HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-19-1996 City Council Minutes MINUTES
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
TIME: Wednesday, June 19, 1996 - 6:30 p.m.
PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Ave.
TYPE: Regular Meeting
6:30 p.m. - Interviews of Finance Committee Applicants in
Administration Conference Room, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue
(6:30 - Dippel; 6:45 - Smith)
7:00 p.m. Closed session on litigation pursuant to Government Code
Section 54956.9, subdivision (a):
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-EXISTING LITIGATION
Parties to Litigation: Green Valley Disposal Company and Guadalupe
Landfill Company
and
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of
Section 54956.9 in one case.
7:30 p.m. - Pledge of Allegiance led by Adrian Stanga.
1. ROLL CALL
Councilmembers Present: Councilmembers Burger, Moran, Tucker, Wolfe
and Mayor Jacobs
Staff Present: City Manager Peacock, City Attorney Riback, Community
Development Director Curtis, Public Works Director Perlin, Finance
Director Fil, Planner Walgren
2. CEREMONIAL ITEMS
A. Resolution appointing Members of Youth Commission
MORAN/BURGER TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 96-33 APPOINTING NICOLE BEHNKE FOR
A TERM EXPIRING JULY 1997 AND APPOINTING DAVID MOUNT, ROBIN GILL,
TANNAZ ALTAFI, JENNIFER CHANG, AND LAURA PROLO FOR TERMS EXPIRING JULY
1998 ON THE YOUTH COMMISSION. PASSED 5-0.
B. Administration of Oath of Office to Youth Commissioners
Mayor Jacobs administered the Oath of Office to Tannaz Altafi and
Jennifer Chang.
C. Resolution commending Dick Wood as Citizen of the Year
MORAN/TUCKER TO APPROVE THE RESOLUTION.
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 June 14.
4. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS AND THE PUBLIC
A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None.
B. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS - None.
C. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
1) Robert D. James, 12315 Obrad Dr., requesting change Of
time when trash cans can be placed at curbslde
City Manager Peacock told Councilmembers what the current requirements
are. Councilmembers agreed that this is a good-neighbor issue. City
Manager Peacock said they could put a reminder in the newsletter and he
City Council Minutes 2 June 19, 1996
would talk to Green Valley about including a courtesy reminder with
their bill.
2) Robert S. Dougherty, Mayor, city of Campbell, requesting
support for Transportation Ballot Measure
Following discussion, Council directed the City Manager to draft a
letter for the Mayor's signature to City of Campbell stating these are
good ideas and asking them to support Saratoga's request for a sound
attenuation barrier on Highway 85 in Saratoga.
5. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Previously-Discussed Items - None.
B. New Items
1) Planning Commission Actions, 6/12 - Note and file.
2) Parks and Recreation Commission Minutes, 5/6 - Note and
file.
3) Review of Park Dedication Fees under Quimby Act (no
change recommended)
4) Renewal of Household Hazardous Waste Collection
Agreement with Santa clara County for FY 1996-97
5) Authorization for Mayor to Execute Eighth Amendment for
Local Law Enforcement Agency Access to Californla
Identification System
6) Authorization to purchase Traffic Signal Controller and
Signal Hardware for Saratoga Avenue Traffic signal, CIP
9605
7) Resolution accepting Offer of Water Line Easement for
Hakone Gardens Water System - REMOVED FROM AGENDA.
'8) Resolution in connection with Reallgnment of the former
Lisa Marie Court and the new Kerwin Ranch Court -
REMOVED FROM AGENDA.
9) Memo Authorizing Publicity for Upcoming Hearings - No
hearings scheduled in near future.
10) Authorization to dispose of Surplus Property - Backhoe
Scraper Attachment
11) Resolution 96-34 authorizing Execution of Joint Powers
Agreement for Saratoga to Participate in Urban County
CDBG Program for 1997-99
12) City Financlal Reports for May:
a) Treasurer,s Report - Receive and file.
b) Investment Report - Receive and file.
c) Financlal Report - Receive and file.
13) Approval of Check Register
BURGER/WOLFE TO APPROVE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS 5.B, I THROUGH 13.
PASSED 5-0.
C. CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY - None.
Mayor Jacobs mo~ed the agenda to Item 7.
7. OLD BUSINESS
City Councll Minutes 3 June 19, 1996
A. Oral Communications (continued) and instructions to staff
regarding actions on current oral communications - None.
