Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-19-1983 City Council Minutes SUMMARY MINUPES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL TIME: Wednesday, January 19, 1983 - 7:30 p.m. PLAEE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue TYPE: Regular Meeting COMM1TI'~.'~.' OF THE WHOLE - 6:00 p.m. - Senior LOunge, 19655 Allendale Avenue ~qo agenda; general issues to be discussed. ) I. ORGANIZATION A. ROLL CALL - Councilmembers Clevenger, Fanelli, Mallory, Moyles and Mayor Callon present at 7:30 p.m. B. MINUTES - 1/5 CI/TVt~qGER/MALLORY MDVED TO ADOPT MINUTES WITH CORRECTION ON PACE T~D THAT ~CER HAD STATkD THAT COUNCIL SHOe ACCEPT THE ~SSION'S REODF~EIqDA- TION (HATHER THAN WAS OBLIGATr/3 TO) AND WI'I'I{ CORRECTION OF GENDER OF PRONOUN REFPI~0JNG TO MAYOR CALLON IN SAME PARAGRAPH. Passed 5-0. II. ~ICjtTIONS A. ORAL No one appeared to speak. B. WRi'iT~N #1 frc~ LOis Davis COncerning encroachment on her property by Mr. Ken Daniel referred to staff to acknowledge letter and advise ,Mrs. Davis it 'must be handled as a civil totter. #2 from Sunnyvale Rod and Gun Club requesting support, noted and filed. #3 from Henry Murphy suggesting tax for paramedic and ambulance service, noted and filed. #4 from Mildred Gordon reporting on Advisory Council on Aging, acce~ted with aUpreciation. #5 frcm Mr. end Mrs. Brogliatti requesting increased service fDom garbage company, referred to staff. III. SUBDM SIONS, BUILDING SITES, AND ZONING REQUESTS None. IV.PETITIONS, ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS None. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. APPEAL of COnditions of variance to reduce the parking requirements for a bank to be COnstructed at the Argonaut Shopping Center on Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road (Applicant/appellant, Robert Egan for .Mr. Sanfilippo) (COntinued frcm 5/19/82) Mayor Callon and Councilraember Mallory stepped down, noting they have a financial interest in the project. Councilmember Clevenger was appointed as Mayor pro tee to lead the discussion. The public hearing was opened at 8:15 p.m. There was no one frcm the audience to speak. MOYLES/FANFff,T,I MOVED TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO THE NEXT REGULAR ~TING ON 2/2/83. Passed 3-0. Mayor Callon and Counci~r Mallory resuned their seats at-the~ meetifi~.nz-':_ B. APPEAL of denial of design review approval A-840 for an office building on Cox Avenue (Bldg. B) at Paseo Presada (Applicant/appellant, A. Shelton) (COntinued from 12/1) 2~1Y19/83 City Manager reviewed appeal, noting that Council had had an opFortunity to review the issues raised at the prior public hearing at their 1/11 york session with the applicant and residents of the area. The public hearing was opened at 8:18 p.m. Arthur Shelton spoke representing the appellant/applicant. He presented a revised site plan which the Council had requested at the study session. The plan showed only one entrance frc~ Cox Avenue and additional landscaping. Councilmember Fanelli expressed her feeling that the Coan~il had committed to the neighbors that this building will not have a continuing adverse impact on them due to the amount of traffic and discussed the need to find a mechanism to provide that the use of the building vould not change in the future so as to have such an impact on the neighborhood. City Manager suggested a separate vrzi~ten agreement as the best method to insure this. Mr. Shelton expressed his willingness to enter into such an agree~ent. Greg Nellis, 18366 Cleanson Avenue, speaking as a resident and as a PlanD_ing C~t~'~'~ssioner, explained that he wished to speak for the record of his concerns about increasing the size of the building. FANY~,T,I/MALIDRY MDVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:40 P.M., AS THERE WAS NO ONE FURTHER TO SPEAK. Passed 5-0. "' Counci~ Moyles stated his support for the agreement worked out, which he felt was very acceptable to everyone. MOYLES/FANE. T,T,I MDVED TO APPROVE A-840 AS AMENDED BY THE SI'I'~ PlAN SIj~'I'I'~3 ON 1/19/83 AND MARKtI) EXHIBIT A, SUBJECT TO CONFORBIANCE WiTH THE PREVIOUS PlAN IN ALL RESPECTS EXCEPT THAT THE SECOND ACCESS ONTO COX AVENUE SHALL BE CIDSt]), AND FURTHER CONDITIONtI) UPON THE C~gNER'S ENTERING INTO A P~f{I'I'I'~L~ AE WITH THE CITY STIPULATING THE PROPERTY WIT,T, NOT BE USED FOR CUSTOMER-ACCESS FACILITIES OF FIlqANCIAL INSTITLT~IONS OR BE CONVERI'EU INTO A MEDICAL CENTER, WITH SAID AGREEM~qT TO BE ~ AND APPROVED BY THE CO~4UNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR AND RECORDED BY THE CITY. Passed 5-0. Mayor Callon thanked both