Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-18-1981 City Council Minutes SUMMARY MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL TIME: Wednesday, November 18:, 1981 7:30 p.m. PLACE: City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale TYPE: Regular meeting I. ORGANIZATION A. ROLL CALL - Councilmembers': Clevenger, Jensen, Mallory, Watson, Mayor Callon present at 7:35 p.m. B. MINUTES ll/4 Councilmember Jensen expressed some changes to the minutes of ll/4 including: Item V. A., Various things' were listed that were to be added to the items of areas to look to try to devise new revenues in the next year. On the Epstein Appeal, Councilm&mber Jensen expressed con- cern over the number of people in the audience and felt it should be noted. On Item V. A., the Wellbeloved Appeal, Councilmember Jensen expressed concern that it would be unfair if they reached an agreement where all paid and some benefitted but others did not. Under the Heritage Conservation Ordinance, Councilmember Jensen wanted it known that she had voted for the ordinance. Under the resolutions, resolution vII. A., the resolution on Sirhan Sirhan, CouncilmEmber Jensen wanted it known that the minutes were incorrect in that she voted for that, and she did not make the comment regarding the City's stand on this type of issue. on the warrant list, Councilmember Jensen expressed concern about having the amount recorded. On Item VIII. C., I a. Equestrian easement on Chester, Councilmember Jensen expressed that she felt words should be included regarding the fact she thought the process should be stopped and that easement abandoned. Mayor Callon noted anothen correction. She did not believe that Councilmember suggested it go back inthe General Plan report. Councilmember Jen~en felt that what she really said was that she felt they were getting themselves .over their heads in a process that would not really result in anything. ¶ Mayor Callon noted a correction under Council and Commission Reports. She pointed out ~hat Charlie Robins did not rise to express concern about a remodeling project next to his home. Mayor Callon stated she brought the issue up on his behalf. He was not present at that meeting. Mallory/Jensen moved acceptance of the ll/18 minutes with the aforementioned corrections. Passed 5-0, II. b0MMUNICATIONS A. Oral Jerry Jordan, 19467 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road expressed state- ments regarding the complaints of Mr. Robins about the re- modeling project invading his privacy. Mr. Jordan stated that his plans show it is impossible to see Mr. Rotins' property from the one window he installed. He stated this ' 2 -ll "· building has been used many times as a guest house. He further stated he wanted the buildingspermit approved tonight. Mayor Callon explained to Mr. Jordan that her statement at the last Council meeting dealt with the twenty-foot building eight feet from the property line which is nonconforming under the ordinance. A staff report reviewing the nonconformance and change in use of the project is to be prepared for the-next meeting. Charles Robins, 19384 Monte Vista, stated he objected to the building being used as a guest house, a nonconforming structure, as too big, ~oo high and too close.to the lot line. B. Written #1 concerning extension of Ordinance NS 3.4~ permitting off- site open house signs in.residential I~oning districts: refers to an item later on the agenda. #2 Referred to staff for review and report. #3 Referred to staff for review and report. #4 Councilmember Jensen statedl that ~the Tow Away Zone has been an issue for a tdng time and 's~e felt alI it would take was a sign on existing signs that this is a tow array zone. Councilm~mber Jensen suggested Staff get a --~ resolution prepared regarding/this.-City Manager stated that upon Councilmember Jensen's request, the matter' was looked into and a.recommend~tion was received from the Code Enforcement Officer and the Sheriff's Department that the Tow Away Zone be placed there. #5 Councilmember Jensen made a motion that Council approve the expenditure of $500.00 as preliminary monies to cover staff time costs for preliminary studies and planning which would enable the Sunland Park Homeowners' Association to choose apprOpri~te land scaping plans to beautify Quito Road wi~h the idea those costs can be recovered assuming they can arrive at a good.plan. There was no second to the motion. The issue.was referred to staff to review the actual choices. Mayor Callon sug~ gested that perhaps there could be a discussion between staff and the President of tee Homeowners' Association explaining what they mean. .- ' #6 Discussed later.on in Administrative matters. III. SUBDIVISIONS, BUILDING SITES, ZONING REQUESTS._ None. IV. PETITIONS, ORDINANCES, AND RESOLUTIONS~ A. Ordinance amending Chapter 6, Article l, entitled "Fire Prevention Code," of the Saratoga City Code (first reading) Chief Kraule, of the.Saratoga Fire District, and Chief Moore, of the Central Fire District, answered counc£1members' questions concerning the Storage of'hazardous chemicals. " The Uniform. Fire Code was discussed a~d Chief Kraule. s. ummarized the significant ~changes and their affect .gn'Saratog~, Mallory/WatsOn moved to introduce the ordinance by-title and to waive the .first reading. Passed 5-0~ The City Attorney noted~t~o corrections to be made in'the ordinance the firs~ one being on Page. l, Section l, reference should be to Chapter 6, not section 6. The second Correction is on Page 3, four lines from the bottom, the word anunciator starts with an a. Clevenger/Mallory moved t~ introduce the'ordinance as the. first reading..]Passed'5-O, A discussion followed, Mr~. Jack Foo~ expressingconcerhs about the population being protected'instead of the financial status of the Fire District. He feels the people of the'City should be protected in hazardous situations. Marjorie Foot expressed some concern over adopting an ordinance on a code that has not been seen. She stated she is concerned about fiscal~responsibility, but more con- cerned about physical res~onsibility.