Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-19-1982 City Council Minutes M]lqUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL TIME: W~dnesday, May 19, 1982 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue TYPE: Regular Meeting I. ORGANIZATION A. ROLL CALL - Councilmembers Clevenger, Jensen, Mallory, Watson, end Mayor Callon present at 7:35 p.m. B. MINUTES - 5/5 CLEVMWUI~/NATSON MDV~D TO ADOPT THE MINUTES WITH CHANGES RRIOW. PaSsed 4-0 (Mallory abstaining because he had been absent 5/5). p. 1 - Item II.A. modified to show that Councilmember Jensen did not support County Measure~A on- flood oontrol' f~cil'iti~s- (1982) and. supported flood plain zoning aS th~ preferred alternative. Item IV.A. modified to show Council concern that some districts might be charged for benefits that were City-wide. Councilmember Jensen indicated that on p. 3, paragraph 5 concerning the limit on n~nber of lots off a cul-de-sac, she had been referring to a-:private cul-de-sac. II. ~ICATIONS Ao ORAL Shelley Williams, 11951 Brookridge, reported that the Saratoga Chamber of C~mLerce had voted to reconlren~ that the City Council endorse the Alternatives Analysis for the West Valley Corridor, and he suhnitted copies of thatdocur ment. Willen Kohler, 21842 Via Regina, stated that he had heard that.at the last Council meeting the Mayor had attentYced to revoke the permit for the Pierce Canyon Heineowners Orienteering Walk. Mayor Callon read aloud the minutes of _' that meeting, which stated that she had reported that she had received scme cuL~laints frcMn residents concerning the walk and made no mention of an. attempt to revoke the permit. Mr. Fshler asked that the subject be discussed at greater length than the two minutes allowed for oral communications, and Counci~ Mallory pointed out that the Council had to abide by rules of pr~cedOre in order to function as a gove~m~ent. Councilmember Watson sug- gested that Mr. Kohler end his Statement,, .since h& had been heard according to Council rules. Mayor Callon then proceeded to the next item, since Mr. Kohler had used more than his allotted time. B. WRI'iT~jN #1 concerning formation of an advisory cu'mlittee for use of the Senior Center referred to staff to arrange a meeting between Mr. Moore eund the Coordinating Council. Councilmember Jensen stated, in reference to Mr. Kohler's con~nunication, that she was appalled that some members of the Council had taken issue with s~neone who had cc~ne to explain a problem. Councilmember Watson asked what the official standing of the Coordinating Council was, and City Manager stated that their Dole wa~ an official one recognized through a City contract. #2 regarding strengthening supervisorial interference provisions of County Cha~ter noted for information. Councilmember Mallory suggested endorsing the proposal and, in the absence of Council consensus to get involved, stated he would pass on his personal opinion on the matter. R. W. Mmore, 10760 Scotland Drive, then rose to ask what bad been the dispo- sition of his letter, and he was informed of the proposed meeting. 2~5/19/82 III~'_: SUBDMSIONS, BUTTPING SITES, AND ZONING REQUESTS A.APPEAL OF ADMINIWI'F4~TIVE DENIAL OF BU~.DING PERMIT - Bill Peretti, 13485 Old Oak Way i City Manager explained appeal in general, and Senior Building Inspector Harison reported that a study session might .be a more appropriate time for discussion. Councilmembers discussed whether tb '.agendize for the next study session, including the fact that there was new information which the appellant' s attorney had wished to present at a :study session. Mr. Peretti stated he wa~ willing to have the appeal heard tonight or at the study session, and that his attorney was-planning to be present at the study session. After further discussion, there was consensus to schedule the appeal for the lest · item;on the 5/25 study session, WiEM the decision bej3{g affiuned at the 6/2 meeting. IV. PETITIONS, ORDINANCES A~D,RESOTI/fIONS A..PETITION FROM AIDHA AVENUE RESIDENTS FOR RECONSIDERATION OF CUL-DE- SAC R~QUIRSM~qT City Manager introduced subject, ~ CC~unity'DeveloFTaent Director explained details, describing further alterna[ives which had been ~Drked out-.and sub- mitting an update of the aceidant report. Staff saw no reason, he said, to change the previous recommendation. I In answer to Councilmember Watson, he stated there were three accidents id the update period and explained the circunstances. Councilmember Cleve~ger expressed support for Alternative 5 (discontinue all exits frem Aloha 0~to Saratoga'Los Gatos'Rdl and allow only right turns in on Aloha, providing no tearound) as the one which best met the needs of the neighborhood. Councilmember Watson said the cul-de-sac idea did not fit the area, and that Alternative 5 ~ould answer to the safety pro~ blem. · CL~ENGERrWATSON'mVED TO ACCEP~ AL~a~ATr~ 5 mR THm ALOHA-SARATOGA/LOS GATOS ROAD ]lqTERSECTION.