Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-16-1976 City Council Minutes MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL TIME: Wednesday, June 16, 1976 - 7:30 P.M. PLACE: Saratoga City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, California TYPE: Regular Meeting I. ORGANIZATION A. ' ROLL CALL Present: Councilmen Brigham, Corr, Kraus, Matteoni, Bridges Absent: None B. MINUTES It was moved by Councilman Brigham and seconded by Councilwoman Corr the minutes of June 2, 1976 be approved. The motion was carried. II. CONSENT CALENDAR A. COMPOSITION OF' CONSENT CALENDAR It was moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded by Councilman Brigham approval of the composition of the Consent Calendar. The motion was carried. B. ITEMS FOR CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Construction Acceptance a) Tract 5327, George Day Construction Co., Fruitvale Ave. b) Tract 5408, George Day Construction Co., Fruitvale Ave. 2. Request for Closure of Street. for Fourth of JU, ly Block Party on Terrance Avenue ,. ,,I 3. Payment ot~ Claims 4. City Treasurer's Report It was moved by Councilman Brigham and seconded by Councilman Kraus the items for the Consent Calendar be approved. The motion was carried. III. BIDS AND CONTRACTS ' A. CONSULTANT SERVICE AGREEMENT RE: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR PROPOSED PROJECT AT SARATOGA-SUNNYVALE ROA'D AND PROSPECT AVE. It was moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded by Councilman Brigham the City enter into an agreement with Environmental Impact Planning Corporation of San Francisco for the cost of $13,850,_at~6'C~i~toT_the~ Cit~'T 'and the '~ MayO~.b_e ~a_'Q~h~_6~_z_e~:to",'e~t~ i~h.'e 'e~)ni~ae.t.~.'~The motion was' C~r~siTd ." B. CONTRACT OF SALE BETWEEN CALIFORNIA-NEVADA DISTRICT OF THE LUTHERAN CHURCH- MISSOURI SYNOD FOR PURCHASE OF 2.:60 ACRES OF PROPERTY BETWEEN THE CREEK AND LIBRARY FRONTAGE It was moved by Councilman Kraus 'and seconded by'Councilman Brigham ~he Mayor be authorized to, execute .this contract. The motion was carried. IV. PETITIONS, ORDINANCES'AND RESOLUTIONS A. RESOLUTION NO. 85-9.24 Resolution Amending Resolutions 85-9, 85-9.8, 85-9.16 and 85-9.20 Revising the Personnel Policy for Employees of the City of Saratoga It was moved by Councilman Brigham and seconded bY councilwoman corr Resolution 85-9,24 be adopted. The motion was carried. V. SUBDIVISIONS, BUILDING SITES AND ZONING REQUESTS A. SDR-848, 853, 877,. 907, 918, 930 - DONALD COMER, COMER DRIVE It was moved by Councilman Kraus and ~econded by Councilman Brigham to accept'improvements for construction only, and accept the cash bond for $5,000. The motion was carried. VII. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS (Publ'ic Hearings to follow) · A. MAYOR 1. Reported that all the cities and the County have voted to enter into the planning portion of the Joint Powers Agreement for Fire Service.. B. COUNCIL AND COMMISSION REPORTS 1. Parks and Recreation Commissi6n Recommendation Re: Endorsement of Sempervirens Fund Three-Year Land Pur- chase Program It was moved by Councilman Br~gham and seconded by Councilwoman Corr endorsement of the Sempervirens Fund three-Near purchase campaign. The motion was carried. . 2. Planning Commission Recommendation Re: Ordinance No. 60.2, Condominium Conversion Ordinance It was approved toset the public hearing on Ordinance 60.2 for July 21, 1976.' VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS B. CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST BY CITY BUILDING OFFICIAL RE: REMOVAL OF STRUCTURES AT QUITO SHOPPING CENTER Don Harris, City Building Official, pointed out the location of structures proposed to be removed. The Mayor then opened the public hearing at 8:02 P.M. Mr. Stern, owner of this property, addressed the Council, indicating he would like a 60-day extension to correct their deficiencies. He stated there is a tenant in one of the structures whom he has been trying to get out for approximately one year. Mr. Stern indicated~h~h~d'Tl~s~T~i:~h with this person, which expired just a few weeks ago,'a~ '~e~h~s no~Gnder- gone legal proceedingsyto get this man out. He further stated he is afraid to tear down the structure until this person takes his merchandise out. Councilman Matteo ~ asked of Mr.'Stern when the legal action was filed. Mr. Stern replied that he ~ust came back from being out of town a few days ago, and he had talked to Mr. Al~Ruby, his attorney, who has someone hunting this individual to serve the order. -2- Removal of Structures - Quito Shoppin~ Center (Cont'd.) Councilman Matteoni asked if this man is making any effort to move some of the materials. Mr. Stern replied that he is not making any effort. He stated that there was a lease up until a month ago, and he has given this man 3 days to get out, which was 3 months ago. Mr. Stern indicated that structures "A", "B" and "C" as shown on the location map were built by this same man without a permit, and he sold his business to someone who is operating in "A". Mr. Jerry Harris addressed the Council, indicating that he is the