~ Mayor Callon proceeded to the Public Hearings at 8:20 p.m. V.+ PUBLIC HEARINGS 'A. Appeal of denial of tentative subdivisi~n'a proval for lO lots on Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road (AppellantSapplicant, Wilson Development Co.) (Continued from lO/21) The Cit~.Manage~reviewed the appeal and explained CounCil's options for the appeal. Dave Wilson, Wilson Development Co., (applicant) asked for Council's approval'of!a 2nd map proposing a lO-lot sub- division with access fromiSaratoga-Sunnyvale Road after having been denied a 10-lot subdivision with access from Tricia Way. Wilson's new proposal was reviewed with respect to number of units, primairy and secondary accesses and the .length of the cul-de-~ac. A report regarding the traffic counts on Blauer Drive, Regan Lane and Highway 85 was sum- marized by the City Manager. The Public Hearing wzs,openeda~ 8:40 p.m. Petitions of neighbors expressing concern were called to Council's attention by Ron Pizziali~ 13123 Regan Lane, and Mr. Gloegge, 13109 Regan Lane. Further discussion in favor of the proposal was:submitted by Pat Carroll, 20418 Tricia, Barbara Nipe, andsBob Saxe. No one further appearing to speak, the public hearing waS closed. Mayor Callongave her rec6mmendation in favor of the proposal. Callon/Watson moved that 6ouncil ~rant the appeal and adopt the map,'~conditioned upon.having a pedestrian and bicycle access on Tricia Way. The motion failed. (Clevenger, Jensen and Mallory opposed) Mallory/Clevenger moved tq deny thelappeal. The City Attorney asked Council to examine the findings. to determine whether they codld enter into the motion. Following discussion, Mallory/Olevenger moved to deny the appeal for the map with access from Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road without prejudice. Passed 3-2 (Callon and Watson opposed.) Callon/Mallory moved to reconsider the ~irst map with access off of Tricia Way. Failed 2-3 (Clevenger, Jensen and Watson opposed.) ~llorynotedhe feltthe only feasible access was Tricia Way. Ueds~/Clevenger moved that in the event the cul-de-sac is over 400 feet, Councilifinds it is not in conformance with the Subdivision Ordinance because there is another feasible access. Passed 3-2 (Callon and Watson opposed.) The issue went back to.th~ developer as being denied without prejudice,' B. Consideration of City's~ participation under the Housing and Community Development Act (continued from 11/4/81)~ adoption of JointsPowers Agreement. The City Manager explained that since the previously authorized 1982-85 HCDA Joint Powers Agreement and Acknow- ledgement Resolution was rescinded, a revised version was developed which would provide for the filing~of an applica- tion for the Federal Housing and Community Development Act over the next 3~year period, A plan' for.the use of these monies was also revised. The changes in the agreement and the plan for the use of the monies, were discussed by the Housing and Community Development Coordinator. A prioritized llst of staff recommendations was provided in order that Council e~uld make a final determination at the Committee- of-the-Whole meeting on li/24. The ~ublic Mearing was opened at 9:40. No one a~peared to speak. Jensen/Mallory moved to close the public hearing. Passed 5-0. The public hearing was closed at 8:41. Callon/Clevenger moved to.adopt the Joint Powers Agreement and the Resolution # 10352. Passed 4-0 (Jensen abstained.) Discussion of the priority list followed. Councilmember Mallory requested informat]on be supplied at the next meeting to determine how "solar" appeared on the list. Discussion about the allocation of monies followed with concern being expressed about the application of the program. The 'issue was put off to the study session for further discussion of the priorit~ list. C. Appeal of denialof modifidation~.to~u~eI~ermit~.redu~i~g~'age limit for 6ccupancy from 55 to 45 at Saratoga Parkside, Saratoga Avenue (Appellant, Jerome J. Lohr) The City Manager reviewed~Council's alternatives of either granting or denying the appeal. The Director Of Community Development summarized the facts pertaining to the application which has been denied. The public hearing was opened. Jerry Lohr, appellant, 18755 Montewood Drive, diScUsSed th~ Curr&nt status of the project b~ing'.that there are 72 units in the project and-24 of those are to be maintained for ten years as rentals. These units are all rented. Seventeen units are offered as firat ~ight of refusal which are rented with an option to purchase. Sixteen~ of those units are occupied~ Thirteen of the remaining units are sold and closed with two more dnits still in escrow. He further stated he feels the request is relatively simple in that he is asking for a one time reduction in the age for oc- cupancy of twelve of the units~to allow him to broaden his market to include thelselling of the larger units in order to subsidize the smaller rentals. Counci~member Watson s~at~d he. f0und~.the'appeal very dis- · tressing because from the beginning the project was