
modifications.
Staff is recommended that City Council give consideration to a solid
fence with similar landscaping and consider modifying the Planning
Commission's approval with this substitution and that the Council
uphold the City Planning Commission's decision with the modification
of the fence.
Discussion ensued wherein staff answered various questions regarding
the property and referred to several wall exhibits. In response to a
question from Councilmember Stutzman regarding prohibition of chain-
link fences other than around recreational courts, Mr. Emslie stated
that the prohibition is for the hillside zones and is not specifically
prohibited in R-l-10,000 zones.
Mr. Peacock reported that a letter dated October 25 on this matter
from Mr. Richard Dowell to the Mayor objects to the fact that the
grading on the property was started while the appeal was pending
before the Council. He explained that the Building Department issued
the grading permit in error, believing the design review approval had
been made and was not aware the appeal had been filed. However, once
that was brought to staff~s attention the contractor was required to
cease all work.
Barbara Seacrist, 20270 Merrick Drive, stated that sinceher last
'appearance before the Council on the issue, she was given the
impression both by the City Council and Planning Commission that if in
fact approval was given that the new house would be made to conform to
the neighborhood as much as possible. She stated her concerns
regarding: 1) The chain-link fence is on a slope and will be more
and more visible as it travels upward and the landscaping planned for
the fence will take some time to fill in and may not be permanent
landscaping. The neighborhood standard is wooden fences. 2) It has
not been specified in writing that the new house must have a concrete
driveway. She understands that the approval is for asphalt. The
neighborhood standard is concrete. (Later in the meeting she stated
that although asphalt is approved. for the driveway to the old house,
she would prefer that asphalt not be used.) 3) She stated she has not
seen the specific requirement in writing that the drainage problem
must be corrected if Council approval is given Mr. Espeseth to move
his lot line. 4) She expressed concern with the landscaping of the
driveway between the two properties. She wished to be informed of
9
City Council Minutes Page 10 November 1, 1989
what City Department will be monitoring the construction. Mrs.
Seacrist confirmed that she hopes approval will be conditioned to have
the drainage problem on the old house corrected.
Mr. Espeseth responded to Mrs. Seacrist's concerns. He stated that he
would utilize a wooden fence but stated that he feels the landscaping
requests are excessive. He reported that the driveway has always been
on the property and utilized all along by the previous owners. He
expressed objection to the request that he practically plant a forest
to block out the driveway from the neighbors. He reported he would be
willing to add an additional 50' of pittosporum along the bac~ lot
line and intersperse 15 gallon brazilian pepper trees rather than the
24" box trees that Planning staff had recommended and stated he
thought that issue had already been resolved. He pointed out that he
has no problem with a concrete driveway but that he would prefer to
intersperse brick and aggregate. Mr. Emslie and Mr. Espeseth
clarified the plans indicate that concrete will be used for the
driveway of the new house and asphalt will be used for the driveway
along side of the house.
Lela Wilson, 20251 Merrick Drive, addressed the Council expressing
opposition to Mr. Espeseth planting pittosporum from the street all
the way around the house. She objected because her property will
become enclosed because df the high growth of the species. She stated
that a landscape architect suggested he plant 12, 36" box trees,
however, she stated she would be satisfied with 12, 24" inch trees.
She stated that the traffic on the driveway by her home has increased
because Mr. Espeseth works out of his home and is in and out much of
the time. She requested that the pittosporum be planted by the
driveway turning the corner and about 20' further, and that 12, 24"
box size trees be.planted across the back within 30 days from today,
if approved.
Jamie Lamont, 13700 Calle Tacuba, expressed concern regarding the
drainage issue and recalled that it was guaranteed that the drainage
throughout the entire property area affected by the building of the
main house would be taken 6are of.
Pat Kahn, 13710 Calle Tacuba, expressed concern regarding the type of
driveway, the drainage problem, the chain-link fence, and the
increased traffic on the driveway between the Espeseth and Wilson
home.
Curtis Wilson of Saratoga, expressed his opinion that when dealing
with a flag lot he believes special considerations should be given to
minimizing the impact of the increased activities that were previously
conducted in the front portion of the lot.
Mayor Clevenger closed the public hearing at 10:55 p.m.