person who is sub-leasing this property. He commented that what Mr. Stern has just presented to the Council is the most ridiculous thing he has heard. He indicated that he has been paying Mr. Stern rent, and his original 3~year lease with Mr. Stern (with a 5=year first right to renew) has expired. Mr. Harris commented that about 3 months ago, the City came out and mentioned that they had to have permits on the faci'lities, for which Mr. Stern had given him permission. He indicated that one structure has been there for 3 years, and the other for 1½ years. He indicated he would like the same treatment as the other people on the property, and he is the only party of the 3 who has come down and taken out a permit. Now Mr. Stern has turned around and stated he doesn't want the b~ildings up. Mayor Bridges asked Mr. Harris ifat the time these buildings were built he had a building permit. Mr. Harris replied that he did not have a permit, and he does not have apermit nowcbecause Mr. Stern refuses to cooperate and allow construction to be there.. Councilman Matteoni asked Mr. Harris when he had made application for the building permit. Mr. Harris replied this was approximately 60 to 90 days ago. Mr. Van Duyn commented that he understood Mr. Harris has made application for design review; however, he believes Mr. Matteoni's question was~iT~~ade application for a building permit. Mr. Harris replied that he did not make application for a building permit because the City staff had advised him that he wobld like to hold off on his papers until the other two parties had submitted their proposals. Mr. Harris further stated he just had his last rent check sent back to him, which was not accepted by Mr. Stern. He further stated he stated he is there every day for 5 or 6 hours, and there is no one who has been trying to serve him and can't. Councilman Matteoni commented that it appears in all cases that the buildings were erected without proper permits, and therefore, must be illegal structures that are not authorized. He suggested as a way to cure these violations, per- haps the'Council could make the finding on the evidence that all 3 structures were erected without permits, and therefore, are illegal structures, and stay the effect of the~Council's finding, in terms of moving ahead to remove the structures. If the legal defect cannot be cured because of legal -~ impediments, then he would feel the Council could move forward and trigger removal of those structures at that time. It was moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded by Councilman Brigham to close the public hearing. The motion was carried. The public hearing was closed at 8:17 P.M. It was moved by Councilman Matteoni and seconded by Councilman Kraus the Council make findings that~Buildings "A", "B" and "C" as designated on the location map were constructed without appropriate permits, and are therefore illegal structures which should be removed, and the Council stay the effect of an order for removal pending a progress report on an attempt to rectify the situation by seeking the.appropriate permits within 30 days, and if there is progress in that regard, the Council consider an additional 30-day extension to work out any time problems. The motion was carried. -3- A. DE NOVO HEARING FOR~CONSIDERATIONOE APPEALS OF THET'.PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION RE: USE PERMII .NO.. 296 -~ LYNGSO GARDEN MATERIALS (Cont'd. 6/2/76) 1. Appeal by John Lyngso, Leo Ott & Richard Gardell~ on Conditions A, C, F, and I, Imposed by th~ P~anning Commission in Granting Use Permit 296 to Lyngso Garden Materials. 2. Appeal by F. P. Tatar and D. J. Sifferman of Planning Commission Decision tO Grant Use Permit296 to Lyngso Garden Materials The Mayor indicated there were written communications received on this matter from the following people: Saratoga Chamber of Commerce stating that they support the efforts of Eyngso Garden Materials to obtain a use permit to continue business operations. Richard E. Gardella, Attorney, 626 Winslow Street, Redwood City, expressing wiHingness on the part of Mr. and Mrs. Lyngso to provide additional land to facilitate proposed installation of a turn lan~ on Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. Raffaela E. Tatar, 20577 Manor Drive, callina attention to the fact that' LyngSo Garden Materials has recently.had materials delivered, with loud dumping and banging, etc. after hours stipu- lated in the agreement with the City. Councilman Matteoni commented that when this matt~ pre~i'ou~ly_was~sg.ught to be terminated by the City, Judge Allen made~'findin~_~th~..~he use is not a nuisance, and 'the primary thrust of the c~'~fi~]"~g and'~(ision was that the property was improperly zoned Visitor Commercial. He stated that the answer he was hearing from the City Attorney two weeks ago was that the determination regarding "nuisance" was based on those particular circumstances, and since that time, the General Plan hasn't changed showing property R-l; however,. the property was zoned in 1975 to R-1-12,500. He stated that at thetime, it was the finding of the court that the property's use as a garden materials supply yard did not constitute a nuisance, and .doesn't necessarily apply to the situation as we find it today. He indicated~ he would like~omej_~trU~i_o~_~f~pm~h~_Ci~.