Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-18-2001 City Council Minutes MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 18, 2001 The City Council of the City of Saratoga met in a scheduled Study Session on July 18, 2001 at the Adult Care Center, 19655 Allendale Avenue. Vice Mayor Streit called the_Adjourned City Council meeting to order at 4:05 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers Evan Baker, Ann Waltonsmith, Vice Mayor Nick Streit ABSENT: Councilmember Stan Bogosian, Mayor John Mehaffey ALSO Dave Anderson, City Manager PRESENT: Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk Tom Sullivan, Director of Community Development The following Planning Commissioners were present: PRESENT Cynthia Barry, Mike Garakani, Jill Hunter, Ema Jackman, Lisa Kurasch, George Roupe, Ruchi Zutshi ABSENT: None Mayor Mehaffey welcomed the Planning Commission. 1. HOUSING ELEMENT Tom Sullivan, Community Development Director, presented staff report. Director Sullivan explained that Jeff Goldman, Consultant/Parsons Harland Bartholomew & Associates Inc, would present the Administrative Draft of the Housing Element. Director Sullivan pointed out that Mr. Goldman would address the following topics: · Approval process that the Housing and Community Development Department will use to review the Housing Element. · State of California mandates and regulations. · Issues related to timing, the "numbers" and public participation. City Council Minutes July 18, 2001 Director Sullivan noted that the Administrative Draft of the Housing Element contain the methodology of how the City can meet the "Fair Share" assigned to it from Association of Bay Area Governments(ABAG). Jeff Goldman, ConsultanffParsons Harland Bartholomew & Associates Inc, summarized the purpose of a Housing Element and the issues he is attempting to address. Mr. Goldman explained that State Law requires that a housing element identify adequate sites that will be made available through appropriate zoning and development standards for a variety of housing types meet the community's housing goals. Where the inventory of sites does not identify adequate sites to accommodate the need for groups of all household income levels the City Housing Element must contain a program to show how the City will provide for sufficient sites with zoning that permits owner-occupied and rental multifamily residential use by right, including density and development standards that could accommodate and facilitate the feasibility of housing for very low and low-income households. Mr. Goldman explained that some communities with conditions similar to Saratoga have success~lly used residential-commercial mixed-use programs to show how adequate sites will be made available at suitable densities to meet low and moderate-income housing needs. Under a mixed-use strategy, residential projects are permitted in specified commercial zones, either independently or in conjunction with commercial development, at sufficiently high densities to meet the "adequate sites" provision of state law. Mr. Goldman explained that there are two approaches to a mixed-use strategy: 1) designate specific commercial zones or sites on which residential uses are permitted with appropriate development standards, and 2) designate a mixed-use or residential overlay zone, with separate development standards, that can be applied to commercial zones throughout the jurisdiction. Mr. Goldman explained that the Saratoga Housing Element is based on five strategic goals: 1) accommodating the City's fair share of the region's housing needs, 2) promoting the construction of housing affordable to low and moderate-income households, 3)assisting low-income property owners in improving substandard dwelling units, 4)preserving the current stock of affordable housing in the City, and 5) assuring non-discrimination in housing. Mr. Goldman explained that once the draft Housing Element has identified all of the City's needs it is sent to the Housing and Community Development Department for review. The HCDD will in turn issue an Advisory Opinion Letter whether the Element does or does not comply with state law. The HCDD has 60 days by law to respond. The final step is to adopt the Housing Element, send it back to the HCDD who will issue a final opinion. 2 Mr. Goldman briefly explained the five goals of the Housing Element and how the city would achieve each one. Goal 1 - To accommodate the City's fair share of the Bay Area Regional Housing Needs for all income groul~s. This goal can be achieved by designating sufficient vacant land and/or sites with re-use potential to accommodate the City's allocation under the Regional Housing Needs Determination (RHND) adopted by the Association of Bay Area Governments. The City can accommodate the total number of dwelling units allocated by ABAG under the RHND through a combination of vacant residential land, residential or mixed-use projects on vacant commercial land, addition of dwelling units over or behind existing commemial uses throughout commercial districts in Saratoga, approval of second units, and dwelling units constructed or approved by permit since January 1, 1999. To meet the needs of the very low-, low-, and moderate-income households, however, several zoning changes will needed to encourage the production of affordable housing. Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that she would not support allowing low income housing to be build in one particular area. Councilmember Baker pointed out that the original Measure G prohibits increasing the density on a particular piece of land. Mr. Goldman responded that according to state law allowing new secondary units is not a zoning change; furthermore state law may overrule Measure G. City Attorney Taylor commented that Measure G did not change any of the existing provisions in the City's General Plan, it just reaffirmed and readopted those provisions, so any place that secondary units were allowed under the General Plan they could continue to be allowed, there is nothing in the language in Measure G that would preclude the City fi:om implementing the General Plan in a manner that allowed there to be secondary units. Commissioner Roupe asked Mr. Goldman how he would define a secondary unit. Mr. Goldman responded that under state law it is defined as any separate habitable space that would meet the definition ora dwelling unit. A secondary unit typically has a cooking facility, a separate entrance, and physically separates from main residence. Commissioner Kurasch questioned how the City would make sure that these secondary units are used as rentals. Mr. Goldman noted that the City would have to set up a monitoring system. Muriel Mahrer, 13577 Myren Drive, questioned if existing illegal secondary units would be made legal. Mr. Goldman responded that there is nothing to prevent an illegal unit obtaining a permit to legalize the unit. Director Sullivan added that at a Council retreat in May 2001, there were discussions regarding an amnesty program for secondary units. There would be minimal inspections; just to make sure the unit is safe to live. The property owner would then agree to maintain the unit as a low-income rental. Vic Monia, 14665 Granite Way, expressed concern that if secondary units are legalized would it affect the homeowners tax base, would their property value go up increasing their property tax. Mr. Goldman responded that the County Assessors Office would have to determine if a reassessment is needed. Commissioner Zutshi asked if the of the property owner had to live on the property. Mr. Goldman responded that state law and the City's ordnance on secondary units states that one of the units has to be owner occupied. Meg Caldwell, Saratoga Resident, noted that she supports an amnesty program but must be careful on how the City frames the program. Property owners will be hesitant to come forward for permits if their units are labeled illegal. Betty Feldhym, 20841 Franklin Avenue, suggested the City of Saratoga contact the Town of Los Gatos because a few years ago they had a successful amnesty program. Ms. Caldwell asked if residential overlay was considered in other zoning districts such as institutional and quasi public property, for example Civic Center, West Valley College, Churches etc., perhaps these places could be used as employee living. Mr. Goldman responded that in theory you could apply this concept to those types of properties but it would be up to the Council to consider that option. Mr. Goldman continued to explain Goal 2. Goal 2 - Encourage the construction of housing and affordable to lower and moderate-income households and increase affordable housing options. This goal can be achieved by increasing the supply if affordable housing and housing options in Saratoga to house additional households and families earning less than 120% of the Santa Clara County median income. The City will amend the Zoning Code to implement state law requirements at least 25 percent density bonus for any residential project in which at least 10 percent of the units are affordable to very low-income household or 20 percent of the units are affordable to low-income households or 50 percent of the units are designed for seniors. Commissioner Kurasch suggested an additional incentive, to offer inclusionary zoning. Commissioner Kurasch explained the City could require a minimum percent of low and moderate-income housing in all new housing