the cozenunity and the applicants for cooperating with the Council. C.REZONING of pp,rtion of site at 14540 Big Basin Way from RM-3000 to (Eugene Zambetti, applicant) (C-199) Senior Planner briefed Council on the hackground and explained the specifics. The Planning Ccmmlission had already approved a procedure, a variance for building site approval, the design review approval for the office building, and reoonm~_nded approval of the rezoning. The public hearing was opened' at 9:02 p.m. Robert Aviles, designer of the project, explained the hackground of the application. As there was no~ one else who wished to speak, the public hearing was closed at 9:05 p.m. FANET,T,I/MALIDRY MOVED TO DIRFLT STAFF TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE TO BRING BACK AT THE NEXT M~2~I'ING ON 2/2. Passed 5-0. Mayor Callon commented on the many letters of support frcm the Village merchants and stated that it appeared a good compromise had been reached. VI. BIDS AND CONTRACTS A. AWARD of contract - Administrative vehicle purchase FAN~,T,IyFDYT,F.q MDVED TO APPROVE PURCHASE OF THREE VEHICLES. Passed 5-0. B. LEASE of Village Library Administrative Services Director gave a status report on the remodeling of the Village Library, which has been completed. She explained that the section of the lease which was to deal with the security deposit had been inadvertently omitted and the c~ssion bad just.been discovered. The groups to use the Library indicated they could not pay a security deposit. Counci~ Fanelli expressed reservations about. the Council 's net securing thenselves if they did not require a security deposit. Council discussed this point and several other portions of the lease which they considered changing. Council consensue was reached on these issues and also that two options for paying the security deposit would be included in a revised version of the lease. Staff Was directed to negotiate the lease with · .; ,~ . 3-1/19/83 VITA and the Friends of the Libraries end bring it beck to en adjourned regular meeting on 1/25/83. VII. CONSENT CAT,'F~qDAR Councilmember Mallory removed Item A. A. AGREtlMENT with Youth Science Institute Council discussed this item, which had been approved in the budget. City Manager explained relation was not to aFpropriate the honey, but to approve the agree- ment, the purpose of which is to protect City from liability for use of the money. FANET,T,I/CLEVENGER MDVED TO APPROVE A~. Passed 5-0. B. APPROVAL of Warrant List CLEVENGER/CALIDN MOVED TO APPROVE. Passed 5-0. VIII. ADMINISTRATIVE M~i'~'h:RS A. MAYOR Council then made appointments to various commissions for which interviews bed been held 1/17. MALLORY/FDYLES MOVtI) TO APROIlqT TO THE FINANCE ADVISORY CC~IMI~TEE: BTT,L BENEVEN~FO TO/A THREE-YEAR 'I'~j~M EXPIRING 12/3I./85 AND DON PKTERSON TO THE UNEXPIRED TERM OF GREG NEr,T.IS ENDING 12/31/83: Passed 5-0. CLEVENGER/MALIDRY MOVED TO APPOINT TO THE PARKS AND RECRFATION ~SSION FOR FOUR- YEAR TERMS EXPIRING AUGUST, 1986: ROGER CT,EM~qS, PAUL MOORE, AND JOHN SAUNDERS. Passed 5-0. MALIDRY/~,RVt~qGER MOVED TO APROIlqT TO THE LIBRARY OOF~LISSION FOR FOUR-YEAR TERMS EXPIREqG FEBRUARY, 1987: PAT MAHT,ER AND WILMA MORRISON. Passe~. 5-.~0. MOYLES/MALLORY MOVED TO APPOINT TO THE PLANNING COMvISSION FOR THE UNEXPIRED TERM OF VIC MONIA ENDING JANDTtRY, 1985: KATHY MCGOLDRICK. Passed 5-0. B. COUNCIL AND CO~IMISSION REPORTS Councilmember Moyles reForted on a joint meeting of the Board of Supervisors and County Trensportation Conmission in which the :::SUpervisors made statements supFortive of the Alternatives Analysis of the West Valley Corridor. '. Councilmember Clevenger also spoke on the City' s opportunity for input concerning the Alternatives Analysis by attending the meetings. Councilmember Fanelli conmented on the Mayor' s letter following the meeting with the Saratoga Fire District and expressed hope that the Council would take an even stronger position in support of the Saratoga Fine District. Councilmember Mallory announced the program for the League of California Cities Peninsula Division meeting on 1/27 and encouraged Councilmembers to attend. 1. Planning Conm~ssion Report on General Plan (oral presentation) Assist'a]h[ Planner gave beckground on the General Plan as recommended from the Planning Cor~mission and described t~D alternate schedules for discussion of the General Plan and its adoption. Plarming Cua,l,~ssioner Nellis presented a report on bebelf of Chairperson Schaeffer and one of his own, beth of which reviewed the process to date and emphasized their ceneerns. CONSHNSUS TO PURSUE THE SECOND ALTEI~ATIVE PRESENTED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, Sk'ITING THE FIRST PUBLIC HEARING FOR 2/2. 