HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-18-1985 City Council Minutes .~,~.I~4~TOC,.a, CI'I~ COUNCIL
TIME: Wednesday, September 18, 1985 - 7:00 p.m.
PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue
TYPE: Regular Meeting
I. (11C~NIZA~ON
A. ROLL CAI.I. - Councilmembers Callon, Fanelli, Hlava, Moyles and Mayor
Clevenger present at 7:03 p.m.
B. Presentation of Resolutions to t tome Tour Participants
Sharon Landsness, Chair of the Heritage Preservation Commission, explained that
resolutions of appreciation were to be presented to-those who had participated in
the Heritage Preservation Home Tour. Mayor Clevenger presented them and thanked the
participants.
C. MINIrFES - 9/4
Mayor Clevenger noted that on p. 5 the meeting with the City Manager should have
been indicated as September 12 rather than October 12.
MOYLES/HLAVA MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS AMENDED. Passed 4-0-1 (Callon
abstaining because she had not been present at the meeting).
Kathy McGoldrick rose to express concerns of the E1Quito Homeowners Association
concerning the Owens Property. First, she believed the height of the pads on Cox
Avenue was too great, and that the appeal on the development should have been
returned to the Planning Commission for setting of conditions. Second, she stated
that blue plastic pipes of the type used for corrosive materials were being
installed because they were left over from another project. She feared that they
might be used for corrosive materials, and she objected to their installation.
Mayor Clevenger noted that the Council had said the site was not to be used for
research because the City was not equipped to handle toxic wastes. Community
Development Director stated he was not certain of the height of the pads with
respect to the pre-existing ground level because the ground dropped off in certain
areas. Councilmember Callon felt that neither the Planning Commission nor the
Council could could always catch mishaps, but requested that the staff inform them
when they occurred. She believed, as did the City Attorney and Councilmember
Fanelli, that the item had in fact been returned to the Planning Commission for the
setting Of appropriate conditions. (Clerk's note: The Council granted the appeal
and referred it to the Planning Commission for review of conditions on October 23,
1984.)
Harriet Handler requested that the Second Unit Ordinance be amended to provide for
variances to allow new second units in the R~i-10,000 district under some
circtmstances.
Adna L. Engel, 18645 McFarland, asked that the Second Unit Ordinance be liberalized
to allow second units in smaller houses in some circumstances.
III. CONSII~TCAt.F~IDAR
1. Consideration of Claim - Pearl SmithBuilding
.HLAVA/MOYLESMOVEDIODENY THE CLAIM. Passed 5-0.
B. CONSENT CAt.F~JAR-
Councilmember Callon removed Item 5 and Councilmember Hlava removed Item 8 from the
Consent Calendar.
MOYLES/CALLON MOVED TOAPPROVE CONSENTCALEMDAR- OTHER ITEMSEXCEFrFOR ITEMS 5AND
8. Passed 5-0.
' 2-9~18/85
1. Final Approval, ~11 1572, R. Ward, Glasgow Dr. (2 10ts) .'
2. Final Building Site A ro SDR 1545, W. S~urla, Cox Ave: and Saratoga
pb val',
Creek (1 lot) I
.-~: 3. Final Building Site A~Jroval, SIl{ 1508, Oudewaal, Big Basin Way (1 lot)
~ 4. Construction Acceptance and Release of Monument Bond, Tr.i 7495, Tricia
~ . Way, Wilson Develorm~nt
5. Consideration of Text ~Amendme~ts to the Second Unit Ordinan{~ which
would g~erally relax the development regulations of this ordinance
for m_-w and existing -~econd units, including 1) allow some variation,
in certain hardship r~-~es, from the requirement for owner occupancy;
2) allow second units :to be occupied by the physically handicapped as
well as people over 60 years of age; 3) allow existing second units
greater latitude to vary from the restrictions and standards under
Section 16/~4 of the Ordinance (second r~ding) (GF 344.1)
Councilmember Callon inquired as to',interest in considering variance procedures for
new units in the R-l-10,000. After 'discussion, there was no consensus to do so at
· present. Councilmember'Callon then pointed out that current ordinances allowed
,, people to share their homes or buizld guest houses as long as a kitchen was not
added. There was consensus to place the item on the action referral log for
consideration at a meeting in two months.