focused on the community service ~hat was being proyided for senior citizen housing and,~he was not sure ~he proposal to lower the age limit encouraged the Original intent of the project. Councilmember Clevenger expressed co~dern that by'lowering the age limit,'Council would be giving Mr. Lohr an advantage which a resident would no~ have in that if a resident buys a house and would like to turn around and sell it, he would have to sell it to someone 55 or older. Councilmember Jensen expressed uneasiness becausej family with o~l~ one member of the household having to be 45 years old could be quite a young family, and she feels the project was not designed for that use. She also expressed concern over the specific language of what Mr. Lohr is asking Council to adopt. Mr. Lohr discussed the .specific language of the proposal. Jim Russell, 12776 Saratoga Glen Court, stated he was a member of the Saratoga Park Woods Homeside Association. He expressed specific concern about the increase of population, vehicular traffic and Parking on Saratoga Avenue. 'He stated he feels many people have an important stake in the decision and strongly urged Council to consider the judgments of the Planning Staff~ Peggy Corr, 19224 DeHaviland Drive, stated she feels the project is a very good development and has met a very good need. She further stated she feels the only people really concerned about itas far as change should be the pepple who live there now~ they are the ones affected by the modification. Bill Murphy, 121501Saraglen Drive, speaking in favor Of Mr. Lohr's proposal stressed the need for senior citizen housing in the community ~ow an~ even more in the future. He stated that if Mr. Lohr's proposal is not successful, it might deter future developers fromBtrying to develop similar projects. : Also speaking in favor of'Mr. Lohr's proposal Were Mike Trapman, 18964 Earapark Circle, and Shelley willisms, 11951 Brookridge Drive. Richard Martin, 13981 Pike Road, speaking against Mr. Lohr's proposal, stated he does not feel Mr. Lohr's position is any different than any other builder. He stated he does not believe Mr. Lohr's position is that desperate that~he agreement be voided to help him in this case. Jensen/Mallorylmoved to ciose the public hearing. Passed Jensen/Mailory moved to d~ny the request. Passed 4-1. (Callon opposed,) D. Appeal of denial of tentative building site approval for a 3-lot subdivision on the southern side of Brookwood Lane per Ord. NS-60 (Ap licant~appellant, Charles Johnston- Thompkins & Assoc.~ The City Manager reviewed! the appeal. He stated that the Planning Commission was unable to make the necessary findings for the approval of the proposed subdivision, based on the grounds of public safety and the impact.that passage would have on the environment. The DireCtor of,Community Development summarized the proposed tentative map, stating that the primary objection that the Land Development Committee and the Planning Commission had was the fact that thellOcation of the property falls com- pletely within {he 100% flood area, further explaining that this problem must be resolved before development could take place. He called attentioh to'4 possible solutions:whidh were suggested by the Santa Clara Valley Water District. Th~ fl~s~ solution would!be to berm or dike the entire property thus protecting;it fro~ any flood flow from the creek. The berm, he explained,~ is of varying heights up to 5 feet. The City Manager stated that the berm would be high enoughCto protect the property behind from the level of the hundred year flood and~ one foot above that. The other solutions discussed by the Director of Community Development include: grading the path, high enough so that the floor elevations would be above the high water; to provide for foundations that would be high enough to bring the floor elevations above the high water: or a combination of all three. This combination would include berming the entire area of the existing home~-,site, then with the other two lots, one coutd use the increasing height of the paths or the increasing height of the foundation, or a combination of those two to accomplish raising the floor elevation of the home. ,Discussion followed regarding possible methods of making the raised elevation less obvious. Questions were raised about possible repercussion in the event of flood damage to a garage by the homeowner and possible affects 6-n/iS/S1 on the city. It waslpointed out by the City Manager that the standards they are attempting to meet are the National Flood Insurance Act standards which do allow for structures to be built within the flood plain area as long as the living quarters are at least one foot above the elevation~of the one-percent flood'area. The Director of Community D~velopment stated that creating the berm or the dike to maintain the water within the creek would have some affect on r~ising the elevation of the water in the creek. He stated, he did not feel it would be a substantial increase, but~that one would have to depend upon the water district to provide information pertaining to the affects on the water surface and the berm height. Staff recommends the berm method as the ideal solution. The Director of Community Development stated the reason the Planning Commission had difficulty resolving the issue was the concern for public safety particularly relative to the flooding. The public hearing was opened at 11:25. John Collins spoke as the attorn~y~for;.'Mr. Johnston, the applicant. Mr. Collins made reference to a letter from the Water District stating that raising the first floor above the one-percent flood area by building a house on a pole type foundation is an acceptable solution. He further stated 'the applicant'i~-prepared to accept any of the mentionedsolutions. Collins then proceeded to offer yet another'solution, that being a combination of fill and foundation with-a small berm.