Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-18-1985 City Council Minutes MI]K1TES SARATOC~ CIT~ C(JJNCIL TIME: Wednesday, December 18, 1985 - 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue TYPE: Regular Meeting A. ROLL CALl. - Councilmembers Callon, Fanelli, Hlava, and btayor Clevenger present at 7:05 p.m.; Councilmember Moyles present at 7:11 p.m. B. MINUTES - 12/4 FANELLI/HLAVA MOVED TO APPROVE AS SUBMITTED. Passed 3-0-1 (Callon abstaining because she had not been present at the meeting). II. ~P, AL CO~CATI{I~ Col. E.T. Barco, Camino Barco, reviewed the Council's previous policy on audience applause and suggested that the Council request the audience to use decorum and good manners rather than making rules on the subject. Shelley Williams, Brook~idge Dr., submitted documents concerning the Draft Envirornnental Impact Statement on Route 85. City Manager introduced the new Finance Director, Patricia Shriver. III. CONSENT C~IJ~DAR A. Final Map Approval, SBR 1578, W. Lisac, Ctm~r Dr. (1 lot) B. Final Map Approval, SDR 1598, N. Cole/Flick Construction, Qulto Rd. (2 lots) C. Resolution C~-,~ding Louise Schaefer for Pl~dng C~,,,,ission Service R~SOIIIrlON 2292 D. Resolution llpholding Plaming Coblesion Decision on Haydon Appeal heard 12/4 (See discussion bel~.) E. Construction Acceptance and Release of Cash Bond for SDR 1571, Richard James III, Saratoga-Los gatos Rd. (2 lots) F. Approval of l~arront List Mayor Clevenger removed Items C and D from the Consent Calendar; Councilmember Hlava removed Item F. Staff answered Councilmember Hlava's questions on the Warrant List. Mayor Clevenger commended Louise Schaefer as Planning Commissioner and requested that her service on the Parks and Recreation Commission be recognized in the resolution as-well. CLEVENGER/FA~RJ.I.I MOVED TO ADOPT iCONS~N~ CAItl~DAR I2~2~ C ~S i~{filqDED. Passed 4-0. '~ HIAVATCAhLO~ 'MOVfD TO ADOPT CONSSI~ Cg~IgR l'l~lS A, B~ ~ ~.. Passed 4-0. _..~ i HIAV'A/FA.,',mL'r,I MOVID TO gDOPT CONSt~f C3r.RN!DAR l'f~M P. Passed 4-0. ';' Mayor Clevenger suggested the reconsiderslion of ~he Haydon appeal which had been heard 12/4. Councilmember Fanelli felt it inappropriate to reconsider the item for several reasons and suggested that if the Council believed it be dealt with immediately it should be considered during discussions of the Zoning Ordinance later in the evening. There was consensus to do so, but to vote on reconsiderslion as well so that if resolution of the Haydon matter could not be attained it could be considered at the next meeting of the Council on January 7. Councilmember Moyles agreed with Councilmember Fanelli's reasoning but supported the reconsideration as a courtesy .......................... CI,m~z;~/ItIAVA leDVIm TO RFICOIqSIDE~R DENIAL OF I-IA¥IX)N APPF.~ ~ 12/4. Passed (Panelli opl~Dsed). (Clerk's note: Vote totals five because this is first vote th~a ~renin9 for which CounciLmember Moyles was present. ) 2-12/18/85 IV. SCHED[ff,~n MA~'I'~S A. .ADMINISTRATIVE t~EPORTS ~ 1. Report frcm Cc~lmanity Develo ]nent Director on Traffic on Elva Staff answered Councilmem~D~rs' questions about the proposed alternatives. The residents of the area were permitt6~ to speak. 