B. Report from Community Development Director on Letter from
Winifred B. Simpson presented at 6/5/96 meeting concerning
permit process and related letter from Don Whetstone
City Manager Peacock requested that Council return to this item later
when Mrs. Simpson will be present. (Considered following public
hearing items.)
8. NEW BUSINESS
A. Award of Construction Contract for Community center Seismic
Upgrade Work
Public Works Director Perlin presented the staff report. He noted
Saratoga Builders~ past record of work done for the City.
WOLFE/MORAN TO DECLARE SARATOGA BUILDERS TO BE THE LOWEST RESPONSIBLE
BIDDER FOR THE WORK. PASSED 5-0.
WOLFE/MORAN TO AWARD A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO SARATOGA BUILDERS FOR
THE WORK IN THE AMOUNT OF $4,795. PASSED 5-0.
B. Award of Contracts for Monthly Landscape Maintenance Services
Public Works Director Perlin presented the staff report.
BURGER/TUCKER TO DECLARE DIABLO LANDSCAPE, INC. OF SAM JOSE TO BE A
LOWEST RESPONSIBLE BIDDER AND AWARD A CONTRACT FOR MONTHLY LANDSCAPE
MAINTENANCE SERVICES, EXCEPT FOR BID ITEMS 8 AND 9, IN VARIOUS
LOCATIONS FOR A TOTAL OF $2,215 PER MONTH. PASSED 5-0.
BURGER/TUCKER TO DECLARE COMMERCIAL ENVIRONMENT MAINTENANCE CO., OF
SANTA CLARA TO BE A LOWEST RESPONSIBLE BIDDER AND AWARD A CONTRACT FOR
MONTHLY LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE SERVICES, FOR BID ITEMS 8 AND 9 ONLY, FOR
VARIOUS LOCATIONS FOR A TOTAL OF $306 PER MONTH. PASSED 5-0.
C. Newby Island Landfill Contract
City Manager Peacock presented the staff report and noted that Campbell
and Monte Sereno had recently taken action similar to the one
recommended.
WOLFE/MORAN TO APPROVE THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND TO AUTHORIZE THE
CITY MANAGER TO FINALIZE NEGOTIATIONS AND BRING BACK A RECOMMENDED
CONTRACT FOR FINAL APPROVAL BY THE CITY COUNCIL.
Peggy O'Loughlin, Matteoni Saxe & Nanda law firm, said she was
representing Guadalupe Rubbish Disposal Co. and Green Valley Disposal.
Referring to the letter included as attachment B to the staff report,
she asked that Council not approve the negative declaration for the
following reasons:
· The Initial Study and Negative Declaration (IS/ND) did not assess
the effects on landfill life or cumulative impacts.
· The IS/ND contained an incomplete analysis of air quality impacts.
· The conclusion of non-significance of traffic and energy use impacts
may be unjustified.
She concluded that the initial study for the proposed negative
declaration is inadequate and additional information and/or preparation
of a full EIR is necessary.
Ms. O'Loughlin said she had reviewed the response to the issues she had
raised in the letter and had appeared the night before at Monte
Sereno's council meeting and asked them for an opportunity to comment
on the report that outlines the economic impacts and cost savings the
City can utilize. She said Guadalupe and Green Valley would like to
provide the cost information in terms of haul rate difference between
Cit~ Council Minutes 4 June 19, 1996
Newby and Guadalupe.
Councilmember Wolfe and Mayor Jacobs agreed that this is a matter of a
difference of opinion between parties and has to do with economics and
competition.
THE MOTION PASSED 5-0.
Mayor Jacobs returned the agenda to Item 6.
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. City of Saratoga Budget, 1996-97 and 1997-98 (continued
from June 5)
1) Resolution adopting budget
2) Resolution adopting appropriations limit
3) Resolution adding to salary classes and permanent
position classifications
4) Resolution authorizing permanent positions
5) Resolution adopting fee schedule
City Manager Peacock requested that Councilmembers disregard Exhibit A
of the resolution adopting the fee schedule because they had acted on
these fees in December.
Finance Director Fil outlined the changed made since the June 5
hearing.
Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing at 8:10 p.m. No one wished to
speak and the public hearing was closed immediately.