= Passed 5~0. City Manager noted that no further action was required to implenent the deci- sion and, in response to Mr. Saunde~.s, that he could now apply for a building pezmit. Mayel C~IIo~lt~~prec~ed~d~to,public hearings, as required by ordinancel V. PUBLIC HEARING - 8:00 p.m. A. PROPOSED USES OF G~qERAL FEVENUE SHARING FUNDS FOR BUDGEl' YEAR 1982-83 City Manager explained proposed uses of Revenue Sharing funds. The public hearing was opened at 8:10 p.m. Nana Simone, i Park Place, appeared to speak 'as Manager of the Saratoga Cc~munity Gardens. She explained that the Gardans were requesting $2,000 for next fiscal year rather than $1,500, which reflected the Gardens' expand- ing services and budget. She gave details on use of the money, and she reported on use of the previously-allocated funds. Jerry Kocir, 12855 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, asked whether the traffic signal at the Argonaut Shopping Center had funds allocated for it at that . f. location. City Manager replied that' it had been listed as a contingency if the City-was to pay for part of the signal, but not as a r~endation. The public hearing was closed at 8:1.5 p.m. Councilmember asked if there was a fund transfer to be considered, and City Manager stated that later in the agenda a fund transfer was to be considered for a pavement demonstration projecti. B.APPEAL OF CONDITIONS OF VARIANCE TO RtDUCE THE PARKING REQUES FOR A BANK TO BE CONSTREC.'Eu AT THE ARGONAUT SHOPPING CEN~'BR ON SARATOGA- 'li,SUNNYIrALE ROAD (Applicant/appellant, Robert Egan for Mr. Sanfilip~o) City Manager explained history of appeal in general. He stated that one of the proposals was to modify the conditions to allow the applicant to finance a traffic signal at Brandywine, wit~ the City paying 1/4 and the applicant paying 3/4 of the cost. H~ also noted that the Planning Cc~,mission condition 3-5/19/82 had said that the applicant could pay a share of the costs when the State provided a share. That condition needed to be changed, he said, because the State would not have funds for that purEose in the foreseeable future. The~total,'~6st 'for ~ Brandywine signal would be $120,000, so the City cost would be $30,000. City Manager believed that the condition re~]i ring Mr. Sanfilippo to provide access tO the north should he retained so that that property jwould not need to~.have access via Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, which would be unsafe. He also believed that the condition requiring safety improvenents witbj_n the parking lot should be retained. Mayor Callon asked whether design review would be considered later, and City Manager replied affirmatively. C(aluLunity DeveloIlnent Director said that the Planning Cc~m,~ssion, in reviewing action plans for two General Plan areas, did not seem to favor either Brandywine or Blader.- Biil~Cro~}' Ch~'~airj~n'of the Saratoga 'Bank Corporation, 'explained that the proposed bank would be a holding cu~%~3ny aund would be ohe OfiLSaratoga.'s largest businesses. He felt the type of services to be offered were needed in Saratoga, and the Argonaut Shopping Center was the best location. The federal goverrment had approved it as a federal bank with no preblens, he said, because thDse involved were long-term citizens who were financially successful. Although they wore not knowledgeable about bankj_ng, they had brought in Dick Mount to advise them. Mr. Fount then spoke as the financial planner for the bank, saying that the 'tinnk/would have about 500 local shareholders; could pronote future develol~nent in Saratoga; and would indirectly increase sales tax revenue through loans. He stated also that the bank would help Saratoga in any way it could, including spending money to pr~not~special projects. Rob Egan then spoke as a representative of the bank, saying that they had about 300 signatures from shopping center custc~ers favoring a traffic signal in front of the shopping center. Neale Cabrinha, also a representative of the bank, then stated that if a bank wore not acceptable for the shopping center, nothing would be built. He felt that the bank would increase real estate tax revenues, as woll as the indirect sales- tax revenues and leases of the holding oaL~any. The public hearing was opelned at 8:35 p.m. Jerry Kocir, 14855 South Highway 9, stated that he represented' the residents of Areas A and E and a girl who had been injured in an accident at Blauer. He then said that he had the signatures of 100 Area E voters who favored the light at Blauer. The three-legged light at Blauer would cost less than a four-legged one at Brandywine, he said, and would be of nDre benefit in the traffic pattern. He believed that the required warrants were not met at Blauer because many motorists feared that intersection.- Richard Vieira, 13035 Brandywine,- Stated that Mr. Kocir had spoken from his personal point of view. He felt if the Blauer intersection were that bad, no one would use it; he favored a light at Brandywine. Russell Ellis, 12970 Brandywine, said he agreed with Mr. Vieira; he believed the traffic patterns favored a light at Brandywine. Rod McCanter, 13099 Brandywine, stated that he was concerned about safety and favored the signal at Brandywine for that reason, especially pedestrian safety. Arthur Hamill, 13056 Brandywine, favored the signal at Brandywine to enable motorists to cross the intersection mere easily. He also stated that he felt the bank would~,help Saratoga businesses. He then suggested that Mr. Kocir had personal metivations for wanting the light at Blauer. Joe Errohi, Pierce Road, stated that there were mere accidents on Pierce than on Brandywine; he preferred a signal at Blauer. Mayor Callon reported that she had haj a' zoomplaint about trees being cut down along Saratega-Sunnyvaie Road and requested that staff review files to see if trees should be re-planted. She also stated that neighkors were concerned about noise frc~ truck traffic and that they were interested in a sound wall or gating to prevent access during the evening. Shelley Williams, 11950 Brookridge, Ispoke about the history of the inter- section. He pointed out that the traffic count on Highway 85 and 9 was 4-5/19/82 30,000 and gave future projected figures.with and without Highway 85. He also stated that the City had closed the north entrance by Pierce RDad improperly and felt that action should be rescinded. Mr. Cab~inha rose again to state that if the signal were at Blauer the State would require a median, and .the circulation would he c~mpletely revamped. He favored the Brandywine signal as a !moans of saving lives .and property, and if M~ Sanfilippo wore required to ~!pay 75% of the oost he believed that the bank would not be constructed. 