'i John Poutre, Norman Mill6r, Elizabeth Cla~k,- Victor Ashworth, Eugene Miller, Joe F~rz, Tc~ Gibson, Brenda Denney, and Michael McChesney, all residents of Elva Avenue, s~oke the present traffic situELtion. Sc~e expressed support for the cul-de-sac option. One stated that Elva was a Heritage T~ne and shold be pereserved as a cul-de-sac; another Stop signs and speed bur~s; another said that, contrary to the staff report, there had been t~o accidents on Elva. Councilember .Moyles asked whether the church or neark~; residents who would be affected by greatly increased traffic if Elva were a cul-de-sac had keen asked their opinion on that option; Mr. Poutre said they had not. In answer to Councilember Fanelli, he said access out of Elva would 'be byFourth. St , and that removing parking on one or both sides of Elv~. had not been discussed. Councilrdembers discussed options, noting that Elva might be too long to be a cul-~e-sac, and making it a cul-de-sac might simply move the problems to another area. Councilmember Moyles requested that staff get input fr~n other nearby areas, and CouncilmemberFanelli specifically mentioned the hc~nes between Elva and upper Canyon View on Fourth St. Council~ member Clevenger felt the.. Council should erplore a cul-de-sac, since many residents supported it because it met their needs best. She believed that only one house on lower Canyon View Drive would be impacted hy it. CALLON/FAN~T.T,I MOV~D TO PLACE ONE STOP SIGN AT EACH END OF ELVA AS SHO~Iq IN OPTION 5 OF ~ ST~"F REI~I~, WI'I'H UNDULATIONS AND THE OTHER FEATURES OF OPTION 5, BUT WITH THE LAND- SCAPING NOT PERFORMED UNTIL'LATER, FOR A TRIAL PERIOD OF THREE M1NTHS A~'I'~R INSTALLATION, WITH INCREAqRD TRAFFIC CONTROL DURING THAT PERIOD. Passed 4-1 (Clevenger opposed). · Mayor Clevenger the proceeded to public h~aringson the agenda, since the hour of 8:00 p.m. had been reached. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Appeal of Planning Cu~ssion Denial of a Second Unit Use Permit at 20471 Willjams AVenue (Appellant/appliCant, F. McKenzie) ~SUP-13) (continued fr~n 12/4 when Council deadlocked 2-2)! The public hearing was opened at 8:12 p.m.] Kirk McKenzie spoke representing the appellant/ applicant, saying that he would answer any questions. Councilmember Callon reported that although she had been absent frcm the last meeting she had listened to the tape recordings of that meeting, and was familiar with the testimony. She was willing to waive the lot size and side yard setback requirements b~t was concerned about landscaping to address the privacy problem and about parking. ~. McKenzie said he would take action to solve beth concerns. Councilmember Callon felt that it would be' a hardship for Mrs. McKenzie to be foro_=d to move on to the property ~D satisfy the owenrship requirenent, but she noted that ~qe would take a stronger stand on meeting the ordinance requirements if the second unit in question had been a new one rather than one which had been inexistence for many years. She moved to grant the appeal under certain conditions, but the motion was tabled pending th_~ close of the public hearing. Mr. McKenzie reite~rated his concern about the age requirenent, feeling that it was discriminatory end sta,ting that the local newspaper would not accept rental advertisenents wi~2 such age restrictions. Councilm~mber Fanelli r~sponded. that the newspaper would indeed accept such advertisements if it were made clear that the require- n~_nt was a matter of Sta~_= or local law. No one further appearing to speak, the public hearing was closed at 8:19 p.m. Councilmember Callon explained that she di~ not wish to waive the age-or-handicapp~] merit because it 'was senior citizens who ha~ requested legalizing of second units in the first place. , C0Uncilmen~_=r Moyles agreed With her motiohI, in spite of his. reservations concerning the age requirement. He felt nQthing worthwhile would be gained by insisting upon that point in this ~tse. ~ 3-12/18/85 C~T.TnN/FAbr~.T.I MDVED TO REVERSE THE PLANN~qG CO~4ISSION DECISION DENYING SUP-13 AND GRANT THE APPEAL, WAIVING THE OMqER OCCUPANCY REQU~ FOR THE CURRENT OM~ER ONLY BbT NOT THE AGE R~QUIREMS~T, AND REQUIR~qG THE PROVISION OF REQUIRED PARKING AND LANDSCAPING TO MITIGATE PRIVACY