Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-07-1984 City Council Minutes MINLrfES - ' SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL TIME: Wednesday, March 7, 1984 - 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue TYPE: Regular Meeting I. ORGANIZATION A. ROlL CALL - Councilmembers Callon, Clevenger, Fanelli, Mallory and Mayor Meyles present at 7:01 p.m. B. MINUTES- 2/15 CLEVENGER/MDYLES MDVED TO APPROVE ~S AS SUBM1Ti'~U. Passed 5-0. ; II. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS J. H. Haufe, 21210 Canyon View Dr. , i_nquired as to whether the Parks and Recreation Ccr~nission had considered adding land near the Village Inn to Wildwood Park as parking space, thereby saving large trees. Councilmember Fenelli stated that since she under- stood the land had sold for about $575,000, she believed it unlikely that the Cc~mission had considered acquiring it. Tom Reddick, Larchmont Avenue, inquired as to the procedure for requiring utility com- panies to restore streets when they have removed pavement, especially the pavement in front of his house. City Manager was directed to respond to Mr. Reddick. Shelley Willi~ns, 11951 Brookridge Drive, requested that the Council write to the Metropolitan Transportation Ccnmission reculu~ending inclusion of funds for purchase of right-of-way for Route 85. Council discussed action which might be taken. Joan Breen, who stated she lived near where the freeway was to go, preferred that no letter be written until more citizen input had been received. Carol Machol, Rennie Way, op- posed such a letter at this time, since it might be used in some unenticipated way later. Tom Reddick said he felt it inappropriate for a candidat~ for City office,--such as Martha Clevenqer, to c~ml~0nicate with a person running for another office, such as Supervisor Morgan, in order to address the problems of Saratoga. Councilmembers stated it was appropriate for Mrs. Clevenger to represent the Council, and Mrs. Clevenger was asked to write a letter supporting acquisition of right-of-way to Supervisor Morgan, which Mrs. Morgan could then transmit to the Metropolitan Transportation Con]nission. III. CONSENT CAT,FLNDAR A. Denial of Claim - Bolger et al. (by Briski) B. ~Denial of Claim - Sobelman (by Allard) C. Denial of Claim - Strobmeyer (by Fitzsi~nons) · D. Acceptance of Donation to Library E. Treasurer's Report - January F. Approval of Warrant List CLEVt~GER/MDYLES MDVED TO APPROVE ENTIRE CONSENT CAIENDAR. Passed 5-0. IV. SCHEDLF.RD MRI"I'M~S A. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS 1. Report frc~a Cam't~nity Development Director on Bike/Pedestrian Path on · Quito Road 0~ritten Conmunication #3, 2/15/84) Report was presented for information only. 2. Oral Report frem City Manager and Staff on Use of California Conservation Corps during February Report was presented for information only. 2-3/7/84 B. REPORTS FROM COD~IISSIONS AND COM_IT~F.q - None. C. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS 1. Resolution Authorizing Appropriation of HCDA Funds for Senior Center Councilmember Fanelli inquired as to parking lot lights for which funds had been allocated. Maintenance Director explained that the processes were in motion with the contractor. She then suggested that similar lights be installed for the front parking lot at City Hall. CLEVENGER/MALLORY MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2073.9. Passed 5-0. 2. Resolution concerning AAUW Week sponsored by Mayor Moyles Councilmember Mallory cc~anented that although AAUW was a fine organization, it was a political one. He could not endorse the resolution because of stands the organization had taken on various issues. Other Councilmembers supported the resolution because of AAUW's efforts in giving the citizens of Saratoga information concerning various issues. MOYLES/CALTDN MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2126. Passed 4-1 (Mallory bpposed). 3. Ordinance Designating FoothillClub as Heritage Resource (first reading ) Councilmember Clevenger commented that she felt the implementation of the Heritage Preservation Ordinance was one of the most significant efforts undertaken by the Council. CLEVENGER/FANELLI MOVED TO READ ORDINANCE BY TITLE ONLY, WAIVING FURTHER READING. Passed 5-0. CLEVENGER/MOYLES MOVED TO INTRODUCE ORDINANCE. Passed 5-0. FABr~.LI/MOYLES MOVED TO ADOPT THE FINDINGS AS SHOWN ON EXHIBIT B. Passed 5-0. 