~existing around the existing house. · A petition was submitted providing evidence~of one hundred percent of the lane residents in favorof the development. John Kahle, 20601 Brookwood;Lane, also spoke in favor of the petition. Jensen/Clevenger moved to close the public hearing. Passed 5-0. Councilmember Jensen .moved ~o grant the subdivision with the condition that houses number 2 and 3 be restricted to pole construction with the first'floor one foot above the one percent flood level; and that there be no grading for the house except for the pole construction-itself, for the house and foundation, but we allow grading for the construction of the driveway to the house;.that we don't allow the removal of any ordinance- size trees and the houses be planned to accommodate those trees: that there be an easement tO the edge of the park dedicated for acceptance in the future by any City Council to mitigate the problem of the excess four hundred feet distances; that it be dedicated for some future acceptance of the City if the City atd some future time would liketo build a road through the park to construct an alternate access to the Village, but that it not be accepted as part of this subdivision; and that the home that is existing be protected with a flood wall rather than a berm that is fairly Close to the house so as not to raise the flood level; and that the pole construction can be done in such a way that flooding could go through and underneath without restriction so as not to impact the residents who als6 live in this flood plain at this time. The City AttorneZ explainedjthat under the Design Review process, Council does have control architecturally over the house. However, anything that is not imposed now that applies to the whole subdivision will not be controllable under the Design Review process. Mayor Callon stated that whatever the best designlsolution from a Design Review standp6int is effective for those other two lots should be used and berming on the lots should be allowed if that is the best solution. Councilmember Watson stated!he fee~s Councilmember Jensen brought up two good points that Shouldn't b~ overlooked. First, if the berming does impact other property, and second, With regard to the ordinance-size trees. Councilmember Jense~ discussed th~ constraints on the property regarding the easement.' Shy'stated that for£uture' benefit, .the thing.to do to reduce the problem would ~e~to provide the easement to the park. The Direc~0r of Community Development explained to Council that if they intend to approve the issue, they must first approve the Negative Declaration. Watson/Clevenger moved to approve the Negative Declaration. Passed 3-0 (Mallory and Jensen abstaining.) Mayor Callon/Watson moved to uphold to~grant ~he appeal from the PlanningCommission denial of the tehtative map for 3 ~ots on condition that.lot 3 with the existing house would be subject to berming or floodwall to protect it from the one percent flood level, and lots 2 and llwould be, as conditioned already, subject to Design Review and as a part of that Design Review process would look for the optimum solution to the one percent flooding including th~ possibility of-bermihg with a preference being expresse~ for some type of pole constructio~ or perhaps a garage underneath. An additional condition is that the lots be sensitively developedwin terms of the trees, that very minimal, if necessary, trees'be cut down. CouncilmemberCle~enger expressed concern over the easement creating a hardship. ' The*Director of Community Development'questiOned whether the~ motion included the.hold-harmless waiver. The City Attorney clarified~the form of the motion being a motion to grant.the. appeal and approve the tentative map sub~ect~ to the conditions outlined. The motion passed 3-2 (Mallory and Jensen opposed.) E. Consideration0f Ordinanc~ ~xtending Ordinance NS 3.44.relating to offsite open house signS. in residential zSning districts and approval of Negative'Decla~ation (first reading) The City Manager reviewed the facts stating that a year ago the City Council adopted an~ordinance allowing offsite real estate signs to be placed at intersectlon~.' ~his ordinance that broadened the opportunity for placement had a one year sunset provision init which will expire next month. An ordinance reviewed .by the P~anning Commission .was prSsent~d. It was recommended that a. permanent ordinance be adopted that would' permit one sign to be placed at an intersection. This recommended ordinance would be an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance and therefore requires a public ~earing.. The public hearing was opened at 11:50.