BURGER/WOLFE TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 95-30.16 ADOPTING THE BUDGET FOR
FISCAL YEARS 1996-9~ AND 1997-98 MAKING APPROPRIATIONS AND AUTHORIZING
CARRY-OVERS THERETO AND EXPENDITURES THEREFROM.
Councilmember Wolfe thanked staff and the Financial Advisory Committee
for their work on the budget.
THE MOTION PASSED 5-0.
BURGER/TUCKER TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 96-35 ESTABLISHING THE 1996-97
FISCAL YEAR APPROPRIATION LIMIT FOR THE CITY OF SARATOGA. PASSED 5-0.
BURGER/WOLFE TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 85-9.101 ADDING TO BASIC SALARY
CLASSES AND EMPLOYMENT POSITION CLASSIFICATIONS FOR THE EMPLOYEES OF
THE CITY OF SARATOGA. PASSED 5-0.
BURGER/WOLFE TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 96-36 AMENDING RESOLUTION NO.
2663, AS AMENDED, AUTHORIZING PERMANENT POSITION IN CITY SERVICE FOR
FISCAL YEAR 1996/97. PASSED 5-0.
BURGER WOLFE TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 96-3~ ESTABLISHING A SCHEDULE OF
FEES, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF EXHIBIT A. PASSED 5-0.
B. Appeal of Denial of Request for Tentative Subdivision Map
approval to subdivide two parcels of land totaling 6.94 acres
into fifteen single-family lots. The existing residence and
improvements would be removed and a new oul-de-sac would
access the development off Saratoga Sunnyvale Rd. opposite
Herriman Ave. - there is no vehicular access proposed through
the adjoining neighborhoods. The proposed lots range in size
from 15,000 to 21,600 sq. ft. and would permit 4,000 to 4,500
sq. ft. homes (including garages). The property is located
in an R-1-12,500 zoning district at 15041 & 15072 Saratoga-
Sunnyvale Rd. (SD-95-010~ APN 503-21-009 & 012) - (Applicant:
NAVICO INC./BYRON NAVID)(continued from June 5 at the request
of the applicant)
City Council Minutes 5 June 19, 1996
An environmental initial study and subsequent Negative Declaration have
been prepared for this project pursuant to the terms and requirements
of the California Environmental Quality Act.
Community Development Director Curtis presented the staff report and
background including what had occurred at the Planning Commission
hearings and other meetings with the applicant. Because the Planning
Commission denied the application on a split 4-3 vote, he presented
both the majority and minority opinions.
The following items were discussed by Councilmembers:
· Staff had not recommended approval of the original plan because there
were too many questions.
· Staff thinks the alternative designs are feasible and appropriate.
· The fire department has no problem regarding emergency access.
· There will be a mix of one- and two-story homes.
· Setbacks along Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road.
· Pedestrian path/access.
House size - neighbors are aware that the houses are larger than
those in the neighborhood, no concern raised following public hearing
notice and staff report.
· Cul-de-sac options.
· There had been no proposal that would increase number of lots and
decrease house size.
· Grading - pads would have to be graded to provide proper drainage.
· Meandering sidewalk on Saratoga Sunnyvale Road frontage.
· Design of wall and bus stop including distance of path from wall.
· Level of analysis to be accomplished at this meeting. Community
Development Director said he thought Council's first decision would
be the street layout and once that decision is made staff would
evaluate specific conditions. The matter could then come back to
Council or be sent back to the Planning Commission
· Alternatives proposed at work session; alternative C is closest to
the majority position of the Planning Commission.
Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing at 8:48 p.m.