IMPACTS. Passed 3-2 (Clevenger, Hlava opposed). B. Appeal of denial of Encroachment Permit ~o allow a 6 ' fence to be located in the City' s right-0f-way at 14700 Farwell Avenue (Appellant/applicant, S. Cohen) (EP-24) Councilmember Callon announced that she would abastain frcm the matter because of her employment with Mr. Cohen' s law firm. She took a seat in the audience and participated in no way in this iten. In answer to Councilmember Myles, Cc~munity Develotm~nt Director stated that he could recall no previous instance in which an encroachment permit had been requested when the encroachment had been in place for scme time. He said he believed the encroachment was for 8 feet. Coancilmenber Fanelli c~L~'L'ented that she recollected such an encroach- ment on Ravenwood Drive. The public hearing was opened at 8:27 p.m. Mr. Cohen stated that he would meet any reasonable request made by the Council and would abate the fence at a later time if requested to do so. In answer to Councilmember Fanelli, he stated that removing the wall or the tennis court at present would be too expensive. He added that he had believed the wall was on his property because he believed the previously-existing fence was on the property line. CounciLmember Fanelli suggested an indemnity agreement, but Mr. Cohen felt he should not be required to indemnify the City against any possible occurrence. He described the previous redwood fence as being about 6' tall with a door. No one further appearing to speak, the public .hearing was closed at 8:36 p.m. Councilmember Moyles doubted that the Council would be avoiding scme b~n by enforcing the law to its full extent in this case. Furthermore, he felt it would be wasteful to require Mr. Cohen to renove the part of the fence which had already been ocnpleted. He believed the best solution would be a fully-revocable pezmit which would run with the land. If rent wore chanrged for the City land, he felt it should benoninal, especially since Mr. Cohen was not expanding en the previous encroachment. City Attorney stated that rent had not been re~ired for encroachment permits in the past, but rent or a landscaping requirement would not be inappropriate. Concerning the landscaping, Ca~mmity Development Director stated that the area was not in a deferred improvement agreement. Councilmember Fanelli suggested the possibility of granting the appeal with the conditions that the c~mer participate in a deferred improvement agreenent and that the tennis court and woll would be removed if the street were widened. Mr. Cohen asserted that he had already been taking care of the 40' easenent for the last 16 years and experttied significant s~ns of money on landscaping. He feared that a deferred improvement agreement would be a cloud on his property' s title and might hinder any sale of the property. He feared that the Council might place inappropriate conditions en his pezmit in order to make him an example. Councilmember Hlava noted that Mr. Cohen did not wish to remove the work which had already been done, but that it would be even more expensive to remove it if it were allc~ed to be cc~pleted. She feared that if the Council granted the appeal, and if the road later needed to be widened, a later owner of the property might ccme forth with the same objections Mr. Cohen had expressed. She cc~pared it to a land- scape easement on the Schrager/Young property, to which people had objected long after it had been set up. City Attorney explained different types of agre~nents and noted that an agreement which was a condition of an encroachment permit would be a legal obligation concerning which a later owner could not argue that he had no knowledge. City Manager felt the matter was administrative, and