developments or subdivisions or require a percent fee in lieu of building affordable units. This in turn would not require a density percent increase on projects and would allow flexibility in building a fund or making sure there are definitive number of low income units for the furore. Mr. Goldman responded that many communities have adopted inclusinary-zoning ordinances, which goes hand in hand with density bonuses and other incentives programs. In addition, Director Sullivan explained that with the completion of the Odd Fellows expansion project the City will be able negotiate with the owners in order to count a small number of units within Phase I and in Phase II all of the single unit apartments will be counted towards meeting the numbers of the Regional Housing Needs Determination. Vice Mayor Streit asked if whether or not the ten artist studios at Villa Montalvo would count towards the City's RHND number. Director Sullivan responded that there are ten artist units and a caretaker's cottage; all eleven should qualify towards the RHND. Mr. Goldman continued to explain Goal 3. Goal 3 - Assist lower-income homeowners in maintaining their homes. This goal can be achieved by eliminating substandard housing conditions in Saratoga through financial assistance to low-income homeowners who are unable to properly maintain or repair their homes. The City will also continue to provide housing rehabilitation assistance to homeowners earning 80 percent or less than the Santa Clara County median income through the Saratoga Housing Assistance and Rehabilitation Program (SHARP). Councilmember Waltonsmith asked if within this program could the City provide financial support to nonprofit groups who provide affordable housing. Mr. Goldman responded yes. For example, Director Sullivan noted that Council would be considering making a contribution to the Housing Trust Fund later this evening. Mr. Goldman continued to explain Goal 4. Goal 4 - Preserve existing affordable rental housing. This goal can be achieved by: a) monitoring compliance with state and federal tenant and public notice requirements prior to any change in funding or ownership status, b) provide financial assistance for property maintenance and improvements, or provide assistance in obtaining state and/or federal funding for property maintenance and improvements, c) identify one or more non-profit entities interested in the right of refusal should one or more of the properties become available for sale. Provide financial assistance, or assist the non-profit in obtaining state or federal funds for acquisition and preservation as affordable rental housing, d) require that any financial assistance is tied to a minimum 30-year affordability covenant binding on all current and future property owners during the effective time period. Cynthia Berry, Chair/Planning Commission, noted that recently an application came before the Commission where there were two structures on the property, both were rental units and the applicant wanted to make it into a single-family house. Chair Berry asked in such conversions, should the City require a property owner keep a secondary trait on the property. Mr. Goldman responded that the primary intent of this program was to preserve existing rental development that were subsidized by state and federal funds in order to keep them affordable. Goal 5 - Promote equal housing opportunity for all Saratoga residents. The City encouraging fair housing practices by cooperating with non-profit housing and citizen organizations can achieve this goal. The City will designate a Fair Housing Coordinator to monitor and coordinate fair housing activities in the City. The City will also amend the Zoning Code to designate appropriate zones for the location of homeless and transitional housing facilities. John Mallory, Saratoga resident, asked if at the end of five years will the City have another requirement fi.om the state to comply with. Mr. Goldman responded that Housing Elements have to be updated every five years. Marge Bunyard, President/ League of Women Voters, thanked the Council and Mr. Goldman for their efforts to designate affordable housing. Vice Mayor Streit thanked Mr. Goldman for his presentation. ADJOURNMENT TO CLOSED SESSION AT 6:00 P.M IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE CONFERENCE ROOM, 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE. The City Council of the City of Saratoga met in Closed Session, Administrative Conference Room, 13777 Fmitvale Avenue at 6:00 p.m. Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(b): (2 potential cases.) MAYOR'S REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION - 7:05 p.m. Vice Mayor Streit reported there was Council discussion but no reportable action was taken. Vice Mayor Streit called the Regular City Council meeting to order at 7:06 p.m. and requested Lorie Tinfow, Assistant City Manager, to lead the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL PRESENT: ABSENT: Councilmembers Evan Baker, Ann Waltonsmith, Vice Mayor Nick Streit Councilmember Stan Bogosian, Mayor John Mehaffey ALSO PRESENT: REPORT OF CITY CLERK Dave Anderson, City Manager Richard Taylor, City Attorney Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk Lorie Tinfow, Assistant City Manager John Cherbone, Director of Public Works Paula Reeve, Administrative Analyst Cary Bloomquist, Administrative Analyst Ray Galindo, Accounting Supervisor ON POSTING OF AGENDA FOR JULY 18, 2001. Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk, reported that pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2, the agenda for the meeting of July 18, 2001 was properly posted on July 13, 2001. Vice Mayor Streit announced that with the consensus of the City Council he would like to add an emergency item to tonight's agenda. Vice Mayor Streit reported that Don Whetstone recently sent the City Council a letter suggesting that the City consider a Saratoga Safety Plaza Center, which would consist of the Sheriff's Department, Saratoga Fire District, and a park. WALTONSMITH/BAKER MOVED TO ADD AN AGENDA ITEM IN ORDER TO DISCUSS A CITY PUBLIC SAFETY CENTER. MOTION PASSED 3-0-2 WITH BOGOSIAN AND MEHAFFEY ABSENT. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS & PUBLIC None COMMUNICATIONS FROM BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS The following person spoke at tonight's meeting: Ed Farrell, 20877 Kittridge Road, commended City Manager Anderson for his efforts in the recent approval of the Saratoga Fire District Boundary Drop agreement. Mr. Farrell explained the Saratoga Fire Districts second alarm fire response and pointed out the inadequacies. Mr. Fan'ell noted that he has heard that the City Council has been lobbied about a Saratoga Safety Plaza Center. Mr. Farrell noted he fully supports the concept and suggested the Council put an advisory measure on the ballot to see if all residents of Saratoga agree on such a center. COUNCIL DIRECTION TO STAFF None Vice Mayor Streit noted that it was not the appropriate time to begin the public hearing. Vice Mayor Streit requested that the Council move to Item 8. 7 Consensus of the City Council to move to Item 8. OLD BUSINESS 8. PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report and authorize execution of contract. Jon Cherbone, Public Works Director, presented staff report. Director Cherbone noted that the report the City Council received consist of two parts. First, are the result of the pavement survey conducted by the City's consulting contractor, Harris & Associates and the second is the Cooperative Agreement with the City of Cupertino. Director Cherbone explained that the survey result provides information on the City's current pavement network inventory; current network conditions, maintenance recommendations, and budget scenarios. Director Cherbone reported that the current overall condition of the City's streets are rated "Very Good" corresponding to an average Pavement Condition Index of 70 out of 100-point scale. Director Cherbone explained that the agreement with the City of Cupertino is for Prospect Road Paving from Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road to Union pacific Railroad crossing. The estimate fro this work is $125,150.00. The City of Cupertino is in the process of bidding this work, and the work should begin in August 2001. Director Cherbone noted that Mark Martin/Harris & Associates was here tonight to give the Council a brief summary of the survey and a ten year budget and conditions scenarios on the City's street system. Mark Martin/Harris & Associates, briefly explained the reason behind a pavement management program and what pavement management is. · Pavement Inventory · Surface Inspections · Condition Calculation/Score · Treatment Decision Tree · Needs Analysis · Budget Scenario Analysis · Historical Treatments Mr. Martin explained the composition of the City's street mileage as follows: · Network 135 ,, Arterial 19 8 · Collector - 23 · Residential - 93 Mr. Martin reported that 86% of the City's streets are in "very good" or "good" range. Mr. Martin reviewed the budget needs for the City at $26 million 10-year need, which is about $2.6 million per year. Mr. Martin explained that if this budget need were followed it would address backlog and average condition to 86 PCI. Vice Mayor Streit thanked Mr. Martin for coming tonight. BAKER/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO ACCEPT CITYWIDE PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT AND AUTHORIZE EXECUTION OF COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF CUPERTINO. MOTION PASSED 3-0-2 WITH BOGOSIAN AND MEHAFFEY ABSENT. PUBLIC HEARINGS APPROVE RESOLUTION OF CONFIRMATION OF REPORT AND ASSESSMENT OF WEEDS AND BRUSH ABATEMENT STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Open public hearing; close public hearing; adopt resolution. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 01-047 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA CONFIRMING REPORT AND ASSESSMENT OF WEED AND BRUSH ABATEMENT CHARGES Marty Hicks, County Fire Marshall's Office, presented staffreport. Mr. Hicks explained that 36 properties in Saratoga were issued weed abatement notices in November 2000. Mr. Hicks noted that twelve property owners requested that the County provide abatement. The total cost for the County to abate these parcel this year totaled $29,555.27. Mr. Hicks explained that in order for the County to recover this cost, it is necessary for the City to adopt a resolution confirming the assessments and directing the County Auditor to enter and collect the assessments on the property tax bill. Vice Mayor Streit opened the public hearing at 7:34 p.m. Vice Mayor Streit closed the public hearing at 7:34 p.m. 9 BAKER/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION CONFIRMING REPORT AND ASSESSMENT OF WEED AND BRUSH ABATEMENT CHARGES MOTION PASSED 3-0-2 WITH BOGOSIAN AND MEHAFFEY ABSENT. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF LL-00-005 (517-23- 021ANDS17-22-111)-15480 PEACH HILL ROAD; APPLICANT: HUSAIN/KHAN APPELLANT: HUSAIN/KHAN/GIBERSON STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's decision. Richard Taylor, City Attorney, announced that he must recused himself from this public hearing due to a conflict of interest. Tom Sullivan, Community Development Director, presented staffreport. Director Sullivan explained that the Planning Commission granted a Negative Declaration for the lot Line Adjustment on a 6-0 vote and denied the Lot Line Adjustment on a tie vote of 3 to 3. The City code requires that in the case of split vote the matter shall be agendized and voted upon at the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission at which a quorum is present, unless, within ten days after the date on which the split vote is taken, the applicant files an appeal to the City Council, in which event, the split vote shall be deemed a final denial by the Planning Commission of the motion. Director Sullivan explained that the Applicant has appealed the denial of the Lot Line Adjustment. In a separate action, neighbors, Alan and Meg Giberson appealed the Planning Commission action, which granted the Negative Declaration. Director Sullivan noted that staff recommends conducting the public hearing and grant the appeal which will overturn the Planning Commission action denying the Lot Line Adjustment and deny the appeal of the Planning Commission action granting the Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact. Director Sullivan explained that at the May 9, 2001 Planning Commission meeting the Applicant requested a Lot Line Adjustment to allow an existing lot line to move approximately 295 feet northerly between two existing parcels with a slope greater that 20%. An existing dwelling located at 15480 peach Hill Road straddles the lot line. The purpose of the lot line adjustment is to place existing dwelling on a single parcel. As long as the existing dwelling is located on both parcels, no additional dwellings can be approved for construction. The lot line adjustment will result in the capability of allowing one additional dwelling to be constructed. The numbers of parcels remain the same. The allowable density under the General Plan remains the same. Director Sullivan noted that the Giberson's are appealing the decision of the Negative Declaration because of their concern about any access from Willow 3_0 Creek Canyon. They indicated that access should be from Peach Hill Road. Director Sullivan noted that as an alternative action the Council may deny the appeal of the Lot Line Adjustment denial and grant the appeal of the Negative Declaration. Jonathan Wittwer, City Attorney, explained that Lot Line Adjustments bring up many legal issues. Attorney Wittwer noted that provisions have been added to the Subdivision Act Map that take precedence over the City's ordinances. The City has to apply the state law, and if the state law does not address something, the City can apply some of it's own ordinance that cover lot line adjustments. City Attorney Wittwer briefly described the findings of the state law. Vice Mayor Streit opened the public heating at 7:58 p.m. Norm Matteoni, 1740 Technology Drive, San Jose, noted that he represents the property owners. Mr. Matteoni noted that the existing Parcel A is the smallest parcel (1.8 acres), has an average slope of 49%, and has a house that straddles the northerly property line. Parcel B is the larger parcel (5.7 acres) average slope of 29%. Mr. Matteoni explained that what is being proposed is moving the line northerly between the two parcels is that the southerly Parcel A would grow in size to 4.6 acres and it's slope would go on average to 29% from 49%. Parcel B comes down in size to 2.45 acres and the slope becomes an average of 30% instead of 29%. The engineers for the property encourage the owners to take advantage of the flattest portions of the overall properties. Mr. Matteoni addressed Mrs. Giberson's concerns regarding the creek habitat and the watershed area. He explained that the northerly portion of the proposed building site would be at a minimum of 150 feet away from the creek and the new building site on the southerly portion of the property would be 250-300 feet away from the creek. In regards to the Giberson's concerns regarding to the properties access, the property owners have agreed, as part of the conditions of the property, that there would be no access through Sunset Drive. Alan Giberson, 15561 Glen Una Drive, provided some background on the project before them tonight. Mr. Giberson noted that this piece of property has been undergoing changes for at least 30-40 years. Mr. Giberson noted that they were first involved with the property 15 years ago when sewer systems were installed, a few years after later a 12 inch water main was placed along Willow Creek, and then ten years ago a development was proposed. Mr. Giberson noted that they protested the development but the City approved it and guaranteed that they would make sure the creek would not be damaged and the project would be mitigated. Mr. Giberson referred to photos showing that the development was not mitigated and the creek and the surrounding vegetation were damaged. 3_3_ Meg Giberson, 15561 Glen Una Drive, explained the disrupted events they experienced when the Kennedy sewer line was installed at Willow Creek Canyon. Mrs. Giberson pointed out all of the destruction that has occurred at Willow Creek Canyon. Mrs. Giberson noted that according to Mr. Matteoni the primary part of the house is on Parcel A, from her research she believes the primary part of the house is actually on parcel B. In regards to her concerns of the access of the proposed project, Mrs. Giberson referred to a parcel map that was filed when the sewer was put in. Mrs. Giberson noted that this map was from 1985 when an agreement between Kennedy (applicants predecessor) and neighboring landowner Carey, recorded as a "Lot Line Adjustment Parcel Map, which implies an intent to use streets, Sunset Court and Sunset Avenue, for access to the canyon properties, use of which streets have not received any environmental analysis for this project. The map granted a 1.52- acre parcel of land, at the northern tip of the applicant's property, to neighbor Carey. This agreement between Kennedy and Carey memorialized a contract for improvements of access roads: Sunset Avenue and Sunset Court. These two streets do not exist on publicly available maps. Mrs. Giberson suggested that all of these past agreements be discussed and investigated. Mrs. Giberson noted that there are many problems with this project. This project is creating a nonconforming, substandard lot with no street frontage. In order to do that the applicant must apply for a variance, which they have not done. Mrs. Giberson noted that if the City Council would be violating the City code if the Lot Line Adjustment were approved. Darrell Dukes, 15329 Peach Hill Road, noted that he lives two lots north of the proposed project. Mr. Dukes stated that he has lived there for 35 years. Mr. Dukes commented that Peach Hill Road does not need another home, due to the fact that the road only has one lane. Mr. Duke suggested that if this property is developed the road should be widened. Mr. Duke presented a letter signed by six other property owners on Peach Hill Road, all opposing this project. Cynthia Barry, Chair/Planning Commission, noted that the Planning Commission was split, half of the Commission looked at this project as a lot split, which could have been done administratively. The Commission participated in the discussion of how two better lots could be made. The totality of that discussion was based on the premise that the Commission was talking about two buildable lots. The Applicant's architect explained to the Commission that they preceded by first locating where they would like the building