Mayor Clevenger agreed with Mrs. Wilson regarding the effects on the
wilson property if surrounded with pittosporum and agreed with heron
the placement of the landscaping as mentioned above and that it should
be done within 6 weeks from today. She agreed the drainage should be
taken care of and pointed out that Mr. Espeseth has agreed to
construct'a concrete driveway and wooden fence.
Councilmember Anderson opposed the chain-link fence, agreed that the
driveway for the new home should be concrete or better, the drainage
problem must be solved, the landscaping must be done quickly and the.
landscaping should be negotiated. She expressed concern regarding the
height of the retaining wall and stated that she did not believe a
variance had been given for 10 feet. She felt that it would be unfair
to disallow Mr. Espeseth to utilize asphalt for the driveway between
the houses.
Councilmember Peterson questioned the drainage problem on the existing
home. Mr. Esmlie reported that the lot line adjustment was approved
to address the drainage on the new parcel as well as the existing as
part of the improvements.'
10
City council Minutes Page 11 November 1, 1989
Councilmember Moyles agreed withMayor Clevenger on the points she
mentioned. He is satisfied that the drainage problem will be solved.
Councilmember Stutzman agreed with the other members of Council and
declined to comment as he felt all areas had been govered.
There was consensus that approval be given conditioned with the
following: That the drainage be corrected on the old and new
property~ that the fence be wooden, that the pittosporum be planted
along the driveway and 20~ beyond where the driveway turns the corner~
that the species of 12, 24" box trees be negotiated with staff and
planted as soon as possible and within 6 weeks from today~ that the
driveway for the new house be concrete or better; and that the
material for the driveway for the old house be of the same material as
the other driveway for approximately 30~ up the driveway.
CLEVENGER/ANDERSON MOVED TO UPHOLD THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION
WITH THE MODIFICATIONS MENTIONED ABOVE. Passed 5-0.
C. Appeal of design review approval to allow demolition of an
existing single-story residence and the construction of a new,
4,079 sq. ft., two-story residence in the R-1-20,000 zone
district at 15185 Pepper Lane (DR 89-076) (Applicant, Young~
appellant, Hyland)
Dick Hyland spoke as the appellant, representing his parents who are
on vacation, expressing his parents~ concerns regarding the proposed
project. Mr. Hyland referred to a letter he presented signed by 18
neighbors in opposition to the project. He pointed out the main
opposition is that the construction of this new home will infringe on
his parents~ privacy. Additionally, the two-story house is not
consistent with houses of that size lot in that development, and that
the location of the house on the lot will have an effect on the
seclusion his parents now have in their back yard.
David Young, 15185 Park Drive, spoke as the applicant, addressing the
points listed in his recent letter to the Council. The house has been
designed so that request for variances would not be necessary; the
house is significantly smaller than the allowance and is a single-
story so as not to infringe upon the privacy nor the property of the
Hylands~ the setbacks are well within the allowance and all houses on
his block on the same side of Park are on 15~ setback. Mr. Young
pointed out that the trees between the houses essentially screens out
the proposed project. He suggested that rather than removing two
smaller oak trees, as suggested in Mr. Phillips report, that they be
left in order to maintain that screen between the houses. A 6t
redwood fence will be constructed as a condition requested by the
Planning Commission. He requested that Council reconsider reinstating
a second-story, west-facing window which the Planning Commission
required to be removed. He feels there is sufficient screening and
pointed out that it is a child~s bedroom and therefore important to
have light and ventilation. He referred to three letters from
neighbors (13) in support of the project. Mr. Young requested that
the Council reconsider the restricted hours of construction of 8-5
Monday through Friday back to the regular hours which extend longer
each day as well as on Saturday. He pointed out that other projects
under construction in the neighborhood do not have to abide by reduced
construction hours.
ScQtt Cunningham, 4375 Saratoga Avenue, spoke in support of the
project on behalf of the Youngs. He addressed ordinance issues and
design criteria,. all of which the Youngs are in compliance with, and
requested approval of the project.
Mayor Clevenger closed the public hearing at 11:30 p.m.
Councilmember Stutzman spoke in favor of allowing the two small oak
trees to remain. He is of the opinion that the screening and
architecture of the house (including the'second story window) is
satisfactory so as not to infringe on the neighbors"privacy. He felt
that construction should not be allowed on Saturdays.
11
City Council Minutes Page 12 November 1, 1989
Councilmember Moyles agreed with Councilmember Stutzman's comments.
Councilmember Anderson agreed with other Councilmembers on the issues,
however, favored leaving the construction hours as required by the
Planning Commission.
