HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-01-1996 City Council Minutes MINUTES
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
TIME: Wednesday, May 1, 1996 - 7:30 p.m.
PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Ave.
TYPE: Regular Meeting
Pledge of Allegiance - Led by Marilyn White
1. ROLL CALL
Councilmembers present: Councilmembers Burger, Tucker, Moran, Wolfe
and Mayor Jacobs.
Staff present: City Manager Peacock, City Attorney Riback, Director of
Public Works Perlin, Planner Walgren.
2. CEREMONIAL ITEMS
A. Proclamations for 1996 Olympic Torchbearers - J. Robert
Clayton, Jim Katzman, Beverly Ann Myers, Paul Wesling,
Marilyn White
BURGER/TUCKER TO APPROVE THE PROCLAMATIONS. PASSED 5-0.
Mayor Jacobs presented the proclamations to J. Robert Clayton, Beverly
Ann Myers, Paul Wesling and Marilyn White.
B. Proclamation on Enterprising Woman of the Year Award
BURGER/WOLFE TO APPROVE THE PROCLAMATION ON ENTERPRISING WOMAN OF THE
YEAR AWARD. PASSED 5-0.
3. REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA
City Manager Peacock reported.that pursuant to Government Code 54954.2,
the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on April 26.
4. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS AND THE PUBLIC
A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Dave Johnston, 20616 Brookwood Lane, presented T-shirts to
Councilmembers and invited them to the Saratoga Creek Watershed
Festival which is sponsored by Saratoga Coyote Creek Riparian Station
and Saratoga High School District and will be held on May 19.
Mrs. Abbot, 12271 Saraglen-Drive, said she and others have seen
accidents and near accidents at the corner of Saraglen and View Ridge.
She suggested that a stop sign is needed at that corner
City Manager Peacock informed Council that there is an established
procedure whereby matters like this are referred to the Public Safety
Commission. If they believe it needs to be studied by the Public Works
Department, the Public Works director will examine the intersection and
come back with a recommendation to the Commission.
B. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS
1) Letter from Public Safety commission regarding
modification of solicitor ordinance
City Manager Peacock said the City Attorney has reviewed the letter and
a written report regarding whether the Council can act on this had been
given to Councilmembers.
City Manager Peacock said Council could receive and file the letter
unless they want the Commission to make specific findings. He pointed
out that the current ordinance specifically allows posting a sign
prohibiting solicitors from coming to your home.
Councilmember Burger expressed concern with the item in the City
Attorney's letter regarding providing solicitors with ample alternate
means of communication. She said she did not think concern with
City Council Minutes 2 May 1, 1996
solicitors is limited to these two comp] ints. People don't want to be
bothered after they get home from work. ]he said she did not think the
City is required to provide solicitors ~th the most effective or the
I.
least expensive means of communica Ion. Telephone and mail
solicitation are alternative means. She said she would like
solicitation hours reduced.
Mayor Jacobs said it is a question of w[ the Supreme Court has said.
City Attorney Riback said this is a com Dn problem and the issues are
to reduce hours ~up with evidence that will
support findings that have been made. Ti ~ evidence would have to prove
that the City's crime rate increased du~ ng the hours that they want to
change from (5:00-7:00 p.m.). If the I can show that is linked to
nighttime solicitation, perhaps some act 9n can be taken. He said this
is a very difficult area to regulate. ihe courts have said there is
such a thing as commercial speech which s constitutionally protected.
Mr. RibaCk said he did not know of anot] ~ city that had reduced hours
to 9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m.; 8:00 a.m.-7:00 [m. is fairly consistent.
Following discussion, Mayor Jacobs sa | he did not see sufficient
lon
sentiment to send it back to the Commi~ ' so it would be noted and
filed for the time being.
2) Letter from Publio S fety~ Commission requesting
additional signs at the I i ' ' '
tersectlon of Fruitvale Ave
and Saratoga Ave.
Public Works ' ector Perlin said from Fhe Public Works perspective Dlr
additional signs are not going to pro~ ~t people. More enforcement
would help. He said the intersection w] ~1 be redone in 3-4 months and
putting up a new sign now may c~ !ate more confusion. His
recommendation was not to install mor~ signs. He passed around a
sketch of what could put in if they di~ put up more signs. He said
there is a symbol for crosswalk, but il is generally used mid-block,
not at corners. He said the matter h& not been discussed with' him
prior to being presented to Council, a4 ~t is not clear yet whether
the right turn on red prohibition will rE ~aln after installation of the
new signal at Scotland.