4. Ordinance concerning Enforcement of Code and Ordinance Provisions (first reading) CLEVENGER/FANELLI ~DVED TO READ ORDINANCE BY TITLE ONLY, W~/'VllqG FURTHER READING. Passed 5-0. MOYLES/CALIDN MOVED TO i~fRODUCE ORDINANCE AS READ BY TITLE. Passed 5-0. D. BIDS AND CONTRACTS 1o Notice of Completion - Quito Area Storm Drain Project CALLON/MOYLES MOVtD TO APPROVE NOTICE OF COMPLETION. Passed 5-0. 2. Approval of Supplemental Agreement and Authorization to go to bid for A1 lendale Avenue Improvements MALLORY/CLEVENGER MOVED TO APPROVE SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMjlVE A~D AUTHORIZE GOING TO BID FOR ~I.LENDALE IMPROVEMENTS. PasSed 5-0. 3. Authorization of Execution of Contract for Personnel Classification Study A~ntinistrative Services Director explained contract, noting that as the process continued, it might be considered desirable for the contractor to perform additional services. Council discussed the possibility of placing a ceiling on expenditures. Councilmember Mallory moved to adthorize execution of the contract without'a ceilng, builtHere was no second. Councilmember Callon stated she felt it important for the Council to see the preliminary report, not simply the final report as modified by staff. FANELLI/MOYLES MOVED TO ALrfHORIZE EXECUTION OF CONTRACT IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $10,000.. Passed 5-0. 4. Approval of Traffic Signal Agreements between City of San Jose and City of Saratoga, with Resolution Appropriating Funds CALIDN/MOYLES MOVED TO APPROVE AGRERMENTS AND ADOPT RESOLUTION 2073.10 APPROPRE[A- TING FUNDS. Passed 5-0. 3-3/7/84 V. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Consideration of Alternatives for Raising Revenues, including Business License TeL~, Transient Occupancy Tax, Utility Users Tax, and Sale of Excess Property (continued from 1/18) and Consideration of Pavement Management Resolution (continued from 2/1) The public hearing was opened at 8: 03 p.m. Col. E. T. BarCO, 19101 Cemino Barco, presented objections to the proposed t~es and recutu~ended that the Council place a measure on the June ballot to levy a $100 per year special t~ on hcraeowners for three years in order to raise revenues for pavement management. Terry Griswold, President of E1 Quito Park Homeowners Association, spoke in favor of a ballot m~asure which would levy a 2% utility tax to raise an amount not to exceed $350,000 over what is already allocated for a two-year period, after which a 2/3 vote of the people would be required to extend it, with proOf provided by the City Attorney that the funds would be used for pav~nent managment. Jacqueline Oathcart, 19645 Wardell Court, opposed the sale of vacant land and agreed with Col. Barco that a flat assessment would be appropriate. John Haufe, Canyon View Drive, recon~ended that COnstruction vehicles be taxed because they damage streets. Councilmember Callon noted that the City Council was restricted as to what it could place on the ballot so that only a per-parcel tax could be voted on. Jack Christian, 20230 Banhie Brae, suggested that the City attempt to change the formula by which Saratoga receives only a small portion of certain t~es COllected here. He also Urged that the City investigate what benefits might be obtained frcm the federal gover~nent for road repair. Susan Nowacki, 21261 Glenmont Drive, expressed her frustration at the lack of a decision thus far. She favored the 5% utility tax. Ed C<~nersall, 19187 Veronica, spoke as chair of the Parks and Recreation Cu~ul~s- sion. He stated that the Cc~mission had not been consulted on the sale of park land with ~respect to raising street maintenance funds. He explained that their reccm~n- dations only applied in a situation. such as loss of State subventions. The Cu~u,~s- sion, however, did not COnsider the Cox/Saratoga-Sunnyvaie property a pa~k and would not object to its sale, he said. Speaking for himself, he said that he would be wary of a large increase in road maintenance funds, which might lead to ineffi- ciency. He supported a sunshine clause as well as an automatic shut-down provision for any tax imposed. Joe Long, P.O. Box 714, spoke as a member of the Public Safety Commission. He stated the CormLission felt that road maintenance was a public safety issue, and they favored the establishment of a program for that purpose. R. E. Kaufmann, 20700 4th Street, endorsed the package proposed by the Council newsletter, but he recc~mended that the utility tax become effective only above the !lifeline level. He felt the utility tax should be flexible so