Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-16-1984 City Council Minutes MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL TIME: Wednesday, May 16, 1984 - 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue TYPE: Regular Meeting I. ORGANIZATION ~ ROLL CALL - Councilmembers Clevenger, Mallory and Mayor Moyles present at 7:12 p.m. Councilmember Fanelli present at 8:09 p.m.; Councilmember Callon present at 8:59 pm~ B. MINUTES - 5/2 MALLORY/CLEVENGER MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES WITH CLARIFICATION ON PAGE 2 THAT UNLIM1TEU SERVICE DID NOT PENALIZE THOSE WHO WISE TO RECYCLE, BUT MERELY PROVIDED NO INCENTIVE FOR THEM. Passed 3-0. II. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Roz Hartnett, 19361 Vendura Ct., expressed objections to the garbage disposal rate structure for non-senior citizens on a' fixed incGne with single can curbside service. She felt the new rates were excessive and suggested an appeal process. Councilmember Clevenger remarked that she had received several complaints on the matter and requested that staff report on how an appeal process might be set up and how much it would cost. Mayor Moyles requested that Councilmember Clevenger keep Ms. Harnett informed on the issue. Councilmember Mallory expressed concern about setting up hardship rates because administration would be expensive and time- consuming; he felt the propor solution was to allow a single-can rate. Gerald Finney, Santa Clara County. MOthers Against Drunk Driving, presented information on Project Graduation Alcohol Awareness Week. Consideration of a resolution on the matter was deferred to New BUsiness. City .Manager presented an oral status report on calls received on the "hot line" which had bean set up for Green Valley Disposal questions and cG~nents after the rate structure change. He stated that the number of cfmplaints was not excessive considering the slanted news coverage on the issue.. In answer to Councilmsmber Mallory, he explained his belief that sc~e articles had represented the decision of the Council as conceding to the demands of Green Valley, although that was not the case. Councilmember Mallory cdL~fented that he felt there should have been a public hearing on the issue so that residents could have expressed their opinions on the rate structure change. As to the concession issue, he stated that Green Valley had requested a 34% increase and had received'it. Mayor Moyles agreed that the increase was 34% but~ felt that it had been reached by a more equitable means; he noted that Councilmember Clevenger would be working on an appeal process to be brought hack to Council for consideration. ' An unidentified member of the audience inquired about the 20-year Green ValXey franchise, and Mayor Moyles replied that the landfill agreement had 19 years left, and parts of the Green Valley agreement could be re-negotiated. " Dale McIntyre, President of Brookview Honeowners, cceweated that residents he had talked to were complimentary about' the new rate structur~ Ed Handell, Editor of the Saratoga News, responded to the allegation of slanted coverage of the Green Valley issue by stating he had thought he was writing about .the City Manager's recu,.L~endation concerning what would be best for the citizens of _ Saratoga. III. CONSF.~T CAT,RNDAR Resolution Upholding Decision of Planning Col~'dssion for Revocation of use Permit (Appeal of I~ Redoni heard 5/2, UP 315) RESOLUTION 2145 B. Acceptance and Acknowledgment of Donation of Koi Fish for Hakone Garden C_ Acceptance and Acknowledgment of Donation to Cu~L~unity center {Rotary Club) 2-5/16/84 D.Resolution on Flag Day sponsored by Mayor Moyles RESOLUTION 2146 F_ Final Map Approval, Tr. 7495, Wilson Development, Tricia Woods/Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road ( 9 lots ) F. Final Building Site Approval, SDR 1560, BOb Bramlett, Oak Place (1 lot) G.. Final Acceptance., SDR 1452, Cunningham Place H. Approval of Warrant List MALLORY/CLEVENGER MOVtl) TO APPROVE ENTIRE CONSENT CALk~X~AR. Passed 3-0. IV. SCHED[mRn MA'rr~RS A. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS 1. Reply to Request frcm Council for Information Concerning Outdoor Dining City Manager reported that most of Ms. Loewenstern's concerns had been dealt with. 2. Report on Proposed 1/2 Cent Sales Tax for Transportation Improvements City Manager suggested that this matter be taken up after the arrival of the two absent Councilmembers. 3. Report on Responses to Request for Proposals for Audit on Green Valley Disposal ,City Manager described proposals which had been received. Councilmembers agreed to refer proposals to Green Valley Disposal and to the other contract cities, with the understanding that the audit would be for 1983-84 rather than 1982-83. B. REPORTS FROM OO~4ISSIONS AND CO~41'i'rMES - None. C. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS 1. 'Resolution Altering Fee Schedule for c~,~L~unity center Rentals ~,RVE~MALLORY MOVf~ TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 780.25. Passed 3-0 .... D. BIDS AND CONTRACTS 1. Rate Increase - Signal Maintenance Contract MALLORY/CLEVENC{ER e TO APPROVE RATE INCREASE. Passed 3-0. 