Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-31-1990 City Council Minutes MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL TIME: Tuesday, July 31, 1990 - 6:00 p.m. PLACE: Senior Center, 19655 Allendale Avenue TYPE: Adjourned Regular Meeting - Open Space Workshop continued from July 10, 1990 Councilmembers Anderson, Kohler, Monia and Mayor Stutzman were present at 6:00 p.m. (Clevenger arrived at 6:50 p.m.; Anderson left at 7:20 p.m.) Staff Present: City Manager Peacock, Planning Director Emslie, Associate Planner Adar Mayor Stutzman called the meeting to order at 6:04 p.m. and thanked the members of the Planning Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission, Heritage Preservation Commission and the Finance Advisory Committee for attending to continue discussion on development of open space policies and programs. The City Council and Commissioners discussed the use of cross tabulations of data from the open space survey at some length. It was agreed that final choices would be made as the committee work progressed and the need for specific cross tabulation could be identified. After discussion of various ways to establish a steering committee for open space policy development, the City Council agreed to create a committee made up of the Mayor and one member of the City Council, one member and an alternate from the involved commissions and committee, and four general public members to be picked from different geographical areas of the City. The geographical areas and selection criteria are to be determined at the August 7 meeting. Each commission and committee involved is to pick its member and alternate and so inform the Council. Council will decide on the Councilmember at its August 7 meeting also. Pending formation of the committee, staff is to begin work on a Request for Proposals for consulting services and refine the list of policy issues to address. The committee is to be formed by early September. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Harry R. City Clerk MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL TIME: Tuesday, July 24, 1990 - 6:00 p.m. TYPE: Regular Adjourned Meeting PLACE: Senior Lounge, Community Center 1. ROLL CALL Councilmembers Anderson, Clevenger, Kohler, Monia and Mayor Stutzman were present at 6:00 p.m. 2. INTERVIEWS WITH APPLICANTS FOR LIBRARY COMMISSION Three applicants were interviewed. After discussion, there was consensus to appoint William Watkins. 3. JOINT ME£TING WITH CHAMBER OF COMMERCE The Council ap~ C~nber of Co~.~rce Boar~ discussed the proposed agreement to furnish services which promote business and cu~,~onity events in hhe City. CLEVEN~i~R/MONIA MOVED TO APPROVE THE AGREt~i~T. Passed 5-0. At 7:30 p.m. the Council left the Ca~n~nity Center and reconvened in the Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue. Mayor Stutzman announced that a request was made by Bruce Tichinin, attorney representing Wanda Alexander and the Coalition for Hillside Protection, to continue the Public Hearing regarding I. Velinsky for one week. Mr. Harry Peacock, City Manager, reported the letter was received by FAX on July 23. KOHLER/MONIA MOVED TO CONTINUE THE VELINSKY PUBLIC HEARING TO 8/1/90. Mr. Hal Toppal, City Attorney, disagreed with Mr. Tichinin's claim in the letter that a legal requirement exists for this hearing to be continued and said the case cited in the letter has no application to this matter. Proper notification was given and adequate information was made available.to all. Mr. Toppal advised that to continue the hearing is not a .legal mandate but that Council has the discretion of whether or not they wish to do so. Mr. Velinsky said that he postponed a business trip to Japan so he could be present tonight. MAYOR STUTZMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION ON THE ABOVE STATED MOTION. Failed 0-5. 4. CEREMONIAL ITEMS - None 5. ROUTINE MATTERS A. Approval of Minutes - 7/5 Councilmember Anderson pointed out the meeting ended at 11:30 "p.m." Councilmember Kohler pointed out that he discussed a letter regarding SB209, which he believed was to have been drafted for issuance to Senator Rebecca Q. Morgan and which he expected City staff would'handle. Mr. Peacock requested clarification from the City Council regarding issues which are placed on the City Council agenda. He recalled that although SB209 was discussed no direction was given to staff to take action to change the City Council's position on the issue. COuncilmember Kohler said that this matter could be discussed later. MONIA/ANDERSON MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JULY 5, 1990 AS AMENDED. Passed 5-0. B. Approval of Warrant List MONIA/ANDERSON MOVED TO APPROVE AS SUBMITTED. 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 July 20. The notice of adjournment from the July 10 meeting was properly posted on July 11. City Council Minute~ 7/24/90 Page 2 6. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Planning Commission Actions, 7/11 B. Library Commxssxon Minutes, 6/27 - Noted and filed. C. Public Safety Commission Minutes, 7/9 - Noted and filed. D. Saratoga Community Access Cable TV Foundation Board of Directors M~eting Minutes, 6/19 - Noted ~nd filed. E. Approval of part-time/temporary position - Departmental intern F. Authorization for staff to request proposals for yearly maintenance ' for City's 6ffice computers/peripherals G. Authorization for staff to request proposals for yearly maintenance for City typewriters H.. Extension d Amendment of Traffic Signal Maintenance Agreement I. Final Acceptance of landscaping and refund of bond at 18691 Vessi~g Cou~t J. Route 85: Prospect R~. to Saratoga Creek - Grant of Revised Easement to West Valley Sanitation District K.. Award?construction contract for Scully Avenue improvements adjacent to Kevin Moran Park L. Award construction contract for Sarahills Drive (Capital Improvement Project ~94~) M. Treasdrer~s Report - June N. Investment eport- June o. Financial R ~ort - June Councilmember Kohler pulled items A and L from the Consent Calendar. KOHLER/MONIA MOVED TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR WITH EXCEPTION OF ITEMS A AND L. Pass'ed 5-0. Councilmember Kohle~ e~ressed concern with comments made by Planning CommisSioner Tappan ~at the Planning Commission meeting of July 11 regarding Councilmember Kohler being politically naive. KOHLER/MONIA MOVED THAT A MEETING BE HELD WITH COUNCIL AND COMMISSIONER TAPPAN SO HE CAN EXPLAIN HIS VIEWS ON FOLLOWING COUNCIL DIRECTION. Discussion ensued w~erein Councilmember Clevenger and Councilmember Anderson Suggested that Councilmember Kohler discuss the issue first with Commissioner Tappan/before taking such an extreme measure to officially bring him to task before the Council for his opinion. If the outcome is not satisfactory he ~could then bring the matter back. Councilmember Anderson said that fFequentty there have been diverse opinions from the Planning Commission which is not necessarily a bad thing. In responseto Councilmember Monia, Councilmember Kohler said he did not see , ., algood ason to fx~st speak with Commissioner Tappan but would be willing to re modify bi~ motion that Mr. Tappsn submit a letter to the Council to justify his remarks. MayorStu~zman said he believes there is considerably more to this issue and it may re'quire a mo~e in-depth'investigation. However, if Councilmember Kohler feels the letter is not satisfactory Council should consider the original motion. MAYOR STUTZMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION ON THE ABOVE STATED MOTION. Passed 3-2 (Anderson, Clevenger voted no.) City Council Minutes 7/24/90 Page 3 CLEVENGER/ANDERSON MOVED TO NOTE AND FILE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM A. CONSENSUS TO SET A MEETING WITH COMMISSIONER TAPPAN AT ON AUGUST 1, AT 7:00 P.M. Regarding Consent Calendar item L, Councilmember Kohler commented that Sarahills Drive seems to alw~s be under repair. He requested clarification on the capital outlay, estimated completion of repair, and the future of the road. Mr. Peacock reported that Sarahills Drive and several lots have been the subject of landslide problems for several years and explained the City"s plan for repair which includes stabilization of the street, placement of a new storm drain, replacement of an existing storm drain and-resurfacing of the street at a cost of $58,000.00. ANDERSON/MONIA MOVED TO APPROVE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM L. Passed 5-0. 7. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS AND THE PUBLIC A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Tom Reddick complained of interference with his television reception which he believes is caused by ham and c.b. radio operators. He requested the names and addresses those operators to whom the permits were issued and requested the City to see to it that those persons have filters installed to eliminate the disturbance. Bob Swanson of Crisp Avenue read his letter of complaint against the noise, and dirt and dust.pollution generated by the Rogers and Brooks project and the City's process for complaints as being unsatisfactory. He questioned the accuracy of information given to him by various City staff regarding elevation of lots, permits, and the grading plan. He said he was assured his view would be protected as a first priority but subsequently, Mr. Peacock informed his wife that the grades are final and duly approved. Mr. Swanson said that he believes his only recourse now is to battle Kith a future resident regarding one lot. He believes it is unacceptable and unreasonable that a resident would feel he has to continue to monitor any project every step of the way. Mr. Swanson strongly requested that the City deny further access on Crisp Avenue, except the to 7 neighboring houses, that the height of lot 16 and the height of the house be resolved now, that the City supervise the dust and dirt being generated and that the City request the developer to move the temporary office structure to a less obtrusive space. Councilmember Kohler agreed that this project is