that it COuld be decreased as inccme from the sale of land became available. Hugo Micbaels, 20526 Linda Cto, supported s~reet repair through funds frcm the State or a tax based on the number of c~rs per family. Doug Ad~mS, 20522 Lomita Avenue, spoke as a former member of the Parks and Recrea- tion Cc~nission. He opposed selling park land and favored taxing the users of streets for street maintenance. He favored the utili-ty tax and business license tax as long as those least able to afford it were not taxed. Jack Keene, 19767 Northampton, Opposed sale of park lands and su~pported either a utility tax or flat rate tax. Kersten Kraft, 20021 Bella Vista, requested that Saratoga-Los Gatos Road not be improved. He opposed a 5% utility tax and suggested other means of funding, such as taxing cars, or developing a joint venture which might be less expensive than contracting for Saratoga's needs alone. 4-3/7/84 Stove Pakula, 19689 Northampton, opposed the sale of park lands. He stated that the public was not made fully aware that sale of park lands was being considered, and he expressed willingness to be taxed in order to pay for basic services. · Link Bradley, 19201 Portas, favored a transient occupancy tax, business license tax, and utility tax, bat opposed sale of property. Greg Nellis, 18366 Clenson, ~pposed sale of park lands that were being used but not other lands. He favored either-~a utility tax or a $100 assessnent, but urged that' some action be taken so that further deterioration of streets would not result in greater costs. John Saunders, 13570 Bea~nont, spoke as a member of the Parks and Recreation C~nis- sion. He supported Mr. Gomersall's stat~nents and favored a pav~nentmanagement pro- grin, but not at the price of selling park lands. Kathy McGoldrick, 12860 Pasec Presada, opposed sale of park land for road maintenance. She was willing to pay a $100 assessnent and supported the E1 Quito Hcmeowners' state- ments. She feared that taxing hotels or businesses would not encourage a healthy town area. Tcm Harmount, 19840 Viewridge, favored investigating alternatives other than sale of open space. Mart~n Gandel, 14000 Shadow Oaks, expressed the opinion that ~he culil~nity newsletter was misleading because it presented only one option as being viable. He believed that there must be more methods to provide the bulk of funds for road maintenance in addi- tion to a utility tax. Claire Einhorn, 12646 Cambridge Drive, favored street repair but not at the price of selling park land. Laurie Pakula opposed sale of any park lands to fundr0ad maintenance:. She suhnitted a petition with 400 signatures supportingher position, and she urged the Council itself to choose a ~tax or an assessment for road maintenance. In answer to Councilmenber Fanelli, she stated that she did not consider the Cox-Saratoga/Sunnyvale property to be a park and did not object to selling it. Tc~ Reddick urged the Council to enforce ordinances concerning dogs in the parks; he opposed sale of the parks. Lois Cockshaw, 20995 Canyon View Drive, suggested obtaining street maintonancemoney frc~ the State. She opposed the utility tax but was willing to pay a $100 tax. Bill Sheridan, 19766 Elisa Avenue, expressed his willingness to pay a $100 assessnent to pay for street repair. He felt that much street d~nage was caused by public uti- lities, and they should repair such damage. Bruce Mqitlock, 13698 Manteca Way, inquired as to an ad valoren tax, and Mr. Toppel of the City Attorney's Office replied that such a tax could not be put to a vote under Proposition 13. Mr. Whitlock then suggested charging fees to support road maintonance. '.DoraGrens, 13451 Old OakWay, stated that she had not received the co~i~nitynewsletter, and others in herarea did not. She supported a $100 tax and stated that Campbell offi- cials had told her that their Council would not ,impo~er.~a ~axwit~out putting it on the b~IlOt. Councilmember Fanelli noted that it was the intent of the Council to have all Saratogans receive the newsletter, although the Post Office may not have delivered all of then. -Shelley Williams, 11951 Brookridge Drive, believed that ~he streets needed repair and suggested that Saratoga join'with other cities to improve the roads. He did not oppose the levying of any of the proposed taxes, including a $100 assessnent, but he did not . favor funds frena utility tax going into the General Fund without being earmarked. Richard Breuer, 20066 Glenbrae, questioned the calculations regarding the utility tax. He supported inmediate repair of the streets, but not through the sale of property. Bob Cancellieri, 14860 Cody Lane, supported a $100 assessment and the possible sale of the Cox-Saratoga/Sunnyvale property. Mary Ann Welch, 19520 Kenosha Court, opposed sale of property but was willing to pay a $100 assessment for three years to support street repair. 