'The public hearing was closed at 9:00 p.m. Councilmember Clevenger questioned '.whether money loaned by the bank would ~ actually re~ain in the cc~munity, ~ince Saratoga does not have 'automobile sates-b~ cc~m~rcial retail. She~ aise expressed concern about ~eighbors at the rear of the shopping center;. she opFosed any opening of Pierce Road in the back.' She also believed th~ City= ~ould not afford to place a signal at Brandywine to serve 21 homos, bdt if the shopping center wore to pay.for it, they should blade? it where they wished', altho~h'ithe'_'re~idents'Wfsh~' otherwise. Councilmember Mallory stated he wished the bank to succeed~ but he was also concerned about lack of sales tax revenues. He wanted specifics explaining the general state~_nts that Ithe bank' s proponents had mad~ concerning increased tax revenues.. Mr. Mallory also?~ointed out the shopping center' s poor main- tenance record. He believed paving and landscaping should be a~tended to; the design should be attractive; t/de cost and location of the traffic light needed to be st~ed; and t~e sound wall issue should be studied. Councilmember Watson felt the sign .~l was ~he most controve~siai f~ctor, and the shopping"cen~er should perhaps ipay for ali of it. Jenseh~Cle~Veng~r.'moved to change= the conditions so thatithe proposed bank should provide the light; the property adjacent would he responsible, after develo~nent', to 'reimburse the bank ~for 25% of the cost of the light; the condition regarding access would b~ kept to assure that the adjacent pro- perty has access through the center; if a light were added there would be no need to widen Sara~toga-Su~qnyvale Road for acceleration or deceleration lanes; a conditi6~ would he added ~h~t the trees that were removed would be replaced; a condition would be added for landscaped medians as intersections are improved for the signal; the be[nk would he approvad. Afte~ the discus- sion below, the motion and second were withdrawn. Co~ncilmenber'W~tson felt a study ~ssion wo~td be appropriate' to discuss the various issues and thus did not support the motion. Councilmenk~r Mallory also felt ~ study session w2as logical, and voting on the motion would be pr~nature. Mayor Callon agreed. · Councilmember rJensen stated that ~the Council' s asking for more information last year on the intersection resulted in loss of State funds to construct the signal, and:it was necessary to start the process. Aside from the oppor- tunity to have the bank pay for the light, she opposed any further cc~mer- cial uses i~ that area, since she felt it was already too dense. Mayor Callon asked whether the matter could he delayed, and Mr. Cabrinha said it would take two or three weeks 'to provide the requested information, including the location of the traffic light and increased sales tax. Councilmember Mallory stated he was willing 63 attend an extra meeting to clari~y his position. City Manager stated some time was needed to study the conditfohs applying to'the property to'th~ north. A~ter discussion as to when the item would be agendizad for study session, Mr. Cabrinha stated that he waived hotice of a certain date an~ was willing to be notified when the date was . S~t. The Council then recessed from 9:15 to 9:35 p.m.' C. Appeal of Approval of Tentative Building Site for Two Lots in the R-M-4,000 Zoning District at 14230 Saratoga-S~unnyvale Road ' (Appellant, Mr.' and Mrs. Grover B. Steele) (continued frcm 4/7) D. 'Appeal of Conditions~ of Approval of Akove Tentative Building Site (~ppe~lint/applicent,. Clarence Neale)~i(eentinued from 4/7) City Attorney stated that it would be proper to open the public hearings on Items C and D simultaneeusly and ' de~al with the findings separately later. 5-5/19/82 City Manager and Co~Lm~nity Development Director explained issues. Cu~Lm~nity DeveloFment Director then noted that a letter frcm Ernie Kraule, Saratoga Fire Chief, had been received ~ and sukmitted it to Council~ -Among other thj_ngs, the letter stated that if the access road were not built the existing water syste~ would need to be extended to provide fire protection. City Manager than pointed out that the requirenent for access on a cul- de~sac is based on two regulations: a section of the shbclivision ordinance and the General Plan Circulation Elenant. The Subdivision Ordinance does not make the secondary access mandatory, and the Circulation Elemant is subject to Council interpretation, he said. In answer to Councilmenber Watson, Cc~munity DeveloFment Director stated that a hydrant would cost roughly $6000, inclu~ling extension of the water line and the hydrant. The public hearing was opened at 9:45 p.m. Grover B. Steele, 20410 Walnut, spoke as the appellant, saying that he