PETERSON/CLEVENGER MOVED TO DENY THE APPEAL, ALLOW THE WINDOW AND THE
TWO SHALL OAK TREES TO REHAIN, AND ALLOW CONSTRUCTION HOURS THAT ARE
NORMAL AND IN COMPLIANCE WITH CITY ORDINANCES. Passed 5-0.
Mayor Clevenger returned the agenda to item 6A.
6. OLD BUSINESS
Ai 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-1-40,000 zoning district (DR 89-013 (Applicant,
Velinsky; appellant, Jefferson) (continued from September 28)
Planning Director Emslie reviewed the report of the Planning
Commission. The Commission discussed City Council direction to
achieve three items: 1) that the home be located above the 660 foot
elevation, 2) that the home be one-story, and 3) that the drainage be
directed to Hidden Hill Road. The Commission felt that the revised
plan is a compromise which achieves the objectives of the owner.
Staff recommended the City Council approve the plan which is
consistent with the.direction at the previous hearing. Staff's
recommendation is based on the fact that the structure is now located
outside of the ravine which is a significant change and the two-story
element has been eliminated. The technical requirement that it be
above the 660 foot elevation has not been achieved in the areas north
and east the 660 line drops down.
The plan now requires two variances for setbacks: 1) The easterly
property line has a 35 foot setback requirement; an 8 foot setback is
proposed. 2) The northerly property line is defined as a side yard
which has a 20 setback foot requirement; an 18 foot setback is
proposed. 3) The revised plans as presented include a swimming pool
for which a variance is required; a turn-around area is required for a
driveway to meet safety code requirements. This driveway turn-around
encroaches beyond the 660 line and requires grading and installation
of a 3 1/2 foot retaining wall. Staff has analyzed this point and
determined this area is necessary and that there is no alternative to
reduce it without affecting the usability of the driveway and the
garage.
Mr. Emslie stated that if the Council fs inclined to approve the plan
tonight he would recommend approval conditioned upon a public hearing
to be conducted by the Planning Commission and a granting of the
variances. Staff has determined the structure is in conformance with
the size of surrounding properties and has determined the project
meets th~ criteria of the development standards, the design review
guidelines as well as the objectives of the General Plan of the City
of Saratoga.
Discussion ensued regarding the Planning Commission Report on revised
plans for the project wherein staff answered various questions from
Councilmembers regarding setbacks; the possibility of problems with a
swimming pool (in the event of substantial earthquake); the turn-
around area; the turn-around area which is along the edge of the
ridge; and the specific location of the garage on the property.
Diane Jefferson, on behalf of the appellant, recalled to the Council
the three requirements directed to Mr. Velinsky at the last hearing on
this matter~ She stated that 1) the design of the home was not made
smaller; 2) although the design is now one-story the roof line is much
higher than the normal one-story homes in the area; and 3) the 660
line has changed with each plan submitted. She questioned whether or
not a valid survey should be made to determine what the 660 line is
12
City Council Minutes Page 13 November 1, 1989
and questioned whether the current plan adheres to the City Council
requirements.
Ira Velinsky, 15839 Hidden Hill Road, the applicant, reported that the
outset of the project an JMH Engineering was hired to do a detailed
study of geology of the area which was adhered to throughout the
design process. The City~s geotechnical consultant indicated that the
site conditions were adequately investigated and indicated that pier
and grade beam foundation alternative appears to be appropriate and
supported approval of the project. He read a letter from Mr. Bill
Heiss which verifies there will be no increased runoff to the
southerly portion of the Velinsky
property. Mr. Velinsky reported the turn-around area will not be a
paved area but will be constructed with concrete blocks which allows
grass to grow through. The turn-around area above the 660 line is
much smaller than the original design requiring only a 3 1/2 foot
retaining wall. He assured the Council that he had spoken with Mr.
Hwang after the recent earthquake regarding the plans for the pool and
Mr. Hwang stated he does not object.
Curt Anderson, Applicant~s architect, spoke in support ofthe project
and to Council~s concerns stating that the revised plans have
accomplished the requirements set by the Planning Commission.
Dr. Richard Sogg, 19262 Hidden Hill Road, reiterated his concerns
regarding the seismic instability of the area; the landslide
potential; the potential for subsidence on the downside toward the
ravine~ that precedence for necessary construction (due to the recent
earthquake) be allowed to those homeowners impacted before new
projects are started. He agreed that approval should be conditioned
that the driveway be the existing driveway rather than the easement.