Byron Navid, applicant, provided Councilmembers with a packet including
C-l, a rendering of the proposal by the Planning Commission and a
matrix of all the plans before them with pros and cons in regard to
vehicular connections, density, length of the cul-de-sac, safe walkway
for school children, deep 10ts and privacy for neighbors, number of
lots bordering Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, degree of traffic problems,
ingress and egress at intersections and guaranteed preservation and
focal point of trees in design. He described the numeric breakdowns of
why Lynde and Prune Blossom were dismissed as connector or main
streets. He said the setbacks would be 10% of the existing lot on a
side setback or 10 ft., whichever is greater. There will be landscaping
between the wall and the pathway. There are only three homes adjacent
to Saratoga-sunnyvale Road. He presented a list of actions taken and
how the proposal was developed. Existing traffic patterns, particularly
around the school, had been discussed. Other variables, including City
zoning requirements, lot sizes, density and Public Safety Commission
requirements had been considered. The Planning Commission
recommendations were then considered: width of the pedestrian walkway
has been increased, location of the cul-de-sac to reduce the length of
the pedestrian walkway which could be widened to 25 ft. for the entire
120 ft., hydrants and safety issues of concern to the fire department,
and school board and staff requirements for a walkway to service 475
students and 300 homes behind the proposed subdivision. The
expectations of the neighborhood, including the primary concern with
traffic congestion, have been addressed. Environmental issues were
also reviewed. The proposal preserves the ash and oak trees on public
property. Pride of ownership was the final issue reviewed. The
applicant is a member of the community and would like to develop a
project that everyone can be proud of. Mr. Navid said they had started
with several proposals and after extensive consideration with the
school board, fire and safety people and staff, they arrived at
City Council Minutes 6 June 19, 1996
proposal E, the one before City Council at this time. To achieve this
kind of acceptance, the proposal is the consensus of numerous meetings
between government and private groups. The proposal meets all public
safety issues, zoning issues and preserves the ash, oak and silk trees.
It does not disturb the existing neighborhood or traffic patterns.
Jay R. Geddes, 13917 Lynde Avenue, lives adjacent to the proposed
development. He 'said he and his neighbors appreciated the Planning
Commission and what they have done to preserve Saratoga. However,
after considering the various proposals, they agreed that this proposal
is the most appropriate. They are well aware of the size of houses and
lots and consider them to be an asset to the community. Their main
concern is traffic and safety. He said they believe the decision
tonight is basically one of land usage. NAVICO has agreed to modify
their proposal to meet their concerns. He said they would not want a
lot of two story houses on the north or west sides, and also do not
want single story Taj Mahals. The roof lines and views should be
consistent with the neighborhood. Mr. Geddes said they believe their
concerns can be met and requested that Council approve the NAVICO
proposal at this meeting.
Lia Lorton, 13750 Prune Blossom Drive, asked Councilmembers to listen
to words and phrases and think about the images they invoke. The words
were cooperation, agreement, rapport, unanimity, controlled
intersection, no through traffic, public safety and tree preservation.
She said these tell a story about a neighborhood and school. It seems
like a dream and it is their dream. She said another issue is the
concept of connectivity. The people affected by connectivity occupy
space .that would have to be reconfigured to fit the Planning
Commission's concept. She said it is not a question of where should
they connect because that's the only option, but a question of why
connect at all when the alternative is logical and is unanimously
supported. She said they think concept is not more important than
people. She said this brought to mind another group of words and
phrases: superimposed, contrived, square peg, round hole. The
Community Development Department said it best when they stated their
original position, "Staff did recommend approval of the plan in this
particular case given the unique location of the property, directly
opposite a signalized intersection and adjacent to the Foothill
Elementary School with its inherent morning and afternoon traffic."
She said they do not want circulation and connectivity for the sake of
circulation and connectivity. The City Council and Planning Commission
are responsible to the City and this neighborhood is the City to which
they are responsible on this issue.
Mr. Navid said that originally in reviewing the Planning Commission
minutes they had three major concerns that continue to come up: 1.
Circulation - dimensions do not work. The streets are not set up to
handle this kind of traffic situation. 2. Pedestrian walkway - it has
been widened and he said he thought staff and the applicant agree on
that issue. 3. ~Design of exterior wall and walkway. This circulation
plan eliminates increased traffic in existing neighborhoods that have
existing traffic patterns. The pedestrian connection allows a safe
connection for neighbors, grammar and high school students and park
facilities, links the subdivision to rest of the area and provides an
improved access for 300 homeowners and over 475 students. To reduce
the length of the walkway to 120 ft., the applicant has moved the cul-
de-sac, and the walkway will be 25 ft. in width. Concerns with building
heights were considered and many lots have been identified as single
story. They are open to suggestions for perimeter landscaping and
fencing design and have agreed to replace all the perimeter fencing.
He said there are more than 50 cul-de-sacs in Saratoga similar to the
one proposed. He said they are open to Councilmembers' suggestions.
Mayor Jacobs closed the public hearing at 9:15 p.m.