~ Bi~ Murphy, President of the Los Gatos-Saratoga Board of Realto~s,~pokein favor of making it a permanent ordinance. Andrew Beverett, 19598 ~ia ~onte Drive,!also a member'of the~ Real Estate Board, spoke of. the cost and effort of monitoring the offsite signs, and Board member,.Woodard whatley, spoke in favor of the ord~nance~a~d it's extension. Jensen/Mallory moved to close the public hearing. Passed 5-0. Jensen/Mallory moved to apProVe th~ Negative DeClaration, to amend the proposed date to two y~ars and then to adopt the ordinance as proposed and ~mended. Motion to approve the Negative Declaration. Passed 5-0. s -n/lS/81 Motion to amend the proposed draft to include a sunset clause of two years. Passed 3-2 (Watson and Callon opposed.) Callon/Mallory moved to introduce the ordinance amending Ordinance MS-3, the Zoning Ordinance by providing for open house signs in residential zoning districts as amended.. · Passed 5-0. Mayor Callon then returned/tO uhfini~hedI~items preceeding public hearings on'agenda. IV. PETITIONS, ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS B. Resolution designating the ~onths of the year dur.ing which the General Plan may be amended. The'City Manager presented ~ recommendation that the City establish firm dates upon which the General Plan m~y be amended during the year. He stated ~he resolution would provide for amendment during April, September and December within a year and would recommend that the resolution be amended to take effect April of 1982 to exclude any amendments prior to that time. Watson/Callon moved to adopt the'resolUtiOn as amended that is applied in April of 1982'~ Passed 4-1 (Jensen opposed.) C.Resotu~ioh oppOSing~ recent.-redi~triCting~le~i~lationl~ ~= ...... ~..~= , ., . ~.!].j,i?'./.' ~:~,... CounCilme~be~n. Wai~o~ ,st~tedl}he~:fe~ls:this r~61Utlon is~azi. partisan.. iS~ ~and woutdcha~ei.. to<*Vot~ ~ a~ain~t~ it-' fop - that rea~on:~-~ ". ,' '^"i;'?c. Mayor Callon, agreeing with~Councilmember Watson, stated she would vote for the resolution if the paragraph asking all registered voters to si~gn petitions be stricken. Councilmember Jensen stated, she would like to see a resolution asking to have a special election for those districts that will be without representation.' Mallory/Watson moved to adopt the resolution amending it to say in place' of the paragraph regarding the registered voters to sign petitions, we encourage the legislature to Set up a bipartisan commission tO deal with redistricting. Passed 4-1 (Jensen opposed)~. D. Resolution revising CC&R's for Tracts 6526 and 6528 (Parker Ranch), Blackwell Homes, Parker Ranch Road and Prospect Road. The City Manager explained Blackwell Homes, Incorporated has applied torevise their.CC&R~s to allow for an increase in the floor area ratios to the limits that are consistent with the City's recently adopted=Design Review OrdinanCe. He stated the Planning Commission recommends Council to approve the resolution that would allow the amendment of this con- dition. Questions were raised as to~the accepted size in the Hillside area, and if there are similar situations existing in the Parnas area. - The Director of Community Development explained that Parker Ranch is the only one with the restrlc~ion. Jensen/Clevenger moved to deny the request to revise the .CC&R's fer Tracts 6526 and 6528. Failed 2-3. (Callon, Mallory and Watson opposed)~ The .City Attorney. was directed todraft a resolution to the effect that the present CC&R's limit or the Design Review limit whichever is greater be allowed. 9 -ll/lS/81 Watson/Mallory moved to recommend approval with the modi- fication that whichever is greater, the CC&R or the Design Review be allowed, and the applicant's process for Design Review may proceed in the interim. +Passed 3-2 (Jensen and Clevenger opposed)~ Councilm~mber Jensen~moved to amend the motion t6 have it apply to all the lots except the lots. visible from the valley floor, There was' no second~to the motion. Mayor Callon then proceeded.to items subsequent to public hearings on agenda, VI, BIDS AND CONTRACTS A, Amendment to Crocker-SHARP bredit agreement, The program was ~xp!ai~ed~'~s-~having been originally designed as a revolving program that~would bring monies that were loaned out back to be reloaned at a future date, Another option theCity-Council considered!was a fund a~d subsidy type ar- rangement whereby funds would be used to reduce interest rates to a desirable level'~ .Jensen/Clevenger moved.tO authorize the requested amendment~to the credit agreement and direct staff to look at other options for participation ,by,a financia~ institution in the SHARP program, Passed 5-0~' MayOr Callon then proceededto Item VIII, B, because of the many people in the audience, waiting for this item, VIII. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS B. COUNCIL AND COMMISSION REPORTS 1. Report from Library Commission re: Sunday hours for Saratoga Community Library The Assistant City Manager discussed a report received from the Library CommiSsion stating they discussed Council's recommendation about the possibility of Sunday hours and based upon funding considerations and other issues outliDed in Mary Moss' memo, they voted to use the extra money from the Village Library to purchase books, tapes and othe~ material, Callon/Jensen moved to have the Saratoga Community Library open on Sunday, not increasing the Monday and '.T~..~sdAy~h~ur.s~andtto_use the extra money saved to purchase books, Councilmember Watson spoke in opposition stating that expanding the services for a convenience factor is perhaps not the best u,se of the money,. Jensen/Callon moved to continue to 12/2 as the first item on the agenda. Failed 2-3 (Watson, Clevenger and Mallory opposed), The motion on the floor to have the library open Sundays and to use the extra money to purchase books rather than having the library open on Monday or Tuesday failed with Watson, Mallory ~nd Clevenger opposing. Mayor Callon then ~eturn~d to ~he Consent Calendar, Item VII~ VII. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Final acceptance for SDR-1359, Howard Ashmor~, Bohlman Road. Passed 5-0. B. Final acceptance for SDR-I34~ Ray Dettling, Bohlman Road.