similar to the Cocciardi disaster and insisted that Council and staff treat residents courteously and communicate better with the homeowners in the area to inform them of the activity. He said he believes that if Seven lots are to be constructed upon, then only seven lots should be served. Councilmember Monia expressed his opinion that this project is the closest situation to a public nuisance, that he has observed the construction vehicles parked only on Crisp Avenue and that Crisp Avenue access is being utilized for lots other than the seven which are to be built. He believes this activity should be stopped immediately. He asked if the pad elevations are final. Mr. Toppel reported that specific instructions were given that Crisp Avenue access could be utilized for only the activity on the southern lots. In the course of the design review application process being acted upon, the Planning Commission can always establish or change that grade as part of the design review process. A stop work order can only be issued if there is evidence the developer is proceeding in a manner contrary to the City's building or grading regulations. He discussed the requirements for eliminating dust and dirt problems in the construction area. Lengthy discussion ensued regarding Crisp Avenue access, the absence of watering trucks for dust control and current extensive grading. Councilmember Anderson agreed that something should be done regarding the extensive grading because this was not Council's original intention for that land. City Council Minutes 7/24/90 Page 4 Mr. Peacock said the he has no knowledge of the access road violation but will consult with th'e site inspectors to determine if that is the case. He recounted his conver'sation with Mrs. Swanson wherein he said he told her the grading plan being u d on the site had been approved at the Planning Commission aspart o'f the subdivision map end that Gypsy Hill had been formally accepted by the City Council in June. Mr. Steven Emslie, Planning Director, reported that when Gypsy Hill was approved on June 24, it was determined that 70% of the traffic would utilize Gypsy Hill and 30% wDuld utilize Crisp Avenue to enter and exit the subdivision. The re~l traffic will begin with the next phase for util-ities and'paving which staff wi=ll monitor closely. He said he plans to meet with the.developer tomor~Dw to express the concerns discussed. Mayor StutZman requested a staff report at the next meeting. Mayor Stutzman moved the agenda to Public Hearings, since the hour of 8:00 p.m. had passed. .10. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Appeal of Modification of Use Permit for Brookside Club, 19127 Cox Avenue (ApPellant, Dee Askew; Applicant, Brookside Club) (UP574.1) Mayor Clevenger reported she is a member of BrookSide and because of a · 'conflict of interes~ stepped down for the hearing of this item and abstained f.rom voting. M .' E slie summarized his report, as'presented in the Memorandum to City Council in tonight'~ meeting packet .Staff recommended the City Council uphold the Planning Commission's action modifying the Use P~rmit to delete the prohibition of alcohol consumption, and uphold its finding that the Club is in compliance wi~h all Use Permit ~equirements. He l~ter reported that other clubs in the area do not have a prohibition against use of alcohol. Mayor Stutzman opened the Public Hearing at 8:29 p.m. !bee Askew, Appellant, 12651 Saratoga Creek Drive, represented 60 neighbors who signed a petition in opposition to changes in the alcohol prohibition and in an attempt to regain the .quiet enjoyment of their property what they feel is rightfully theirS. She presented the petition to Council and requested Council uphold the dse permit issued in a public meeting by the City Council on June 4, 1958. She reviewed several complaints against the Club including non-compliance of't~e permit, the increase in noise level with consumption of alcohol, p~blic 6uisance, and invasion of privacy in, a residential neighborhood. Quoting UP14.1 adopted on January 25, 1960, and referring to Other dates of Coun6il action, Mrs. Askew pointed out additional non- compliance with fen6ing and landscaping conditions of the use permit which contributes to nois~. She urged Council to implement UP547.2 adopted on January 24, 1990 and consider the impact of excessive noise. Sharon Torrens, Applicant and President of Brookside Club, 13634 Holly Drive, reported there are 250 members who are property owners of the Club. She complained of the 18-month situation and unsubstiantiated allegations, and spoke in defens~ of the Club's rights to function as en athletic and social club which p~om0tes the Club~ its youth and families, and community activities for adults and children. Various equipment at Brookside has been of benefit not only~ club members but to the youth and residents of the City of Saratoga. A letter of testimony regarding same was read from the Principal A ten-point r solution to complaints was referenced which included a sound-study, the Burchase of an electronic starting gun for the swim team, 'and the clean up of 3 a Santa Clara Valley Water District easement at a cost of approximately $S,000 Mrs. Tottens said the Club believes noise is the issue, not alcohol.[ She detailed the findings of the sound study initiated to address noise complaints ~hd pointed out that in most instances levels did not violate the noilse ordinance. In those areas of violations, corrections have been made. SHe read letters in support of Brooksfde Club as a good -neighbor and commending its commitment to youth and families and requested 'that Councilsuphold the Planning Commission's decision, reinstate the City Council Minutes 7/24/~0 Page 5 basketball standard. She said it is her hope Council will recognize that Brooks~de is a valuable community asset. D~oucsion ensued wherein Mr. Emslie reported that the club and staff agreed m0d'ificatlon of the tennis practice wall is necessary to prevent its use. A SoluL~on could be to utilize it as a planter. He felt that the'wall could provide a buffer to noise and that taking i~ cut completely would not serve a purpose, In ~esponsetoCouncilmember Monia, Mrs. Torrens stated that the Club has been operating under the provision that it was allowed, under the Club's Board direction and with discrimination, to have alcohol. Mr. Toppel reported that the Cit~' has established a zoning regulation that no permit is required and no fee is collected if alcohol is sold as a conditional use as part of a social activity, Councilmember Monia reported on his site visit yesterde~v where he obse~ved several rotting fence posts and saw a fence leaning toward the creek. Mr. Emslie said the Club indicated they were taking action On this repair. Mr. Toppel verified that this is a "de novo hearing", Col. E. ~. Barco of Saratoga stated that this use permit has been ~ effect for over 30 ~ears and he opposed removal of ~he alcohol prohibition. ~ recommended Council grant the appeal that the Club be requested to mee5 all use permit conditions within a reasonable amount of time and that any future infract~'~ns will result in immediate suspension of their use permit, Dan Hanley o~ Saratoga agreed the issue is noise and not alcohol. He testified the sound expert notified the Club it was in compliance with the noise ordinance with the exception of the tennis practice wail. He reported the Club has offered to meet with neighbors to discuss complai~ts. Councilmember Monia expressed his opinion that the consumption of alcohol =5 functions 5end to make noise rise. Mr. Henley stated that social gatherings where alcohol ~s ~erved at the Club are seldom. Mr. Toppsi verified that it is staff's position that conditions state~ in a use permit are not revoked by implication but that there must be an expressed action by the Planning Commission or the Council. Staff finds no record during the last 30 years of any express action revoking or modifying that condition so it is still a condition. Gone Steiger, 19186 Gunther Ct., representing neighbors on the Brookglen Avenue side of the Club, complained of the increase in building, activity, operating hours, overflow parking and alcohol consumption. He pointed out the area is residential and residents are concerned with safety in their streets. He strongly supported the prohibition against the use of alcohol on Club premises and that the restriction be enforced. Stephen Randesi, Z0340 Argonaut Drive, spoke in favor of retaining the basketball standard because usage of the basketball equipment is compatible with the neighborhood and the level of noise is not in violation. He reported that several basketball sites in the area are muuh closer to its neighbors then the Brookside Club basket is to its nearest neighbor. He felt that casual usage of alcohol is within the rights of Club members. Jane Bernard, 1~601 Brookglen Drive, testified she lives directly across the street from the backdoor entrance to the Club and that noise and alcohol abuse has never been a problem in the six and a half years she has lived there. She resents the inference that the Club she has chosen for he ~mily to attend would in any way have a problem of that kind. She fe]~ the problem is in the interpretation of the use permit. Brookside is not functioning as an alcohol club against a use permit but is a family club. She said if Council chooses not to have alcohol use at Brookside, then the restriction should be evenly enforced in the other clut!