Councilmember .Burger said there is nothing wrong with the Planning
Commission' s proposal in a developing neighborhood, but this is an
established neighborhood with an established traffic pattern and
school. She did not think there was a problem with the proposal before
them at this meeting but they are trying to create one by fooling
around with what she thought was the initial best choice. She said she
City Council Minutes 7 J~Lne 19, 1996
thought no one would be affected by this proposal. If any of the
alternative proposals for circulation are accepted, the entire
neighborhood would be affected and totally disrupted. She said she did
not see this as a community wide issue but as a neighborhood issue.
Councilmember Tucker said her initial concerns about fire access have
been addressed and she would support the proposal as it meets all the
requirements and is supported by neighbors.
Councilmember Wolfe said that often it is developer versus
neighborhood. In this case, the developer is a neighbor. The Planning
Commission was trying to integrate the neighborhood, but in this case
integration might create less traffic safety. The developer has agreed
to make changes in walkways and improvements along Saratoga-Sunnyvale
Road. Trees will be preserved. In addition, there will be hundreds of
trees with the planned landscaping. He said the proposal made in plan
E by the developer would be by far the best for Saratoga as a whole and
for this community specifically; therefore, he would be inclined to
approve the appeal.
Mayor Jacobs agreed the streets should not be connected, but felt
strongly that streets should not run up to a wall and stop. He
believed that creating a development which is separate from surrounding
neighborhoods is not preferable to something that blends with the
existing neighborhood. He said it is not impossible to make this new
development fit in with the homes there now. He thought it would make
the development much less intrusive for the entire community. Given
its location, it is a'matter of interest to the whole community. He
felt the majority of the homes should be one story and there should be
a height limit of 22 feet. There needs to be more landscaping. In
addition, he was concerned about the tunnel effect along Saratoga-
Sunnyvale Road, and wanted the project pushed away from the road. He
said he would like this proposal to go back to the Planning Commission
for more work.
Councilmember Moran agreed that it should be sent back to the Planning
Commission. The houses on the Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road portion should
be pulled back farther from the street with more landscaping between
the houses and the street. She did not believe the circulation pattern
that connects Prune Blossom and Herriman is appropriate. She said she
would support the current circulation pattern but would like to send
the plan back to the Planning Commission for clarification of issues
including one-story houses on Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, setbacks and
pedestrian access.
Discussion followed regarding Council's options in regard to this item.
WOLFE/BURGER TO GRANT THE APPEAL, APPROVE THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT AND
SEND THE PROPOSAL BACK THROUGH THE PLANNING PROCESS TO WORK OUT DETAILS
INCLUDING CONFIGURATION ALONG SARATOGA-SUNNYVALE ROAD.
Councilmember Burger said the Planning process should address concerns
including the width of the buffer along Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, the
question of one- or two-story homes along Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, and
the width of the pedestrian walkway.
PASSED 3-2 (JACOBS AND MORAN VOTING NO).
Director of Community Development Curtis said July 24 would be the
first Plan~ing Commission meeting at which the matter could be heard.
City Attorney Riback informed staff that the public would have to be
re-notified.
RECESS: 9:42-9:55 p.m.
C. Requests to realign existing General Plan designation and
Zoning District boundaries to match the realigned parcel
boundaries at 13570 Pierce Road. Parcel A (8.4 acres) is
located within a Hillside Residential District and Parcel B
(40,500 sq. ft.) within an R-1-40,000 District. GPA-96-001
& AZO-96-001 (Applicant, Binkley) (APN 503-14-022 & 044)
City council Minutes 8 June 19, 1996
(continued from June 5)
An environmental initial study and subsequent Negative Declaration have
been prepared for this project pursuant to the terms and requirements
of the California Environmental Quality Act.
Co~ununity Development Director Curtis presented staff recommendations.
He said the applicant wants to continue with the original plan rather
than the one proposed by Councilmember Moran. He said that solution
would have avoided Measure G and was feasible according to City codes.
Bob Binkley, applicant, 21055 Sarahills Drive, stated that he had
nothing to add to his statement made at the June 5 hearing. He had
talked to his brothers and looked at the proposal. Unfortunately it
would have cut into a very desirable part of the larger parcel. The
decision was to go ahead with the original application.