envelopes and then figuring out the terrain and how they would get the lot split they were requesting. Chair Barry explained that the three Commissioners that were against the lot line adjustment essentially took the position that while there were two legal lots of record that is not equal to two buildable lots. By supporting this lot split moving from a situation that would increase the buildability of these two lots. 212 Chair Barry noted that the two new houses would have to meet the current Hillside Standard, which means two homes could not be built here. Chair Barry noted that in regards to the approval of the Negative Declaration, the Commission had to make a substantial amount of changes to the language Councilmember Baker asked what types of changes were made to the Negative Declaration. Chair Barry responded that the majority of the issues were that two buildings on this site are not feasible. Also, the geological report shows that there are no major faults within the boundary lines of this property, however there is a major fault 600 feet away from the property line and was not reflected in the Negative Declaration. Mr. Matteoni noted that there are a few issues that have not been addressed. In regards to Mrs. Giberson's concerns of access off of Sunset Drive - the City is not bound by any of the agreements that she referred to. Those agreements were made between the property's predecessors and neighbors. Mr. Matteoni noted that he has not seen any of those records that Mrs. Giberson mentioned. Mr. Matteoni noted that he does not deny that the past events on the property have had an impact on the Giberson's but history cannot be changed. In regards to the fault line on the property, Mr. Matteoni explained it is on southwest portion of the property and zero fault hazards were identified. Mr. Matteoni requested that the City Council deny the appeal and approve the Negative Declaration and grant the appeal and approve the Lot Line Adjustment. Mrs. Giberson noted that she thinks more time should be taken considering this project. The issues regarding the access of the property should be investigated. Mrs. Giberson questioned why the Applicant wants to create the second lot; if the City allows that lot to be created it would allow a future owner to build on it. Mr. Duke requested that the Council send the project to the Building Department. Vice Mayor closed the public heating at 8:37 p.m. Councilmember Baker noted that he agrees with Mrs. Giberson that the only reason why the Applicant wants the Lot Line Adjustment is to allow a second house to be built. Councilmember Baker noted that he completely objects to the lot adjustment because he does not want a future house to be built on a substandard lot in the hillside. Councilmember Baker noted that he disagrees with Mr. Duke; one more house would not be a catastrophe on Peach Hill Road, however, if the road is that unsafe than perhaps everyone on Peach Hill Road should consider having the road widened. Councilmember Baker stated that he would vote no on the Lot Line Adjustment and vote against the Negative Declaration on the principal that it is not required. 13 Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that she visited the property yesterday and realized that the owner bought the property with the intentions of dividing it and building two houses. If the property was a flat piece of property she might support a Lot Line Adjustment, but unfortunately it is an extremely ragged, hilly piece of property. Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that she opposes building on substandard pieces of property. Councilmember Waltonsmith noted she is against the Lot Line Adjustment and does not feel she needs to vote for the Negative Declaration. Vice Mayor Streit noted that he could support the development of Parcel A as a buildable lot but does not support creating Parcel B as a separate buildable lot. Vice Mayor Streit explained that Parcel B's slope is too great from the top to the bottom. Vice Mayor Streit stated he would deny the appeal. BAKER/WALTONSMITH MOVED ADOPT RESOLUTION ON AUGUST 15, 2001 DENYING AN APPEAL FROM THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THE LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT AND GRANTING AN APPEAL FROM THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 15480 PEACH HILL ROAD. MOTION PASSED 3-0-2 WITH BOGOSIAN AND MEHAFFEY ABSENT. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF DR-01-005 (386- 06-017) - PALUMBO, 19208 BROOKVIEW DRIVE; APPLICANT: PALUMBO APPELLANT: ESCOLA, KARREN, GROSS STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's decision. Allison Knapp, Contract Planner, presented staff report. Planner Knapp explained that the applicant has requested Design Review approval to construct a 65 square foot addition to the ground floor of the existing single-story home and a 636 square foot second story addition for a total of 701 square feet. The existing one-story home would then be a two-story home consisting of 3,049 square feet. The maximum height of the residence would be 21 '-2". The site is 9,376 gross and net square feet and is located within tu~ R-l-10,000 zoning district. The General Plan Designation is Residential - Medium Density. The average slope of the lot is less than one percent. No grading or tree removal is proposed and the proposed colors and material match with the existing house. Planner Knapp explained that on June 13, 2001 the Planning Commission approved the project 4-1 subject to the conditions of approval outlined in the resolution written by staff and four additional conditions added by the Commission which are as follows: 1) that the condition of approval be strengthened to prohibit any future change out of windows on the right elevation in order to protect privacy, 2) that the rear balcony either be reduced in size or eliminated, 3) that the windows on the second-story rear elevation be reduced in size, 4) that the applicant provide additional 3_4 landscape screening to provide year-round privacy screening. Planner Knapp noted that the Applicant revised the project drawings as follows: · Reduced the balcony to 53 square feet. · Reduced the window slider from eight to six feet. · Reduced the number of bathroom windows to one window. · Raised the sill height of the right side of the bedroom windows to 5.5 feet. · Placed cabinetry in front of both windows to reduce the angle view. · Added trelliswork on the right side of the balcony to further screen for privacy. Planner Knapp reported on June 21, 2001 the Escolas, the Karrens, and the Gorsses filed an appeal to the Planning Commission decision. In summary, the letter states that the Applicant's design fails to address privacy issues that the immediate neighbors identified at the public hearing. Planner Knapp explained that on July 3, 2001 a meeting was conducted at City Hall to discuss the issues. The Community Development Director facilitated the meeting and all parties were present. It was the consensus of the Appellants that no second story with or without a balcony was acceptable. Vice Mayor Streit opened the public heating at 8:47 p.m. Eric Escola, 19224 Brookview Drive, noted his house is immediately adjacent to the project. Mr. Escola stated that tonight he is representing not only his family but also the other two families on the appeal letter. Mr. Escola explained that at the June 13th Planning Commission meeting, the second story addition was approved at 19208 Brook View Drive and because of this decision they filed an appeal. Mr. Escola briefly described the characteristics of the Brookview neighborhood. Mr. Escola noted that it consists of 326 single family, single story, ranch style homes built in the 1950's and 1960's. Since that time 15-second stories have been added to the neighborhood. 84% of the neighborhood is in favor of keeping the homes single story, ranch style houses. Mr. Escola noted that his group walked the neighborhood and talked to the majority of the property owners. The majority of property owners feel that second story additions change the character of the neighborhood. Currently 94.5% of the existing homes are single story. Mr. Escola noted the there are two points in their appeal: 1. The loss of privacy to the immediate neighbors. They oppose any second story having windows and a deck. Mr. Escola showed a sight map of the views from the Palumbo's proposed second story and also pictures of the current landscaping between the proposed project and surrounding houses. Mr. Escola stated that most of the trees are deciduous. 2. The property owners concem about changes in the character of the neighborhood. After surveying 199/326 property owners surveyed, the majority singed a petition to keep second stories out of this neighborhood. 