5-3/7/84 Nancy Arias,' 20590 Canyon Vie~, supported street repair through a flat rate tax which wouldb~eannarked for road repair only. Caroline Smith, 12313 Fredericksburg Drive, supported a two-tier business license tax, as well as a flat rate tax per household. She also supported taxes other than a utility tax. Donald McKenzie, 18680 Vessing Road, supported the $100 flat assessment even though he lived on a private road and would .not benefit so much frc~ public street repair. He urged the Council to be more favorable to business so that increased profits would bring in increased sales tax revenues. Jess Rodrigues, 15237 Sobey Road, suggested that greater enforcement of speeding laws would bring in increased revenues for the City. No one further appearing to speak, the Council discussed the issues involved and gave their initial opinions. Councilmember Clevenger favored placing a $100 assessment on the ballot. If a uti- lity tax were passed, she suggested exempting those on the Outreach program. She did not object to the sale of the Cox-Saratoga/Sunnyvale property at a good price but did object to the sale of any Azule or KevinMoran property. Mayor Moyles preferred to place any proposed measure on the November ballot rather than June. He wished to remove from consideration the sale of the Kevin MDran and the Azule property if consensus could be reached on a utility tax. He supported sale of the Cox-Saratoga/Sunnyvale property, an increased business license tax, a hotel tax, and a sunset clause for review of use of the funds~' He preferred the utility tax to the proposed flat assessnent because he felt the latter to be inequi- table to lower inccme groups. Councilmember Callon felt any tax should go on the ballot, either a flat assessment of $100 or a utility tax, so that it couldbe tied to pavenentmanag~nent rather than going to the General Fund. She preferred the flat rate because the utility tax wouldbe a percentage taxwhich could increase as utility bills increased. She questioned ~he three-year duration of~the taxas proposed byCol. Barco, and the City Manager responded that the need for street maintenance was a continuing need, not a three-year need. Councilmenber Fanelli noted that the $100 assessment couldbe earmarked for street maintenance if it were placed on the ballot. She expressed concern about the sun- set clause, fearing that the street maintenance program might lose its funding entirely after the specified length of time, and suggested that an appeal program be built into the measure. Councilmember Mallory opposed sale of any developed or undeveloped park land but felt perhaps the Cox-Saratoga/Sunnyvale property could be sold. His first choice for a tax-was the utility tax because he believed it to be:the only one over which the Council had any control; he favored putting a cap on it. His second choice was the flat $100 per parcel assessnent. He also suggested first deciding what the Council wants in the way of pavementmanagement, then deciding howto raise the funds. Moyles/Mallorymoved -that the City place on the June 1984 ballot a proposition for public input reading "Shall the City of Saratoga levy a per/parcel $100 rate, the proceeds of which are to be devoted to the maintenance of City streets?" Council- member Fanelli suggested that a cut-off time should be added to the motion, as well as a method for low inccme people to apply for an exemption. Mr. Toppel suggested that the motion call for a review "for continuance" of the tax and that the:.word~ ihg be "up to" $100. Councilmember Clevenger favored. ~ five-year limit on the tax. The City Manager then recapitulated the motion which appears below. MDYLES~MALLORY MDVED TO DIRECT THE CITY AT1DRNEY TO DRAFf A RESOLUTION FOR COUNCIL'S CONSIDERATION THIS EVENING THAT WOULD PLACE A CITY MEASURE ON THE JUNE 5 BALLOT AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF SARATOGA TO LEVY A SPECIAL TAX OF UP TO $100 PER PARCEL OF LAND WITHIN THE CITY FOR THE PURPOSE OF ROAD MAIN1ENANCE OVER THE NEXT FIVE YEARS. Passed 5-0. The Council then recessed frcm 10:20 p.m. to 10:45 p.m. in order to allew the City Attorney time to draft more precise wording. 