the agreenent would not be debatable. The main concern, he thought, was whether it was a good policy to let a private citizem have exclusive use of public property. Councilmember Foyles moved, and Councilmember Fanelli seconded, to grant a revocable encrcachmant pazmit with an indemnity agreement. When, after further discussion, it became apparent that the motion would fail 2-2, resulting in the denial of the appeal, he withdraw the motion. Mayor Clevenger felt the fence was too close to the road. Councilmember Hlava concurred and added that she wanted to prevent a situation where scmeone in the future could cc~e to the Council making the same kind of 'request as Mr. Cohen, saying that the 4-12/18/85 fence had always been there. Mr. Cohen stated his opinion that her assumption was erreneous. ' HIA,VA/CLE~GER MDVED TO b'E~ THE MA'I'I~ TO THE PLANNING COM~ISSION.. p~ssed 4.~0 !(Callon abstaining). Councilmember Foyles asked that the PLanning C~m.~ssion be given information a~3ut the encroachment permit in ter~s of any later titleholder to the property. Co~cilmember Hlava requested that they c~nsider mov',]~g the fence beck under-the encroachment permit. Counci~ Callon restned her seat With the other Councilmambers. Mayor: Clevenger' recessed the meeting fr~n 9:07 to 9:22 p.m. C~ Consideration of Any Objection~ to Proposed Weed Abatement The public hearing was opened at 9:23 p.m. Bill Clark, 19404 Shu~rt Drive, asked that his name be removed frcm the list of parcels to have weeds abated. He stated that he would take care of any overgrown weeds and that the notice to abate frown the County was unclear. John Wimer, County Fire Marshal, explained the County procedures, noting that Clark had been notifi~] that he could abate the weeds before a certain date if he wished. Mr. Clark sin~)ly needed to return a pestcard to the County indicating that he would do so, he said. In answer to Councilmember Callon, he-stated that whe~ an undeveloped parcel tk~s been placed on the weed abatement list it remains the2re indefinitely unless it is developed. No ene further appearing to speak, the public hearing was closed at 9:37 p.m. Councilmember Callon felt it was unfair' for a person to rePain on the weed abat~nent list indefinitely. She believed it was' costly for the County, end she .felt that a person should remain on no longer than, perhaps, two years. CALLON/FAN~L~,I MDV~D TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2293 ORDER/lqG W~:~:~ ABA~ ON CERTAIN PARcT~Lq, WITH PARCEL #497-28-043 ~RIONGING TO BILL CLARK REMOVED F~OM TH LIST. ' Passed 5-0. D. ~eview of New City Code Letter receiv6~: Richard B. Oliver, dated 12/18/85. City Attorney explained revisions whieh~Planning C~'l~ssion had suggested to relax the severity of the findings required for a building over 26' but under 30'. He answered Councilmembers' questions eeneern]~g various provision. Councilmember Hlava requested that ~"Heritaqe Ca~u~ssion" be! changed to "Heritage Preservation Cul~H ssion." - Councilmenber Panell~ brought up the qu.e. stion of sound walls a~'~el~ted to ~he Haydon appeal. She suggested changing the Zoning Ordinance by adding a provision allowing six-feet fences at the right-of-way on arterials except ~S cenic Highways (except within 50' of an intersection, where the~y could not exceed 3'), with an increase in height allowed according to setback, ]to a maxim~n of ten feet. Councilmebmer Moyles felt the Council needed to look for balance and was not convinced that there was a crisis. in noise which ~eeded to be addressed. Councilmember Fanelli agreed and stated that her intention wa~ to prevent the proliferatien of high fences. City Attorney answered further questions on the proposed ordinance. The