3_5 Mr. Escola suggested the Council consider a single story overlay in the Brookview neighborhood. Cynthia Eikhom, Project Designer/Interhouse Design, noted that she began working with the Palumbo's in early October, with the intention at that time, to design a one- story addition. After extensive design exploration it was concluded that a one-story design would not meet the needs of her clients. Ms. Eikhom explained the reason why the design was changed fi.om a single story addition to a second story addition: 1) An existing large tree with a broad canopy that provides privacy and shade to the backyard would have to be removed, 2) Extending their home with a single story addition would of extended the rear yard set back, which currently is 25 feet. The rear property adjacent to the Palumbo's is the Karren's, which is located 16 feet fi.om that property line. Ms. Eikhom explained that the Karren's recently received a small variance to extend the existing nonconformity and the new roofline is an eye sore to the Palumbo's. The privacy offered by every property, to maintain a 25-foot rear yard setback, is not available to the Palumbo's. For these reasons, Ms. Eikhom stated that this is why they designed a a story and a half design, which met the Palumbo's needs and afforded privacy to both the neighbors and the Palumbo's. Ms. Eikhom referred to a letter the Appellants used to rally the neighborhood into signing a petition against her clients project. Ms. Eikhom noted that several statements in the letter were inaccurate and misleading in regards to the Appellants concerns of privacy. Ms. Eikhom explained some of the inaccuracies of the statements to the Council and explained how she and her client have compromised on the design in order to remedied the concerns of the neighbors: · Balcony - reduced the balcony to 20 square feet, which is a reduction of 80% reduction. Ms. Eikhom noted that at this point in time her clients are willing to forgo the balcony in order to satisfy the neighbors concerns of privacy. Although, Ms. Eikhom explained that at a meeting with the neighbors regarding the privacy issues, the rear neighbor stated that they had no objection to an adjacent property that had a small balcony, because the size inhibited the use of it. · Reduced the size of the sliding glass door from 8 feet to 6 feet wide. · Reduced the bathroom windows from to two to one. · Improved the evergreen landscaping Ms. Eikhom also noted that the petition stated that this project would accelerate change to the Brookview neighborhood. Responding to that statement, Ms. Eikom said it is a "subjective interpretive comment". Ms. Eikhom explained that her client has proposed a design using a one and one half story, which is alternative for design concerns for adding a second story, using architectural elements to keep in the character of the neighborhood. Councilmember Waltonsmith asked Ms. Eikhom if the Palumbo's met with the neighborhood. Ms. Eikhom responded that she and her clients met at the City's Planning 3_6 Department. Vice Mayor Streit asked why all of the issues were not worked out as "good neighbors" before it came to the City Council. Ms. Eikhom responded she tried to work this out with the neighbors at the Planning Department. Unfortunately, some of the neighbors expressed that they did not want second stoW additions at all and a few neighbors said that they do not mind a second stoW as long as it doe not have windows. Ms. Eikhom noted that designing a second stow without windows was not an option, because of the egress requirement. The balcony was redesigned making it large enough so the door could be opened.. Nan Dole, Brookview Drive, noted that she was not part of the survey because she is putting on a second stoW. Ms. Dole noted that does not support banning second stoW additions. Eugene Craig, Titus Avenue, noted that he has lived in the Brookview neighborhood since 1971. Mr. Craig stated that a property owner has a right to build a second stow only if it does not impose on the neighbors. In regards to this particular project he does not support it. Allan Lynn, 12271 Country Square Lane, noted that although he is not personally affected by this particular request for a second stow addition, his concern is future applications of the same request. Betty Joe Stewart, 12517 Palm Tag Drive, noted that she opposes this project. Melanie Karren, 12515 Woodside Court stated that she is against the entire project. Mrs. Karren noted that she lives directly behind the proposed project. Mrs. Karren noted that she opposes the 16-foot deck and balcony because it would intrude on her family's privacy. Marvin Becker, 12120 Mellowood Drive, noted that he is the president of the Brookview Homeowners Association and has lived there since 1963. Mr. Becker noted that there are 326 homes in this neighborhood. Mr. Becker noted that he reviewed the plans presented by the Palumbo's and it doe not match the description presented by Ms. Eikhom tonight. Bill Gross, 12508 Woodside Court, note that he is not directly behind the Palumbos house but, he can see the roof line. Mr. Gross noted that his concern is the president the Council would be setting if this project were approved. Dan Rose, 12250 Titus Avenue, noted that he has lived there for 15 years and opposes this project. Mitch Kane, 12418 Palmtag Drive, requested that the existing character of the Brookview neighborhood be preserved. Mr. Kane requested that the City Council direct the Planning Commission to investigate implementing a single stow overlay. 3_7 Bob Bowe 12475 Woodside Court, noted that he has lived there for 19 years. Mr. Bowe noted that he recently appealed a similar project behind his house because it intruded on his privacy. Ruth Welch, 19131 B ellwood Drive, noted that although this project does not directly affect her home, but wanted to come to tonight's meeting to show support for the appellants. Mrs. Welch noted that when she remolded her home she went to surrounding neighbors and Gordon Cameron, 12517 Brook Glen Drive, noted that he does not support the proposed project. Cynthia Berry, Chair/Planning Commission, noted that the Planning Commission would like direction from the Council to investigate the development of neighborhood overlays. In regards to this project, the Planning Commission approved it because the design is only a one and one half story addition, increasing the total square footage of the house by only 636 square feet and only a 21 foot height increase. Chair Berry noted that unfortunately the privacy issues couldn't be adequately addressed. In regards to the balcony, the planning Commission stated in the Conditions of Approval that the balcony must be reduced or eliminated. Councilmember Waltonsmith asked the number of people opposing this project attended the Planning Commission meeting. Chair Barry responded no, only the immediate neighbors expressing privacy concerns. Mr. Escola noted that Ms. Eikhom was incorrect when she stated that his group only collected 191 signatures, actually they collected 194 signatures. Mr. Escola also thanked Chair Berry for explaining to them that they could appeal the Planning Commission's decision to the City Council. Ms. Eikhom noted that her client is not in favor of developing two story additions in the Brookview neighborhood. Ms. Eikhom noted their design is a very modest addition and it keeps the neighborhood character. Lisa Palumbo, 19208 Brookview Drive, noted that she met with the neighbors several times trying to change the plans to accommodate her neighbors concerns. Mrs. Palumbo noted that she would also support banning second stories in the Brookview neighborhood. Mrs. Palumbo noted that she has done everything to design a nonintmsive addition. Mrs. Palttmbo stated that when the Escola's began remodeling their house they never consulted her in the planning stages. Mrs. Palumbo noted that he team has designed a low profile addition. Vice Mayor Streit closed the public heating at 9:52 p.m. Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that because the lot is small and many of the neighbors expressed their opposition, she cannot support the project. 3_8 Councilmember Baker noted that he is basing his decision on neighborhood compatibly, privacy, view intrusion, and sunlight intrusion. Councilmember Baker noted that second story additions not only impact immediate neighbors but also the entire neighborhood. Although the Palumbo's have designed a very nice addition he cannot support the project. Vice Mayor Streit noted that he visited the property twice and his main concern are the privacy issues expressed by the immediate neighbors, the bulk in the back of the house, and the balcony. Vice Mayor Streit noted that the overall design is good. Vice Mayor Streit noted that he would vote to grant the appeal and deny the second story addition. Vice Mayor Streit noted that he would be willing to send this project back to the Planning Commission if the neighborhood issues can be resolved Director Sullivan noted that the he has heard nothing tonight that would indicate any compromise on either side. BAKER/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO GRANT THE APPEAL AND DENY THE PROJECT LOCATED AT 19208 BROOKVIEW DRIVE. MOTION PASSED 3-0-2 WITH BOGOSIAN AND MEHAFFEY ABSENT. Vice Mayor Streit declared a 15-minute recess at 10:00 p.m. Vice Mayor S treit reconvened the meeting at 10:15 p.m. 6. DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE PROGRAM (DBE) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Open public hearing; close public hearing; adopt resolution. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 01-048 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA CONCERNING DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS PROGRAMS John Cherbone, Public Works Director, presented staff report. Director Cherbone noted that the U.S DOT requires any agency that requests Federal Aid for transportation improvements to implement and maintain a Disadvantage Business Program. This program established an Overall Goal that provides, as a percentage of overall cost for a particular project, an amount that should be paid to contractors and service/material providers listed as Disadvantage Business Enterprises (DBE). Director Cherbone noted that the Overall Goal is computed by considering the proportional availability of DBE's in relation to the total amount of able and qualified firms for the local geographic area. Once this goal is established, it is 3_9 incorporated into the DBE Program text and presented to Caltrans for approval. Following approval, the Draft DBE Program is made available to the public notices in the local newspapers. Approval by the City Council is the final step before the DBE program is officially adopted. Once adopted. The DBE Program is implemented and maintained through good faith effort by designated City staff. The overall Goal is updated every year, per Caltrans requirements. Saratoga's Overall Goal is 8.3% for the 2000/2001 fiscal year. Vice Mayor Streit opened the public heating at 10:19 p.m. Vice Mayor Streit closed the public heating at 10:19 p.m. BAKER/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION CONCERNING DISADVANTAGE BUSINESS PROGRAMS. MOTION PASSED 3-0-2 WITH BOGOSIAN AND MEHAFFEY ABSENT. LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT BLOCK GRANT STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Open public hearing; close public heating; adopt resolution. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 01-051 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA MAKING APPROPRIATE ADJUSTMENTS TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2001/2002 BUDGET Paula Reeve, Administrative Analyst, presented staff report. Analyst Reeve explained that the City has been awarded $8,820.00 for FY 1999, and $7878.00 for FY 2000, in Local Law Enforcement Block Grants Program (LLEGB) funds from the U.S. Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Assistance. This program provides funds to state and local governments to underwrite projects, reduce crimes, and improve public safety. Analyst Reeve noted that the deadline for the FY 1999 and the FY 2000 is July 31, 2001. An advisory board comprised of the City Manager's Staff, Captain Bacon and Lieutenant Smedlund met to prioritize the Sheriff's Department's desires for additional programs and services. The recommendations are as follows: 1. Expend FY 1999 funds on overtime pay to provide a Deputy on bicycle to patrol Big Basin Way, Wildwood Park, and trails throughout the summer. 2. Expend FY 2000 funds on two Talon moving mode handheld radars, and various videos, books, literature, and equipment to assist the Student Resource Officer to present training at Saratoga schools. Captain Kevin Bacon, Santa Clara County Sheriff's Department, explained the FY 1999 funds would help pay overtime fees that have accumulated due to the extra patrol placed in the downtown area. 2O Captain Bacon explained that the FY 2000 funds would be used to purchase two Talon radars, which will enable the traffic patrol officers to monitor traffic as they approach the moving vehicle in the opposite direction. With the leftover funds videos, books, and literature would be purchased to assist the School Resource Officer. Vice Mayor Streit opened the public hearing at 10:26 p.m. Vice Mayor Streit closed the public hearing at 10:26 p.m. BAKEPdWALTONSMITH MOVED TO ACCEPT THE GRANT AND ADOPT RESOLUTION APPROPRIATING THE FUNDS. MOTION PASSED 3-0-2 WITH BOGOSIAN AND MEHAFFEY ABSENT. Vice Mayor Streit requested that the City Council move to Item 10. Consensus of the City Council to move to Item 10. NEW BUSINESS 10. HOUSING TRUST FUND CONTRIBUTION STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution; execute agreement; make pledge. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 01-052 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL MAKING APPROPRIATE ADJUSTMENT TO FY 2001-02 AND CONTRIBUTING $25, 000 HOUSING TRUST FUND Tom Sullivan, Community Development Director, presented staff report. Director Sullivan explained that the trust has set a goal of $20 million in voluntary contributions with the possibility of looking at long term permanent funding if this initial effort is successful. As of June 25, 2001, contributions to the Housing Trust Fund total $19.3 million, so the Trust is now only$700,000.00 short of their goal. Several surrounding cities have made donations to the Trust. Within Santa Clara County, the Cities of Saratoga, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, and Gilroy have not yet committed to making any contribution to the Trust. Director Sullivan noted that staffrecommends that the City Council make a pledge to contribute $25,000.00 in fiscal year 2001-02 to the Trust and authorize the execution of a n agreement with the Trust for the City's contribution. 21 Chris Block, Executive Director/Housing Trust Fund, noted that the Housing Trust Fund is almost at it's $20 million dollar goal and 100% of city and county participation. Mr. Block encouraged the City Council to approve the contribution. Jan Birenbaum, Chair/Teacher Housing Initiative Committee, 20052 Sunset Drive, encouraged the City Council to approve the contribution to the Housing Trust Fund, and urged the placement of additional funding on the CIP program. Lisa Liu, 20291 Merrick Drive, encouraged the City Council to approve the contribution to the Housing Trust Fund. Ms. Liu thanked the Council for agreeing to the placement of an article in the next issue of the Saratogan requesting low-income housing for teachers. Muriel Mahrer, 13577 Myren Drive, noted that the City has taken steps in the right direction but what are still needed are regional answers to Saratoga's needs. Betty Feldhym, 20184 Franklin Avenue, thanked the City Council for having the Housing Element study session and encouraged the contribution to the Housing Trust Fund. Marjory Bunyard, President/League of Women Voters, encouraged the City Council to approve the contribution to the Housing Trust Fund. Bob Hinz, Saratoga resident, encouraged the Council to support the Housing Trust Fund. Dan Stone, Saratoga resident, noted he came to tonight's meeting to encouraged the City Council to approve the contribution to the Housing Trust Fund for all of his Ann Danner, 14190 Woodview Lane, Board President/HIP, noted that her group provides housing to people with disabilities. Ms. Danner encouraged the City to approve the contribution to the Housing Tmst Fund. Shiloh Ballard, Grace United Methodist Church, encouraged the City Council to approve the contribution to the Housing Trust Fund. Beth Wyman, 12231 Fredericksburg Drive, suggested that the City Council double the donation to $50,000.00. Carl Gardino, CEO/Silicon Valley manufacturing Group, encouraged the City Council to approve the contribution to the Housing Trust Fund. BAKERFC/ALTONSMITH MOVED TO APPROVE THE CONTRIBUTION OF $25,000 TO THE HOUSING TRUST FUND AND ADOPT RESOLUTION MAKING APPROPRIATE BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS. MOTION PASSED 3- 0-2 WITH BOGOSIAN AND MEHAFFEY ABSENT. 22 BAKERfWALTONSMITH MOVED TO AUTHORIZE EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT. MOTION PASSED 3-0-2 WiTH BOGOSIAN AND MEHAFFEY ABSENT. Vice Mayor Streit noted that the Council would now here the emergency item regarding the letter received from the Fire District. WRITTEN COMMUNICATION Vice Mayor Streit noted that the City Council received a letter from the Fire District dated July 16, 2001responding to the program Don Whetstone put together to implement a Public Safety Center. Vice Mayor Streit noted that it would be appropriate that tonight the City Council make a motion to authorize the Mayor to form an ad hoc committee to investigate the ideas of developing a Public Safety Center in Saratoga. Don Whetstone, Vickery Avenue, noted that the letter sent by the Fire District responding to his proposed program has many inaccuracies. Mr. Whetstone thanked the Council for taking action on this subject. Dave Dolloff, 20685 Sigal Drive commend the Council for taking action on the letter sent by the Fire Commission. Mr. Dolloffnoted that he feels the Fire District violated the brown act. Hugh Hexamer/Saratoga Fire Commissioner, 20367 Glen Brae Drive, noted that Mr. Whetstone does not understand the urgent need to start construction on the new facility. The Planning Commission already approved the plans and the District will be going out to bid in the near future. Mr. Hexamer commented that to delay the project is going against the 2,000 plus voters who approved the bond to build the new facility. Jeff Schwartz encouraged the City Council to go forward with the course of action outlined by Vice Mayor Streit. Mr. Swartz supports a Public Safety Center in Saratoga. BAKER/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO FORM AN AD HOC COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE A PUBLIC SAFETY CENTER. MOTION PASSED 3-0-2 WiTH BOGOSIAN AND MEHAFFEY ABSENT. CONSENT CALENDAR 2A. APPROVE COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - JUNE 6, 2001 SPECIAL MEETING -JULY 10, 2001 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve minutes. Councilmember Baker pulled item 2A from the Consent Calendar. Councilmember Baker requested that on page 5, of the minutes of June 6, 2001 during the discussion by the City Attorney. City Attomey Taylor stated that the 23 septic abatement ordinance states that the City Cotmcil makes hardship determinations for an unlimited time - not five years. WALTONSMITH/BAKER MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES OF JUNE 6, 2001 AS AMENDED. MOTION PASSED 3-0-2 WITH BOGOSIAN AND MEHAFFEY ABSENT. WALTONSMITH/BAKER MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES OF JULY 2001. MOTION PASSED 3-0-2 WITH BOGOSIAN AND MEHAFFEY ABSENT. 