Linda Binkley, applicant, said she thought the idea that they have to
go through a vote is incorrect. She said she has taught English for 30
years and the written word is never a very perfect tool. This is a
piece of legislation written by attorneys who do a good job at writing
but it is not perfect. She believed Council had the responsibility to
interpret the words in the law. She said this problem is very personal
and what they were doing was nobody else's business. She said they are
not planning a development and what they are doing is not impacting the
environment or their neighbors. They are doing it because it brings
the lot into compliance. She said she thought Council was abdicating
their responsibility. Their job is to recognize that spirit is part of
the written word. It is interpretation. She said they do not fit the
Measure G category. They are helping by bringing the lot into
compliance. Nothing that Council does will change reality of the
property, but it will change the beauty.
Mayor Jacobs closed the public hearing at 10:05 p.m.
Community Development Director Curtis said the lot is a legal lot of
record, non-conforming in terms of size, but it can be sold and built
on as is.
Mayor Jacobs said he agreed with Mrs. Binkley philosophically.
However, Council has no right to exercise discretion as to the intent
of Measure G. They must apply the law uniformly; otherwise, they would
violate the law.
Councilmember Burger agreed that Council's major job is to implement
the law as it is written. She repeated that this is an object lesson
and the result of poorly written public policy. She said the Binkleys
were innocent bystanders and apologized to them.
Councilmember Wolfe said it was refreshing to see some passion
expressed. He said they are stuck with a law that might have to be
tested in court and perhaps they should test it.
Councilmember Moran said she believed that Council and Planning
Commission will be able to give advice to voters. She said she was
disappointed that the Binkleys were not able to take advantage of the
alternatives suggested. Council has asked the City Manager, City
Attorney and Community Development Director what their view is and they
all say this needs to go to an election.
WOLFE MOVED TO APPROVE THE APPEAL. THE MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A
SECOND.
Councilmember Tucker said that Council has the responsibility to the
citizens of Saratoga not to get into legal issues if possible.
TUCKER/MORAN TO CONCUR WITH STAFF'8 DECISION THAT THIS PROJECT IS
SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF MEASURE G. PASSED 4-1 (WOLFE VOTED NO).
MORAN/TUCKER TO DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE APPROPRIATE
RESOLUTION CALLING FOR ANELECTION IN NOVEMBER THROUGH THE COUNTY BOARD
OF SUPERVISORS. PASSED 4-1 (WOLFE VOTED NO).
City Council Minutes 9 June 19, 1996
MORA~/TUCKER TO ADOPT THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE PROJECT FINDING
THAT NO SIGNIFICANT, ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS WILL BE CRATED BY
THE PROJECT. PASSED 5-0.
City Manager Peacock said staff will draft the proposed ballot
language, within legal restrictions, then will meet with the Binkleys
so they can review it prior to Council's action, which should be no
later than July 17.
D. Appeal of denial of Request for Design Review approval to
construct a new 5,676 sq. ft. single story residence on a
44,867 sq. ft. vacant lot at 18928 Ten Acres Road per Chapter
15 of the City Code. The property is.located within the R-1-
40,000 zoning district. DR-96-007 (APN 397-03-081) - COSTA
Community Development Director Curtis reviewed the staff report and
said the primary issue is the extensive amount (about 2,300 cubic
yards) of cut and fill required to accommodate the proposed house. The
zoning ordinance that defines the standards for hillside lots requires
the Planning Commission to make an exception when cut and fill is in
excess of 1,000 cubic yards. He noted that this is not a hillside lot,
but has an average slope over 10%, so staff looks at it as though it
were a hillside lot although they do not apply the strict exception
findings.
Mayor Jacobs said he had received material from Mr. Costa and had
talked to him. Mr. Costa indicated that there had been substantial
cut and fill in the neighboring area.
Community Development Director Curtis said it is not that they do not
allow it, but they do look at it carefully. The criteria used in a
hillside design is that cut and fill should be used to create a better ·
design. These applications are considered on an individual basis and
are not to be precedent setting. Most of the cut and fill is to create
a yard space behind the house, not to level the pad for the house. The
Planning Commission said if the house were designed in a different way,
possibly as a two story house, it could be done without cut and fill.
He said even if the cut were reduced by half, it is still significant
and the Planning Commission did not have an opportunity to look at any
other proposal.
Councilmember Burger said she had met with Mr. Costa and his contractor
and asked for clarification of some issues.