~ through,~ut the City. Dan Mount, 14720 Farwell Avenue, spoke in support of retaining ~he basketball facility and in support of casual consumption of alcohol. He felt the clubmembers should'be allowed to continue with this responsible activity. David Young, 1588~ Pepper Lane, agreed with the above speaker and said the Club has a family environment and ~he City is sorely in need of well- supervised activities for the 6hildren. He encouraged Council to reinstate City Counci~ Minutes 7/24/90 Page 6 use of~the basketball court. He pointed out this is an emotional issue for some and that police have been called out on occassion when the children were merely involved in recreational activities and requested that Council consider implementing an ordinance for unwarranted complaints which are reported in. the future. In response to Councilmember Anderson, staff clarified that alcohol is not p~ohibited in Saratoga City parks. Bob Salutri~,'12635 Saratoga Creek Drive, pointed out that UP-2 calls for the elimination of the tennis practice wall which he does not want used again and Falls for the elimination or relocation of the basketball standard. He reported that there was a Sheriff's report on violations in March 1988 and there were violations in 1978 reported to the Planning Commission. He complained of the noise generated by the Club and legalities of the use permit and objected to living next to a growth oriented establishment in a residential area and said he did not want lower property values nor lower living conditions. ~He objected to any change of the original use permit. Walter Windus, 12681 Saratoga Creek Drive, spoke against the continuous noise throughout the day and against non-conformance of the use permit as it pertains to the prohibition of alcohol use. He pointed out that some club members do not reside in Saratoga and do not have the same commitment to controlling the noise as the residents. He encouraged that Council require strict compliance with the use permit. Mr. Emslie clarified that the original permit prohibiting alcohol was issued in 1958. John PerkinS, Attorney for Brookside Club, said he obtained copies of all documents regarding the original and subsequent use permits and he reported on the chronological order of events. It appeaFs that because all the cbnditions from the original permit were restated, except for the clubhouse and alcohol, it seems that alcohol use was tied to the approval or non approval-ofa clubhouse. Boniface Poon, 12521 Saratoga Creek Drive, complained of the perpetual noise and felt the managers of the Club should reduce the noise to retain a serene and peaceful neighborhood. Mrs. Askew reported that Brookside rules filed with the Planning Department calls for no alcohol use on the premises. She felt that the Club has been aware of this.restriction all along. She expressed concern because the sound level study findings showed a level of 17 dB over the maximum allowed (82 dB) by Saratoga law. She pointed out the dB level at the Skateboard park recently shut down Was 70 dB. One of the speakers who appeared earlier testified that the 82 dB level was ~ecorded at one of the three swim meets held each year and the sound level was generated when the children gave a cheer (lasting about 10 seconds) prior to the swim meet. He said that Mrs. Askew's reference to that particular sound level is very [misleading. Linda Raymer,. 12711.Saratoga Creek, a member of Saratoga Woods Swim Club, 'expreSsed concern regarding the necessary safety and noise abatement the fence to the Brookside Club provides. She cited situations where the Club was accessed illegally, after hours. No one further appearing to speak, Mayor Stutzman closed the Public Hearing at 9:40 p.m. C~uncilmem6er Anderson said she believes ~h~re is re~ f~r interpretation of the use permit regarding alcohol use but above and beyond that she views the prohibition discrimination against Brookside. She pointed out there are no prohibitions for other residential clubs or City parks and believes it is unfair to single out one club. She believes Brookside Club is very much like a park and that people moving into the area must become accustomed to the activity and recreational noise generated. ANDERSON~STUTZMAN M3~EDTOMC~IFYTHEUSE PERMIT IN~:~:~ING WIT'H T~E PLA~NIM~ COMMISSION ACTION RE REMOVAL OF THE ALCOHOL PROHIBITION, THAT BASKETBALL PLAYING BE ALLOWED AND A CONDITION THAT THE FENCE BE REPAIRED. City Council Minutes 7/24/90 Page 7 Councilmember Monia felt that the prohibition of alcohol is something the City cannot enforce and that he has a problem with the prohibition from a fairness standpoint but must consider the commitment made to the neighbors for the last 30 years for the restriction. Although basketball would not be a bad idea for Brookside, he did not consider the present location of the basketball net a good site because of the constant activity. He felt that Council must consider the encroachment of increasing activities and consider placing a cap on those increases and that the Club Board of Directors must address that issue. He suggested a requirement for an 8 foot solid fence along the Creek to alleviate the impact from automobile lights, noise and other problems. He felt that prohibition of alcohol will not solve the noise problem but that Council needs to review mitigation measures which could be implemented and then a clear agreement needs to be made with Brookside as to what the cap on the activities should be. Councilmember Kohler reported on his site visit and commented on the absence of noise from inside the clubhouse level. He said the double layer of trees is good sound protection. He felt the noise problem is not an issue but that the issue o~ alcohol is a real problem and the prohibition must be implemented. He said he would deny the appeal. MAYOR STUTZMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION ON THE ABOVE STATED MOTION. Tied 2-2. (Kohler and Monia voted no, Clevenger did not participate in the vote due to possible conflict of interest.) Mr. Peacock reported that because a full Council is not present because of a conflict of interest and will never be fully represented for this issue, the Planning Commission's decision is upheld. He advised Council of alternate direction'they could take on the matter. MONIA/ANDERSON MOVED THAT AN 8 FOOT, SOLID, AIR-TIGHT FENCE BE CONSTRUCTED WITHIN 90 DAYS ALONG THE SOUTH EAST SIDE OF THE CREEK WHERE THE PARKING LOT SEPARATES THE CREEK. Passed 4-0. (Councilmember Clevenger did not participate in the vote due to conflict of interest.) Councilmember Monia said he believes the basketball standsrd and the tennis hitting wall should be removed to prevent future use. Councilmember Anderson pointed out that, if the wall were left in place but altered so that it could not be utilized for its original purpose, it would serve as a sound wall to buffer some of the noise at the facility. ANDERSON/STUTZMAN MOVED THAT THE PROHOBITION ON ALCOHOL BE REMOVED. Discussion ensued as to whether this had already been voted on and there was consensus to introduce separate motions for the issues. MONIA MOVED FOR REMOVAL OF THE BASKETBALL STANDARD, WITHOUT RESTRICTION FOR BROOKSIDE BEING ABLE TO REQUEST A NEW LOCATION FOR THAT EQUIPMENT. There was no second to the motion. MONIA MOVED TO REMO~rE THE TENNIS HITTING WALL. There was no second to the motion. ANDERSON/STUTZMAN MOVED THAT THE PROHIBITION ON ALCOHOL USE AT THE BROOKSIDE CLUB BE REMOVED. Passed 3-1 (Monia voted no, Clevenger did not participate in the vote due to conflict of interest.) ANDERSON/STUTZMAN MOVED THAT THE BASKETBALL STANDARD BE LEFT IN PLACE. Tied 2-2 (Kohler and Monia voted no, Clovenget did not participate in the vote due to conflict of interest.) Mr/Peacock reported that because a full Council is not present because of a conflict of interest and will never be fully represented for this issue, the Planning Commission's recommendation for- relocation of the basketball standard prevails. KOHLER/MONIA MOVED THAT THE BASKETBALL STANDARD BE RELOCATED AND THAT THE PLANS BE BROUGHT BEFORE THE COUNCIL UNDER OLD BUSINESS TO BE APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. City Council Minure~ 7/24/90 Page 8 In response to Councilmember Anderson, Mr. Emslie stated that the 8-foot, solid, air-tight fence would not make that much difference in buffering the noise level of the basketball use. Councilmember Stutzman reported that he visited the site and does not see another area where ~he basketball standard can be relocated. He said that because the sound study information showed relatively low noise level from that activity (38 dB), he felt that as long as compliance is being met he could not see a logical reason for moving the equipment. MAYOR STUTZMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION ON THE ABOVE STATED MOTION. Tied 2-2. (Clevenger did not participate in the vote.). Mr. Peacock reiterated that because a full Council is not present because of a conflict of interest and will never be fully represented for this issue, the Planning CommisSion's recommendation for relocation of the basketball standard is upheld. The only additional condition is the requirement for the 8 foot, solid, air-~ight fence to be placed in the Brookside parking lot within the nex~ 90 days. MaYor Stutzman declared a recess at 10:10 p.m. Upon reconvening at 10:25 p.m. the sameCouncilmembers and staff were present. B. Report of the Planning Commission on alternative master plans for a senior f~cility at the Odd Fellows site prepared and reviewed at the direction of the City Council (continued from June 20) Mr. Emslie presented a Memorandum from the Planning Commission on this item in response to Council direction to review alternatives for telcOating the senior care facility at the Oddfellows site from the approved Paul Masson Champagne Cellars location. Staff recommends thatI Couuncil review the report of the Planning Commission and determine if further study and analysis is required for locating senior housing at the Oddfellows site. 