2. Blauer Drive/Saratoga-SunnyQale Signal Cooperative Agreement .... CLEVENGER/MALLORY MOV~ TO APPROVE COOPERATIVE AGRE~4ENT. 'PasSed 3-0i ., 3. Award of Contract - Allandale Avenue Improvements ' < .. . =-. , . ... Cu~i~n3ity Development Director withdrew item,' explaining that .further negotiations with the Post Office were necessary. ; . . .'l. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS - 8:00 P.M. OR EARLIER - ~ Proposed Budget for 1984-.85; Palationship of Revenue Sharing Funds to the - " Entire Budget City Manager reviewed budget; ~tating 'that the status of the City was' significantly improved from that of previous years. Mayor Moyles stated his budgetary. concerns: growth of the General Fund reserves; street maintenance; procedure in granting Revenue Sharing requests; lack of equity in distribution of property taxes collected by the County and returned in part to the City. The public hearing was opened at 8:32 p.m. .- . Prances Saunders spoke as participant in the long-term care c~bud~nn' program;-she favored funding the program through Revenue Sharing. <!.~c ' ' i ' '. ,'- 3-5/16/84 Miss Allen then spoke in favor of the long-term are ombudsman program, stating in answer to Councilmembers' questions that there were 415 long-term care residents in Saratoga and that the Saratoga facilities generally had a good reaction to the program. Gerry Wells spoke in support of funding for Volunteer Saratoga at a slightly higher level than last year. Laurie Geppell spoke in support of the Live Oak Adult Day Care Center and answered Councilmembers questions about costs .per user and number of Saratogans using facility. Richard Drake, 20509 Gordon Ct., spoke in favor of the Saratoga Area Senior Coordinating Council's funding request, saying staff hours and salary needed to be increased and a health screening program needed to be established. In answer to councilmembers' questions, he described the screening program and stated that dues had been increasing~. Barbara Campbell spoke in favor of the County Library funding request. CounciLmember Mallory requested budget figures for the last five years. Judith Sutton spoke in favor of funding for the Valley Institute for Theater Arts. She described the program and answered Councilmembers' questions. Charles Martin spoke as Manager of the Saratoga Cainunity Garderh He stated that the Garden staff still disagreed with the Oddfellows home about use of certain buildings, but that parking problems in nearby residential areas had been solved. Dorothy Diekmann spoke as Business Manager of the Los Gatos-Saratoga High Shool District. She supported funding of handicapped access in public areas of Saratoga High School and answered Councilmembers' questions. No one further appearing to speak, the public hearing was closed at 9:34 pm~ The Council then recessed until 9:59 p.m. B. Consideration of Housing Element; Introduction of Second Unit Ordinance City Attorney explained revisions in proposed second unit ordinance and discussed several points concerning enforcement of the prohibition against illegal second units. He also noted the possibility of seme restrictions, such as those on age and number of units, being found invalid in court. The public hearing was opened at · 10:13 p.m. · Jessie Maguire rose to ask for clarification on the question of variances for second units. City Attorney explained that variances were to be allowed only for pre-existing units and then only on certain aspects of the second unit. : Mildred Ge_rdon, President of the Saratoga Area Senior Coordinating Council, · expressed general satisfaction with the revised ordinance but suggested that the minimum age limit for occupancy of a second unit be reduced to 55. Charles Robbins, 19348 Monte Vista, spoke as a citizen of Saratoga. He opposed second units but was pleased that if an ordinance allowing second units was to be adopted it would include strict limitations. Greg Nellis, 18366 Clemson, suggested that a newsletter be sent out informing Sarategans of the proposed ordinance and that the public hearing be continuecL Councilmember Fanelli, noting that Mr. Nellis' concern might be with existing second ,units in the Quito area, stated that such units could not be approved in an R-1- 10,000 area and would thus be abated. Mr. Nellis then stated that if the Council did not wish such units to be abated, they should not provide for that. Joan Nelson, 18644 Bucknall Rd., spoke as a hfm~ner. She stated that there were several existing units in the R-1-10,000 area which Were attractive and not causing problems. She expressed concern as to their possible abatement. Russ Crowther spoke as a Planning Ccmmbissiener; he expressed concern with the changes made by the Council. He feared that specifying enclosed rather than covered parking might encourage carports. He suggested that the ordinance contain a provision that if the limit on annual number of permits issued or the age limit were found unlawful in court, further approvals would be held in abeyance until the issue 4-5/16/84 could be voted upon. He also favored a ceiling of 300 second units in the City on the basis of environmental end public safety considerations, with the limit not to be