Following discussion, Council referred he matter back to the Public
Safety Commission for review with staff ~th the possibility of coming
up with other alternatives.
C. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
1) Philip J. Koen, reslgnin from Finance Committee
MORAN/TUCKER TO ACCEPTED MR. KOEN'S 8SIGNATION WITH REGRET AND
AUTHORIZE ADVERTISING TO FILL THE VACAN [. PASSED 5-0.
Mayor Jacobs moved the agendalto Item 6 [.
6. PUBLIC HEARIN8S
A. Appeal of denial of: (1) Te~ ative parcel map approval to
subdivide a 2.46 acre lot with !n existing residence into two
separate building sites (the ~sidence would be retained on
Lot I and a new single-family ~sidence would be built on Lot
2) and (~) variance to a11~
maintain a nonconformlng fro~: yard setback. Though the
structure,s front setback is~ ~ot changing, a variance is
necessary to allow the lot to ~e created. The property is
e a ~ Nagpal)(SD95-009; V95-014)
Planner Walgren presented the staffr3 rt and recommendations and
reviewed the process at the Planning Co~ ~lssion level. He said staff
had changed its recommendation from wh~ ~ the application first went
before the Planning Commission. He ~ ~id staff had met with the
applicants and their engineer to help the with a parcel map that would
City Council Minutes 3 May 1, 1996
meet lot size requirements.
Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing at 8:15 p.m. Councilmember
Burger indicated that she had visited the site and talked to the
applicant.
Appellant Susie Nagpal, 19101 Via Tesoro Court, gave a brief history of
the application and described the concessions they have offered. She
said they appreciate the discretionary powers held by Planning
Commission and City Council. From their perspective they believe they
have submitted a map that meets all of the City's zoning and
subdivision requirements. They felt it was a reasonable request and
they were therefore surprised when the Planning Commission denied their
application. She said she has spoken to her neighbors about the
proposed house and is willing to work with any mitigating
circumstances, including size, height and setbacks. Ms. Nagpal said
they did not feel they were given a fair hearing before the Planning
Commission. She showed overheads of the existing house, the proposed
lot line, existing trees, and the proposed house including setbacks.
She said they are more than happy and willing to be subject to the
highest level of design scrutiny and understand they will have to have
something compatible with the neighborhood. She showed an overview of
surrounding properties. She stated that all surrounding properties are
just one acre and both of the proposed lots would be larger than one
acre. She presented a letter signed by her neighbors and said she was
concerned about neighborhood issues and preserving trees. She repeated
that they are willing to work with the neighbors and Council and said
the engineer for the project was present to answer questions.
In answer to questions, Ms. Nagpal stated that the variance request
does not apply to the new lot. This was confirmed by staff.
Ms. Nagpal confirmed that the arbor by the pool will be removed. She
said they had not given much thought to visual barriers between the two
houses, partly because their parents would be living in the new house.
Regarding access, she said there are currently two entrances to the
property.
In response to Council concerns regarding the slope of the lot, the
civil engineer and architect on the project described the proposed
split level house and said it conforms to the topography of the lot.
He said the flat portion is more than half an acre and they would not
be cutting into the hillside that slopes down to Chester.
Regarding siting of the house, Planner Walgren referred to Exhibit A
and said the house would have to be within the envelope that includes
most of the level and lawn areas except for the western corner. Beyond
that Council could restrict the envelope further to say stay away from
the pine trees and the slope. He said he did not think the proposal
includes specific tree protection measures.
In regard to staff changing their recommendation, Planner Walgren said
staff's role on appeals is to present the recommendation of Planning
Commission. He said this was not a project that they were
wholeheartedly supporting and they made it clear that there were
inherent problems. Staff had, however, recommended approval of the
project to the Planning Commission based on the project meeting City
standards.
John Brady, 14287 Chester Avenue, said he had just become aware of the
situation across the street from'his home. He said he had not met with
his neighbor nor was he aware of any attempt to meet him or discuss
this project. He saw the plan for the first time tonight. He said he
has lived on the court for 16 years and his primary concern is visual
impact and privacy of his property. He also expressed concern over the
aspect of slope. Chester Avenue is well below the subject property.