'The report gives the Commission's analysis of three alternate plans and opinions regarding each one. The Commission's concerns are the density of the location, the need for an economic analysis to determine feasibility, and the need to adhere to the General Plan. The Commision felt there are many p~oblems associated with the site and that extensive further study is necessary to pursue~this alternative. Mr.' Peacock acknowledged receipt of additional letters ~egarding the issue from Mrs..Teri JoneS, Riesling Court, and Kenneth Meeker, Chairman of the Board of Directors of IOOF. MayorStutzman opened the Public Hearing at 10:28 p.m. Mr.'Jeffrey .Schwartz, San Marcos Road, spoke against the expansion of the Oddfellows site andlvoiced the concerns of many of the neighbors. He gave a brief backgrdund on.the creation of the plans which he believes were never authorized by any City Council meeting nor directed by the City Council to be created. He'expressed great concern with the increase in traffic which would occur with=expansion. He pointed out that last fall the Oddfellows objected to'construction of nine homes due to safety danger and which would create unacceptable noise and disruption via an access through the property, and · questioned why now there is agreement for the !plans for 68-88 condominiums and 250 additional senior units. He said that recently a neighborhood meeting was held with some of the residents of Fellowship Plaza end they are ~as adamantly opposed to the three plans as the neighbors are. Mr. Schwartz said the City needs to maintain the quiet enjoyment of residents' property and said there is a need for Oddfellows management to once again work closely ~nd well with surrounding neighbors. He encouraged Council to abandon Consideration of the Oddfellows land for a new senior facility and to pass a resolution that when the Oddfellows renovate or rebuild, that activity be governed by the principle of no substantial increase in density of use or population on that lend. Regarding Mr.' SchWartz' comments regarding the plans and who had paid for them, Councilmember Clevenger recalled that at the time the City Manager acknowledged' the City had made an error. Because many of the people present tonight did not hear that explanation of the creation and payment of the plans, she requested that Mr. Peacock give the background on the issue. City Council Minutes 7/24/90 Page 9 Councilmember Clevenger said the intention was that the City would keep control of the process and although the City paid for the plans, that would be reimbursed by the developer who would eventually develop the land. Mr. Emslie reported that the agreement with Mr. Rogers is to fund the portion of the plans which relate to his property. A substantial amount relates to the Oddfellows and the issue is scheduled for the next Oddfellows Board meeting. Mr. Schwartz said it is not proper to do business on a verbal understanding, or spend that amount of money without the issue being agendized and it was of concern to the neighbors regarding the future of the area. Another concern was this situation was created by activity not done on a procedural basis. Andrew Beverett, Chairman of the Housing Committee for the Saratoga area Senior Coordinating Council, believes that it is possible to create a market rate continuing care retirement center on the 37 acres, built with high standards, managed by experienced management, to meet the needs of retirement housing in Saratoga on the Oddfellows site. . Mr. Beverett spoke of the various negative affects which may be created should this facility not be built including the exodus of seniors from the area. Regarding the Paul Masson Champagne Cellars as a location for the facility, he spoke of concerns which include the air quality, third-floor requirements, non-equity admission arrangements, traffic congestion, marketability and others. He reported he received a copy of a letter from a well-known operator of retirement facilities which issued an unqualified "turn down" to Masson on their willingness to operate a facility at that site. Northern California Presbyterian Homes, operators of two successful retirement homes, expressed strong doubt the organization would be able to meet City requirements to. operate a facility at Masson. A reliable operator is an absolute essential for the well-being of the seniors. Mr. Beverett said be believes the architect hired by the City received no direct input from Oddfellows, neighboring homeowners, the developer, nor the seniors. The plan has serious and understandable concerns for neighboring homeowners which should have been addressed and he gave various examples. In conclusion, he said it is believed that all or most of the neighbors' concerns can be successfully addressed and that if these matters can be resolved there is a good chance of developing a plan that can be beneficial to the Oddfellows, the developer and the seniors and would not have a negative impact on the quality of life in the community. He recommended that the City authorize a follow-up study conditioned that the goal will be to prepare another conceptual plan that would reflect input from the Oddfellows, neighbors, the developer, seniors and the City; that the study be completed as expeditiously as possible; the study be financed by the developer and perhaps the developer should be given the responsibility for directing the study; upon the completion of the study it should be reviewed and then scheduled for public review; and that neither the City nor any interested parties shall be bound by the results of the study. He recommended that elected officials and neighbors be invited to participate in visiting established facilities and contact community leaders to receive input regarding impacts of a retirement home on the quality of community life. Regarding the Masson site, Mr. Beverett recommended consideration not be abandoned but postponed until the outoome of the study of Oddfellows becomes known. In response to Councilmember Clevenger, Mr. Beverett said a retirement facility without assisted care and skilled nursing facilities would not meet the hopes and expectations of the Senior C~ordinating Council and would preclude a number of reliable fac~ ]~.y operetors from further interest in .the property. More than 90% retirement facilities have the two components. Responding to Councilmember Anderson, Mr. Beverett said that although the conceptual plan includes duplex or independent living units, those are not necessarily components .of a successful facility. Discussion ensued wherein Mr. Beverett answered various questions from Counc i 1. City Council Minute~ 7/24/90 Page 10 Kenneth Meeker, Lewiston California, Chairman, Board of Directors of IOOF, read his letter of 7/17/90. He stated the intention is to provide an upgraded facility at the Saratoga Home to meet City Code requirements by removing old buildihgs and replacing them with up-to-date modern buildings. There is also a need to replace the rooms lost when the five, old wooden structures were torn down because of fire hazard. The need for residence and various levels of care is needed and with proper plans can result in a program good for everyone concerned. Including the present facility, the total needed is 330 rooms (including 120 beds in the nursing home) not including the HUD units for Oddfellows members and not including private.cottages for the Saratoga community. ~Councilmember Monia~ questioned and discussed the easement issue for the 10 acre parcerbpreviou~ly sold for development of R-1-40, O00 homes. Mrl Bever~tt discussed the conceptual plans for locating the various components of the facility so the traffic problem can be minimized. .jeffrey Schwartz said that although Fellowship Plaza is run independently it 'is still completely. run and controlled by Oddfellows. He expressed concern regarding requirements for serving on its Board of Directors. Dr. Cartar, 19306 Pinnacle Ct., neighbor adjacent to the Oddfellows property, spoke of the negative impacts on surrounding streets and neighborhood and 'concernswith safety issues pertaining to his school-age children. He felt becaus.e the Oddfellows property is so expensive, the cottages will not be affordable to seniors in the community and the court system could overturn the seniors-only restriction and could allow any qualified family. If that happens then !all Council will have done is establish a very high density condominium development in the heart of Saratoga at ~ much higher density than would have ever been allowed otherwise. He expressed great concern that the economic use of the land is driving a wedge between the neighbors and seniors. He complained about the construction start time as being too early, · and of the large equipment travelling through the streets. He endorsed the development as it is proceeding on the acreage Council has already allowed for.- Wanda Allenget, Felllowship Plaza, said she is also confused on the easement issue because the argument for two years was not to allow only nine houses on the ten acre parcel. She said the people at Fellowshiop Plaza and the neighboring residents do not want the expansion. Dick Oliver, representative for Paul Masson Champagne Cellars location, said the dev'elopment company has been cooperative and will continue as such. However, the cost of the site while on hold for the last ten months is nearing one million dollars. He requested some direction from the Council as -soon'as is possible. He said he has been unable to locate a qualified non-profit operator. In response to Councilmember Clevenger, Mr. Oliver said he would be able to start the project on half the property. ' Tom Reddick supported the location of the senior center at the Oddfellows location. Mayor Stutzman closed the Public Hearing at 11:48 p.m. C0uncilmember Kohler said because of the need to.rezone the property and the enormous increase in traffic which would occur, he would support discontinuing consideration of'the Oddfellows site for the senior facility. KOHLER/MONIA MOVED TO DISCONTINUE CONSIDERATION OF LOCATING THE SENIOR FACILITY AT THE ODDFELLOWS SITE. Councilmember Anderson felt that discontinuing consideration iS premature favors the formation of a citizens committee with representation from the neighborhood, seniors, the Coordinating Council, the City, Planning Commission and the 'Oddfellows. She is concerned w~th the impact of traffic and she agrees with the Planning Commission that density in this plan is far too great butthat Council should continue to consider the possibilities. 