- Passed 5-0. lo -n/18/S1 C. The Treasuer's Report - October was not prepared for the meeting due to illness. D. Approval of the Warrant Li~t. Passed 5-0, VIII. ADMINISTRATIVE. MATTERS A. MAYOR Election of County Supervisors. Mayor Callon discussed a suggestion that was made at the West Valley Mayor's meeting to look at other options on · distribution of supervisors to represent the County. One possibility which the cities wanted to discuss with their Councils was whether there~ might be support for putting together a study group to look at increasing the number on the board from five to seven. Mayor Callon mentioned that a law was recently passed allowing City Council elections to be held in cQnjunction with primaries, school district elections or general elections. This would save money and more people would be out voting. She suggested staff prepare a report with the Options the new law provides. , B. COUNCIL AND CO~ISSION REPORTS Proposed uses for the Village Library Building. Councilmembers Clevenger and Mallory presented a committea of people to determine what the former Village Library building should be used for. This committee will evaluate different alternative uses taking into consideration such factors as the historic factor, financial community interest, probable public usage and how it fits into the character of the City.. Mayor Callon stated she would like a solution from the committee the first of April, Jensen/Callon moved to approve the nominations. Passed 5-0. Quito Bicycle Lane Councilmember Jensen questioned whether Council would be willing to attempt to apply for funds to pave the Quito Road bicycle iane. Staff was directed to explore the possibility by setting up some priorities. Sunland Street LandsCaping Project The City Manager discusSedra prepared report regarding the Sunland Landscaping project. Jenson/Watson moved to fil~' for funds to pave the bicycle lane on Sunland, Passed 5-0. C. DEPARTMENT HEADS AND OFFICERS' 1. Director of Community Development Regulation a. Report ~egarding 1982 Bicycle Lane Account/Saratoga- Sunnyvale Bike ~ane The Director of Community Development explained the project being to provide a retaining wall structure on~t~e~f~Qn~ge~tozwidepeS~ato~Sunn~ale?.Roa~fo~a?pathatgrade so there would be an addition to the existing pavement width~atgrade. Cleven~er/Watson moved to adopt the 1982 Bicycle Lane Accou~t/Saratoga-Sunnyvale Bike Lane. Passed 5-0. 2, 'Director of Planning. and Policy Analysis a~ Report regarding Heritage. Commission Selection Process, The Director of Planning and Policy Analysis discussed the selection process for the Heritage Commission stating She ordinance states one representative. is to be chosen from the Planning Commission, one.from the Historical Foundation and one who has specific training or expertise, Staff has submitted a proposed schedule and draft letter for Council's approval, Mallory/CleveBger moved to approve the draft letter and proposed schedule, Passed 5-0, Mayor Callon then~returned to Item 6 under Written CommunicationS, II. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS #6. Harry C. Koh~, Sa'ratoga Horticultural Foundation, concerning rezoning and sale ~f Foundation property. After a request for'a report on Saratoga HOrticultu.ral Foundation, the Director of Planning and Policy Analysis stated that being that the City does not have '~the funds to-develop' and maintain Azule and Kevin Moran Park, a suggestion was presented that the-b".~ HorticUltural Society could lease the Azule site and part of Kevin Moran Park and nut the money received into incr&asin~the=~acii~itieS of d~velopment~of~Kevin Moran Park to make it a more active pa~, or another . park of the Parks Commission's selection, 'zHe'stated the~issue wo~id theB be-t9 establish s6me- +~thing acceptable to'?the City that~the property can ".be leased for,' . The City Manager'recommende~ ISt~ff spend more time to develop the, issde and p~epare a report, Mayor Callon returned'. to Item.D, under Administrative Matters. VIII. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS D. CITY MANAGER Report Regarding Tree Ordinance, There was a 'discussion Concerning the issue that Mr, Kra'ja knew that under the ordinance, a permit was needed to remove trees measuring forty'inches or more .in circumference at a point twenty-four inches above grade, but he Cut.-down two trees anyway,. The City Manager explained that the ordinance Speaks of a fine, but in essence it is a claim for damages against Mr, Kr~ja. because the trees were public property and cut down.. He stated that if he does not pay the amount of damages,'then he might be prosecuted ~3 anSer the ordinanceas. a misdemeanor and then it'Would be determined by a Judge, The matter was put off and copies 6f the Tr~e Ordinance were requested by Council. IX, ADJOURNMENT Mallo~y/CallQn moved to!adjourn at .t:O0 a,m, to an executive . session at 7:30 on ll/2~, Passed'5-O, ~ VERBATIM TP~a, NSCRIPT OF A OF WILSON APPEAL, ITEiq V.A., CITY COUNCIL AGENDA OF NO~/. 