opposed the project primarily because the protx)sed secondary access road was a 22% grade, and he questioned how it could ha maintained. He believed the tax- payers should not pay for it, and he was concerned about who would be liable in case of desage. Norman Matteeni, Matteeni and Saxe ~ spoke as Mr. Neale ' s attorney. He explained the history of Mr. Neale's appeal and stated that Mr. Neale also wished to avoid the requirerent of the access road, as well as the burden of having the buildings inspected. He felt the access road was not neees- sary because there was already energaney access provided by the easement t6 the'~horth'<Of the apartment house. Councilmember Mallory, referring to the requirenent for inspection, stated he did not recall any agreenent by Council to accelYc the buildings that were to be moved without inspection. The public hearing was closed at 10:00 p.m. Councilmember~levanger felt t~e ~r~e~l 'loadj was serviceable as emergency? access, and there was no need to req~lire another. She stated she had understood Mr. Neale to have agreed to provide an easement so the Water District could cross over his land. -M~. Neale ~tated 'his..iss~t. Mayor Callon agreed and stated her belief .that Council had the discretion not to require the other road. Councilmember Watson said his prime concern was safety, and if busing was to be for senior citizens it should not be ques- tionable. He favored retaining the inspection requirenent. Councilmember Mallory stated he was considering whether he should participate, since he had not been able to go the site visit. Counci~ Jansen said she was opposed to bringing_-a-fo~d~i~toi'Watnut. Councilmembers discussed whether easement should be considered as adequate for secondary access, and Counci~ Mallory stated he preferred an all-weather access. Mr. Matteeni stated that Mr. Neale would accept the fire hydrantt require- ment in lieu of the road. Mayor Callon stated. she believed the Council was pretty well in agreement that inspection of the buildings should be req~l~red and inquired about the condition requiring future dedication to the Water District. Cc~nunity Development Director stated that purpose of the easement was for future access when existing structures were removed at sc~e indefinite time in the future. City Manager explained that the condition for th~ easement could not be imposed upon issuance of a building permit in case the buildings burned down, for example; this_condition could be imposed only at c~-tain~timesl, i~heltime-of subdivision approval being one such time. Councilmember Jensen inquired as to whether the condition could be changed to require increased setbacks rather than dedication of an easement, and City Manager 2~replied that that would not provide right to access. Council- member Watson asked if there were a way to meet the future requirement without placing a fj/In condition on it at this time. CuL,~unity Develol~ne/nt Director said that could be researched. Mr. Matteohi pointed out that there was an apartment house in the path of the proposed easenent, but that to the east there was a cut in the bank which would allow access. City Manager pointed out that access through the cut would not be above the high water mark. Councilmember Clevenger noted that Mr. Neale was dedicating 6,0001sc~are feet of land to the Water District on the other side of the creek, so 6~5/19/82 she felt it was unnecessary to dedicate land on the near side, since it would ~ut a cloud over the buildings. Councilmember Jensen favored a dedication rather than a setback. CLEVENGER/WRTSDN MDVHD TO DRI,~:i,~.' CONDITION 1 REQUIRING CONSTRUCTION OF 5MERGE~CY ACCESS NDAD ACRDSS WATER DISTRICT LAND TO WAI/qDT AVENUE; TO UPHDLD CONDITION 3A REQUIRING INSPECTION OF EXIST]iWG STRUCTURES; E5 ~ UPHOLD CONDITION 7C REQUIRING FUPtS~.DEDICATION OF AN ADDITIONALLt5?~T FROM TOP OF BANK; AND TO GRANT THE APPEAL AS MODIFIED. Passed 4-1~ (Jensen opposed) ... Councilmember Watson said he'seeonded the motion on the understanding that the condition for the f/re hydrant was included; Councilmember Clevenger stat~d~bhe understood ~hat was included, and noted that Mr. Matteoni had said that was ,acceptable. Councilmember Mallory cG~nented that he still favored an all-weather access road. .- Mr. Steele then withirew his appeal. Councilmember Jensen explained that she had opposed the motion because she couldn't agree to gr~anting the lagd to the .Water District. E. Ordinance Adding Article 24 Regarding Appeals to the Zoning Ordinance and Repealing and Amending Various Superseded or Inconsistent Sections of the Zoning Ordinance (first reading) City Manager explained contents o~ ordinance, n~ting ~h~t~ Plahnin~ Cc~mission did~ not reccnuend either the procedure for Council review of all items or the abandormnent of the distinction between de novo and pDn-de novo hearings. Mayor Callon stated she was concerned__ about the fairness of the review pro- cess. City Attorney stated that there would be no authuatic presumption that the applicant had not received a 'fair hearing at the Cc~mission level, 'and there would be no necessity fqr the Council to state grounds for its revieW. He kne~ of other cities that hsed this procedure. Councilmember Clevenger be to the 0 !on on e ain which gnt oco= once or twice a year. Councilfember Mallory noted that ~inc~ calling up an item would require 3 votes, it would show a strong opinion on the part of the Council if they did