'Councilmember Clevenger felt it would be a disservice to a large segment of the community by not trying to get a senior care facility here. If an ~operator cannot be found for the Masson property, there is no reason to build City Council Minutes 7/24/90 Page 11 the facility on that site and to dismiss the Oddfellows suggestion to develop a citizens group to attain a solution to the problems will impact many residents. She agreed with Councilmember Anderson's points. Councilmember Monia reiterated discussion of the easement issue on the Oddfellows property. He felt it was somewhat fraudulent for Oddfellows to sell the property to Rogers and Brooks, knowing it was zoned R-1-40, O000 but still denied them access. He encouraged that when Council discusses the permits and approvals for the Oddfellows development, that Oddfellows grant easement to the City. He expressed concern with the safety issue for higher density which is not good planning. He said he is in favor of compliance with the General Plan and he supports the facility at the Paul Masson site and will support the motion. A member of the Oddfellows organization commented that if Oddfel'lows expands its facilities, every inch of the ten acre property is needed for the Oddfellows members who come from all over California to retire here. She said the City should build the Paul Masson facility for the Saratoga seniors. Mayor Stutzman said,he does not consider the Paul Masson site suitable for an extended care facility as he is concerned with the health environment for senior citizens, The Oddfellows site would be more acceptable and that if it is not acceptable, he would rather not see a senior care facility built in SaratOga. He said he believes consideration for further study of the Oddferlows site must be given. MAYOR STUTZMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION ON THE ABOVE STATED MOTION. Failed 2-3. (Anderson, Clevenger, and Stutzman voted no. ANDERSON/CLE~NGER MOVED THE FORMATION OF A CITIZENS COMMITTEE MADE UP OF PERSONS FROM THE CITY, THE COMMUNITY, THE ODDFELLOWS, THE NEIGHBORS, AND THE SENIOR COORDINATING COUNCIL, TO INVESTIGATE THE ISSUES RAISED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND TO LOOK INTO A PLAN FOR THIS SITE THAT WOULD BE AGREEABLE TO ALL PARTIES. Councilmember Monia requested a discription of what will be done and how it will be funded. Councilmember Anderson felt that conceptual ideas will be developed in the initial meetings, she felt the study should be funded by the developer of the property and that there should be a time frame on the issue so that it may be resolved by a certain time, i,e., Christmas. MAYOR STUTZMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION ON THE ABOVE STATED MOTION. Passed 3-2. (Kohler and Monia voted no.) Councilmember Clevenger suggested that a time limit of 60-90 days should be enough time for the Committee to work on the issue. Mr. Peacock requested that staff be given an opportunity to work on the issue and to bring back a report at the August 1 meeting. C. Actions pertaining to certain lots within Tract 7770 and certain property located adjacent to said tract (extensions of Old Oak Way and C~iquita Way) (continued from June 6), and proposed location of an emergency access road. Mr. Emslie reported that regrading for all lots with standing violations has been approved by the City Council, the revegetation program has been deferred by Council to enable the City Horticulturist tO prepare a report and give a presentation tonight. Horticulturist, Barrio Coats, 23535 Summit Road, Los Gatos, referred to his reports which suggest revegetation techniques for the site in question and an evaluation of the tree loss at the site. We reviewed the evaluation of tree loss in detail which is contained in the report ana ~m~ted st S193,142.70. In response to Councilmember Kohler, Mr. Coats stated that scenic value of the removed trees was taken into consideration. He summarized the evaluation method in detail, and per Councilmember Kohler's request, discussed some of his past involvement and services in several legal cases regarding tree issues. Mr. Coate reviewed in detail the formula for the cost to buy from a nursery the specific trees for the revegetation. The formula is derived from the International Society of Horticulture which it is currently reevaluating. City Council Minutes 7/24/90 Page 12 In response to CounSilmember Stutzman, Mr. Coats stated that it would take an 18" diameter tree, with a 48" box, 10-20 years to grow to the size of the Itrees that were removed. He said the success rate for larger transplanted trees is not good. His recommendations are based on Saratoga wanting to have the best forest on the hillside 20 years from now and not based on attempting to replace those trees literally, Mr. Peacock reports8 that the Municipal Code specifies a process that involves the creation of this value and for the Planning Director to make a determination as to[what this monetary loss is. Lengthy discussion ensued regarding the formula for the replacement tree value, scenic loss, the goal to revegetate with specific sizes of trees determined to have successful transplantsrates. Also discussed were fines to be considered for any residual of not making full restoration. Mr. Coate requested that the goal .be revegetation of the hillside and not punishment· for the illegal act -committed. The 100tyear plan is to plant leach-tube plants which are approximately two inches tall that root with little care. Mr. Toppe~,discussed the report of the o~ner's consultant as compared to that of Mr. Coats. He believes Mr. Coate's analysis was much more refined as it dealt.with an evaluation of each individual tree and the scenic quality it may have lended as it was situated on the site. ~Co'unCilmember Kohler discussed the need for full restoration. Mr. Coate said 'replacement of a 24" tree can be done but the success rate for growth after installation is much poorer for the very large trees than for smaller trees. The Elan calls for replacement with a variety of sizes. Mayor stutzman said,perhaps the ideal solution would be to plant the smaller trees and withhold development of the property until those trees have reached the size of those eliminated. in response to a qu&stion from Councilmember Kohler, Mr. Toppel reported that the tree ordinance does refer to the appraisal of the kind Mr. Coats has made. ~hat the Council considers adequate replacement and restoration is within its discretion. The appraisal should be within Council's frame of reference and used as a benchmark but that is up to Council. Mayor 'Stutzman opened the Public Hearing at 12:35 a.m. Luann Nieman, 13217Padero Court, questioned if any value was placed on the o ed 'small trees not on~ider ordinance trees; if replacement trees are over 14" in diameter; and if~the erosion control value has been considered. She asked Why the City has not set up some kind of criteria instead of waiting for the Cocciardi/Chadwick people to suggest solutions. She asked why the City is not demanding solutions from them. .Mayor Stutzman stated the City is doing the best it can. Responding to a question from Councilmember Kohler, Mr. Coats said the largest tree he could recommend is 6" diameter in 16" boxes. In response to MrS..Nieman's comment on whether it is good management to place all these controversial issues on one agenda on a night different than She.regular meetingsnight, Mayor Stutzman said that unfortunately for some time 'in the future Council will probably continue to have meetings as such. There is a large accumulation of crucial issues of interest to the public which Council will try to settle as best it can. Councilmember Kohle~ said he is available for a second meeting in August and felt that if Council does not continue to have regular meetings the agenda 'will continue to increase. Regarding Mrs. Nieman's concerns, Mr. Perlin, City Engineer, reported there is an erosion control plan approved in February for the Old Oak Way portion of the subdivisio~ Which has not yet been initiated because part of that plan goes hand with the grading restoration plan which was approved at the ~previous meeting. He said there does not appear to be eminent threat of erosion at the upper Old Oak Way portion of the subdivision. By this fall, whether grading restoration takes place or not, the remainder of the plan will be in place. City Council Minutes 7/24/90 Page 13 Arthur Slemmons, 19655 Redberry Drive, Los Gatos, recommended that all the trees be replaced in kind. He suggested the developer put up a bond to provide sufficient money to replace the trees.that die. He believes the building on the hillside should not be allowed to proceed until all those trees have been replaced. Mr. Coats said appearance of new growth would determine whether the tree survived and would appear in the second year after planting. Charlie Merrill, of San Ramon, attorney representing the Cocciardis said the grading plan as proposed by ~he Cocciardis has been approved and Council has been reviewing the revegetation plan for some time. He said his interpretation is different from Mr. Toppel's regarding the value of the trees. He pointed out the goal is to get the area revegetated and that the civil fines, penalties and potential incarceration will be addressed in the lawsuits which have been filed. He felt there is discrepancy in the values in the Coate report dated June 8 and a description of those discrepencies has been provided. Regarding the report prepared by Mr. Emslie and presented tonight, he pointed out what he believes are several discrepancies regarding the proposed sizes of trees as compared to what was actually proposed. He said the plan is to replace 40 trees with 120-140 trees and plant 1400 leach tubes on the Williamson Act property. Mr. Emslie stated that he used the information contained on the plan for his figures in the document. Richard Murray, landscape architect from Monterey, referred to the plans included in the meeting packet. He pointed out that the spreading out of the trees is not only to correct the grading but to be sensitive and practical throughout the