6-3/7/84 FANELI,I/MDYLES MOVED TO TABLE THE TRANSIENT CCCUPANCY TAX AND BUSINESS LICENSE TAX UNTIL ~"rER THE JUNTS ELECfION. Passed 5-0. Mr. TOppel then presented his proposed wording in the motion which appears bel~. FANELLI/MALLORY MOVED TO PLACE ON THE BALIX)T THE FOLIIT~ING RESOLUTION: "SHALL THE CITY OF SARATOGA ADOPT AN ORDINANCE TO ESTABLISH k\D IMPOSE FOR A PEROD OF FIVE YEARS A SPECIAL TAX NOT EXCEEDEgG· $100 PER YEAR LEVIED UPON EACH ASSESSED PARCEL OF LAND AS SHfX~N BY THE lATEST CERTIFIED ASSESSMFNT ROLL, SUCH TAX TO BE USED EXCLUSIVELY FOR ROAD MAINTEqANCE AND SUBJECT TO ANNUAL REVIEW BY THE SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL?" Passed 5-0. Mr. Toppel noted that he might have to revise the definition of "parcel." The public hearing was closed at 11:00 p.m. MOYLES/MALLORY MOVED TO ADOPT A MINUTE RESOLUTION RESERVING TO THE CITY COUNCIL THE RIGHT TO WRITE THE BALLOT ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF THE MEASURE. Passed 5-0. Councilmember Mallory brought up the question of the pavement management resolution. Councilmember Callon presented a revised version which reflected the fact that the tax was to be voted on rather than imposed by the Council. City Manager said that the clause calling for the average annual expenditure of up to $900,000 should remain because that figure was a statement of fact, not of policy. MALLORY/MOYLES MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2127 ON PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT AS REVISED. Passed 5-0. B. Consideration of Request for Rate Increase by Green Valley Disposal (continued frc~ 2/15) City Manager explained request. Dick Drake, Chair of the Finance ~jvisory Cu~t~ittee, presented their report on the rate increase request, which reccnmended an increase of not over 10% distributed equally between the cities involved. If Green Valley Disposal did not agree to that, he proposed requesting that they supply fully audited data in SUpport of any new rate request they may submit, to becc~ne effective no sooner thin five months thereafter. Bill Grafton, CPA for Green Valley Disposal, explained that the 1982 figures were audited as ~a balance sheet audit. He discussed further details of auditing procedures. The public hearing was opened at .ll:33 p.m. Don Carr, 19803 Merribrook Court, submitted a chart showing that other cities pay lewer garbage rates than Saratoga. He saw no reason for Saratoga to pay more. John HSufe, Canyon View Drive, requested a return to the 1982 structure, when the rates were what he considered fair and two annual unlimited pickups were supplied. Terry Griswold, President of E1 Quito Park Homeowners Association, stated that citizens should not subsidize private business and should not accept responsibility for their management decisions. She felt the increased tonnage might have been due to unusual grc~th of plants in the past year. Ed Comersall, 19187 Vernoica, stated he agreed with the Finance Cum'dttee but felt there should be no rate increase. Marty Meeker, 20752 Norada, spoke as a financial consultant. He felt the audit pro- cedures gone through by Green Valley were inadequate. Audrey Hildebrand, 19519 Eric Drive, asked why Green Valley had a 20-year contract. Councilmember Clevenger explained that a 20-year landfill agreement had gone along with it. City Manager added that service in the past had been inadequate because of frequent vehicle breakdowns. In 1979, he said, the cities had paid for a consultant to review their operations, and the consultant had recomnended a number of capital purchases; Green Valley had obtained a long-term contract so that they would be able to cepitelize the purchases over time. Administrative Services Director added that the agreen~nt included a five-year performance audit. Mrs. Hildebrand suggested that any increase be less than 10%. 