Wanda Alexander of Ravine Road spoke in opposition to: l) Any and all
use of the ravine, 2) the granting of special issues to the applicant
relative to variances (the revised plans are for a larger house than
originally requested) which she believes is discrimination, 3) The
bulk, size and compatibility is not acceptable and staffts findings
are not believable nor adequately comparable with other properties,
and 4) that the current proposal is larger than the original proposal.
Mrs. Alexander expressed her opinion that the previous proposals were
part of a hard sell for the developer to obtain what he really wanted
and which imposes on everyone and everything. She requested that 1)
all excavation and all use of the ravine be disallowed, 2) the third
section reaching back toward the ravine be eliminated, 3) conformance
to the Council directive that the home fit within the 660 line, 3)
grant the developer what he originally asked for which is a 3,200 sq.
ft. house, and 4) require compatibility with adjacent residences
keeping the house within the 2,000 - 4,000 sq. ft. foot print. Mrs.
Alexander stated that the property is legally an HCRD zone.
Pat Dryer, representing the Greenbelt Alliance, spoke in opposition to
the project.. She referred to a map showing the earthquake faults as
they relate to the Velinsky property. She expressed the Greenbelt
Alliance objection to building on ridge lines, especially if they are
large structures, and objection to the size and location of the home
resulting in great visibility from the valley floor. She believes
that approval of the project will set a precedent. She gave
information from national reporting of the October 17 earthquake. She
recommended that if thePVelinskys cannot downsize the home, then
Council could consider a 6-monthbuilding moratorium on all hillside
building until a citizens' committee of engineers and geologists can
be established to compile advisory recommendations regarding hillside
construction.
Bill Robson of Saratoga, spoke in opposition to the increased size of
the house, that the house is still below the 660 line and to the
massive increase in front elevation.
Albert Zecher, Attorney for the Velinskys, addressed the Council
pointing out that the Velinskys have been through all the various
issues at previous meetings and stated that he believes all issues
13
City Council Minutes Page 14 November 1, 1989
have been professionally addressed. He expressed concern that each
time his client met new requirements, residents turned up with new
objections. He expressed concern and expressed his opinion that two
of the main objecting residents are political contributors to people
on the City Council. In response to Mayor Clevenger, Mr. Zecher
stated that the house is above the 660 line all along the ravine side
and there is a small portion that may fall below that line. Mayor
Clevenger objected to Mr. Zecher's statement that the Velinskys have
complied with all requirements, specifically the 660 line, and
that she resented Mr. Zecher~s statement that alludes to Council
making a political decision based on campaign contributions and deemed
it inappropriate.
In response to a question from Mayor Clevenger, Mr. Emslie reiterated
that ~he house is above the 660 line on the ravine side, it encroaches
a substantial portion of the room in the north quadrant and is the
portion which slopes to the north away from the ravine and which staff
is not concerned as an endangerment to a significant topographic
feature and finds it consistent with the guidelines to preserve
topography.
Councilmember Stutzman stated that he is not satisfied the issue of
bulk has been addressed as well as the way the house is situated on
the hillside. He detailed his. concerns and objected to the issue. He
pointed out zoning regulation 15-45.08, paragraph A, B, C, and D,
which relates to the bulk issue. He stated that if the appendage to
the southwest were placed in the location of the proposed pool, this
would minimize the bulk aspect. He objected to the pool in the
proposed.location and pointed out Ordinance 15-14.050, paragraph 3
with respect to the necessity for an investigation by a certified
engineering geologist addressing seismic hazards related to the nearby
trace (within 100 feet) to 'show that no fault crosses the site of a
habitable structure. He expressed environmental concerns with the
project.
He stated that if the southwest wing of the house were moved to the
pool area or the house reduced to 3,900 square feet and if the pool
were eliminated from the proposed site and if the geological study
addressing the problem of potential seismic activity on this lot is
obtained, then he could support the project, otherwise he does not.
Councilmember Moyles expressed concern with the lengthy approval
process of this particular project. He urged the Councilmembers to
end the process this evening and allow Mr. Velinsky to have his home.
He stated that Commissioner Burger~s four points are his own concerns
and feels that the previous proposed plans were for a better house.