subdivision to provide optimum growing conditions. He reviewed the plans and said he believes the drawings before the Council represents the thoughts of the City staff and the architect and is a logical resolution to the rcstoration. He said that problems to replace 40 trees with large trees are enormous and there is no source for large trees. Discussion ensued regarding the non-availability of large trees, the problems which would be encountered, and whether or not it is feasible. In response to Councilmember Anderson, Mr. Coate said Mr..Murray's basic landscape design looks fine, is logical, and the irrigation plan makes sense. Mr. Coate said that, utilizing his information, he would prepare a chart comparable to that of Mr. Murray's. Mr. Murray said the practical application of what he can do is what he would like to be able to guarantee the City. He further discussed his plan for revegetation. William Peretti, 13485 Old Oak ~ay, spoke strongly against the proposed access road citing several reasons inclu~ding the inability of the City to control the service roads. He pointed out that construction of an emergency road access, City-approved, was started four years ago, is still incomplete and revegetation has never been done as promised. He believes the past problems must be cleared up before another access road through private property is started less than one block away from the present unfinished access road and which was built to suit another Cocciardi development. Mr. Merrill reported that if CoUncil does not want the access road to be built the decision will be fine with the Cocciardis. Vincent Garrod, Saratoga, addressed the issue of tree value. He pointed out that another estimate of value to be considered is what a buyer was willing to pay for the property in the before condition and what they are willing to pay for it in the after condition with the trees included. He agreed that planting extra large oak trees on the hillside would be a mistake because survival of the trees is critical and the problems with replacing any transplanted trees that die will negatively affect everyone in that area. He spoke against the access road, encouraged the City to change the access road policy and believes that allowing gates on access roads only cause problems. Bonnie Bowman, 13492 Old Oak ~ay, agreed with Mr. Garrod on all points. She pointed out the emergency service to Old Oak Way is provided through the Pierce Road area and that disadvantages far outweigh the advantages of the access road. She asked Council to please stop the extension of Old Oak Way. City Council Minutes 7/24/90 Page 14 Bob Johnson, 13463 Old Oak Way, said he does not favor the access road but pointed out that ! it is mostly completed; the roads have been cut and are wide. He commented on the erosion control he saw this morning which he said amounts to only a fe~ scattered bales of hay and commented on the large erosion tracks. He Said what has been done on the hillside is a disaster. T'erry Bowman read verbatim a letter from Dora Grens, 13492 Old Oak Way, which strongly opposed the, extension of Old Oak Way. No one further appearing to speak, Mayor Stutzman closed the Public Hearing at 1:29 a.m. .~ Coun6ilmember Cleven~er s~ated she believes the access road should be deleted because.when the property is developed Council must determine where the logical road is to be. She felt that if the emergency access road is put through now that it could become the road of the future without review of other options. CLEVENGER/KOHLER MOVED TO DELETE THE E~4ERGENCY ACCESS ROAD FROM THE END OF OLD OAK WAY TO THE GARROD PROPERTY. Passed 4-0-1. (Anderson abstained.) CLEVENGER/ANDERSON ~OVED TO ACCEPT THE REVEGETATION PLAN AS PROPOSED BY THE COCCIABIS WITH THE PROVISION THAT MR. COATE REVIEW THE PLAN SUBMITTED BY MR. MURRAY AND IF HEI SEES REALISTIC OPPORTUNITIES TO ADD LARGER TREES THAT HE DO SO. Councilmember Kohler stated he is opposed to the motion because he believes .there is a big difference between =~etrees proposed as compared to a 24" tree and that consideration was not given to the larger trees. He believes larger trees could be planted for the scenic value and restores the root system and believes Saratoga deserves to get as close as possible the restoration of the trees removed; he said he would not compromise for anything less. He referred to the staff report and spoke against lifting the stop work order Upon substantial completion of the grading. He believes it should not be lifted until the trees are in place and the project is satisfactorily Completed. He suggested the bonding spoken of earlier be implemented but extended to five years. Councilmember Stutzman said that without a doubt, he believes the smaller trees will grow fastest and would be better trees. He believes the option should be offered t02 Mr. Cocciardi of either putting in the large trees or accepting the smaller and with that a moratorium on development until the trees reach the size of the trees that were removed. MAYOR 'STUTZMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION ON THE ABOVE STATED MOTION. Failed 2-3. (Kohler!, Monia and Stutzman voted no.) STUTZMAN/KOHLER MOVED THAT EITHER COUNCIL ACCEPT THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL WITH THE STIPULATION THAT1A MORATORIUM BE PROPOSED UNTIL THE TREES REACH THE SAME SIZE OR THAT THE LARGER TREES BE USED AS REPLACEMENT. . Mr. Toppel addressed the due process involved. He pointed out that restoration is the issue. He and the City's own expert agree that mandating 'a course of action which is not feasible is not practical' in Court. The City does not have the l~gal ability to impose a moratorium for 20 years because the case is in Court and the Court will determine when and under what circumstances the p~oject can be resumed. He gave his opinion that that 'condition for the moratorium would not be enforceable if it was challenged in Court. .He said the objective this evening is to try to have replaced what was on the hillside,. recognizing it will not happen right away. .To impose a condition that large trees be replaced with in kind is a condition which could not be fuifiii'ed even if the applicant could do so and'requested that the punishment consilderations be dealt with later and the focus.be placed on ~estoration. Councilmembe~ Kohler requested that Council request Mr~ Coats to make a study as to how large a tree could be transported on a truck to the hillside. He believes it would be a tree at least 15-20 inches in diameter. 'Mayor. Stutzmeln said !he believes the above stated motion reflects the attitude of the majority of the Saratoga community. The concerns are the appearance of the hillside implementation of some guidelines which will prevent other City Council Minutes 7/24/90 Page 15 developers from 'repeating this same pattern of behavior that has been demonstrated in the past. In response to Councilmember Monia's question regarding other options, Mr. Peacock suggested the option to require that there be additional .revegetation on adjoining properties, Johnson, Perretti, st. al., and that that be part of the requirement for the restoration to be paid for by the Coeciardis. Lengthy discussion continued regarding whether it is feasible or practical to revegetate with large trees and the physical problems which will be encountered with preparing and moving large trees. Councilmember Anderson encouraged Council to go forward with the restoration project and not ex~end any more delays, especially since all parties are cooperating. She also pointed out that Mr. Coate could review the plan and determine whether or not larger trees could be utilized. COUNCILMEM85R CLSV[NGERC~Lt~ F~ THE QUESTION ON THE ABOVE STATED MOTION. Tied 2-2-1. (Anderson and Clevenger voted no, Monia abstained.) Councilmember Kohler felt there is a lack of expertise this evening regarding the moving of large trees and said he would like to talk with an arborist who has actually transplanted trees of a large size. Mr. Murray stated that both he and Mr. Coate have done that but not 24" trees. Mr. Murray explained the three-year transplant process for large (60" and 72" box) trees which are purchased from the nurseries. In response to Councilmember Kohler he said that he has successfully transplanted trees of between 5" and 10". Mr., Coats stated he would ask Mr. Bonfonti from Hecker Pass Nursery to sontact Councilmember Kohler. That nursery has the best success record moving large trees including trees up to 24" but they are not moving them down the freeway. Councilmember Monia suggested that staff bring back findings from a probability study on the success of moving larger trees oP that the issue be revisited. Councilmember Anderson cited a recent case in the City of San Jose regarding the removal of a large Heritage oak tree. Hecker Pass Nursery was consulted, many persons were involved in trying to save or move the tree, but it could not be done. Mayor Stutzman suggested Council continue the issue two weeks for further study and to consider Mr. Peacock'S suggestion and discuss the feasibility of moving larger trees. Mr. Peacock recommended that Council consider approving the plan for the revegetation of all the shrubs and species, with the exception of the larger oak trees. He pointed out the time frame and that the project must begin. He agreed with Councilmember Kohler on the point of total completion of the project,.strict compliance with the requirements and agreed regarding the length of time for maintenance of the trees. Mr. Perlin explained his position in detail regarding the stop work order. KOHLER/MONIA MOVED TO APPROVE THE REVEGETATION PLAN WITH EXCEPTION OF THE OAK TREES INCLUDING THAT THE STOP WORK ORDER WILL ONLY BE REMOVED ONLY AFTER ALL THE TREES ARE IN PLACE, AND THAT THE BONDS ARE TO BE FOR FIVE YEARS RATHER THAN TWO YEARS. Passed 4-1. (Clevenger voted no.) CONSENSUS TO REVISIT THE LAi~GE OAK TREE ISSUE ON AUGUST 7, 1990'- Councilmember Anderson strongly suggested that, when future agendas are lengthy, it be separated into two meetings. CONSENSUS