18, 1981 Callon: So the motion before us is to deny without prejudice the map off of Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road. Smith: That's the one you have to vote on first; that's the appeal. Callon: Any co:~ents? All those in favor? (Voices respond.) Opposed? (Voices respond.) Motion carries and so ordered with Mr. Watson and Mrs. Callon voting no on it. Clevenger: If we would like to give direction to the staff, I am prepared to accept a map which takes access off~df Tricia and has six lots on it, and I'm basing that on public safety. I think that that would. be a sBfe wa~ to do it, we wouldn't have the access and egress from the Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, and I think when the neighbors move into a cul-de-sac they can expect that the~e are going to be 15 houses on the cul-de-sac. That's what our ordinance states. Callon: If I understood our City Attorney correctly, if the developer wishes he can ask us to reconsider this map tonight. Is that accurate? The first map? Smith: That is correct, but not a change or variation on that map.~ Any change,or variation on that map must be resubmitted to the Planning Commission for hearing. Clevenger: It still seems like a good idea to have it right out where we are coming from on this thing so the developer knows and can make appropriate plans. Callon: Well let me find out if the developer wishes us to reconsider this map. Voice: Yes, we do. Callon: All right. We need a motion to reconsider it, then? Smith: Yes. This would be made by one of {he members of the prevailing--one of the members who voted against--no, I'm sorry--one of the members who voted to deny would have to move to reconsider. Callon: All right. I will move that we ~econsider the first map which was submitted to us off of Tricia Way. Is there a second? Mallory: Second. Callon: So, ~oting 'on the reconsideration, all those in favor? (Voices respond.) Opposed? (Voices .respond.) Motion fails with Mrs. Clevenger, Mrs. Jensen, and Mr. Watson voting no on it. So then there are no more alternatives. Smith: That is correct. Not with these two maps. Callon: All right. I gather that ~eaves us with a denial without prejudice, and therefore the applicant needs some direction from the Council as to what could make it thorugh the planning process to the Council if it had to come to the Council to get approved. And we heard~what Mrs. Clevenger felt. ~allory: I guess I would like to make one comment to the homeowners. A few years ago I was involved in a similar development in a different area down there but in the northwest area. That increased ~ interest in the Saratoga government. At that time !~ was concerned p. 2 with a government. that was fair and impartial ,. and I believe you want the same. And I believe you want for us to make good decisions for the neighborhood and also for the City. Over the long run. And based on this I'll make some other comments. In the first review before this committee, I said Tricia Way was the best design for the City of Saratoga and that the Saratoga ROad_.exit or access was a more hazardous design. It was a more hazardous design for the City, for the people who would use that access, and the people who would travel the Saratoga-Sunny. vale Road. I believe the developer would have like us to accept the Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road access because he wants to develop the property one way or the other. I understand that. But I refuse to go ahead with what I think is a bad design. I put a great weight on the analysis of Dan Trinidad ~and the City. He said among other things about his comments that such maneuvers on high volume roads were considered bad practice, and I agree .with that. I believe the issue is .the density-- it will eventually~ be the density allowed on Tricia Way, and I hear.that over here. ., I am convinced, however, that a reading of Section 13.3-4,.after reading it, that ten additional homes are committed on this cul-de-sac. The question is, are there any facts presented .~hat would, result in not approving ten homes as it is permitted. in Zone 4. I anticipate,.as I Said, the major issue being the traffic impacts which the neighbors are rightly concerned with. I think the staff ~h..a s~.s evaluated the traffic impact as minihal., and on this basis I accept that the Tricia Way with ten units is logical and acceptable. Cal 1 on: Wel 1, ~e al 1 get to make a couple of comments~. I am very di sappoi nted that we couldri't resolve. the issue tonight because I heard the people, both the developer and the homeowners, .Saying they have worked very 'long on it, I think the Council has worked long on it. I am going to .ask the Planning.Con~nission to work a little longer the next time, please. It seemed to me that you split two to two and did not take the opportunity to re-hear it when more of your members were there, but it is frustrating for all of us to keep going through the process and not having it resolved. Let's find something we can live with. Jensen: I would just like to speak for the record that my reasons fo~ voting the.way I did on both motions were Section.66474 of the Government Code, Iten~ D, that the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development, due to its access problems. = Dernetz: Well, it would be appropriate for the Council, in having made a motion to deny, to also indicate now the specific findings. that you wish to make in terms of that denial. ...choose one or more of those listed under Section. 