so. Councilmenber Clevenger f~elt the proposed ordinance was wh~t had been asked for and was appropriate. CouDcilmember Mallory expressed concern that Council'~ relationship with other bodies, especially the Planning Com- mission, would be jeopardized; be .feared it ~Duld ct~Linish the concept of a strong, independent Planning Corm~ssion. Mayor Callon was also concerned and felt that perhaps if a CoUncilmember wished to call an issue before the ~ Council, that person should appeal as an individual. Counci~ Watson felt that banuony.shoul~ be encouraged between Conmission and Council, but that the check and balance system was ~orthwhile. Councilmember Mall6ry posed the question whether it was better to chshge the Planning Conmbission to reflect Council Opinion or .to change their decisions after the fact. City Attorney explained that the Woodside Council called up land division~ and subdivision decisions automatically; the Saratoga ordinance would apply primarily to use permits and variances. Councilmember Clevenger stated that on certain particular issues the C Council might want to discuss a Planning Cu~a~,ission decision while not necessarily wa/~ti/lg to replace the conmissioners. Counci~ Watson noted that the Council is accountable to the voters, while the Planning Cc~mhission is not; he favored the ]callhp .-'~ provision because it would prevent fait acoompli situations. , Counciln~mber Clevenger then stated that if the call~pzbrocedure were .used very often, that would be indicative of basic problems that needed work- She felt it was a better procedure than individual appeals by Councilmembers because when the situation had arisen in the past (in the case .of In~erial Savings), no one had wished to make the effort to do so. ' Maydr Callon felt the callup procedure would create an attitude of unfairness and an atmosphere of the Council looking .over the ComlLiSsion's shoulder. In response to Councilmember Jensen, City Attorney explained the option~ of applicants who are refused use '~ permits. Councilmenber Jensen expressed concern that the procedure in Sect. 4.6-3 appeared to give autc~atic denial without prejudice. The public hearing was opened at 10:55 ]3~.m. No one appearing to speak., the public hearing was closed at 10:56 7-5/19/82 CLEVENGER/WATSON MOVED TO IN~f~ODUCE ORDINANCE, WA/VING FU~EF_~ READING. Passed 5-0. F. Ordinance Authorizing the Erect/on of Manufactured Hc~nes in All . 'Residential Districts in the City of Saratoga (infoI]nal hearing) City Manager explained that State law now rec~]ired that cities provide scee place within city limits for manufactured housing; such housing could be regulated but not prohibited. Last year, he said, Council had decided that the Zoning Ordinance should be amended to allow such housing within any residential zone rather than limiting it to a particular zone. He stated that the ordinance had been referred to the planning Cc~pmission, which had raised several questions about it, resulting in Council's wish to obtain public input through an infoEmal public hearing. Planning Director e~p~ained State law, noting that cities could regulate only roof overhang, siding, and roof materials through the design review process. He felt that there were no particular consequences if Council did not pass such an ordinance because an applicant would go through existing procedures and meet existing standards and the new State requirenents. He remarked that feW~applications for manufactured homes were expected because it would be econc~nically unfeasible on the expensive land in Saratoga. Federal law, he said, does not distinguish between manufactured hcmes on permanent fou~tations and those not on such foundations; California law states they shal~ be on permanent foundations. Counci~ Watson pointed out that a memo frc~a Planning Director had referred to "mobile homes" rather than "manufactured hcmes." He felt there Was concern by residents as to mobile hcmes. He also reported-that there were scme manufactured homes costing $80,000 and up, which would justify mere than a $50,000 lot; new financing also made them mere feasible. He expressed the opini6n that the ordinance had originally been presented to Council with the idea that it was mandated and had been presented to the Planning Cu~uL,]ssion with that understanding. He felt it had been delayed by the. Planning Cc~mission and was an example where the callup provision could have been used to good advantage. City Manager, in response to Mayor Callon, explained that if City did not adopt an ordinance it might end up in court def~ding its ordinances against the State law which prohibited the banning of manufactured busing. If the City did adopt such an ordinance, it would be protected frcm suit because it would have ~ plied with State law. He stated that staff had not said in 1981 that Council must do ~nyt~g,but had explained options and risks involved. Councilmember Watson stated his belief that, although there should be an ordinance, the · Council had taken a stand in 1981 without much public input; he felt such input Was needed. In response to Mayor Callon, City Attorney replied that AB 1960 applied only to manufactured housing on permanent foundations, add that the City could con- tinue to deny permits to thDse not on permanent foundations. Planning Director reported that a new law spoke to mobile home parks in all residential districts throughout the State with a conditional use permit. City Attorney