THAT COUNCIL WILL HOLD A REGULAR MEETING ON AUGUST 7, 1990. D. Solid Waste Disposal Charge Increases Mr. Peacock reported that the rate adjustment is necessary ~o meet the costs anticipated from a variety of factors, City Council Minute 7/24/90 Page 16 Todd Argow, Director of Public Services, made a slide presentation on the varied rate structure broken into three major components -- residential, commercial factors and the DOB (Drop Off Box - size of bin). He explained costs for each component in detail. The current projection for the residential expense is $2,069,879.00 based on the budget approved ~by the rate review committee;'commerCial expense is $253,026.00; the DQB expense is $518,529.O0. Based on current revenues Saratoga will generate $1,556,478.00 from the residential sector, $430,790.00 from the commercial sector and $511,374.00 from the DOB sector. Therefore, an increase of $342,~792.00 is needed to pay expenses to Green Valley. Other factors relating to the rate increase are as follows: Assembly Bill 939 r~quires 25% waste reduction by~1995 and 50% waste reduction by'Year 2000. Increased cost would be ten cents per month per household. The ~ate increase for the relocation of the Green Valley disposal yard relates only indirectly to Saratoga's programs and operations. :THe Guadalupe Mines Landfill has been annexed into the City of San Jose and Saratoga is now subject to fees they can and are imposing. The taxes will increase from 96 cents per ton to,$5.17 per ton. Council's d~sire to continue holding household hazardous waste drop off events because of the lack of alternatives to the Saratoga residents~ Staff recommends a minimum of one program per year be financed on the disposal bill to recover $49,000.00 which will require a 45 cent surcharge. Mr. Argow detailed the the three alternative scenarios .staff has developed to meet the additional costs. Staff 'recommends Alternative ~2 which will increase residential 8.1%; commercial increase at 13.8%; and the DOB increase at 31.3%. :. Subsequently,'-staff ~eoommends to meld the recycling charge, 82 cents per ~on~h, into the rate structure and to then determine to what degree will the ~ity recover-the cost for the household hazardous waste drop off program and finally, how to recover the cost for the AB939 plan. Mr. Arow reviewed pa~e 6, 7, and 8 regarding the plan for metered can waste ~ollectionwherein r~sidents will be paying'for the exact amount of trash Being set out. Staf~ recommends that Council appoint a citizens committee to Examine the rates and implementation next year. Discussion ensued wherein staff answered various questions from Council. Mr. Argow reported that the Rate Review Committee conducted one of its most ~xtensive reviews which involved all City Managers from the four jurisdictions: Wayor Stutzman opened the Public Hearing at 2:25 a.m. '~n response to Mr. Reddick's question on why the City's negotiated contract for unlimited pickup. is now being eliminated and the rates increased by 8.1%. ~nd his question of what the senior rate is, Mr. Peacock clarified that the ~aste contractor has~the right to ask for rate increases. Mr. Argow stated ~he current ~senior rate is $6.60 per month for one can and when the recycling ~harge is included it is $7.42. per month. 'l Mayor Stutzman closed th~ ?uLlio []~a~ing at 2:30 a.m. uric' le ear a~reed with staff's recommendation for Alternative ~2. She C~. x~ C yen gave a vote of confidence to staff that the best deal has been negotiated. _Councilmember Monia said he felt that to pass the increase on to residents ~ould treat the symptom rather than treat the disease; the disease being that ~oo much~ garbage is generated; the City must find a way to make people , . . sensitive to the amount of garbage they generate. He preferred a more ~ngenious approach which appears on page 8 of the report. He said he did not ..kelieve the City could encourage the publi~ to recycle material by penalizing City Council Minutes 7/24/90 Page 17 them with taxes. He said he would rather the City pa~ for an incentive program to encourage residents to reduce generation of garbage, Mr. Peacock agreed that educating the community is important and that perhaps a year from now something could be implemented. He said that although it is nice to have symbolic protest votes the City must determine a way to pe.v for the 1990 hill. CLEVENGER/ANDERSON MOVED TO APPROVE STAPF'S RECOMMENDATION FOR ALTERNATIVE ~2, THAT THE RECYCLING CHARGE BE MELDED, THAT THE HAZARDOUS HOUSEHOLD WASTE DROP OFF BE HELD ONCE A YEAR, AND THAT A CITIZENS COMMITTEE BE APPOINTED TO REVIEW OPTIONS LISTED ON PAGE 8 OF THE REPORT. Passed 5-0. Mr. Peacock pointed out that the approval does not include the ten cents per month increase per household for AB 939 costs. E. Modification of design review and adoption of Negative Declaration for the construction of a 4,824 sq. ft. one-story single-family residence at 15839 Hidden Hill Dr, on a site with an average slope of 23.60% measuring 1.29 acres in the HC-RD zone district (Applicant, I. Velinsl~v) (DR89-013) Mr. Emslie reported the applicants are proposing modification to an approved design review permit granted by Council earlier this year. In a recent lawsuit, the judge determined the City needed to augment its variance findings as well as to complete environmental documentation through the adoption of a negative declaration. The revised plans show do not require a variance and staff has prepared a negative declaration to complete the process. The document concludes that there is no environmental impact. Mr. Emslie reviewed the changes proposed by the applicant. Staff recommended Council approve the Negative Declaration and the revised site plan as proposed as it substantially accomplishes the objectives of the initial permit by retaining the ravine topography for that encroachment. Mayor Stutzman opened the Public Hearing at 2:42 a.m. Ira Velinsky, Applicant, reviewed the j ge decision end stated that the drawings presented tonight depict an elegant modification of the existing approval eliminating the need for the setback variance. He reviewed the changes. He stated he has accommodated every reasonable request made by the C.ity, he thanked the Council for their time and patience and urged them to adopt the negative declaration and let him build his home. Kurt Anderson, architect for Mr. Velinsky, reiterated that the drawings satisfy the requirements of Saratoga without special requests for variance and is a perfect solution given the site constraints and ooncerns of interested parties. Bruce Tichinin, 17775 Monterey Street, Morgan Hill, attorney for Wanda Alexander and the Coalition for Hillside Protection, said he believes there are grounds upon. which it is Council's legal duty to deny this application as presently constituted. He said he disagrees that the requirements of the City without a variance are satisfied and that the proposal conforms to the original desires and design of the client as initially expressed to the Council. Mr. Tiehinin spoke to the slope density formula which he believes requires 3.16 acres for a 23% slope for a single-family home. He recalled this is a 23.5% or 23.6% average slope density and that the lot is approximately one acre; therefore a variance is required. He stated because there is no application before Council tonight for the variance that would authorize approval of the project, the ordinance prohibits such. Mr. Tichinin requested that Council deny the plan for that reason and request a proper variance application. In addition, he believes that it is legally Council's duty to deny the application on the grounds of the estop theory. He explained this in detail and read several documents which he believes supports that belief. He also believes the proposal violates the minor ridge line rule but that there is no evidence before the Council and that Council should require that information in order to make a valid and legally sound decision. iity Council Minutes 7/24/90 Page 18 ~n response to question from Councilmember Kohler, Mr. Toppal clarified that the 23% slope density formula on a 3 acre lot size pertains to a ~ubdi ieion and therefore has no application to this matter. Mr. Tichinin v disagreed. ~r. Toppel clarified that Velinsky property is classified as HCRD. The restriction about m~jor and minor ridgelines applys to the NHR District and ~here is nq comparable provision in the HCRD zoning regulations. ~r.Tichinin pointed out it is the General Plan provision which states ~hat ~ile-natural ridges shall be protected as in the NHR Plan and definition 6f the minor ridgel~nes as set out in the NHR Plan. He pointed out the ~eneralIPlan~provisi'on prevails and cited the case of "Friends of B Street vs. the City of Ha~ward". ~enry. HagIand, 15835 Hidden Hill Road, reported that most of the neigbors are ~ery pleased' With Mr. Velinsky's plan, it is in conformance, and he encouraged approval lof that plan. ~ur~ Anderson, Architect, spoke to the issue of the size of the house and gave a brief background and reasons for the present plans. He pointed out ~hat=the staff repor~ states this is not a visible ridge. Wanda Alexander, stated the reason the continuence of this hearing was .requested was because she was unable to get information from the City files ~nd the drawings for the house were not there. She discussed several items qn the maps including that the plan is to put the foundation along the 660 line but to .cantilever the house over the ravine, that the house is :~ow at 25 and 1/2 feet high and the calculated perception of bulk is 12,000 - ~4,000 square feet, ~e~vbe more. She said she would rather see a modest house ~ike the other people in adjoining HCRD properties. She reported a comparison w~s made on other HCRD zoned properties and found that on like ~operties the acreage is between 1 and 2 acres, the square footage average ~ame to approximatel~ 2100 square feet and the density per square foot was ~pproximately 1700 square feet per acre. William McHugh, attorney for the Velinskys, stated that to