public hearing was opened at 10:19 p.m.; no one appea~ing to speak, it was closed at 10:20 p.m. Discussion then followed on the finding~ required for buildings over 26' but less than 30' in height. Councilmember Callon noted that such buildings would go through design review anyway, so such a procedure should not be necessary. Councilmember Fanelli felt that the Council too often ~attemlpted to solve design review problems by dealing with numbers, which she felt ~to be inappropriate. Councilmenber Moyles believed the Planning Cc~l~l~ssion change would not improve the situation. Councilmember Callon was concerned that there might be architectural features to which the findings would apply in an inappropriate manner, and she felt hc~s should be looked at indi- vidually. She did not 'wish to add another set of findings. 'HIAVA/CLEV~GER MOVED TD APPROVE THE PLANNING CO~4ISSION CHANGE REQUIRING FINDINGS TO APPROVE A BUILDING OVER 26' IN HEIGHT W1TH THE EXCEPTION OF FINDING #2, WHICH WOULD RE Dk~,~l'EU FROM THE REQUIRED FINDINGS. Failed 2-3 (Callon, Fanelli, Moyles opposed). 5-12/18/85 CALLON/FAN~V.I.I MOVED TO AMRND THE PRDPOSED ORDINANCE TO INCLUDE LANGLrAGE ON NOISE AND SPECIFIC ARI'ZFJALS AND ALLOW FENCES OVER 6' ON THOSE AkI'~EIALS WITH KESIGq REV//~W AND REVj~W OF A LANDSCAPE PLAN. Passed 5-0. Staff was directed to provide the exact wording of the ordinance at the second reading. HLAVA/FAENLLI MOVED TO APPROVE THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION. Passed' 5-0. HLAVA/FANF~.I,I MOVED TO EDUCE THE ORDINANCE EDIFYING THE MUNICIPAL CODE BY TITLE ONLY, WAIVING FURTHER READING, WITH THE DRI,F. TION OF THE SPECIAL FINDINGS REQUIRED FOR BUILnINGS OVER 26' BUT UNDER 30'. Passed 5-0. Mayor Clevenger returned to unfinished items on the agonda preceding public hearings. 2. Report frcm City Manager on Liability Insurance Program under New Coverage Arrangements City Manager explained proposed contract, correcting aminor wording error in the text. In answer to Councilmenk~r Fanelli, he stated that he would attempt' to obtain further coverage after the three-month coverage expired; it would probably be similar to the proposed contract, he said, except that claims administration cost would be a cost to the City. He also stated that if we are able to join a self-insurance pool we will probably not receive a rebate frcn George Hills. FANELLI/HLAVA MOVRD TO AUTHORIZE EXECUTION OF CObYrRACT AS CORREC'i'EU WITH GEORGE HILLS COMPANY FOR ANNUAL CLAIMS ADMINISTRATION AND TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2241.11 APPROPRIATING THE NECESSARY FUNDS. Passed 5-0. 3. Report .fram Cummhnity Services Director on Support for Bottle Bill Tcm Padia, San Jose, was permitted to speak on behalf of Californians against Waste in support of the Bottle Bill. Councilmembem Callon asked how the iten appeared on the agenda, since usually.. such requests would appear on Written Cum,unications, and the Council would determ/ne whether further action such as a staff report were required. Cfalu,onity Services Director replied that staff had been approached directly by the organization. Mayor Clevenger and Councilmember Fanelli.also exqpressed surprise that the item was on the agenda. CLEV~NGER/HLAVA MOVHD TO SUPPORT AB 2020 WITH THE RESTORATION TO THE BILL OF ITEMS WHICH HAD BE~N Dk~,~:rEU WHEN THE BILL WAS AMENDED. Passed 5-0. 4. Report fram Oa¥~,anity Services Director on Refinements to Blaney Plaza Banner Policy FANRLLI/CLEVENGER MOVED TO ADOPT REFINED POLICY AS RECOMM~NE~D. Passed 5-0. 5. Report frem Cu~u,unity Development Director On Bike Lane at Fruitvale Avenue and Saratoga Avenue MOYLES/FANMrI,I MOVED TO APPROVE COI~:wT OF SEPARRI'ED BICYCLE PATH AND APPROVE USE OF TDA FUNDS ON THIS PROJECT. Passed 5-0. 