clarified that any propesed manufactured busing would have to ccmply with all City req~]i rements, including setbacks, with the exception ttiat only eaves, roofing material and siding could be regulated through the design review process. Mayor Callon and Councilmenber Cleveng~r then pointed out that the City was pro- tected by the present ordinance, and a new ordinance would not pr6tect the City much mere than it is protected at present. Mayor Callon asked why Manager had said the situation might end up in court, add he ex~Dl~/ned that since present ordinances permit only housing built' on- site, if the City ware asked to approve a manufactured house it would be vio- lating either its own ordinance by granting it or State law by banning it. Mayor Callon then asked what the Planning Ccmmission had done with the ordinance at l~st week's public hearing, and C~L~ILity Develo~nent Director said he had thought the public hearing was scheduled for next waek. Councilmember Mallory, ~Mallo_'~y~ - wh6 ' had.'-~not;~.~be~n ~ese~t 'at- ~h~ol~st -.~egu~a~-~:~ ~C~undil -m~ti~:g' jo~"~,~'-May j]'9j, asked why the Council w~s even considering the issue, if it were still in the hands of the Planning Cu~.~ssion. Council- member Watson re~lied that he was abDut to leave the Council, and he b~d received many questions from residents as to why no action on the matter had been taken; he felt at least sc~e activity had been initiated on it, although the public hearing apparently was not to be held until next week. Planning Director stated that there had indeed been a public hearing last week, but no one had appeared to speak; there had also been a public hearing December 9 and a study session JaD~ry 13. Councilmenbet Watson renarked that if the n6~spaper published an 8-5/19/82 article about trailer buses in open apace, scmeone would appear to speak. In respon_se to Coumcilmenbem Jensen, City Attorney stated that the Town of Wood- ~sida haa an~ RL1]-16~Fel] zone for Open spate which pelqnitted only agicult~ral uses and Slndi~ ~amly dwellings; manufactured busing 'had been restricted to that zone. Saratoga, he said, did not have such a zone. Councilmember Jensen favored the' Woodside solution as a p.'roper one. The public heir'i~g was opened at 11:20 p.m. Shel~ley Willie, 1_19~i ~rookridge Drive, spoke in favor of the ordinance. He b_e_lieved .th~.t only..1T~% of b~nes in Saratoga would he built as manufactured housing, and tha~ it would help the building industry~ which was und,ergoing ~ f!nanqial crisis. He also pointed out that there had been controversy in Saratoga over tract hunes when they were first proposed. Dora Grens,/.13451 O1~ Oak Way~ stated that she was not opposed' to prefabricated busing. She had read do .c.unents referred to by staff, however, anxt believed at least one was put together by members of the mobile hare industry. It recommended building entire tragts o.f manufactured h~mes, and she opposed that idea. She felt there was a push for manufactured hc~nes beingi made insidiously, as had been done several years hefo~,e for condgmiDiLmls. Mrs. Grens believed the issue sh~uid have a deeper review; co_ncerning the Plannj_ng Cu~.~ssion public hearing.s, she believed Commissioners did not how of it in advance and questioned whether it had been pboperly noticed. Planning Director' responded that the! sources. he had referred' ~o. were not frown the building industry, but frc~ the .Deputy City Attorney, the Department of Housing and Community Development, local officials througheut California and, primarily, State law. He stated that the public hearings-had been noticed as usual in the newapaper 10 days hafor~hand and offered to provide proof of publication. The'public hearing was' closed at 11:30 p.m., no one further appearing to speak. Councilmember Clevenger said that no', one wished to encourage manufactured housing in Saratoga, and that the direction to the Planning Cc~nission sbould probably be to find some talk that would economically prohibit it l She had not pre- vious!y realized that they could be restricted to on~ area but 6p~osed the idea of restricting'then to 1/4 acre lots which, 'she feared, was the greatest thr~at. Mayor Callon preferred to direct the~Con~Lission to consider whethbr'the ordi- nance as presea3ted tonight ~as 'actually 'reqnfired, since the City could not . imFose any more design conditions ~han-at present, or whether sc~ne different approach was needed. Councilmember Watson stated he was not particularly concerned about individual mobile homes but did o[~ose several together. He wished to direct the Oa~d ssion to discourage develolm~ntal activity toward manufactured housing. Mayor Callon throught it might be possible to get sup- port frown legislators and the League,. of California Cities to change State law. She believed there would he support to do so frcm other cities like Saratoga. Councilfeenke:2 Mallory ccFanented t~at the issue should not even be Before the COLmCil at this point,. since' direction had been .given to the Planning Cc~c mission that manufactured housing should Be allowed in only a' few places. He felt the larger lots might Be' the best location, since'manufactured hames · probably would not be feasible in th6se lots. In sadition, he felt the issue was phony and contrived, since there'was little chance of manufactured hames in Saratoga. Councilmember Jensen said Saratoga should not lower its high housing-standards; she favored the means by which Woodside had restricted manufactured homes and felt Council should direct Planning .