2. Report and slide presentation on Muko-shi Sister City Program Marion Card showed slides from her recent trip to Japan as an emissary from Sara- toga to Muko-shi and reported on the trip. Mayor Callon thanked the Cards for the presentation and for being emissaries. Councilmember Moyles added that a final draft of the Sister City resolution should be before the Council before ~ir. Yasui's visit in March. 4-1/19/83 C. DEPARTMENT HEADS AND OFFICERS 1. Administrative Services Director report on cable television Director seized her report concerning the major issues confronting the City with regard to operation of the cable television syste~n and discussed the map show- . ing which areas of the City are currently served. Ken Daniel, president of Saratoga Cable TV Company, gave his positioh On the ccm- plaihts which were included in the report. He also discussed the need for an en- croachment permit and the difficulty in hooking the system to the undergrounded utilities. City Manager discussed requirements of the franchise and .emphasized the need for mutual cooperation to solve some of the complex problems in operating the system. Mrs. Barbara Shonk, 20320 Argonaut Drive, addressed the Council regarding her pre- vious cerreslosnd~ncer! about service oomplaints. She thanked staff for the informa- tion given to her ap~ retracted some of her previous complaints. She expressed the hope that the Council and Mr. Daniel could develop some kind of quality control. for censu~ers. After discussion of these issues, the Council consensus was to have a Counci~ meet with the City ~nager and Mr. Daniel to work together to resolve some of the problems. Councilmember Fanelli VOlunteered to be the Council representative. Council ~djourned at 10:50 p.m. to closed session on litigation and to an adjourned r~egular meeting at 7:30 p.m. on January 25, 1983. Respectfully suhnitt~t, J~ Wa z City~- Clerk_' . ..... l~ 1/19/83 Notes from Louise Schaefer, Chair of Planning Commission, to Council re General Plan As we discussed at the Joint Session of the Planning Commission and City Council last week, the Commission is in strong agreement 5-1 on a concensus of support for the General Plan as presented. Area plans, goals, policies and action plans have been reviewed and evaluated. However, since Commissioners only received corrected copy Monday evening, individuals may give input as private citizens during public hearings Areas for particular attention'and public awareness are: 1) Impact of circulation safety commuters in and out noise for internal trips convenience recreation expense foot, bike, vehicle 2) West Valley Corridor agree to maintain corridor need public hearing for more specific policy 2 points of view develop/don't develop 3) plan for school site uses 4) Some areas were confined to only comment on own area and wanted to be broader for city at large. Memo to: SaratOga City Council From: Joyce H!ava, P~nnning Commissioner ~ Subject: General Plan Louise asked each Planning CommissiOner to write up the items in the General Plan about which we have concerns. Mine are as follows. 1. THE FREEWAY CORRIDOR: Neither the GPCAC not' the D!anning Commission dealt with this issue in any depth because +:~ey felt it was a major city-wide problem. which must be de- cided at the Council level. The GPCAC was divided on whether a freeway is needed. My concern is the emphasis in the GP on this corridor as an open space resource. While it does provide open space, I feel that out' planning should not rely on that open space for parks, 'trails, etc. We do not control or own this corridor and, with a pro-highway administration in Sacramento, may be hard-pressed to maintain it as open space in the future. 2. LAND USE POLICIES 6.1 & 6.3: These policies reflect a strong feeling by the GPCAC members that the impacts of new development should be considered on a cumulative rather than. an individual basis. I. agree with this and am concerned that the city has no effective mechanisms by which this can be accomplished. I feel that implementation of these policies _ should be a separate study after passage of the GP. 3. AREA PLANS A, C, G, & H: '. AREA'A- As a member' of the Specific Plan Committee I feel that the recommended changes in the Specific Plan are inappropriate. Much time, thought, and extensive public participation went into the Specific · Plan. No major hillside subdivisions have been approved since approval of the Specific Plan and it seems inappp~pI, fa~ to make changes