~A~n~.y~in this Councilman Matteoni indicated the other question concerns a legal argument which has been presented to the Council by the residents concerning Article 15, and particularly, Sections 15.3 and 15.9. He stated that the argument is if there has been a finding of "nuisance" in a residential dis- trict, maybe the Council could not proceed to make any adjustment on the number of years to be~d~i~'~ that 1-year requirement in 15.9, sub-paragraph The Mayor then opened the public hearing at 8:35 P.M~ Raffaela Tatar, 20577 Manor Drive, addressed the Council. She stated this is the property adjacent to the Lyngso property on Manor Drive. Mrs. Tatar stated that she and her husband purchased this property in 1972, and at this time, they came to the City and spoke to Stan Walker, who was then Planning Director, and he had assured them that the adjoining property was a non- conforming use. He had further ~ndicated the property was being amortized at the time, and within a year, would be phased out. In April 1973, after contending with continual noise during the day and explosive sounding dumping at Midnight, 2:00 and 4:00 A.M., dust problems and layers of dirt covering the yard and patio furniture, plants and pools in the area, smell of the tillo and fumes from large trucks and n6ise levels, made daily living in their homes unbearable. She stated that large trucks blocked the entrance of Manor Drive and there were many near accidents. She stated that they h~d been told by the City that this b~siness was phasing out, but it',appeared that the intensity had increased,~and it was then that the Homeowners Association met, and felt their only recoursewas to come to ~he City. -4- Lyngso Garden Materials (Cont'd.) Mrs. Tatar stated that for the past 3 Hears, the~ have been involved hearings with the City Council(~n"a'PT~n~i~TCb~Tsi~"n~n-~- and it was only after their initial confrontati'6n~'~Wi'{~e' Ly~6'~6pl~ here at the City that improvements began. She stated that when the use permit_~hearings were before the City, Lyngso was making sure the appearance was much improved, but there was still dust, fumes and noise. She indicated just this past week, there have been two occurrences -- one last Thursday evening and one last night -- the yard was closed and the gates were locked, but someone had a key to unlock that gate and come in. Mrs. Tatar asked if those residents on Manor Drive and Green Meadow Lane are limited to the enjoyment of this property only after 7:00 P.M. She felt the noise in this area could be compared with a construction zone where heavy machinery is in constant us'e. Therefore, she urged that the Council deny this use permit. Don Sifferman, 12400 Green Meadow Lane, addressed the Council. He stated at the public hearing 2 weeks ago~ he had given a presentation which addressed the Zoning Ordinance and how it pertains to the matter at hand. He sited the following conclusions from that meeting: If a use permit could be granted, it could only be granted until December, 1976; however, it is his belief the City cannot legally make the findings that are necessary in the process of granting a use permit. Therefore, the conclusion is that Lyngso cannot be granted a use permit, and his operation in Saratoga hasto close immediately. Mr. Sifferman indicated that what his presentation stated is that the law of the City, in terms of the Zoning Ordinance, is quite clear in requiring that Lyngso be closed. He felt it is a case of enforcing an existing Zoning Ordinance, and the enforcement of that Zoning Ordinance is mandatory. Therefore, he stated he would strongly urge the City to ask for an official finding from the City Attorney on the Zoning Ordinance, and how it pertains to this issue, and recommended the City not move to a decision until it has available those legal findings on the case. Sandi Cuenca, Manager, Saratoga Chamber of Commerce, addressed the Council. She indicated that since the Chamber's letter of June 4th, they have been able to obtain many additional signatures on a petition from strictly the businesses in the community -- not only businesses on Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, but those in the Village and Quito also. She submitted the petition for Council's review before making a final decision. Richard Gardella, Attorney for John Lyngso, addressed the Council, and indicated he would like to offer a couple of comments in rebuttal to what he has heard tonight. With regard to Mrs. Tatar's comments, Mr. Gardella stated he would hope she woQld open her house to the Council to see if these problems exist. ~~ Mr. Gardella"~!