The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About03-20-2019 -1.1 Minutes supplemental_RedactedCITY OF SARATOGA Memorandum To: Mayor Cappello & Members of the Saratoga City Council From: Debbie Bretschneider, City Clerk Date: March 20, 2019 Subject: 1.1. City Council Meeting Minutes (Written Communications) After publication of the agenda packet for the March 20, 2019 City Council Meeting, the attached written communications was received for 1.1. City Council Meeting Minutes. 1 Debbie Bretschneider From:Camas Steinmetz Sent:Tuesday, March 19, 2019 7:19 PM To:Howard Miller Cc: Subject:RE: Request to Correct 2.19.2019 Minutes - 12901 Pierce Road Condition of Approval Please note that I misspelled Rajeev’s last name – it is Jayavant (not Jayaat). My apologies. Camas J. Steinmetz Aaronson, Dickerson, Cohn & Lanzone 1001 Laurel Street, Suite A San Carlos, CA 94070 Email: csteinmetz@adcl.com Direct: (650) 453‐3905 Website: www.adcl.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This message, including attachments, is confidential and/or privileged and is intended only for the recipient(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not review, copy, disclose, or distribute the message or the information contained in it. If you have received the message in error, please notify the sender and immediately delete the message. From: Camas Steinmetz Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2019 6:19 PM To: hmiller@saratoga.ca.us Cc: ' < Subject: Request to Correct 2.19.2019 Minutes ‐ 12901 Pierce Road Condition of Approval Dear Vice Mayor Miller, I am a land use attorney representing Ana Mendez and Rajeev Jayaat, the owners and applicants of the 12901 Pierce Road project which the Council voted to approve on appeal at the February 20th hearing. You made the motion to deny the appeal and approve the project with a screening condition that you crafted. I just reviewed the attached February 20, 2019 minutes for this item (Public Hearing no. 2) which are slated for approval tomorrow night and these draft minutes do not appear to accurately reflect the motion that you made and was voted upon. If you review the tape of the meeting at 1:57 here: http://saratoga.granicus.com/player/clip/1065?view_id=9 your original motion was to impose the condition that “Staff work with the architects to come up with a permanent screening solution that obscures the vast majority of the side up to level of at least 6 ft that is architecturally compatible in the entire open space.” Your motion was seconded by Councilmember Kumar. The Mayor asked for discussion on the motion and you said you would like to ask staff a question and then said, “You heard the very few words I used in that motion to give you guys enough flexibility to come up with a reasonable solution. Do you believe my motion carries enough guidance that we are not going to run into a problem in two weeks?” Debbie Pedro responded by asking whether she could clarify and then there was a long discussion about the 2 desired opacity of the screening below and above 6 ft. No amendments were proposed or seconded to include the opacity standards into the motion. Ms. Pedro later suggested that “the condition be satisfied prior to submittal of the building permit” and you responded stating that was an excellent amendment to the motion and added that the condition be “submitted and approved by staff.” This amendment was then seconded by Councilmember Kumar and the Council voted on the motion. In short, the minutes do not reflect the language of your original motion or your stated intent to provide the flexibility needed to come up with a reasonable solution. Specifically, the minutes do not include your requirement that the screening solution be “architecturally compatible”. Instead, they include opacity requirements that while discussed in the deliberations, were never made part of the motion (unlike the staff approval and building permit language which was explicitly incorporated into the motion and seconded). While the ultimate solution proposed and approved by staff may very well meet the opacity standards that were discussed, if ultimately the solution that everyone agrees to – including by the neighbor next door ‐‐ does not technically meet these opacity standards, our concern is that the condition as reflected in the attached minutes would either preclude a reasonable solution everyone agrees to, or may have to go back to Council for amendment in order to allow the agreed upon solution. This would clearly not further what we heard to be the intent of your motion which was to “to provide the flexibility needed to come up with a reasonable solution.” We therefore ask that you propose the attached amendments to the minutes to accurately reflect the motion that you made, was seconded and was voted on. I look forward to your reply and welcome a phone call at my direct line below if you would like to discuss. Sincerely, Camas Camas J. Steinmetz Aaronson, Dickerson, Cohn & Lanzone 1001 Laurel Street, Suite A San Carlos, CA 94070 Direct: (650) 453‐3905 Website: www.adcl.