his knowledge, the ~egal theories presehted by Mr. Tichinin. have no basis in the law or fact. He believes the evidence regarding this house is consistent with the ~eighborhood relative to in size and bulk. He stated staff has reviewed this ~xtensively ahd are supportive of the design. Mr. Tichinin presented a two-page document to Council to show ~nconsistencies in the size of this house compared with other houses in the HC-RD. zone and ~eviewed the document. He believes that the Velinsk.v home is approximately 1~/3 larger than the average home in the HC-RD zone. Mr. Velinsky pointed~out Table I in the staff report which are the Tax ~ssessors figures regarding square footage. He pointed+out that when he f~irst began his project, he had no idea that Saratoga counts garage space, attic space, stairwells etc. He was living in a home at that time which was .3~oo square fee~. When he was put on the spot to give a number for the s,quare fOotage of the home he wished to build, he said 3200 Square feet. It ~,asn't until the actual planning and design begin, he realized it couldn't be 3200 square feet. Mr. Tichinin said he believes Mr. Velinsky has misrepresented to Council his l~ack of knowledge at, the time he made the statements regarding the 3200 s~uare foot house. Mr. Tichinin read, verbatim from a court docket. Mayor Stutz~an closed the Public Hearing at 3:12 a.m. Iq ~s~oa~ ~ C0~:Hi~e~er ~ade~s0a,~. l~De] ~d there ~s ~ est0~] thee~ a~]~c~b]e to th~ s case that he is aware of . This is not a situation of a property owner s~eking something from the City; it was a proceeding mandated by the City whereby the property was annexed in. The square footage is determined b~ the zoning regulation not by any statements that me.v have been made. , ponding to Councilmember Clevenger, Mr. Toppal explained the judicial ~termination that nO EIR was required. The other holding by the Court, 'which he felt was incorrect, was that there was insufficient evidence t6 s~pport the Council finding that the grant to the variance would not c~nst'itute a special,priviledge Both of those issues are no longer relevant City Council Minutes 7/24/90 Page'19 if there is no variance, Council is dealing strictly with design review. Nevertheless, staff has suggested approval of the Negative Declaration. Interpretation of Judge Stone's opinion is that if there is no variance then it falls into the area of being a categorically exempt project. Mr. Toppel clarified that the lawsuit was based upon a claim that an EIR should have been done. That issue was before the Court and the Judge said specifically no EIR was required. Mayor Stutzman questioned if the following environmental issues were brought up before Judge Stone: thatlthis property is adjacent to the Fault; that it is a slide'area; that it has underground water and springs present that flow most of the year. He said if there is no EIR he thinks there should be a mitigated Negative Declaration. Mr. Toppel said'Council could require some mitigation in connection with the Negative Declaration if that is the concern. He said the geologic reports were required in connection with the design review. Mr. Emslie confirmed that those issues were addressed in the geologic review. Mr. Tichinin commented that Council may determine those issues potential significant effects on the environment and he explained why he believes they could constitute grounds for the preparation of an EIR or a mitigated Negative Declaration independently of Judge Stone's ruling. Mr. Toppel differed and clarified that the administrative record was before the Court including all information presented to the Council. He said if Council has some concern about the geologic situation at the site Council may want to review the geologic report. Mr. Toppel said another approach, in the absence of the variance, would be to make a finding that it is categorically exempt and the Negative Declaration does not need to be adopted. Council has the prerogative, if there is concern about the geology, to have appropriate conditions if Council feels the reports need clarification or amplification. ' Discussion ensued regarding the issue of what information was presented in Court. Councilmember Clevenger pointed out the Planning Commission voted unanimously that the home should be sited in the ravine and two Councilmembers felt it should be in the ravine. She said her choice was that the home be sited on the ridge which seemed less environmentally damaging. She said she supports the application as presented to Council. Lengthy discussion ensued regarding definitions of major and minor ridge and whether or not the home is on a minor ridge line. Councilmember Kohler and Mayor Stutzman felt that is an unknown. Discussion also included whether or not this is a visible ridge. Mr. Emslie clarified that minor and major ridges are defined in the specific plan for the NHR and are specifically mapped out but are not mapped out for the HC-RD hillside zone which this lot is zoned. Responding to Mayor Stutzman, he said that the definition of a minor ridge is mapped on the City's records and shown topographically. Councilmember Monia sugggested that if a decision cannot be made tonight that Council continue the item to another date to determine if the home is on a minor ridge. CLEVENGER/ANDERSON MOVED TO ACCEPT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE NEGATIVE DECL~ATION AND THE REVISED SITE PLAN AS PROPOSED. Failed 2-3. (Kohler, Monia and Stutzman voted no.) MONIA/KOHLER MOVED THAT THE ITEM BE CONTINUED TO THE AUGU~ ST 7 MEETING AND THAT STAFF REPORT BACK TO DEFINE SPECIFICALLY WHETHER OR NOT THROUGH THE GENERAL PLAN WE HAVE A DEFINITION OF MAJOR RIDGE AND MINOR RIDGE AND WHETHER OR NOT THIS LOT WOULD BE AFFECTED BY THE POSSIBILITY OF IT BEING CONSIDERED ON A MINOR RIDGE. Passed 5-0. Mayor Stutzman opened the Public Hearings for items F, G, and H at 3:40 a.m F. Ordinance prohibiting certain offensive conduct There was no one present who wished to speak. City Council Minutes~ 7/24/90 Page 20 ~LEVENGER/MONIA MOVEDTO INTRODUCE AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA ADDING SECTION 6-15.140 TO THE CITY CODE CONCERNING OFFENSIVE CONDUCT. Passed 5-0. ~ G. O~dinance providing passenger loading zone on De Sacks in front of Blue Hills School There was no one present who wished to speak. ~C~EVENGER/ANDERSON MOVED TO INTRODUCEAN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING SUBSECTION 9-15.100 (d) OF THE CITY CODE RELATING TO PASSENGER L~ADING ZONES. Passed 5-0. I H. Ordinance making technical amendments to Early Warning Fire Alarm ; 2. System There was n0 .one present who wished to speak. CLEVENGER/ANDERSON MOVED TO II~Pff~J~E ~;0RDII~qC~)F THE CITY ~F SARATOGA ~AMENDING SECTION 16-60.020 OF THE CITY CODE CONCERNING THE EARLY WARNING FIRE ALARM SYSTEM.?' Passed 5-0. M~ayor stutzman returned to the items preceding Public Hearings on the Agenda. oLD BusinEss :t A. Adoption andSmodifications of 1988 edition of Uniform Fire Code C.LEVENGER/ANDERSON ~OVED TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 71.78 AN ORDINANCE OF THE C~ITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING ARTICLE 16-20 OF THE CITY CODE TO ADOPT AND MODIFY THE 1988 EDITION OF THE UNIFORm4 FIRE CODE. Passed 5-0, , B~ :Model Toxic Gas Ordinance C~EVEN~ER/ANDERSON MOVED TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 71.79 AN ORDINANCE OF THE C~TY OF SARATOGA A~4ENDING THE 1988 EDITION OF THE UNIFORM FIRE CODE BY ADDING yA~TICLE 88 CONCERNING TOXIC GASES. Passed 5-0. C. Ratification'of Delegate and Alternate from West Valley Cities to the : Congestion M~nagement Planning Agency. C.LEVENGER/ANDERSON MSVED TO RATIFY THE SELECTION OF JOHN ASHWORTH AS DELEGATE A~,D JOANNE BENJAI4IN AS ALTERNATE DELEGATE TO THE CONGESTION [4ANAGEMENT PLAN AGENCY FROM THE WEST!VALLEY CITIES. Passed 5-0. Report' on ordinanceregulating recreational vehicles in response to oral communication from Joseph Blake at June 20 Council meeting J se h Blake, 18610 McCoy Avenue, thanked Council for considering the problem ~ga ding recreationZvehicle parking. He requested that Council's primary r~search focus on th~ financial burden this ordinance places on Seniors since this is their main source of recreation and that the vehicle can also be of g~eat benefft in emeFgencies such as earthquake. He said he would ask the s~lent majority who are said to object to please speakup publicly. He said h~ believes there are no objections in his area and he referred to a ' ighborhood petition attached to the packet material. He believes it is an i~ r' gement of his right to use his property to his personal advantage. He f ~n p~esented information from an RV magazine which gives an opinion from the C~lifornia Attorney General's office on protecting RV owners from local o'rdinan s that restrict parking. 9[ NEW BUSINESS t A. -Award of Contract for City Hall Janitorial Services to Neal's Janitorial Service in the amount of $ 6,440.04. C,LEVENGER/ANDERSON MOVED TO AWARD CONTRACT FOR CITY HALL JANITORIAL SERVICES TO NEAL'S JANITORIAL. SERVICE IN THE A~OUNT OF $6 440.04. Passed 5-0. B. Publicity for Upcoming Hearings - Weed Abatement; Business License Revocation; Council Appeal Ordinance; Rt. 85 Sound Walls; GTE -Mobilnet Appeal City Council Minutes 7/24/90 Page 21 CLEVENGER/ANDERSDI~ MOVED TO APPROVE PUBLICITY FOR UPCOMING HEARINGS. Passed 5-0. C. Donation of trailer from Mr. Paul Kelker CLEVENGER/ANDERSON MOVED TO ACCEPT DONATION OF FLAT BED TRAILER FROM MR. PAUL KELKER. Passed 5-0. D. Hours for Hobee's Restaurant ilCOUNCIL ACKNOWLEDGED THIS INFORMATION. E. Dog Complaint from Walter Ballard COUNCIL ACKNOWLEDGED THIS INFORMATION. 11. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS A. Inclusion of Transportation T2010 on Council Liaison Appointments - Councilmember Anderson CONSENSUS TO CONTINUE THIS ITEM TO A FUTURE MEETING. B. Reports from Individual Councilmembers There were no reports given. 12. There was no closed session held. 13. The meeting was adjourned at 3:50 a.m. Respectfully submitted, ~ictoria R. Lindeman Minutes Clerk