2B. REVIEW OF CHECK REGISTER 2C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve check register. BAKERJWALTONSMITH MOVED TO APPROVE CHECK REGISTER. MOTION PASSED 3-0-2 WITH BOGOSIAN AND MEHAFFEY ABSENT. APPROVE TREASURER'S REPORT FOR MONTH ENDED JUNE 30, 2001 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Treasurer's Report. BAKER/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO APPROVE TREASURER'S REPORT. MOTION PASSED 3-0-2 WITH BOGOSIAN AND MEHAFFEY ABSENT. 2D. 2E. REVIEW PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - JUNE 27, 2001 REGULAR MEETING - JULY 11, 2001 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Note and file. BAKER/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO NOTE AND FILE PLANNING ACTION MINUTES. MOTION PASSED 3-0-2 WITH BOGOSIAN AND MEHAFFEY ABSENT. AUTHORIZATION TO CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE CONTRACT WITH MELISSA EDDY FOR INTERIM FINANCE DIRECTOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve authorization to execute contract. 24 2F. BAKER/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO AUTHORIZE EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT WITH MELISSA EDDY. MOTION PASSED 3-0-2 WITH BOGOSIAN AND MEHAFFEY ABSENT. CIVIC CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT COMMITTEE CITY COUNCIL LIAISON STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Make appointment. BAKER/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO APPOINT COUNCILMEMBER WALTONSMITH TO THE CIVIC CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT 2G. COMMITTEE. MOTION PASSED 3-0-2 WITH BOGOSIAN AND MEHAFFEY ABSENT. PROPERTY TAX LEVY TO SERVICE THE DEBT ON THE LIBRARY BOND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 01-044 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA APPROVING AN INCREASE IN THE CITY'S PROPERTY TAX RATE TO FUND DEBT SERVICE PAYMENTS ON THE LIBRARY GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001-02 BAKEIUWALTONSMITH MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION APPROVING THE INCREASE IN PROPERTY TAX RATES FOR DEBT SERVICE PAYMENTS ON THE LIBRARY GENERAL BONDS. MOTION 2H. PASSED 3-0-2 WITH BOGOSIAN AND MEHAFFEY ABSENT. RESOLUTION DENYING AN APPEAL FROM THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DR-01-01400-013 - 13921 LOQUAT COURT- APPLICANT/APPELLANT: ADLPARVAR STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 01- 045 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA DENYING AN APPEAL FROM THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION; APPLICANT/APPELLANT-ADLPARVAR; 13921 LOQUAT COURT; DR-01-014 2S BAKER/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION DENYING AN APPEAL FROM THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION 21. DR-01-014-13921 LOQUAT COURT~ DR-01-014. MOTION PASSED 3-0-2 WITH BOGOSIAN AND MEHAFFEY ABSENT. RESOLUTION DENYING AN APPEAL FROM THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION UP-00-013- COX AVENUE AND CUMBERLAND DRIVE APPLICANT: NEXTEL APPELLANT: MAROLDA STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 01-046 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND DENYING THE APPEAL OF USE PERMIT APPLICATION UP-00-013 BAKER/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION DENYING AN APPEAL FROM THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION UP-00-013-COX AVENUE AND CUMBERLAND DRIVE. MOTION PASSED 3-0-2 WITH BOGOSIAN AND MEHAFFEY ABSENT. 2J. COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORDS STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Note and file. Councilmember Baker pulled Item 2J form the Consent Calendar. Councilmember Baker requested that ifa person is serving on one of the City's commissions, try and make the meetings. BAKEP, JWALTONSMITH MOVED TO APPROVE THE COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORDS. MOTION PASSED 3-0-2 WITH BOGOSIAN AND MEHAFFEY ABSENT. OLD BUSINESS 9. SARATOGA COM~ITY FOUNDATION STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report and direct staff accordingly. Richard Taylor, City Attorney, presented staff report. 26 City Attorney Taylor explained that at its meeting of February 27, 2001, the City Council reviewed draft bylaws for a Saratoga Community Foundation to support a broad range of community interests in the City of Saratoga. Council directed that the Foundation be organized and supported initially by the City in a manner that would facilitate its ultimate transition into an independent entity. Staff has revised the bylaws to respond to Council direction. The primary changes are: (1) the Foundation will be a membership organization that allows members (Saratoga residents only) to elect Directors and make other policy decisions for the Foundation; (2) the Foundation will become completely independent of the City government on June 30, 2003; and (3) the Foundation will be required to prepare a five year plan with fundraising goals and a plan for building an endowment and making grants to meet current connnunity needs. As requested by the Council, a copy of the draft bylaws has been posted on the City's web site and copies have been made available in the Community Library. City Attorney Taylor briefly explained that the following are the revisions that were made to the bylaws during the February 27, 2001: Membership · The Foundation will be established as a "membership" organization. The day-to-day activities of the foundation would be administered by the Board of Directors and the Executive Director, but the members of the foundation would have the ultimate authority to select Board members and to set foundation policy. · Any Saratoga resident who pays the minimum annual dues is a member of the foundation. The minimum dues must be between $100 and $250 per year as determined by the Board of Directors. Because the Council emphasized that it wants to encourage participation by both members and non-members of the foundation, section 3.12(a) makes clear that the foundation encourages the involvement of local civic groups, businesses, and non-residents. · Annual meetings will be held in May. These meetings will be used to receive reports on the foundation's operations and to elect members to the Board of Directors. Members are allowed to vote by proxy and the bylaws also allow the membership to act by mail ballot rather than at a meeting. The bylaws allow the Board of Directors to call special meetings of the members and also allow the members themselves to initiate action. This structure allows the members to maintain oversight of Board actions. Sunset on City Involvement · The foundation will become independent of the City government by June 30, 2003. The initial Board of Directors will be appointed by the City Council and will include two members of the City Council. 27 Five Year Plan · The foundatioffs Executive Committee must develop a five-year strategic plan by the end of the year. (See section 8.03.) The plan must include a vision statement, year-by-year fundraising goals, and an investment plan that allows the foundation to respond to current needs while at the same time building an endowment. Other Revisions · Expanding the purposes of the foundation to include all activities and programs that enhance the quality of life in the city and to include encouraging widespread community participation in foundation programs. (Section 2.01.) · Requiring annual recognition of foundation supporters. (Section 3.12(a).) · Defining a quorum of the Board of Directors as 51% of the Board or as 34% of the Board if the Board has 15 or more members. (Section 5.04(e).) · Clarifying that no director may serve more than two consecutive terms but that former Directors may serve on committees and may be reappointed as directors after a four-year hiatus. (Section 5.02.) · Clarifying that the Brown Act governs all meetings of the Board only as long as the terms of the Act require it to apply. Once the City is no longer funding the foundation and appointing board members the Brown Act will not apply. (Section 5.04(a).) · Renaming the "Education Committee" as the Development Committee and deleting the "Associate Relations Committee" since its functions can be served by the Community Relations committee. (Section 8.02.) The City Council thanked City Attorney Taylor for all of his works on the Saratoga Community Foundation. BAKEPJWALTONSMITH MOVED TO AUTHORIZE STAFF TO RECRUIT BOARD OF DIRECTORS. MOTION PASSED 3-0-2 WITH BOGOSIAN AND MEHAFFEY ABSENT. NEW BUSINESS 11. AUTHORIZATION TO CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AMENDMENT TO THE CONTRACT WITH GREG ING & ASSOCIATES STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize execution of contract. Tom Sullivan, Community Development Director, presented staffreport. 