He said he believed his view of the proposed house would be depressing
and the project is completely unacceptable. Mr. Brady said the
specimen trees are gorgeous and he was very concerned about their'
preservation.
Harry Ratner, 19103 Via Tesoro, said he is not in favor of the
City council M~nutes 4 May 1, 1996
proposal. He lives next door and does ~ : like the idea of a beautiful
parcel being torn apart. He said he wi] lose privacy. When he bought
his property seven or eight years ago h~ was assured that lot could not
be split.
Ms. Nagpal said she had knocked on ma~ doors and apologized to Mr.
Brady that she had not been able to c .itact him. She spoke to the
concerns of Mr. Brady and Mr. Ratner ~ assured them that the trees
will be saved. t~ha2J
The applicant's architect repeated be two proposed lots both meet
the City's requirements. He said ~ntend to retain the existing
trees on the property and add more if m :essary. Efforts will be made
to make the proposed house compatible ~ th the existing one.
William McHugh, attorney, said that wha~ the applicant is asking for is
a decision on the lot split. He sa]~ what Council has seen here
demonstrated is a willingness to work w~ h the neighborhood. All of the
neighbors' concerns have been addre~ ed. The new house can be
consistent with the existing house and Isurroundin~ houses. Each of
proposed lots is as large or larger lan those in the surrounding
neighborhood. He stated that Council [d not need to decide at this
time what the house should look like.
Mayor Jacobs closed the public hearing t 8:50 p.m.
Councilmember Burger stated that she had [isited the site; the proposed
lot split meets City requirements, and~ ~d she looked only at the map
and minutes and not carefully reviewed ~he concerns of the Planning
· ' ' was correct in their decision
Commission first, she would be lncllnec to allow the lot split. She
said she thought the Planning Commissio~
to deny the lot split and :: ldJ ote to uphold the Planning
Commission based on two major u [ The greater visual impact of
the corner lot. The present house was~ ~esigned to sit on that large
lot. If another one is built it cant | ~lp but have an impact on the
the existence of a second home. [d that while the applicants'
parent will live there now, there will !other owners and they may be
unrelated groups. She-said she bel ~ved the Planning Commission
exercised its discretion properly.
Councilmember Moran also stated she had [sited the site. She said the
applicant has submitted a proposal that ~ets City requirements and she
can understand their frustration. Over~ 81 she said she believes a lot
split on this propert~ is i~approp~iate. ~The new lot line is irregular
· ~evelop the site,
~ayor ~acobs stated that the City C~ ncil is required to follow
elements that are in the law and som~ !imes those elements may not
conform to what property owners or ne] ~hbo s want. He referred to
.r
three items of concern by the Planning ~mmlsslon that were listed in
the staff report. In regard to grantim ~ variance he said he agreed
with the Planning Commission. He said .hat he is not saying to the
neighbors that there will never be anyt [ng built on the lot.
Councilmember Tucker complimented the a] licants for trying to build a
house for their parents. She said s] ~ had great respect for her
colleagues' opinions and agreed with uncllmember Burger regarding
concerns with the future of property.
Councilmember Wolfe said he appreciated Flanning Commission' s concern
for the aesthetic result. Planner Watg~ n informed him that neighbors
..
had been notified. Councilmember Wolfe ~xd the Nagpals are willing to
make concessions and undergo design scru liny. He said he respects the
neighbors concerns but also is consideri~ the owners' rights. He said
he sees no problem with the unusual 1~ configuration. However, he
thinks the general aesthetics of the n .ghborhood would be impaired
with a two story house.
Councilmember Burger urged the Nagpals consider other alternatives.
City Council Minutes 5 May 1, 1996
BURGER/TUCKER TO DENY THE APPEAL, UPHOLDING PIaLNNING COMMISSION
DECISION TO DENY SUBDIVISION REQUEST ON SD 95-009 AND V 95-014. PASSED
5-0·
RECESS: 9:07-9:17 p.m.
Mayor Jacobs moved the agenda to Item 5.
5. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Previously-Discussed Items
1) Resolution 96-21 denying Kolotour0s Appeal heard 4/17
2) Resolution 96-22 denying Anderson Appeal of skov Project
heard 4/17
TUCKER/WOLFE TO APPROVE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS 5.A.1 AND 2. PASSED 5-
B. New Items
1) Planning Commission Actions, 4/24
2) Finance Advisory Committee Minutes, 3/25
3) Resolution 96-23 rejecting Offer of Dedication of
Easement for Emergency Access Road at 18532 Aquino Way
4) Final Acceptance and Notice of Completion for Wildwood
Park Improvements (CIP 955)
5) Approval of Check Register
WOLFE/BURGER TO APPROVE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS 5. B., I THROUGH 5.
PASSED 5-0.
C. CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY - None.
7. OLD BUSINESS - None.
8. NEW BUSINE88
A. Oral Communications (continued) and instructions to staff
regarding actions on current oral communications - None.
B. Reallocation of FY 1996-97 Housing and Community Development
Act Funds (HCDA)
City Manager Peacock presented the staff report.
WOLFE/BURGER TO AMEND THE FY 1996-97 HCDA PROGRAM TO ALLOCATE FUNDING
FROM SARATOGA'S LOW INCOME HOUSING RESERVE TO GRANT MID-PENINSULA
HOUSING COALITION $49,246 FOR REHABILITATION OF SARATOGA COURT. PASSED
5-0.
C. Agreement with Kay and Stevens as Special Counsel for
Negotiation Services relating to Meet and Confer Sessions
with 8MO and SEA
City Manager Peacock presented the staff report. He said the prior
agreement was for $5,000 but because of protracted negotiations, the
actual cost was over $9,800. There has been $2,200-2,400 expended
since the first of the year.
Councilmember Burger said her concern focuses around expenditure of
these funds which she thought was unnecessary. She said she would not
be voting to approve this agreement. She said she did not believe that
the City needs special counsel for negotiating services.
Councilmember Wolfe said he had gone along with this reluctantly last
year and did not like seeing the escalation of cost.
City Council Minutes 6 May 1, 1996
Mayor Jacobs said perhaps the City torney could tighten up the
language to address concerns.
Councilmember Tucker stated that when t~ decided to do this it was to
take city staff out of the position being negotiators.. Another
company could be hired.
Mayor Jacobs and Councilmember Tuckez ?tated they are in favor of
having an independent negotiator. Mar ement employees are included
now so costs will go up.
City Attorney Riback informed Council nat if they wished to act on
this agreement this evening, the sent ~ce that is at issue can be
deleted from agreement.
TUCKER/MORANTO APPROVE THE AGREEMENTAM ~DED BY DELETING THE SENTENCE,
"CITY ACKNOWLEDGES THAT THE SCOPE OF WORK HAY EVENTUALLY REQUIRE
~RS
SERVICES IN EXCESS OF TWENTY THOUSAND DO] ($20,000.00); BUT SPECIAL
COUNSEL AGREES THAT SERVICES WILL NOT BE NOR WILL EXPENSES BE
INCURRED, BEYOND THE TWENTY THOUSAN~ ($20,000.00) LIMIT
SPECIFIED ABOVE WITHOUT THE CITY'S EX~ ~SS, WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION."
PASSED 3-2 WITH WOLFE AND BURGER DISSE~ ENG.
D. ISSueS tO be decided for R eula Munlcipal Election of
~ r
11/5/96 ~
city Manager Peacock reviewed the staf [eport.
MORAN/TUCKER TO DIRECT STAFF TO PRE~ RE A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING
CANDIDATE STATEMENTS OF 400 WORDS, REQ kRING THE CANDIDATES PAY THE
COST OF PRINT.ING THE CANDIDATES 8TATE~ ~T ON THE SAMPLE BALLOT, AND
REQUIRING AN ADVANCE DEPOSIT OF $650. ~SSED 5-0.
E. Memo Authorizing Publicity f Upcoming Hearings - Zoning
Ordinance Amendment on Comm .ication Antennas~ Binkley
Project
TUCKER/BURGER TO APPROVE PUBLICITY AS ~OMMENDED.
Discussion:
Councilmember Burger asked if the public maring is to determine if the
Binkley Project falls under Measure G.