Community Development Director Curtis said the connection between this
lot and hillside lots is that while this lot is zoned R1-40, it has
similar characteristics to a hillside lot and the intent is not to cut
away hillside. While it is not treated as an exception, it is a design
issue and they try to maintain the integrity of the slope, irrespective
of what zone it is in. In regard to a redesign of the home, Planning
Commission felt the lot was being created to fit the house instead of
the other way around. However, the design of this home is similar to
that of others on the street. This is a one-story house and others in
the neighborhood are two-story. Mr. Curtis said the Plannlng
Commission is not concerned about the style of the house but felt that
re-design might have alleviated a significant amount of cut. They had
suggested twice, prior to denying the project, that the applicant
submit a re-design of the house.
Community Development Director Curtis said the plan with reduced cut
and fill was not submitted to Planning Commission and he did not know
if a 25% reduction would have an impact on Planning Commission's
decision. Neither staff nor Commission has had a chance to review the
proposal before Council at this meeting.
Discussion followed regarding informing applicants in the beginning
that there may be an issue with cut and fill and sloping lots, even
though they are not zoned hillside. It is a design review issue and if
they are dealing with slopes they try to encourage applicants to come
in before they prepare extensive drawings. He said he thought the
Commission felt that to alleviate the amount of cut and fill, the house
would have to be configured differently.
City Council Minutes 10 June 19, 1996
Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing at 10:42 p.m.
Ed Costa, 964 Trophy Drive, Mountain View, applicant, thanked staff for
working with them on fine tuning the plan. Based on staff input and
direction prior to the Planning Commission hearing, they revised their
original grading plan to lower the house and decrease the cut and fill.
Even though the lot is not in a hillside zone, generally staff policy
is to apply hillside standards. However, staff recommended approval of
this application explaining that the applicant believes that the
proposal is consistent with other homes that have been built in the
area and that the proposed grading quantities are similar to those that
have been approved for surrounding properties. Staff agreed that the
design was consistent with the style of existing homes in the
neighborhood and felt that the proposal would not adversely affect the
surrounding property owners. He gave Councilmembers copies of the
results of a survey of grading information for three properties close
to the site they are planning to develop. Aside ,from the comparable
grading quantities in the neighborhood, the planned style, design and
lot placement blend well with other homes in the area. There is no
neighborhood opposition. He said he heard concerns about grading during
the Planning Commission design review process and worked hard to
address these concerns. He said naivet~ in regard to government
procedure and the speed at which things happened moved them along to
this position. Since the Planning Commission meeting, they met with
staff, the architect and the contractor to rework and further revise
the plan. Their goal is to arrive at plan that is acceptable to the
City so they have decreased the grading by an additional 400 cubic
yards and revised landscaping and contour grade slopes. The location
of the home on the lot decreases the building height and the home flows
with the topography of lot. It is not blocking views and is not bulky.
They do not want the home to dominate the corner. The home is
consistent and complimentary with surrounding homes. He said they have
tried to address concerns raised by staff and Planning Commission and
have come back with further revisions tonight. He asked that Council
overturn the Planning Commission denial and grant the appeal for design
review approval. He said the average slope is 15% as shown by
executive summary of staff, not 30%.
Greg Kwahara, project architect, said that with the new proposal, fill
depth remains same, and cut depth is 7 feet.
Asha Kumar, 14439 Emerald Hill, said she is a neighbor of ~he proposed
site and supports the applicant's plan. She thinks the home fitsvery
well and urged Council to approve the application.
Mr. Costa said that the plan for a two-story home previously approved
for the site was for a totally different style home. He said his wife
has arthritis and stairs are difficult for her. He said they felt that
their plan fit the neighborhood topography.
Mayor Jacobs closed the public hearing at 10:53 p.m.
Mayor Jacobs said applicants should be encouraged to work with the
Planning Commission so there would not be appeals of items which are
much better handled at staff and Planning Commission level.
Discussion followed regarding sending the matter back to the Planning
Commission or a work study session.
Councilmember Wolfe said he was pleased that the applicant did not
compromise and came to Council on appeal because this is the house they
want. He felt Council must respect property owners and honor the
design offered. Referring to the plan he noted scores of trees and
hundreds of shrubs and the fact that the house is one story and would
not intrude on neighbors.
WOLFE/BURGER GRANT THE APPEAL WITH A REDUCTION IN CUT AND FILL.