in it before it has been tested in any way. AREA C- As the Area C representative I object strong- ly to the inclusion of #13 in this Action Program. Area C is defined in its Area Description as starting at the boundary of the Specific Plan Area. No part of the Specific Plan is in Area C and thus there is no reason to include this Action Program. AREAS G & H- Opinion in these areas seems divided between those who wish to widen Fruitvale in order to make it safer and those who wish to leave it "as is" for its aesthetic quality and in order to  discourage development. Because it traverses an area of continuing development, it appears that the GP needs to clearly indicate the future size and · safety improvements needed on Fruitvale in order to guide future development decisions. -2- J. Hlava 4. HERITAGE ROADS: I support the concept of Heritage Roads, however I am very concerned about the implications of designating arterials such as Pierce Rd. and Quito Rd. as Heritage Roads. While I support beautification efforts on all our roads, I feel the prime consideration on arterials must be to safely carry traffic. Safety considerations must precede aesthetic considerations when discussing major' traffic carriers whether' they'are Heritage Roads or not. 5. PD DESIGNATIONS: I strongly disagree with eliminatio~ of the PD designation. It seems to me the only way to preserve some open space at our closed school sites: it also could be a valuable tool in planning uses on difficult sites such as the Abrams property. Greg Nellis' Comments to Council re General Plan 1/19/83 In order to speak to the concern I have on the General Plan, I feel the need to address how we got to where we are this evening. The revised General Plan has been in the making for nearly two years. The General Plan Citizens Advisory Committee worked on the document the better part of 1981. GPCAC's work consisted of informing the community that the General Plan was being revised, and sought citizen input for the revised document. To obtain citizen input, 12 area meetings were conducted each by a separate area representative appointed by the City Council. The meetings generally lasted 2-4 hours. After all the area meetings were conducted, attended by some 6-10 people,GPCAC began writing up consensus statements with respect to citizen input. After consensus was achieved on the citizen statements, GPCAC worked on the citywide goals and policies. From my perspective on the committee, the goals and policies discussion went pretty smoothly. There was some controversy over whether the area plans and programs Should be reviewed by the entire committee. The committee decided not to examine the area plans because some things such as the West Valley Corridor were controversial and area plans sometimes differed. It is my opinion GPCAC members generally-felt more strongly over their area plan than they did about the Citywide goals and policies. That is not to say that GPCAC took the goals and policies lightly at all. I'm simply trying to convey my sense on how strongly the committee felt about their area plans. In any event, GPCAC did not review area plans for consistency with each other, or with the goals and policies. After GPCAC forwarded their work to the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission had the General Plan during most of 1982. While I was not on the Planning Commission until August, I under- stand that the Planning Commission dealt with the area action programs first and this review went on for a good part of the year. During the latter part of the year, the Commission dealt with the Citywide goals and policies and other areas of the General Plan. I believe there was very little controversy over the Citywide goals and policies at the Planning Commission level. 1/19/83 Page two From my perspective on both GPCAC and the Planning Commission, there comes a point to forward the document along even though the document is not perfect. I believe after nearly two years of effort by GPCAC and the Planning Commission, it is time for you to receive this document. I know you will keep in mind the hard work and effort put forth by the staff, citizens, GPCAC and Planning Commission when you re- view this General Plan. I'm sure you will find it appropriate and necessary to make some changes and resolve some areas of the plan. I personally hope you will focus in the area described on ~ages of the staff report. The staff report outlines the situation before you very well. My major concern now is that the General Plan process be completed and the revised plan be implemented accordingly.