~a~,~sson toward that solution. Council- member Clevenger feared that if manufactured homes were permitted on large lots seneone might place one on such a lo{, build a second, conventional hame on the'same lot (while living in the manufactured home), and later convert the manufactured .home into a'guest ~heuse;. Mayor Cailon stated her belief that - tha~ could not Be done under present!ordinances,! and Planning Director con- firreed that. ' CounciLmember Jensen b'.rbught up' the mother-in-law cottage law. Councilmember Watson stated concern Lhat the Council had been stampeded into takfng action when the issue firs~ cane up because Council had been told it was necessary to pass an ordinance.' ~City Manager stated that ~he State conSti- ¢t_Bt~i_~n; guarantees the right of hamel rule, which n~Bans that the City could Cbse not to comply with State l~w and take its case to court. He believed staff had presented the case 'as it had been understood at the time, giving the Council options and alternativesl,, and it had been the majority decision to take the direction which had been taken. He reed that the Planning 9.-5/19/82 Cc~m~sion be allowed to identify its issues and concerns and to make recxDnmendations, as i~the normal procedure:. Planning Director pDinted OUt that, with regard to staff reedations, the first option in the staff meno dated 7/10/81 was to do nothing. He felt that what was required and what was allowed bad been indicated to Council. - .... ~1.']' - Mayor Callon favored asking the Planning Conmission to address whether the City should do something, since there was no requirenent that the City must do something. Councilmember Clevenger added that the Planning Conmission should aaavess how the City could best implement the Council 's apparently unaninDus feeling that manufactured busing should be deterred. Mayor Callon, noting that the City Attorney had to leave, asked that a closed session on litigation be set for the next meeting. She then pro- ceeded to items preceding public hearings on the agenda. IV. PETiTIONS, ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTICNS (continued) B. Ordinance ~R~ising Slop~_ Density Formula in the HC~D Zoning District to a 2-10 Acre Straight Line Formula (Sect. 3A.24) (second reading) CLEVENGER/JMq~ENMOV~D TO READ ORDINANCE NS3.50 BY TITLE ONLY, WAIVING FI3RTHER READING. Passed 5-0. JENSEN/CLEV[XqGER MOVED TO ADOPT ORDINANCE. Passed 5-0. C. Resolution Authorizing Ac0eptance and Consent to Deeds and Grants JtlqSEN/MALIDRY MOVED ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION 40-7. Passed 5-0. D. Resolution Revising ABAG Housing Needs D~tennination WATSON/MAIIDRY MOVED ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION 1068.1. Passed 5-0. E. Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. NS-60.11 to Extend its Term Frcm Six MDnths to Twelve Months (first reading) JENSEN/WATSON FfTvtD TO INTRODUCE BY TITLE ONLY, WAIVING FURTHER READING. Passed 5-0. F. ResolUtion to Appropriate Revenue Sharing Funds for Pavement Inprovenent Demonstration Projects City.Mahager._had explained that~staff.~had_recently found that the-law did not allow City to purchase materials withoUt going to bid for this project. He recommended that] if Council concurred with idea of project, Revenue Sharing funds be appropriated for project and staff be aUthorized to go to bid for materials acquisition. MALIDRY/CLEV[NGER MOVED TO APPROVE PROJECT AND APPROPRIATE FUNDS FROM REVENUE SHARING. Passed 4-0 (Jensen abstaining). Mayor Callon reported 'that sc~eone had cu~Lented to her on the fact that the project had not gone to bid; Manager had explained to her that City fUDXtS required for this project were very small, bUt if the demonstration were successful the contract would be put to bid. Councilmember Watson stated he was generally concerned about pUtting projects to bid, bUt since this was a pilot program end materials would be bid, he supported it. Councilmenbern Clevenger remarked that she felt the project was an excellent one and indicated the City was attu~ting to save money by making only necessary improvenents. Councilmember Jensen expressed concern that the City should make fund transfers to make sure the expenditure was covered with things that were already aUthorized. City Manager explained that if the City were found to be in violation of administrative regulations on use of Revenue Sharing, the City would be given 60-day notice to correct the problem; the correction would be by appropriating the money to an aUthorized use. He went on to explain that the problem was that the City had a large balance of Revenue Sharing funds which had not been expended as quickly as regulations required. Counci~ Jensen stated she did not want to spend any money until it was clear the City was not going into its reserves. City Manager stated that the City would probably end upL~ith-reven~esC ibou~ $2000 more than expenditures.in the General FUDXt. In thecRevelYue-xSharing Fund, he said, the City has spent just about what it has received in antitlenents, bUt has yet to spend aboUt $450..,000 in 10-5/19/82 interest earned on Revenue Sharing funds. Regulations require that thebinteres~, as Well as the entitlements, be spent within cy~a~i period, ~ ~trt~the~fpenalty~or not spending the funds was s'~ly 60-day notice to do-so. - He stated.that the budget was not in a deficit