Councilmember Peterson personally apologized to Mr. Velinsky stating
that he believes this to be an absolute travesty. He stated he has
never seen an applicant work so hard, and as honestly as Mr. Velinsky
on compliance of the City's requests. He stated that the Council knew
from staff~s last report that in order to build the house where
Council wanted it built, variances would be necessary. He expressed
surprise that tonight there is more opposition from Council and
apologized once again.
Councilmember Anderson expressed concern with variances. She stated
that she felt that the problem of building on the ridgeline has been
accomplished in that the house no longer hangs over a potential
building pad on the Alexander property. She stated that she would
support the project conditioned on the following: 1) if the neighbors
Haggland and Hwang don't object to the'variance; 2) Dr. Sogg~s
driveway is not affected and, 3) that the geotechnic report is
received. She objected to: 1) the first turn-around, 2) a third
variance for the pool and supported removal of two trees. She
suggested that if one garage could be eliminated the living room could
be placed differently to get back approximately 10 feet more from the
Haggland property line which might give more of an open feeling.
Mayor Clevenger stated she would support'the project conditioned on
the following: 1). no pool, 2) removal of the first turn-around, 3)
14
City Council Minutes Page 15 November 1, 1989
that Mr. velinsky stay on the road he presently has so Dr. Sogg
doesn't have to worry about the road easement, and 4) that the plan be
for a two-car garage. She expressed her opinion that this plan is
more environmentally sensitive than the first plan. She pointed out
that the house is not above the 660 line. Mr. Toppel read a portion
of Resolution 2598, dated October 4, 1989, which specifies as a
condition "...relocation of the structure away from the ravine, to
within the area of the 660~ contour line."
ANDERSON/CLEVENGER MOVED APPROVAL OF THE PLAN WITH THE FOLLOWING
REVISIONS: NO POOL VARIANCE, REMOVAL OF THE FIRST TURN-AROUND, THAT
THE LOWER TURN-AROUND BE LEFT IN THE GRASS, THE PRESENT ROAD BE
UTILIZED, REDESIGN TO A TWO-CAR GAPj~GE TO ALLOW A 18 FOOT SETBACK
FROM THE GARAGE WALL TO THE PROPERTY LINE. Passed 3-2 (Moyles,
Stutzman opposed).
Mr. Peacock recommended that Council direct the City Attorney to
prepare the necessary resolution subject to submittal of revised plans
for attachment to that resolution. Consensus to do so.
Council pointed out to Mr. Velinsky that the pool is not included in
this.approval and that the revised plans which are to be submitted be
developed without a pool. This action by the Council this evening
does not preclude Mr. Velinsky from applying for another type of pool
plan.
Council was advised that variance findings must be addressed at a
public hearing, noticed'and taken back to the Planning Commission,
Council has no jurisdiction over a variance application. Council
could however waive the application fees.
CLEVENGER/PETERSON MOVED THAT THE VARIANCE FEES BE WAIVED. Passed 5-
0.
7. NEW BUSINESS, continued
B. Resolution declaring weeds on certain described property a
public nuisance and setting public hearing for December 6.
CLEVENGER/MOYLES MOVE TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2609 DECLARING WEEDS ON
CERTAIN DESCRIBED PROPERTY A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND SETTING PUBLIC
HEARING FOR DECEMBER 6. Passed 5-0.
C. Publicity for Upcoming Hearings: Nieman Appeal of Dymand
Project; Weed Abatement Protest Hearing.
PETERSON/MOYLES MOVE TO APPROVE RECOMMENDED PUBLICITY FOR UPCOMING
HEARINGS. Passed 5-0.
D. Christmas Tree in Blaney Plaza
CLEVENGER/PETERSON MOVE TO APPROVE INSTALLATION OF LIGHTED STEEL
CHRISTMAS TREE IN BLANEY PLAZA TO CELEBRATE THE CHRISTMAS SEASON.
Passed 5-0.
9. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS
A. Reports from Individual Councilmembers. None.
Discussion was held regarding the schedule for the
"CELEBRAATE!SARATOGA" activity.
10.ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 1:00 a.m., in memory of Carol Probst-
Caughey, Minutes Clerk, to 7:00 p.m., November 7, 1989, for closed
session to discuss selection of the City Engineer and for a joint
meeting with the Parks and Recreation Commission.
Respectfully submitted,
15
City Council Minutes Page 16 November 1, 1989
Victoria R. i
Minutes Clerk
16