7-3/7/84 Martin Gandel, 14000 Shadc~ Oaks, stated that Green Valley had made too many purchases~for good manag~nent. Mary Ann Welch, 19520 Kenosha, suggested that all contracts be reviewed in depth, the Sheriff's contract in particular. Lois Cockshaw, 20995 Canyon View Drive, objected to a rate increase without a cer- tified audit. Ron Freude, 18775 Afton, recommended that the Council not consider a rate increase until further financial facts were available. Bill Sheridan, 19776 Lisa Avenue, stated that unlimited service was unworkable because several neighbors would get together and jointly use the unlimited service arranged for by one of them, thus reducing revenues. Bill Grafton rose again to state that the information which Mr. Meeker felt was needed was in the material which had been suhnitted. He raised questions as to the thoroughness of the Finance Advisory Committee's review of the material. C~uncilmember Fanelli pointed out that the committee had not been asked to revie~ Green Valley Disposal's books. City Manager pointed out that other cities had agreed to rate increases, and Sara- toga's declining to do so might have undesirable impacts because Green Valley Dis- posal is not willing to absorb losses due to Saratoga's situation. Council discussed issues, including the possibility of taking the Finance Advisory Con~ittee's recc~mendation of a 10% increase to be divided among the cities; open- ing up the refuse contract to ccmpetitive bidding; having ~D councilmembers and two con~ittee members review the figures; concern that if Saratoga is the only city not agreeing to the contract, there could be problems. City Manager warned Council against acting precipitously on the possibility of opening the contract to bidding, although Green Valley Disposal may be willing to cooporate. Bob Stephens, representing Green Valley Disposal, stated that the ccmpany had fol- lewed all required procedures in their financial docunants. He also said that if the %nitial 34% increase were granted, future rate increases should be lc~. Councilm~ber Fanelli moved to agendize a rate structure change for the study = session 3/13. There was no second. Councilmember Mallory suggested the Council discuss a one-two-three can rate plus unlimited service structure at the study session 3/13. Administrative Services Director noted that any projected rate structures would be based to scme extent on conjecture because residents could cheese various options in an unpredictable manner. City Manager agreed, and pointed out that Green Valley Disposal's finan- cial problems do not result frc~ excess expenditure, but frem unrealized revenues. These un~ealized revenues were brought about in part, he said, from rate shifting among residents. Mr. Mee~er rose again to state he felt it was Green Valley Disposal's responsibility to justify the rate increase through fully audited documentation. Councilmember Fanelli stated that Green Valley Disposal had indeed complied with the requests of the rate review comnittee, although the Finance Advisory Conn~ttee interpreted the requirements of the-franchise in a different manner concerning audited statements. CONSENSUS TO AG~IWDIZE FOR STUDY SESSION 3/13. MOYLES/FANELLI MOVED TOCONT]IqUE PUBLIC HEARINGTO 3/~1.' Passed 5-0. C. Appeal of Denial of Variance and Condition #2 of Design Review Requiring Removal of Balconies if Variance is Denied, 15041 Sobey Rd. (R. Renna, Appellant/applicant) (V-629, A-920) The public hearing was opened at 12:37 a.m. Randy Hess spoke as the attorney for the appellant. He stated that the only issue was two shall balconies which most of the neighbors supported. He asserted that all the required findings could bemade to grant the variance, and that Mr. Renna's 8-3/7/84 application had undergone more stringent scrutiny than other applications. Council- member Fanelli pointed out that Mr. Renna had made n~nerous additions and changes to his design and constructed then without the required permits. Mr. Hess conceded the truth of that statenent, but stated that Mr. Renna's past mistakes were irrelevant. In answer to Councilmember Fanelli, Mr. Toppel of the City Attorney' s office stated that the scope of the appeal was such that the entire approval could not be con- sidered by the Council, but only the itams being appealed on the balconies. In answer to Councilmember Clevenger, Conlnunity Development Director stated that other houses in the neighborhood with balconies had gone throuqh the r_equired review proca- dures. He also noted that the only reason Mr. Renna could put on balconies was that he had added an unapproved second story, so he bad brought the alleged hardship upon himself. Den Anderson, 15121 Sobey Road, spoke on behalf of six families in the neighborhood who opposed Mr. Renna's appeal. He reviewed the history of the house and stated his belief that Mr. Renna should not be granted special privileges because he bad attampted' to circtmwant required procedures. Ed Kelley stated that ther~ were other doctments on file wherein other neighbors ex- pressed their concerns with