~diLcated-thatwitfi~egard to Mrs. Tatar's comments concerning a conversatio~'i~'~f~n~rT'h~ has correspondence from Mr. Walker, and his opinions have been presented at these proceedings, and are nothing like what Mrs. Tatar says she was told in 1968. With regard to Mrs. Tatar's comments relevant to dumping at night, Mr. Gardella stated that presently there is no limitation on hours, Due to some previous extreme comments about 2:00 A.M. dumping, Lyngso's fenced and locked and set a self-imposed time limit, and he would hope they are within this time limit. Mr. Gardella stated that during the Planning Commission hearings, he had made it very clear that if the Planning Commission conditions were imposed with the 4:00 P.M. limitation that they wo~ld live with this. - 5- Lyngso Garden Materials (~ont'd.) Mr. Gardella further comme'nted that he finds it extremely odd that someone who has appealed the granting of this use permit and prevented those con- ditions from going into effect now complains because Lyngso is not stopping deliveries at 4:00 in the afternoon. He stated tha~if the Planning Commission condition is imposed, and it is not appealed, Lyngso would live with this condition. -~C~c~'I~a'~_M~'~a~TT~n£~eTo~T]~Lg'e~° ~'~ea~ } ~d] ~ti on'~e~apdi ng Lthe in-~lace value=on ~h~ ~a~.~e~E~N~t~i~h~th~3~te~ials~ '~d Wh~t its '~1~ '~b'~'l~G~'~n"=~'~'o?a'l. Mr. Gardella replied that his recollection is this was somewhere between a $7,000 and $8,000 figure. He explained that the scale is in two parts, and there is a physical platform part that has to be placed in a sub-structure, and an equally expensive portion which is a print-out. He recalled that the original cost on the whole package was approximately $15,000. He indicated that he is not sure the platform portion in the ground is a Fairbanks-Morse; however, the most expensive part is the print-out part, which is Fairbanks- Morse. Mayor Bridges commented that in visiting the rockery, he noticed the bins immediately against the residences are not in use, and asked if there was a reason ~for this. Mr. Gardella rep'lied that it was once expressed that they would cease to use the bins next to the Tatar house, and they submitted plans to relocate them. He stated it was his understanding from Mr. Lyngso that the instructions are not to use those bins. and it is ~roposed to construct bins elsewhere to re- place these. Mayor Bridges asked Mr. Gardella if he had done any more research on the loader as far as getting propane. Mr. Gardella stated it was earlier indicated they would replace the loader with propane; however, this is an expensive process, and this is another reason they feel they need as lonTg a time as the Haven Nursery to amortize this type of equipment. Councilman Kraus inquired if the ~ence along the rail.road tracks on the Lyngso property or PG&E property. Mr. Gardella replied the fence is on PG&E property at its boundary with the S.P. right-of-way, and encloses the land leased from PG&E. Councilman Kraus.asked Mr. Gardella how much land was.~weeff th~'~e~ce .... and Mr. Lyngso's property. Mr. Gardella replied he believed this was approximately 80 feet.- Councilwoman Corr inquired how Lyngso did sprinkling and handled customers at the same time. Mr. Gardella replied this is a problem; however, the sprinklers are on a sequential timer. Heda Yamaha, 20552 Manor Drive, addressed the Council. She indicated that she lives directly across the street from Lyngso, and she would like to pose three questions: 'She indicated that the lady from the Chamber of Commerce had indicated there were 1,000 signatures from residents in Saratoga in favor of the business, and she felt none of these signatures were from those people adjacent to the property. Since there were 24 residents in this area, she wondered if their voices could be heard at all. L~ngso Garden Materials (Cont'd.) Mrs. Yamada commented that she wo~ld like to remind the Council that the Haven Nursery is not anywhere on the same scale as the Lyngso property, and does not have the noise, dust or traffic problems. She indicated she wonders whether the 300 businesses asking to keep Lyngso there are thinking of their own businesses or the residents who are supposed to comprise the residential nature of Saratoga. There being no further comments from the audience on this matter, it was moved by Councilman BrighamYand s!~conded by Councilwoman Corr to continue it to the next regular City Council meeting on July 7th. The motion was carried. C. CONSIDERATION OF REQUESt BY CODE ENFOR~E~M~NT)OFFICER RE: REMOVAL OF~ILLEGAL ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AT 12516 SARATOGA AVENUE The City Manager called upon the Code Enforcement Officer to summarize this matter. Mr. Upson, City's Code Enforcemen~ Officer, indicated this matter was brought to his attention in October through the Building Department. He indicated they were made aware of this accessory structure which was b~ing built in the rear yard of this site on Saratoga Avenue, and informed the owner of the property, Mr. Robert Foster, that he would have to come in to obtain a bui.lding permit. He was also advised he w~uld have to ~i~£¥~t~'~'~G~permit before taking out the .building~ermit, which was not ~o~.~H~ "h~'writ~en Mr. Foster (e.~.