Councilmember Burger said that one of the things the cut allowed is for
the home to nestle into the lot, reducing interference with the home
directly behind it.
City Council Minutes .. :~!~.!1.~,..~ ~i " June 19, 1996
Mayor Jacobs said that while this is a nice home and a good plan, he
personally felt that the planning process was short-circuited. He said
he was not trying to change the design but both sides should be
encouraged to work with each other.
Councilmember Tucker talked about slopes and agreed that this home
would probably impact the neighborhood less than a two story home
would. She agreed with Councilmember Burger that this is really not
hillside property. She said she believed that the Planning Commission
more often than not works with applicants successfully and Council does
not get many appeals. However, they are the body of last resort.
THE MOTION PASSED 3-2 (MORAN AND JACOBS VOTED NO).
Mayor Jacobs returned the agenda to Item 7.B.
7. B. Report from Community Development Director on Letter from
Winifred B. Simpson presented at 6/5/96 meeting concerning
permit process and related letter from Don Whetstone
Community Development Director Curtis referred to a letter he wrote in
response to Mrs. Simpson's and Mr. Whetstone's concerns. He said when
the City's new computer system is installed, it will make tracking
CC&R's easier. Notification and design review are not required unless
height, setbacks or impervious coverage issues are involved.
Winifred B. Simpson, 14757 Vickery Avenue, referred to Planning
Commission's letter and said she still had concerns. She realized that
the City does not concern themselves with additions that might impact
the immediate neighbors. They were not considered in any way. She
said she had asked that the Planning Department come to her property
and that request was refused. Councilmember Moran responded. She said
Council cannot make an intelligent decision if they do not know the
facts. She said she still felt it was important that neighbors should
be notified. If staff is now making a note on the application, that is
an improvement. Staff could delay issuance of a building permit for
a period of time so at least immediate neighbors could be notified.
They need to level the playing field so people in existing
neighborhoods have redress or consideration. She said something needs
to be done and she felt Council can make some changes.
Discussion followed regarding notification of neighbors regarding tree
removal, including cost and staff time involved. Council also
discussed possible changes in the notification policy and encouraging
people not to rely on government to do everything and to talk to their
neighbors about proposed additions.
By consensus, Council agreed that staff, including the City Attorney,
would come back to Council in a study session in regard to this matter.
Councilmember Moran thanked Mrs. Simpson for writing such a thoughtful
letter.
Mayor Jacobs moved the agenda to Item 8.D.
8. D. Ordinance amending Municipal Code Section 6-15.100 regarding
Discharge of Weapons in City of Saratoga (first reading)
City Attorney Riback presented the staff report and recommended that
Council amend the ordinance to delete the provision allowing the
discharge of firearms if agencies other than the Sheriff's department
issue the permit.
BURGER/TUCKER TO INTRODUCE THE ORDINANCE BY TITLE ONLY, WAIVING READING
IN FULL. PASSED 5-0.
9. ROUTINE MATTERS (Note: The City Attorney was excused at 11:30
p.m.)
A. Approval of Minutes - 6/1; 6/5; 6/7; 6/11
City council Minutes 12 J~/le 19, 1996
WOLFE/MORAN TO APPROVE THE JULY 1, JULY 5, JULY 7 AND JULY 11, 1996
MINUTES AS SUBMITTED. PASSED 5-0.
10. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS
A. Agenda items for adjourned regular meeting July 9 Chamber
of Commerce Contract (continued from June 11)
City Manager Peacock announced that this agenda was full.
B. Town ~all Meeting scheduled for July 13, 1996
By consensus, Council tentatively scheduled the next Town Mall meeting
for October.
C. Other - None.
11. At 11:37 p.m. the meeting was adjourned to closed session pursuant
to Government Code Section 54957.6:
CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR
Agency negotiator: Lori Pegg
Employee organization: Saratoga Employees Association; Saratoga
Management Organization
12. ADJOURNMENT at 12:38 a.m. after further instructing the agency
Negotiator regarding meet and confer sessions with Saratoga
Employee Association and Saratoga Management Organization, to
11:00 a.m. on Saturday, June 29, at Sunland Park (Clemson, Avenue
between' Quito and Swarthmore/Vanderbilt)
Respectfully submitted,
R'oberta Wolfe ~
Minutes Clerk