CALLON/HLAVA MOVED 'ID READ ORDINANCE NS 3.72 BY TIIZ ONLY, WAIVING FURTHER READING.
Passed 5-0.
CALLON/HLAVA MOVED 3]D ADOPT THE ORDI,NANCE AS READ BY TITLE. Passed ~-0.
6. Resolution Confirming Appointment of City Manager and Naming City
l~er as City Tre~-~urer
RESOIIFFIClt 2272
7. Award of Contract for Landscaped Medians
8. Appro~d of Warrant Lis~
Staff members answered CouncilmemberS' questions on the Warrant List.
HLAVA/FANEI.LI MOVED APPROVAL OF THE WARRANT LIST. Passed 5-0.
IV. SCIt~IXn.FB MATI~iRS
1. City Investment Policy]
City Manager and City Attorney answered Councilmembers! questions on the investment
_ -~, policy. ] ..
HLAVA/FANELLI MOVED TO APPROVE INVESTMENT POLICY AND DIRECT STAFF TO FORWARD IT TO
GRAND JURY. Passed 5-0. I
1. Oral Reports fran Cr~m{ssioners - None.
C. C!{DINANCES ~ RESOLIJTIClqS ~- None.
D. BID~ ~ CONII~ACTS
1. Award of Contfract for Consultant for City Telec ....... mications Systen
City Manager explained the staff rec6mmendation, noting that Mr. Nugent was willing
to accept payment in three equal increments, with the last payment to be made 90
days after installat:ion.
3-9/18/85
FANEt.T.I/HLAVA MOVED TO APPROVE THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO AWARD THE CONTRACT TO
ROBERT NUGENT. Passed 5-0.
2. Approval of School Crossing G~ard Contracts
Community Services Director reviewed staff report, explaining that Sacred Heart
School was providing its own crossing guard services. Councilmember Callon
disagreed with the position in the original staff report that the City could not
legally provide funding for such services to that school because that would
constitute public funding of a religous agency. City Manager replied that staff had
changed the report because the staff was not now taking that position.
Since the hour of 8:00 p.m..had not yet arrived, Mayor Clevenger proceeded to items,
following public hearings on the agenda.
VI. NI~ BUSINESS
A. Discussion of Oral ~'-,,-~nications, if ~ny - None.
B. W~itte~ O,,,,,~mications fr~n the Public
#1 fromE. and F. Steinberg concerning tre~ removal - City Manager reported that
he had responded to Mr. Steinberg's concerns; CoLmcilmember Callon requested that
Councilmembers be given copies of the reply.
C. New Business from Staff, AdminiStrative Reportsnet Scheduled - None.
D. NewBusiness from Co~mcilr~om~ers'
Callon -'remarked on the repeated unsatisfactory performance of the microphone
system and asked that it be improved.
Fanelli - brought up subject of Route 85 alternatives report, pointing out that
facilities such as parking lots were needed if light rail were included, and their
impacts were not known. Mayor Clevenger noted that such facilities would also be
needed if bus transit were included. After further discussion of needed information
and timetables, there was consensus to have the' Route 85 consultant present at the
October 2 public hearing and the October 16 regular meeting; after the public
hearing, staff and consultant would prepare questions to be responded to be
CalTrans; the Council would consider those concerns, along with any of their own, at
the October 16 meeting. Councilmembers discussed having another community
newsletter prepared soon with information about Route 85. Staff was directed to
inform the Council of the timeline for Saratoga's input.
The hour of 8:00 having been reached, Mayor Clevenger returned to public hearings on
the agenda.
V. PI~BLICHEARINGS
There was consensus to consider the first two public hearings together.
A. Appeal of Negative Declaration, Building Site and Design Review Approvals
by Planning Commission, 19288 Bainter Ave. (Appellant, S. Shankle;
applicant, G. Hwang) (SDR 1605, A-1102)
B. ConsiderationofHw~ngAnnexation (Bainter 1985-1)
Community Development Director pointed out. locations of various features on the maps
and answered Councilmembers' questions. The public hearing was opened at 8:25 p.m.