~t~e~To~d~tating Zoning Ordinance 3.7-1 requires a use p~m~ f6~'~'l~c~'sS~f~"~t=r~ctures over 6 feet which are located in rear yard areas, and did not receive a response from Mr. Foster. Mr. Upson indicated he then had Mr. Foster ~served with a Notice to Appear in Court for the zoning violation, and soon after receiving this, Mr. Foster did investi- gate obtaining a use permit. The use permit was heard by the Planning Commission on March lOth of this year, and was den~ied. Mr. Foster had then informed Mr. Upson he was not going to correct this violation, and the next move was up to the City. Mr. Upson then presented some pictures of the structure in its present location, and indicated that it is 10 feet from the rear property line and 22 inches from the side property line. He further co~ented Mr. Foster had previously related to him he was going to move the structure up to the mountains to use as a cabin, and,therefore, it is a structure which coQld be lived in. The Mayor then opened the publicShearing at 9:09 P.M. Mr. Foster, 12516 Saratoga Avenue, addressed the Council and commented that a large majority of the statements by Mr. Upson this evening are very untrue. He co~ented that he is interfering with nobody's rights or privileges, and that he had not told Mr. Upson he intended to live in this building. He stated that the building is a temporary structure, and in the future, he has plans to move it to the mountains. Further, he stated it is not a building which is oversized. He stated that if he was interfering with anyone's rights he wouldn't even have to be toldsto correct this situation. Mr. Foster further stated he has"talked to someone in the Building Department, and also advised Mr. Upson that he would do no more on the building until this was solved. He was told by the Building Inspect6r the only requirement he was Sho~t on was fireproofing the building between where he is situated and the fence next to it. Mr. Foster indicated that he had been very willing to do this. Mr. Foster further indicated he has receipts to show that he has paid for permits, and the reason he didn't take out the other permit is because he was told it was $75, and he f61t'he had already paid dearly. -7- Illegal Accessory Structure - Saratoga Ave. (Cont'd.) Councilman Matteoni asked Mr. FoSter what was the ~urpose of the structure. Mr. Foster replied that i-~ is just a storage shed, and there was never any intention for living quarters. Councilman Matteoni inquired if there were, other structures of this magnitude · in the neighborhood that were this' close to the fence in the rear yard. Mr. Foster replied that he would Say he is further from the fence than some of his neighbors, and there is on~ property adjoining his at the corner where the building is the fence, and On the other corner it is 5 feet in the back and within at lease a foot on the~side. Councilman Matteoni asked Mr. Foster if there would be some problem in re- locating the structure on his lot, if it would otherwise meet the requirements. Mr. Foster stated that it would disrupt his entire back yard, and the way it is set up, he has a garden, lawn and patio in his back yard. He stated that when the square footage was figured, it was smaller than what he thought the law required, and the measurements are only 13 feet by 18 feet. The City Manager indicated he would like to clarify that in terms of "over- sized building" bylooking at the picture, in relation to the Code, it speaks to accessory structures over 6 feet in height, and if compared to the fence that it is much higher thankthis. He further commented that the Building Department when it gets into dealing with requirements for buildings was assuming that it was a legal building to begin with, and the Code Enforce- ment Officer when he receives a complaint about artsituation has the obligation of checking it out. In this case, the diminsions as submitted by the appli- cant are in violation of the City's Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Foster commented that when he~appeared before the Planning Commission, he had several of his neighbors with him, and every one of them supported him. Councilman Kraus indicated that what he is interested in is the distance from the back of the house to the back property line. Mr. Foster stated he could not say honestly what this is. Mr. Kraus commented that it would appear like Mr. Foster would have ample room to locate this building on the site. It was then moved by C6uncilman Kraus and seconded by Councilman Matteoni-the public hearing be closed. The motion was carried. The public hearing was closed at 9:17 P.M. Itswas moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded by Councilwoman Corr this structure be declared a public nuisance, and Mr. Foste~ be allowed a period of 60 days to comply with setback requirements, or the City Attorney be authorized to take legal action for removal of the structure. The motion was carried. " D. CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL OF UP-300, ISSUED TO GERALD AND PATRICIA RENN, 20625 MARION.ROAD, TO ALLOW THE CONTINUATION OF A NON-CONFORMING COMMERCIAL USE IN A RESIDENTIAL ZONING_DISTRICT, ~I~ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 15 OF ZONING ORDINANCE NS-3~~'T'''~ -T~-~'-: ......... The Council discussed whether or not a hearing de novo should be held on this issue. Following some deliberation, it was determined to proceed with the hearing this evening, based on the 3'points as outlined in the letter, dated May 28, 1976, signed by residents on Marion Road.' Recess and Reconvene The Mayor acknowledged ah item of written correspondence from Frank Schmiedel, 20680 Canyon View Drive, recommending the Council vote in favor of~b.