City Manager Peacock said the staff determined that this is a
project subject to Measure G. He said ti,!s is the one project that has
been caught in the pipeline between p~l[sage of the measure and the
effective date. He said in the absence ~[ a policy having been set, it
was his view that how Council handles th~{Binkley appeal would de facto
establish policy. Council may adopt a ~ [icy that says they are going
[opt a policy that says that
once staff makes a determination that th1 ~roject is subject to Measure
G, the only issue to be debated is whet~ or not the staffs position
is correct. The scope of the public hea~ ng is not known at this time.
Councilmember Moran said her impression ~ s that the recommendation was
going to be that there would be an admin~ :rative appeal process rather
than a public hearing.
City Manager Peacock said the problem they had to advertise for a
public hearing without knowing what pol y will be.
Following discussion, City Attorney Ri ck said because the Binkley
application is so far along in the pro ~ss, if the determination is
made by City Council that they agree w] ~ staff's determination that
the Binkley application is subject to M{ tsure G, if Mr. Binkley wants
to continue the matter so there can be ca be a hearing before the City
Council, an appeal hearing in effea on that issue alone, he
recommended they allow that in order ta ~rovide Mr. Binkley with his
due process rights. Normally, the prI hess would be to go through
Planning Commission, then City Councii and that would probably be
City Council Minutes 7 May 1, 1996
appropriate in this case.
Regarding the cellular phone antenna issue, Councilmember Moran asked
about advertising more widely on issues like this.
Mayor Jacobs stated the City cannot send notices to everyone. No
project has been proposed at this time.
City Manager Peacock stated they have a recommendation from the
Planning Commission to treat applications for communications antennas
as conditionally permitted uses in the various zones, which would
require a public hearing before the Planning Commission for each and
every application. If there is an appeal of those decisions, they
would come before City Council. Each one would be a site specific use
permit application. He said the issue is one of where the public
utility needs to be in order to provide an essential function. He said
he thought aesthetics would be the primary thrust; environmental impact
is not considered to be significant.
THE MOTION PASSED 5-0.
9. ROUTINE MATTERS
A. Approval of Minutes - 4/17; 4/20; 4/23; 4/24
WOLFE/TUCKER TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE 4/17/96 MEETING. PASSED 5-
.
WOLFE/BURGER TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE 4/20/96 MEETING. PASSED 5-
.
BURGER/TUCKER TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE 4/23/96 MEETING. PASSED 5-
Councilmember Wolfe asked that the following sentence be added on page
2, following paragraph 2: "Wolfe thanked Mr. Breed, for as a member of
the Hakone board he faithfully served on the signage committee of the
Saratoga Business Development Council and was thereby responsible for
the placing of directional signs that benefit Hakone attendance and
finances."
BURGER/MORAN TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE 4/24/96 MEETING AS REVISED.
PASSED 5-0.
10. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS
A. Agenda items for adjourned regular meeting May 21.
City Manager Peacock asked that Councilmembers inform the Deputy City
Clerk regarding any items they wish to be on this agenda.
Councilmember Moran said she would like to include the Community Parks
and Recreation Task Force Progress Report.
B. Request to Support SB1694 Reduced insurance rates for
graduates of defensive driving programs
City Manager Peacock referred to the letter in the packet from Top
Drive. By consensus, the matter was tabled.
C. Other
Councilmember Wolfe urged everyone to attend the Farmers Market which
begins again this Saturday and includes the new Market Days.
Councilmember Tucker publicly thanked the volunteers who have helped
the City during the last year and those who planned the picnic to honor
them.
Councilmember Burger also thanked the volunteers and staff and invited
everyone to attend the Rotary art show on Sunday.
Councilmember Moran announced there would be a pancake breakfast at
City councll Minutes 8 May 1, 1996
Redwood School across the street fr( the art .show. She asked
Councilmembers to put June 8 on thei~ calendars for the community
workshop and focus group concerning PaI and Recreation.
Councilmember Moran asked if Council c ~ld talk about what could be
done about the sale of used cars on puk ~c. streets.
City Attorney Riback said he would see f there has been a change in
the law prohibiting citing people for tting their car on a public
street with a for sale sign on it. ~s=is another example of the
commercial speech issue.
Following discussion of possible alterx ires, it was agreed that this
would be discussed at the May 21 meetin
At 9:58 the meeting was adjourned to next meeting at 7:00 p.m. on
Tuesday, May 7, at Administration :Room, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue.
Respectfully submitted,
Recording Secretary