66474 of the Government Code. Callon: I thought I heard Mr. Mallory doing that. Smith: F~r. Mallory, I think, referred just to F, and the motion contained only F. If you wish, you may indicate whichever findings you feel that you can make as a majority of the Council, whichever findings accompany the motion to deny. Also, the paragraph, the portion of the paragraph I read to you about the cul-de-sac dealing with the feasibility, or the only feasible way of doing it, I take it in the motion, and this should be clarified also, that you are saying that the cul-de-sac that's p~oposed here, in the event it is over 400', and we don't have that scale, but in the event it is over 400' it is not the only feasible way to gain access to the parcel. There is another feasible way. From Tricia, to come on from Tricia onto this parcel it excees the 400' and in order to permit that entrance you must make a finding that it is the only feasible way to come in, and therefore you would be ruling out the access from Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road as a feasible alternative, at least as demonstrated on the map that was denied. Clevenger: I would. I would rule that out as feasible because of the safety. Callon: I think the first motion, which Mr. Watson and I supported died because I don't know the wording was feasible, but the feeling I heard from the other three people was that it was a ~afety problem off of Sarastoga-Sunnyvale. Smith: I'm not referring to that motion. I am referring to the motion..that i,lr. Watson made--that Mr. Mallory made. Callon: No, that was 'to deny. Right. You're looking for findings' on the motion to deny. And Mr. Mallory did state finding. F, and you are asking if the other members who voted for that motion have any other findings. Clevenger: I have the same findings that Mrs.jensen did. Number D, that the site is not physically feasible for the proposed density of development and add to that because of the access. Dernetz: And you may' al'so wish to consider B with the condition that the cul-de-sac may exceed 400'. Mallory: That needs to be unanimous, but i~'s not'unanimous--that finding on density. Smith: Well, maybe you (ould by motion 'indicate which findings you have consensus on. Callon: Only those three people that Voted for it haye to make th6se findings, so it's Mrs. Jensen and Mrs .... Mallory: I hear us havi'ng one, and that is the access--the exit to Saratoga-Sunnyvale Mad. I don't hear a unanimous vote on density. Clevenge~: That is .that the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development, so that's D. Mallory: That's yours, not mine. Clevenger: You don't want to go for that one, then. Smith: So just for clarificati.on:~e have {he motion that's stated with only F as the finding that was made. Is that correct? Callon: I think that's what you heard. YOu heard other~embers speaking to other findings they were making individualS, but the one they all agreed on was F. Jensen: I think there's another fact, and that is the cul-de-sac~as proposed is over 400'-- am I not correct? ~.(Unintelligible.) Callon: Is that right? Mallory: I'm not sure what she said. Callon: She's saying that Mr. Shook mentioned tonight that in that map there was a possibility the cul-de-sac off of Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road exceeded 400'. But no one knows at the moment. And the proposal is that if it does indeed, then a finding could be made that it isn,t consistent with the General Plan policy of the cul-de-sac not exceeding 400' if there is another feasible entrance. Watson: While yoU're all wrestling with reasons for denying, I wonder, Jack is precluded from this, but the ladies certainly have an opportunity to reconsider because even though we are overcoming chauvinism, you still have that provision, And I would ask once again to reconsider the factor that the people most directly impacted--the property owners, the neighbors, the developer--all have responded to our request to work out a resolution / p. 4 ..r~~ z,/~7~ ~" Watson (continued): Now I agree with you that additional traffic into and on Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road is difficult, but I submit to you that that road can handle the sl.ight addi%ion substantially better than can families who ate concerned with the additional load that you are going to put on it because that property I-think would be--~ou know, initially when I came in I really hadn'.t made up my mind. I had missed the study session where these things really should have been aired fully and, I submit, probably were. Dut I think that we can't overlook the factor that all these people working together have come up with consensus, and as you can plainly see that is not easily done. Do reconsider because I think that's what these people are asking you to do. Mallory: Thank you. 'I think the issue we really 'resolved iS strictly .F. I think if there's any other findings--any other direction from theCouncil in terms of den~ity-- it ought to co~eout. You have made your comments, I have made my comments, but I don't know if the other Councilmembers have any_comments they want to make. ~ni.th.: At the expense of beating a dead hq~se,~the only other one I was thinking was that in the even.t the cul-de-sac is over 400' in 1 ength you find it not in conformity with the Subdivision Ordinance requirements, because there is another feasible access. That seems to be in conformity with what the motion contained because you were denying it on the basis of access--as I assume. If that's also a finding--I'm notsaying it is--but.if it is I think i't would be appropFiate to make it by motion. Clevenger: That's agreeable. Jensen (?): ~o moved. Callon: Is there a second? Clevenger: Second. Callon: All those in favor. (Voices respond.) OppOsed? ( Voices respond.) The motion carries with Mr. Watson and Mrs. Callon voting no. All right. I gather there's no reconsideration, and the issue go~ss back to the developer because it was denied without prejudice. So let's move on the public hearing. We have quite a bit on the agenda. Carrying on. Item B.