%~'~_~n- tinued use of this business. The Mayor then opened the~public ;hearing at 9:55 P.M. -8- Appeal of UP-300 - Gerald and Patri(ia Renn':(Cont'd.) Clair Althouse, 20659 Marion Road, addressed the Council. He stated that his property now borders the west~side of the Renn property. In reference to the letter to the Council, Mr. Althouse stated that it was pointed out that the length of the permit was one of the objections, and that there were no limitations or other stipulations with respect to it. Mr. Althouse commented that what they Would like to know is how the Planning Commission's findings would be that a petroleum operation in a residential area does not jeopardize the welfare, safety or health of that neighborhood. Mr. Althouse further commented that with the new subdivisions that have moved into this area in the past 3 months, there are an additional 6 children between the ages of 4 and lO years old in.the area playing, and he felt this wo~ld pose some question as related to the ordinance Councilman Kraus asked Mr. Althou~e if he lived beyond the Renn property. Mr. Althouse replied that his property borders on the west Side. He felt that the real force of the letter~is to object to the 7½ year modification made by the Planning Commission last week. He indicated they could not understand why this shouldn't be 1 or 3 years. He indicated another question was: "How do you limit the fact that there could not be more flammable materials brought into the neighborhood, and more commercial business generated into the neighborhood?" Also, he stated there has been no question posed as to when does the non-conforming business phase out. Mr. Renn stated he didn't feel there was any objection in the neighborhood as far as the management portion of the business -- rather, it' is against the materials and the traffic. He added that in attending~the Planning Commission hearings, it seems there has always been a major concern of reviewing these facts for the future residents coming into the area, aBd. they feel they have brought enough- additional residents into this area to have a major concern over the relation- ship of what is happening and what could happen. Councilman Kraus asked Mr. A1 thouSe>~owCh~ .~ffected b~"~'~'~ t~h~'~i c. -~ Mr. Alth0use replied he is affected in that his children do play in Marion Road, and the commercial traffic many times is either larger vehicles which don't'make the first pass to find the Renn driveway, and wind up turning around in side driveways or other exits off the road. With regard to flammability~ Mr. Althouse indicated his, structure is approxi- mately 60 to 70 feet from the primary storage shed. Councilman Matteoni asked Mr. Alt~ouse if he had any figures on the vehicle trips per day to and from the site. Mr. Althouse replied that he has not set out to make a study of this. He stated one of the things they are trying to get established is what is the present mode of operation, and what could happen if YoU had a 7½-year permit. Councilman Matteoni asked if what Mr. Althouse was saying was the business tax revenues or sales tax revenues might provi,de some iudgment if there i,s_an expansi on; or ~k~'~l~(I~6~im~'~'~'-~a~T¥~!t~i ~T~a~T~'~'e' es~bl i shed. Councilman Kraus---indicated he ,Wa~o~ t~e~u~derstanding the Planning Co~ission addressed the fac~'~he~=W~i~ 6~h~inc~as~ in the size of the business, and this was included in their staff report. Mr. Althouse replied he wasn't sure it was in the staff report, but it wasn't in the resolution, and..the only thing they came up with in the resolution was some total phasing out or closure of the business, which was not what the homeowners were trying to do. The Planning Co~ission also felt they couldn't come ,up with criteria to make any type of future judgment. Mr. Althouse commented he felt there could be a reasonable limit established now which would give the residents any future capability to measure grievances. - 9- Appeal of UP-300 - Gerald and Patricia'Renn (Cond'd.) Blanchel'~ 20660 Canyon View Drive, addressed the Council. She stated that her property backs up to both~the new subdivision and the Renn property. Mrs.