Suzanne Shankle spoke as the appellant, saying that she represented a number of
neighbors. She presented a summary of their objections to the proposal and
documents concerning County policies, including a prohibition of urban development
on watershed lands generally above 15% slope.
Wanda Alexander, 15879 Ravine Rd., objected to the project on the grounds that the
Negative Declaration did not reflect the environmental hazards; the project would
exceed Saratoga's standards for grading on hillsides; the size and bulk of the house
were excessive; the annexation is not appropriate because it was simply an
accommodation for the developer; some historical buildings would be taken down.
4-9/18/85
In answer to Councilmember 11o~
Ca n, Community Development Direct6~'explained. the
County standards, including prohibition of building on slopes .pver 30%, but noted
that the prohibition did not apply rio lots of record.
William Young then spoke as a desig~ engineer representing the applicant. He stated
that the only reason they applied]for annexation was that the County would not
process their project until they had done so. He stated that they had met all
requirements of staff and planned to]plant a great deal of landscaRing; he presented
photographs of another project which, they had landscaped extensively and a model of
the current project. He also said!that Ms. Shankle's house was~higher than the
proposed house, and the project would not interfere with her view!or anyonE! else's.
~ :
Councilmembers asked about the proposed road, which would not be counted as
impervious coverage because of its!construction (unless the Planning Commission
changed the definition of impervious coverage, which they were considering);
location of neighbors' homes; landslide danger; details of the plan; easements;
setbacks; and building on the slope. Mr. Young replied that the proposal did not
make use of the existing road because it did not lead to the building as sited. He
explained the proposed Setbacks add stated that the easement was a previously-
existing easement for the old road. Bill Heiss, speaking as another engineer for
the project, stated that the average slope of the site was 27%, and that the
geol6gist had pronounced the site satisfactory for building.
John Stannard, 19280 Bainter Avenue~ Los Gatos, stated he had not been notified of
the project, although he had owned his nearby property since May. Community
Development Director replied that, in accordance with law, homoowners of record as
of the latest Assessor's Parcel LiSt in March were notified of the project. Mr.
Stannard then stated his concern that an easement appeared to pass through one of
his buildings. Con~nunity Developmedt Director stated he believed that the building
had been allowed to remain in the development previously approved on the condition
that a kitchen be removed so that the building could not be used as a second unit.
Mr. Stannard requested a delay to!resolve his concerns because he had not been
notified of the project.
Bob Lorinson oppose] the project, saying that the roof would appear very high from
his adjacent property.
Diane Jefferson, 15895 Redberry, opposed the project, saying that she feared grading
would endanger her house and proper~y.
Joyce Consoli, 19370 Redberry, opposed the project and the annexation, stating that
she had not been notified of the proposal and was concerned about the effect of the
very large house on the rural character of the area.
Mel Wright, 19400 ~dberry,'stated that the neighbors wish the property to remain as
it is. He was concerned about po%ssible use of one building as a second unit,
arrangements for an easement, and the drainage from ~he project. Community
Development Director responded that the drainage must be dealt with to the
satisfaction of City staff.
Bill Robson, Ravine Road, objected to the project because of grading, bulk and size
of the building, slope of the site, ~nd inappropriateness of the annexation.
Bruce Sogg, 19506 Redberry, opposed] the'project because he believed it could cause
landslide problems.
Georgia Nelson, 15821 Hidden Hill Rd., stated that she did not object to the
proposal and felt the owners were e~titled to build on the site. She believed the
project would be an improvement.
Fran Lorinson, 194~0 Redberry, objected to the proposal because it would block out
sun from her property. She felt tha~ the house should be built on a flatter portion
of the site.
Chuck Shankle, 16303 Ravine Road, e~ iressed concern that his house Would be affected
by any landslide caused by the project. He feared that the City would make
exceptions to allow unsafe building, and he believed that the proposed project would
be too visible.
William Young rose again to state that the proposal was technically satisfactory,
and the owner had a right to build~on the lot. He said he had letters of support
5-9/18/85
from Mr. Hoag and Mr. Durkees, both residents of Bainter Dr.