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This message, including attachments, is confidential and/or privileged and is intended only for the recipient(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not review, copy, disclose, or distribute the message or the information contained in it. If you have received the message in error, please notify the sender and immediately delete the message. From: Camas Steinmetz Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2019 3:30 PM Subject: RE: 12901 Pierce Road ‐ final conditions of approval on 3/20 consent Hi again Debbie, I just re‐listened to the tape and my mistake – you did say prior to “submittal” (not issuance) of the building permit. Attached is a corrected version of my requested changes reflecting this. 3 Thanks, Camas Camas J. Steinmetz Aaronson, Dickerson, Cohn & Lanzone 1001 Laurel Street, Suite A San Carlos, CA 94070 Direct: (650) 453‐3905 Website: www.adcl.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This message, including attachments, is confidential and/or privileged and is intended only for the recipient(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not review, copy, disclose, or distribute the message or the information contained in it. If you have received the message in error, please notify the sender and immediately delete the message. From: Camas Steinmetz Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2019 3:18 PM of approval on 3/20 consent Thanks, Debbie. Yes, please call my office. Please also see my requested revisions to the draft minutes to reflect the actual motion that was made and approved. Again, while there was a discussion of opacity requirements, these requirements were not explicitly incorporated into the motion by the maker. Thanks, Camas Camas J. Steinmetz Aaronson, Dickerson, Cohn & Lanzone 1001 Laurel Street, Suite A San Carlos, CA 94070 Email: Direct: (650) 453‐3905 Website: www.adcl.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This message, including attachments, is confidential and/or privileged and is intended only for the recipient(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not review, copy, disclose, or distribute the message or the information contained in it. If you have received the message in error, please notify the sender and immediately delete the message. From: Debbie Pedro <dpedro@saratoga.ca.us> of approval on 3/20 consent 4 Camas, We will call you from the planning conference room. Unless we hear otherwise, we will call your office # (650) 453‐ 3905. Debbie From: Camas Steinmetz <csteinmetz@adcl.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2019 1:34 PM of approval on 3/20 consent Hi Debbie, Thanks for the call this morning. Ana (copied here) and I look forward to talking to you again at 3:30pm. Is it okay if she swings by your office then and I call in? Also, she said that what she remembers discussing with you was along the lines of a 6’6” solid wall, not a 7 ft. wall... we can discuss further this afternoon. Thanks, Camas Sent from my iPhone On Mar 18, 2019, at 5:11 PM, Camas Steinmetz wrote: Hi Debbie, Yes, that’s perfect. I will call you then. Camas Camas J. Steinmetz Aaronson, Dickerson, Cohn & Lanzone 1001 Laurel Street, Suite A San Carlos, CA 94070 Direct: (650) 453‐3905 Website: www.adcl.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This message, including attachments, is confidential and/or privileged and is intended only for the recipient(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not review, copy, disclose, or distribute the message or the information contained in it. If you have received the message in error, please notify the sender and immediately delete the message. 5 From: Debbie Pedro Sent: Monday, March 18, 2019 5:09 PM To: Camas Steinmetz on 3/20 consent Hi Camas, Let’s schedule a call for tomorrow. Does 11AM work for you? Debbie <image002.jpg>Debbie Pedro, AICP Community Development Director City of Saratoga | Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue | Saratoga, CA 95070 (408) 868‐1231 | dpedro@saratoga.ca.us | www.saratoga.ca.us From: Camas Steinmetz < Sent: Monday, March 18, 2019 2:06 PM To: Debbie Pedro <dpedro@saratoga.ca.us> Subject: 12901 Pierce Road ‐ final conditions of approval on 3/20 consent Hi Debbie, Following up on my voicemail, I would like to discuss condition 1 attached along with the attached minutes. After reviewing the tape of the meeting, I don’t believe either the condition nor the minutes accurately reflects the motion that was made. If you view the tape, you will see that while opacity percentages were discussed, they were not incorporated into the actual motion made. Attached is a redline of the condition which we believe correctly reflects the motion made which we hope that you can recommend to Council as the final condition of approval at Wednesday’s meeting. Please give me a call to discuss. I would also like to discuss with you the term of the required deed restriction. Thanks, Camas Camas J. Steinmetz Aaronson, Dickerson, Cohn & Lanzone 1001 Laurel Street, Suite A San Carlos, CA 94070 Direct: (650) 453‐3905 Website: www.adcl.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This message, including attachments, is confidential and/or privileged and is intended only for the recipient(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not review, copy, disclose, or distribute the message 6 or the information contained in it. If you have received the message in error, please notify the sender and immediately delete the message.