~B_~'~ advised 'that she has been at this location for 3 years and has found all her neighbors to be delightful. Further, she stated they did not even know the business was there for 6 months after they moved in, and have not been bothered, except on a very still morning or evening. She advised that there has been no excessive noise, so there couldn't be so much traffic or she would be very aware of it. Patricia Renn, 20625 Marion AvenGe', addressed the Counicl and stated she would like to help clarify a few things. Mrs. Renn stated it iS her undstanding in the resolution it states there are some restrictions ~gainst their businesss, above and beyond the 7½ year limit, and this is that they de not bring in any more than 4 vehicles overnight; restricted hours of 8:00 to 5:00, 5 days per week; also, there is a section regarding the growth of the business. Mrs. Renn stated'that they do keep yard sale records, and the sales they do from their yard are strictly as a convenience to their wholesale accounts. Also, they have generated a few little a~counts which are net.able to have yards of their own. Further, she stated that clientele in a single day may range from 5 to 20; however, she explained her mother might be counted as one, her father, her aunt, 4 drivers and he~ office girl, Councilman Matteoni inqQired of Mr's. Renn.if there has been an increase in the business operation over the last 3 to 4 year§, or does it remain relatively stable, in relation to the amount of sales and amount of materials coming and going. Mrs. Renn explained that all oi~':dealers or wholesale and petroleum distri- butors are on allocationwith the Federal Government, and are allowed so many gallons per month; therefore, their product sales, gallonage-wise, are the same. Mrs. Renn further explained that their business is not al~ con- ducted at the. Marion Avenue address -- the trucks are housed there, however -- and their main source Of supply is that called the pipeline in San Jose. She indicated they have 10 to 15 barrels of motor oil, and the tires, batteries and accessories they don't carry. She stated their warehouse in San Jose is on Southern Pacific property, and they house all of their oils and greases there. Mrs. Renn indicated that she had told the Planning Commission if the property in San Jose were big enough to house the trucks, this is where they would put them, but it isn't feasible to put them there. Mrs. Renn stated they have been there for 2l-'.years and have had no fire prob- lems, and the Fire Marshall checks them out every year. Also, the State Fire Marshall comes in once a year and checks their trucks, seals them, etc. Mrs.' Renn indicated they have raised 2 boys at this location on Marion Avenue, and are just as aware of the hazards of vehicl.es as everyone else. She further stated the ll cars that have come in with the new subdivision,~as well as the renters at the end of the street. Councilman Matteoni asked~if Mrs. Renn could provide some figures in terms of gallonage that is pumpedor stored each monthj Mrs. Renn replied she did not have this figure by month. She explained that they have 4 1,O00-gallon tanks in their back yard -- one is regular gas, one is ethyl, one is diesel, and one is stove oil. She stated they have more accounts with the diesel oil because of the small commercial accounts that they do have. She stated that anywhere from 100 to 300 gallons of product go out of there per day, whereas the total gallonage allocation for this month is llO gallons of gasoline, and approximately 90 gallons of diesel fuel. It was then moved by Councilman Brigham and seconded by Councilwoman Corr the public hearing be closed. The motion was carried; the public hearing was closed ~t 10:20 P.M. Appeal of UP-300 - Gerald and Patricia Renn (Cont~d~) Councilman Matteoni indicated he Wo'uld like to see if there is a way to be more definitive on the current operation, in terms'of the amount of gallonage that goes and comes on a monthly Basis, and this be included as part of the sixth condition under the use permit. Councilman Kraus asked Mr. Van Duyn, Planning Director, if he had the rationale for the 7½ year periodswhich the Planning Commission came Up with. Mr. Van Duyn replied tha~ the Planning Commission discussed its relationship to other similar type non-confo~milng activities acted'upon by the Commission previously. He indicated that several strong opinion~ were mad~ for less than 7 years, and there were Oommissio~ers who would have rather gr~nt~d~it for longer than 7½ years; therefore, ~his was found to be somewhat 6f a· compromgse,~ based on this dialogue. Mayor Bridges questioned whether dr not issue th~s use permit under.the ~ew ordinance, and indicated he wOuld'like to have the City Attorn~y's opinion on this. It was agreed by the Council to cdntinue this matter..to the next regular meeting, and' the staff be directed to come back with so~e wording with regard to the actual business figures. VI, I. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS (Cont'd.) C. DEPARTMENT HEADS AND OFFICERS 1. 'Director of Publi~ WOrks Re: ~harles Reed;s Request ~or Relief from Requirement to Widen a lO0-Foot Section Of FrQitvale Ave. ~SDR~1060) It was moved by Councilman K~aus and seconde~ by Councilman Brigham the staff be authorized to negotiate a Deferred Improvement Agreement with Mr. Reed.-The motion wa~ carried. 