28 Director Sullivan explained the previously the City Cotmcil a contract with Greg lng & Associates for the Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road improvement Project. At that time the City Council expressed concern that the Street Improvement Project and the Gateway Design Project be integrated so that time is not lost on one project waiting for the other to be completed. Director Sullivan noted that staff recommends that Council approve a proposal from Greg G. Ing& Associates in the amotmt of $39,680.99 for the preparation of Design Guidelines for the Gateway Project which will complement the Saratoga Sunnyvale Road Improvement Project. BAKER/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO ACCEPT PROPOSAL FROM GREG ING & ASSOCIATES IN THE AMOUNT OF $39,6580 FOR PREPARATION OF THE SARATOGA-SUNNYVALE ROAD CORRIDOR DESIGN GUIDELINES AND AUTHORIZE EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT. 12. MOTION PASSED 3-0-2 WITH BOGOSIAN AND MEHAFFEY ABSENT. AUTHORIZATION TO CITY MANAGER TO AWARD CONTRACT TO GEN-CON FOR PHASE I LIBRARY STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize execution of contract. Lorie Tinfow, Assistant City Manager, presented staff report. Assistant Manager Tinfow explained that sealed bids for the Saratoga Public Library Project Phase I were due and opened on July 12, 2001. Three bids were received: 1) Gen-Con Inc - $1,697,000 2) McCrary Construction CO. - $2, 061,000 3) HRB Construction - $2,305,420. The cost estimate provided by Field Paoli Architecture for Phase I was $1,532 million. Assistant Manager Tinfow noted that Gilbane has worked with Gen-Con in the past and their experience has been positive. BAKER/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO AWARD CONTRACT TO GEN-CON INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $1~697,000 FOR PHASE I OF THE LIBRARY RENOVATION PROJECT AND AUTHORIZE EXECUTION OF 13. CONTRACT. MOTION PASSED 3-0-2 WITH BOGOSIAN AND MEHAFFEY ABSENT. AUTHORIZATION TO CITY MANAGER TO AWARD CONTRACT TO BARBARA SPECTOR AND CHARLES KILLIAN FOR HEARING OFFICER SERVICES STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize execution of contract. 29 TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 01-049 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SARATOGA APPOINTING A HEARING OFFICER AND ALTERNATE Richard Taylor, City Attomey, presented staffreport. City Attorney Taylor explained that at its meeting of February 21, 2001 the City council approved an ordinance amending the City Code pertaining to code enforcement. The ordinance established the position of Hearing Officer to hear and decide appeals of the City's code enforcement decisions. Staff distributed a request for proposals to more than 200 potential candidates. Three applications were received and are attached for your information. Each of the applicants would be qualified to serve as a hearing officer. City Attorney Taylor stated that he attached resolution formally designates Barbara Spector as the hearing officer and Charles Killian as the alternate to serve in the event that the primary hearing officer has a conflict of interest or is not available. The resolution specifies that the term of the hearing officers would be until September 20, 2002. Staff will enter an independent contractor agreement with each of the hearing officers. City Attorney noted that all of the applicants proposed $175.00 an hour, which is a good rate for this type of service. BAKER/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO AWARD CONTRACT TO BARBARA SPECTOR AND CHARLES KILLIAN FOR HEARING OFFICER SERVICES. MOTION PASSED 3-0-2 WITH BOGOSIAN AND MEHAFFEY ABSENT. 14. CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS ORDINANCE STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report and direct staff accordingly. Cary Bloomquist, administrative Analyst, presented staff report. Analyst Bloomquist explained that the purpose for this report was to introduce the City Council to the proposed Construction and Debris Recycling Ordinance. The California Integrated Waste management Act was passed by the State Assembly in 1989 to divert materials fi.om landfills in order to preserve decreasing landfill capacity and diminishing natural resources. The bill mandates each Califomia city and county to divert 50% of all solid waste from landfill or transformation facilities trough source reduction, recycling and composting activities by January 2, 2000. Analyst Bloomquist pointed out the City of Saratoga has achieved a 56% diversion rate based upon the present level of source reduction and recycling participation by Saratoga Residents and business owners. Many programs have been implemented to avoid the statutory penalties associated with noncompliance. The only program that 30 has not been implemented is the non-residential - construction and demolition debris- recycling programs. Analyst Bloomquist explained that most contractor already recycle concrete and asphalt for reuse on site because it is less expensive than disposal. The County has prepared a Builder's Reuse and Recycling Guide for local contractors that list firms that assist with deconstmction and reuse of building material and fixtures. Many of these materials can be recovered at little or no cost to the contractor, but because deconstruction and recycling can take more time, it is important to notify contractors early in the permit process of the requirement to recycle. As a condition precedent to issuance of any permit for a building or demolition project that involves the production of solid waste destined to be delivered to landfill, the applicant would pay an administrative fee of $200.00. This fee would compensate the City for all expenses incurred in administering the permit. Analyst Bloomquist noted that the Board of the West Valley Solid Waste Management Authority, of which the City is a member, recommends that a recycling ordinance be approved by the City Council for inclusion in its permit conditions. Analyst Bloomquist noted that tonight is an initial introduction of this concept to Council and he will bring this back in September. Councilmember Baker noted that he has great concerns regarding this proposed ordinance; although he stated he knows the City needs to do it. Councilmember Baker commented that he is uncomfortable moving forward without full Council to hear and discuss this issues and suggested that the City invite three of the most prominent and most active general contractors who deal in Saratoga to come and tell the City Council how they currently deal with recycling and what is the potential impact. Councilmember Baker noted that following these new guidelines makes the cost of demolishing a house much more expensive. Councilmember Baker noted that he supports the overall concept but requested more data on it. Vice Mayor Streit noted that the West Valley Solid Waste Management Authority JPA has gone over this proposal for the past year and are still waiting for Waste Management to come back with a full program. Vice Mayor Streit commented that the City must get this program started although there are a few issues regarding cost and revenue that have not been decided. Vice Mayor Streit thanked Analyst Bloomquist and noted that after Scott Hobson/Green Valley reviews the guidelines and the JPA makes a few financial decisions this should come back to Council. 15. LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES VOTING DELEGATE STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Appoint voting delegate. Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk, presented staffreport. 31 City Clerk Boyer noted that on September 12, 2001 through September 15, 2001 the League of California Cities would hold their annual conference. One very important aspect of the annual conference is the annual business meeting when the membership takes action on conference resolutions. To expedite the conduct of business at this policy-making meeting each city council should designate a voting representative and an alternate who will be present at the annual business meeting. The League bylaws provide that each city is entitled to one vote in matters effecting municipal or League policy. The deadline to return the "Voting Delegate Form" to the League of California Cities is August 17, 2001. Conncilmember Baker asked if the voting delegate is restricted to elected officials. Director Sullivan responded that Council could appoint a staffmember. WALTONSMITI-VBAKER MOVED TO APPOINT TOM SULLIVAN, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR VOTING DELEGATE AND DAVE ANDERSON, CITY MANAGER AS THE ALTERNATE VOTING DELEGATE. MOTION PASSED 3-0-2 WITH BOGOSIAN AND MEHAFFEY ABSENT. COMMISSION ASSIGNMENT REPORTS No reportable information. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that she encourages the Planning Commission to look into two story overlays. Councilmember Waltonsmith reported that the Chamber of Commerce has recently reorganized, due to the fact that they lost their president and director. Councilmember Waltonsmith suggested that the Chamber meet with the City Council to discuss their future. Councilmember Baker referred to a letter he received from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District discussing wood burning fireplaces. Councilmember Baker noted that he feels the ordinance that the Air District is trying to encourage cities to adopt is too strict. Councilmember Baker suggested that the City encourage the citizens of Saratoga to write letters to our local legislators opposing SB910. OTHER None CITY MANAGER'S REPORT None 32 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Vice Mayor Streit declared the meeting adjourned at 11:45 p.m. ~ ~sp.ect fu~ .l~ss~Brn.~tt ed, ~t~.~lerkC----~' ..z : .- 33