position, although the apparent $2000 surplus was cutting it rather thin~. ~It=-wAS~nec~ssary'zto~'spend the Revenue Sharing reserves, he said, in order to prevent it frcra being returned to the Federal government; General Fund reserves Were not being spent. Councilmember Jensen abstained because she did not see how the budget was balanced.. Coeneilmember Mallory requested, that Item C. be removed. Lrc~,;2 ~GER/WRTSON MDVtD TO APPROVE 'AND ADOPT. ITEMS A, B and D-F on the CONSENT CAI,ENDAR. Passed 5-0. A.Resolution Commending F6o~hill Club on 75th Annivers~ary and Memorial Day Parade '- Resolution No. 1089 saopted. . _ B. D~al Of.Claim - Gatehottse Condominiem Claim denied. C. Resolution Concerning Community College Week Councilmember Mallory said he f&lj the resolution was excessive and did not approve it. Counciln~mtk~3.' Jensen moved adoption of the resolution. There was no send. Councilmeed~_r Watson felt the conmunity colleges had provided many positive services; there were a couple of excessive statements in the resolution; he had no c9]arrel either way. D. Re~olution concerning "Friends Can Re Go~'Medicine" Sponsored by Calfforni~ Department of Mental Health ' Resolution No. 1090 adopted. ' E. Treasurer's RepOrt - April! Noted. F. ~pprovall6ftWarrant List Approved. ,VIII. ADMINISTRATIVE MA~'i'~i~S ' A. MAYOR i k!j v r Cal~ o:~ IGCeRepof~c.:on Meeting With John Vasconcellos n6~"i~ ~D~"{iTna~cial~hape than tbe State;-Vas~ncellos said there. might be inereased~Stat~S. texes to help the State budget. She then brought up a resolution concerning Station ~l'~H and a shDwing of "Annie" to benefit the station. I Councilmenber Watson felt it ,was probably a whelesc~e show, but he did not favor joining in sc~ething that was to · be promoted as a commercial venture. CALLON/cI.RVElq~ MOVED TO HAVE .THE, RESOLLr~ION CONCERNING KTEH PRESkNT~23. Passed 3-2 (Mallory, Watson opposed). B. COLIqCIL AND CC]~vLISSION REPORTS Jensen reported that the Sanitaffion District was stil~ involved in review- ing figures so that bonest discussion could be held with San Jose on sewage treatment plant. Mallory-reporte~ that there would be a LeaguezdfjCilifornia Cities Penin- sula DiVision meeting at the Novitiate on July 29. Clevenger report&] that the Viiiage Library Building Usage Task Force 11-5/19/82 hoped to present its report at the J~e 2 meeting. 1. Report fr~n L~ibrary Advisory Cc~nission re Proposed Capital Improvements CuL,l~unity Center Director explained proposed improvenents. City Manager pointed out that City had $40,000 surplus construction funds available. WATSON/CLEV~qGER MOVED TO APPROVE PROPOSE]~ IMPROVF~M~NTS. Passed 5-0. C. DEPAKTMENT HEADS A~D 0FFIC~2{S 1. Cc~mmity Develo~nent a. Report re: Re-routing of School Bus Community Development Director explained school bus routing change, which had ccme about because scme Du~ drivers had recently concluded that to make a right turn from Quit~ to Marshall Lane it was necessary to cross over the centor line. The Highway Patrol verified the bus drivers' con- tention, he said, and suggested alternate routing. The School District did not favor access fr~n Sobey Read because it would be too costly and - ~ would mean dropping students of..f ~at some distance frcm the scPool. The ·. School BOard did not wish to · retu~n buses to' Marshall Lane because of the safety considerations, unless the corner were improved so that buses did not have to cross the center line. He explained that there was addi- tional right-of-way on Quito where the improverent could be made. The School Districts business manager had told him th~t'~bu'~' using Ravenwood C~d that route only once in the mornings and twice in the afternoons. . _~'-. Kurther, the business manager had stated that the School District was con- sidering re-routing the buses to eliminate that route entirely. C~ifLunity Development Director recc~nended that the City not become involved in the routing of school buses. In response to Mayor Callon, Director stated that the Quito improvement would probably cost $5-10,000. Mayor Callon favored t~ying to resolve the issue during the s~mmer and bringing it hack if it could not be resolved. Councilmember Jensen siid she would like scme staff investigation to see if a simple, inexpensive improvement might be made. Community Develo~e~nt Director stated that to accum~date school buses a fair Eant of improve- ment would probably be necessary. Councilmember Mallory recommended that not much time be spent on the project, and Director felt not much time would be necessary. Darwin Barrett rose to say that 36 houses were involved, .and it was a nui- sance to have the buses travel the present route; he also ~t&ted children walked along that route. He s~id fuFcher that he believed the yellow line was not in the middle of the street and could be moved over. Mayor Callon stated there seemed to be consensus to have staff take a look at costs of improving the intersection. 2. Finance Director a. Quarterly Financial Report City Manager stated the reports for three q,~arters had been cc~npleted, but it would probably be better to consider th~n at a study session. He then asked that the Council return to Council and Commission Reports. B. COUNCIL AND CS~LISSION REPORTS (continued) 2. Finance A~visory Cc~nittee (added at meeting) City Manager suhnitted a letter from the chairperson of the con~nittee. The meeting was adjourned at 12:15 a.m. Respectfully sukmitted, Grace E. Deputy City Clerk