2. Director of ~ubliC Works Report Re: Saratoga Avenue Street Seal Mr. Shook summarized h'is report to the City M~nag6~, dated June 15, 1976, and the Council accepted his recommendation to proceed with the suggested remedial efforts along various sections of Saratoga Avenue. D. CITY MANAGER 1. Notice from the Clerk of the Board of Supervis'ors Re: City's Appointment '. to Santa Clara County ~Transportation Commission It was movedby~Co~ncilman'B~i~h&m and s~conded by Councilman KraUs' Cole Bridges be re-appointed tO this appointment~ The motion was carried. 2Y~ReCommend~ion ~o D~n~Clai~ o~David M. Whi~t~ob It was moved ~ Councilman Brigham and seconde'd by Councilman'Kraus the · Council deny-this claim and re.fer to the City's insurance carrier for · consideration. The motion Was' carried. 3. Presentation of 19'~6-77 FisCal Year Budqe~ Council appro~ed the City Mana~er'S recommendation to set this matter f6r the proposed budget on d ., 4.. Presentation of 1976-77 thru 1978.79 Fiscal Year Capital Improvement Program - Referred to the Planning Commission fo~ review and conformance with the General Plan, and to the Parks and Recreation C~mmiss4on for comments. " ll - 5. Letter from Gilroy City Manaqer Re: San Felipe Division Water Importation Project - Scheduled for discussion at future Committee of the Whole Meeting. 6. Meeting With Cal-Trans Re: W~t~V~'l~'Transit Corridor - Council affirmed its previous position in suppdrt o~'~ transit corridor and opposition to an expressway or freeway withi!n that corridor (Resolution 728). 7. Complaint Re: Barking doqs at 18747 Devon - C~ty Manager r~ported that the City's Code Enforcement Officer inspected this property and found no vio- lation of the Code. 8. Requested to set July 2~ for an Adjourned Regular Meeting for the purpose of reviewing the Quito-Pollard Road final plans and authorizing calling for bids. - Approved. VIII. COMMUNICATIONS A. WRITTEN 1. Natural Resources and County Government Joint Committee, enclosing a copy of their report on transportation planning and requesting support of these recommendations, if it is felt they are worthwhile and should be implem~nted~ - Noted and filed. 2~. Dan McCorquodale, Chairman, Board of Supervisors,~requesting the City take action to urge the PUC to hold public hearings on the issue of natural gas presently used for electric power generation in the Bay Area be diverted and transferred to the Los Angeles area to be used in the same manner. - Directed City Manager to draft a letter to the PUC and request hearings. 3. Herbert Grench, General Manager, Midpeninsula Regional Park District, submitting a copy of the draft Master Plan of their District. - Scheduled for discussion ~t July 13th Committee of the Whole Meeting. 4. Bob Bierach, President, Saratoga Little League, expressing their desire to expand their facilities to include two additional fields and parking space at Congress Springs Park. - Directed City Manager to provide status report r6garding inquiries City has made to the State. 5. Andrew P. Lassen, 18570 Sobey Road, expressing concerns over the requirement to assume the cost of improvement on land which was dedi- cated to the City in 1964. - Letter taken under advisement; suggested that Mr. Lassen consult the Planning Department regarding the procedure 'for a~pealing this requirement. 6. G. O. Bakken, 22~7 Fenian Drive, Campbell, expressing concerns over the appearance of the median strips on Campbell Avenue bordering E1 Paseo de Saratoga shopping center. - Noted and filed; City Manager Directed to communicate with Mr. Bakken advising that this is not within the City of Saratoga's jurisdiction. 7. Walter C. Bornemeier, Attorney & Counselor at Law, 1655 Willow Street, San Jose, commenting on the poor condition of Chester Avenue just south of Allendale Avenue. - Directed City Manager to communicate and advise that this is a.private road. 8. Gladys Armstrong, President, Los Gatos-Saratoga Branch, A.A.U.W., announcing their new president for the coming year as Mrs. Jean Foss. Noted and filed. 9. John Weir, President, Argueho Homeowners Association, with specific ,~eqg.~ts for the City Council ~g~dt~g "S~ave our Hills" Initiative. Scheduled ~ discussion at future Executive Session with City Attorney.' L12- B. ORAL 1. Councilman Kraus requeste~ that the staff look into the situation existing on Montalvo Road.on the right side"of the road near the, entrance, specifically with regard to trees removed on the property. - The City Manager advised that staff would have a report at'the next regu]ar meeting. C. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT.OF PUBLIC GRO6P REPRESENTATIVES The Hayor acknowledged the presence of public group representatives, as fol]ows: Start Marshall, Saratoga P)anning Con~ission Gene.Zambetti, Saratoga Planning Commission Don Sifferman, President,.Manor Drive Homeowner~ Association ~TL~F-'~T~ler, Good Government Group (served ~offee)' IX. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by C6Oncilman Matteoni and seconded by Councilman Kraus the meeting be adjourned to Ekecutive'Session this evening, and to an Adjourned Regular Meeting on Tuesdays, Juhe 29, 1976. The motion was carried: The meeting was adjourned at ll:30 P.M. Re~ ectf itted, R~bert