6. Report frcn Maintenance Director on Uses for SB 300 Funds CitycManaUer explained program, noting that City would have to spend an amount at least equal to 1984-85 expenditures to qualify. Later legislation, however, could change base year calculation, he said. Coencilmeber Fanelli noted that last year the Council had been told that the program was only for one year, so there was no cause for concern about base-year expenditures. FANRI./,I/MOYLES MOVED TO APPROVE RECOMMENDED USES. Passed 5-0. Councilmember Moyles stated that any monies fred by use of the SE 300 funds would remain in the pavement management program. B. .REPORTS FROM COMMISSIONS AND CO~41'I'I'~j~jS 1. Conmission Attendance Reports Mayor Clevenger agecd to consult with two Heritage Preservation Commissioners who appeared to have excessive absences. 2. Planning Cu~dssion Actions - 12/11/85 - Noted. 3. Oral Reports frcm C(xmlissioners - None. _ . I 6-12/18/85 " C. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS~ " 1. Ordinamce Amending the lZoning Ordinance to Regulate the Placenent of Satellite Dish Antennas (second reading) HLAVA/FAN~T.LI MDVEI) TO READ ORDINANCE NS3.73 BY, TITLE ONLY, WAIVING FURTHER READING. Passed 5-0. HIAVA/FANR/.T,I ~DVED TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NS 3.73 AS READ BY TITLE ONLY. Passed 5-0. D. BIDS AND CDNTRACTS , 1. Award of Contract for .~urchase of Chipper HLAVA/FANRT.T.I MDVED TO AWARD E TO SIERRA MDRANO ~RCANTILE CO. Z~ THE AMDUNT OF ~ 11,173.40. Passed 5-0. : 2. Cooperative Agre~nent With CalTrans for Construction of Traffic Control Signal System ~t Herriman Avenue and Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd. In answer to the City Manager, Oa~u~unity DeveloF~nent Director replied that CalTrans is not obligated to pay the City interest on its money. FANRT.T.I/HLAVA MDVED TO APPROVE AGREMENT. Passed 5-0. VI. NEW BUSINESS A. Discussion of Oral Cc~m~Lnicatiens - None. B. Written Culm~unications fran the Public - No discussion. Oalu~unicatiens received all pertained to Route 85: 1. Form letter stamped 12/11. 2. M. Music dated 12/5. 3. M. Elizabeth Benson dated 1~2/4. 4. S.- Osborn dated 12/8. 5. R. Froess .Sated 12/4. 6. K. Tucker ,~ated 12/11. 7. T. Walsh d~ted 12/2. 8. L. Stonebrook dated 12/6. 9. K. Barry d~ted 12/5. C. New Business fran Staff, Administrative Reports not Scheduled City Manager reported on recruitment for] Planning Director and Street SuFervisor. D. New Business from o zlmemberS C unc' '1 CounciLmember Callon irK]uired as to tree~ cut down when a barn on Cox was demoli:-~hed. CaTmunity Development Director replied that the trees were re~noved to prepare for hc~e construction. He did not know whether they were removed on the basis of map approval or special pez~pit. Counci~nember Calbnthe2~ reported that aI resident bad requested a yield sign ~for' cars on Douglass to yie]Ld to cars on Shadow Oaks. Councilmember Fanelli rs~/uested that duties of Cc~l~unity Services Officers be age~ndized. She felt they should concentrate on code i enforcement rather than on matters with which the Sheriff was cx)ncerned. Councilmember Moyles aggeed. When CouncilmentM;r Fanelli noted the number of political signs erected by a Mr. Skornia, Deputy City Clerk reported that he Imd been notified. that his signs woul~ be removed if not renoved by his staff after a certain date. Councilmember Hlava reE~rted on Transportation Cc~!nission activities. r tm Mayor Clevenger report~x~ on 'ecen eeti~gs of WeSt Val. ley Mayors and Managers and the Route 85 Policy Advisory Board. I E. Action Referral Log - No car,~ents. At 11:20, p.m. the meeting was .adjourned to January 7, 1986. R'espectfully suhnitted, Grace E. Cory Deputy City Clerk