No one further appearing to speak, the public hearing was closed at 10:04 p.m.
The majority of the Council felt the annexation was not inappropriate because it
would not start a chain of new development, being surrounded already by developed
land. Councilmember Fanelli stated that it has been the policy of the City to annex
land on City limits to retain control of development for the protection of beth the
City and the neighbors. Councilmember Moyles and Mayor Clevenger felt the
annexation should not be approved because there was no reason to annex, since there
was no further development which could be controlled by Saratoga. Mayor Clevenger
felt that if anything were to be annexed, the Council should study the matter and
consider annexing the whole area rather than one small part. ,
CALLON/FANELLI MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2273 ORDERING THE ANNEXATION. Passed 3-2
(Clevenger, Moyles opposed).
As to the appeal, Councilmembers agreed that the project was intrusive and
incompatible with the neighborhood because of its size and bulk; that the watershed
issue was a possible factor against the house; tbe proposed house was not well
situated; the City had not followed its own HCRD ordinance prohibiting building on a
30% slope. Councilmember Fanelli added that the City must provide for use of tbe
site at some time; she believed the easement should remain but more trees should be
provided with less grading so that tbe site would be intact. Councilmembers
discussed procedures by which the applicant could return with another plan without
the necessity for paying further application fees.
FANELI.I/CALLON MOVED TO REVI!RSE THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVALS OF SDR 1605 AND A-
1102 AND GRANT THE APPEAL, DIRECTING THE APPLICANT TO RETURN TO THE PLANNING
COMMISSION WITH A NEW APPLICATION, BUT WITH THE APPLICATION FEES WAIVED FOR A PERIOD
OF 6 MONTHS. Passed 5-0.
There was consensus that the applicant would be required to pay out-of-pocket costs
sucb as noticing fees in connection with the application.
Mayor Clevenger then recessed the meeting from 10:29 to 10:40 p.m.
C. Reversion to Acreage of three ~ots, SDR 1596, C&W Associates (J. Chu),
(~itoRd. and MontpereWay)
The public hearing was opened at 10:43 p.m. Mr. Chu requested Council's approval of
the reversion. No one further appearing to speak, the public hearing was closed at
10:44 p.m.
HLAVA/FANELLI MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2274 APPROVING REVERSION TO ACREAGE.
Passed 5-0.
D. Reversion to Acreage of 2 approved lots into l parcel, FarrRanchRd.,
ParkerRanchRd., and VistaArroyoCt., B. geynold
The public hearing was opened at 10:44 p.m. Mr. Reynolds requested Council's
approval of the reversion. No one further appearing to speak, the public hearing
was closed at 10:45 p.m.
H/_AVA/MOYLES MOVED TO ADOPTRESOLUTION 2275 APPROVING ~IONTOACREAGE. Passed
Mayor Clevenger then proceeded to unfinished items remaining on the agenda.
D. New Bus/hess from Councilmembers (c~ntinued)
Fanelli - requested revised list of Council committees; Hlava requested calendar of
agenda items for rest of year.
bJvyles - reported on Traffic Authority.
- inquired as to Masek issue; City Attorney reported that working drawings
had been filed.
- brought up next issue of community newsletter; various Councilmembers
suggested including graphs on Route 85; a tear sheet to be returned by
the public; having an article on the Paul Masson property.
.6-9/-18/85
Councilmem~r Fanelli and Maor Clevenger volunteered_to'revieW the draft.
of the next newsletter.
Hlava - reported on 'Transportation Cdnnission.
Clevenger - brought up a reception for the new City Manager. There was consensus to
hold the reception October 11.
Moyles - reported on the Hakone Founaation and noted that the third trustee !was to
be chosen by January 1986. There was consensus to have a reception in
connection with the Hakone Foundation on October 27.
E. Action Referral Log
Second Unit Ordinance to be considered in two months.
Microphone systemadded to!log.
The meeting was adjourned at 11:34 p~m. to a closed session on personnel.
Respectfully submitted,
Grace E. Cory
Deputy City Clerk