the project. He feared that Mr. Renna's method of build- ing structures fi.rst,, then applying for permits and variances, would be precedent- setting. Councilmember Callon pointed out that the Council shouldI disregard past violations when considering the currant appeal. Mr. Toppal then noted that the fact that the balconies are already built should not be a factor in the Council 's deliberations on the appeal. Nancy Grossman, Sperry Lane, spoke in opposition to the appeal. She stated~ that the balconies obstructed the open space and that Mr. Renna was setting an undesirable precedent by building without approval. Eugene Francis, who stated that he lived next door to Mr. Renna, spoke against the appeal. He felt that the house as designed originally was acceptable, but that the added structures were offensive. He believed Mr. Renna should not have the right to build without the required approvals. Jess Rodrigues, 15237 Sobey Road, stated that he felt sorry for Mr. Renna. He believed that people were reacting to other houses in the neighborhood. He felt that Mr. Renna's front driveway, hewever, was dangerous to the neighborhood. Fsyor Moyles asked if Mr. Hess had anything further to add. Mr. Hess stated that he did not feel the issues had been covered in the presentations, and he felt the Council had made up its mind on the appeal before the hearing. He said all Mr. Renna was ask- ing for was two small balcehies, and he asserted that no one had ccmplained about them. The public hearing was closed at 1:17 p.m. Councilmember Callon stated that the Council did have an open mind on the matter and that they had not spoken in any other manner, and they had listened to input for and against the application. She also noted that the Council had considered the Planning Cc~nission minutes and staff reports. She saw no evidence that the findings required to grant the variance could be mat, which had also been the Planning CcrmLission's con- clusion. Councilmember Clevenger agreed that the findings could ~ot be made, as did Councilmember Mallory. Mayor Moyles ccr~ented that he had not made up his mind until he had heard the evidence. He felt no persuasive evidence had been presented on behalf of the appeal. MALLORY/FAN~,LI MOVED TO DENY THE VARIANCE .{VL6'29~ BECAUSE THE FINDINGS QA~,~lqOT BE MADE AS PER THE STAFF REPORT. Passed 5~0. FANRI.I,I/MALLORY MOVED TO UPHOLD THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION ._RF-~RDING THE DESI(iN REVIEW (A-920) INCLUDING ALL THE CONDITIONS AND NOT TO GRANT THE APPEAL ON CCNDITICN 2 ON THE REPORT DATKI~ 12/29/83. Passed 5-0. D. Ordinance Regarding Placement of Political Signs (first reading) The public hearing was opened at 1:25 a.m. No one appearing to speak, it was closed at 1:26 a.m. 9-3/7/84 FANRII,I/CLEVENGER MOVED TO READ THE ORDINANCE BY TITLE ONLY, WAIVING FURTHER READING. Passed 5-0. MOYLES/FANELI,I MOVED TO INTRODUCE THE ORDINANCE AS READ BY TITLE. Passed 5-0. VI. NEW BUSINESS A. Discussion of Oral Cul,Llunications, if any - None. B. Written Cc~m~nications frc~ the Public' #1 frcm L. Cook expressing appreciation for rehabilitation program operated by Stan Carnekie - noted and filed. #2 from M. A. Welch expressing concern about law enforcement services provided by Sheriff - noted and filed. Ms. Welch requested permission to speak; she made a number of c~nulents objecting to the Sheriff' s contract. She suhnitted to the Council copies of the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights, a docunent explaining mental locks, and a doc~nent she had written on the Sheriff' s contract. Council . explained that the Sheriff' s contract was not being considered at the meeting, and that she might wish to address the Council at a later meeting when it would be considered. #3 from L. Snider expressing appreciation for new equil~nent at Gardiner Park - noted and filed. #4 frcm P. Moore resigning frcm Parks and Recreation C~'L.~ssion - accepted; staff requested to send thank-you letter. #5 frcm T. Nobriga et al. requesting action on crash gates in Vickery Lane. area - memo from CoRmunity Development Director explaining action noted. #6 frem A. J. Jorgensen requesting installation of direction signs to Historical Museam - staff requested to l install signs. #7 frcm W. Doucett requesting action on barking dog problem - referred to staff for investigation and followup. VII. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 1:41 a.m. Respectfully suhnitted, Grace E. Cory Deputy City Clerk