exceeded except by a vote of the citizens° CounciLmember Callon noted that if part of the ordinance were declared invalid, the ordinance could simply be amended. Councilmember Fanelli said she felt a moratorium would be out of context, and if the ordinance were declared invalid it would return to the attention of the Council in any case. She also opposed a maratorium because as proposed it would go into effect aut~natically without giving the Council an opportunity to take action. Councilmember Mallory brought up the possibility of placing a cap of 300 second units allowed in Saratoga; Councilmember Callon believed the public hearing and use permit process provided enough protection so that a cap was unnecessary. He then suggested that the date before which a second unit had to be established in order to be considered for a variance for legalization be changed to January 1, 1983. He further suggested that the requirement for covered parking be changed to enclosei Othe[, CounciLmembers noted that only covered parking was required for single-family residences, and that enclosed parking might be more obtrusive. Councilmember Mallory also suggested a limit on the number of cars and a statement in the ordinance that it was to be rigorously enforced. There was no consensus to do so. Councilmember Clevenger cc~nented that a newsletter should be sent out so that the citizens would be informed as to developments, especially the requirement for legalizing existing second units. Counci]3rember Mallory further suggested that second units be restricted to the R-1-20,000 district and above, and that they not be permitted on lots 1.3 or less times the size of the minimum lot in the district. CouncilmEmber Fanelli opposed setting arbitrary limits at this point, when it is not known how many units exist and what their impact is. Mayor Moyles then brought up the question of the R-1-10,000 district, end there was consensus to prohibit second units in that district. Councilmembers Callon and Fanelli expressed concern about possible abatement of existing second units in the R-1-10,000 district. No one further appearing to speak, the public hearing was closed at 11:25 pj~ CALTON/MOYLES MOV]~ TO ADOPT THE NEGATIVE DECIARATION ON GF-344. Passed 5-0. MOX~.Rq/CALLON MOVED TO READ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NS-3 BY ADDING ARTICLE 16A RRIATING TO SECOND UNITS AS CONDITIONAL USES IN c~RTAIN ZONING DISTRICTS BY TITLE ONLY, WAIVING FURTHER READING. Passed 5-0. "MOYLP-q/CALLON MOVI~D TO INTRODUCE THE ORDINANCE, Passed 3-2 (Clevenger, Mallory opposed ). - CALLON/FAN~.LI MOVED TO AMEND THE ORDINANCE AS FOLLOWS: IN StaTION 16/~4 A PROVISION IS ADDt~D TO THE E~'~'rk~ THAT NO VARIANCES WILL BE GRANTk/3 FOR NEW SECOND UNITS TO BE CONSTRUCI'N3; IN PARAGRAPH H THE ACE IS CHAN~ED TO 60; IN SECI'ION 16~.11 PARAGRAPH B IS CHANGN3 TO APPLY TO EXISTING SECOND UNITS ESTABLISHED PRIOR TO JANUARY 1, 1983. Passed 5-0. FANn~,I,I./CALLON MOVED TO AMEND SECTION 16~_11 TO ALLOW EXISTING SECOND UNITS IN THE R-1-10,000 DISTRICT TO BE PLAC~D UNDER THE SAME 'l'k~4S AND CONDITIONS AS OTHER II,L~F=AL UNITS IN THE CITY. Failed 2-3 (Clevanger, Mallory, Moyles opposed). CALLON/MALLORY MOVED THAT IF PROVISION OF THE ORDINANCE REGARDING RESTRICTION 'S~qIORS ONLY OR THE NUMERICAL RESTRICTION ON THE NUMBER OF SECOND UNITS SHOULD BE FEID'-' INVALID IN A COURT OF LAW, A MORATORIUM ON THE ISSUANCE OF FURTHER S~OND UNIT USE · PERMITS WOe BE IN ~:~'b'~i"T FOR A PERIOD OF 120 DAYS, DURING WHICH TIME THE COUNCIL WOULD REVIEW THE ORDINANCE TO SEE IF IT SHOULD BE MODIFIED. Passed 4-1 (Fanelli · opposed ). Councilmember Clevenger noted that she was concerned about the difficulty and cost of enforcement of the proposed ordinance; possibility of illegality of seine provisions; possibility of the ordinance's changing the residential character of Saratoga. Councilmenk~r Callon cc~mented that although the State thrust the necessity for the ordinance on the City she felt the proposed ordinance was a good cc~promise end a conservative approach; she also was pleased at the opportunity to fulfill a need in the ccax~.unlty with extensive input frcm citizens- 5-5/16/84 Mayor Moyles felt there were risks involved with the ordinance, but he felt the goals were worth the risks. Councilmember Mallory expressed appreciation at the handling of the discussion of the ordinance. Although he felt it was not consistent with the desires of the citizens, he felt it was a step forward. He preferred the original ordinance reconmended by the Planning CcFa~ission. Councilmember Callon suggested that a newsletter be sent out during the 30-day waiting period before the effective date of the ordinance to inform citizens about it. Mayor Moyles cc~nented that it should be miled to the property owners so that those who were responsible would have notice. City Manager stated that a newsletter was to be sent out before the end of June, and notification of the second unit ordinance could be ~hcluded in it. He was not sure that the property owners list could be used, but stated he would find out. FANRI.LT/CAT.ION MOVID TO ADOPT PaSOLUTION 2147 cERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE REVISED HOUSING RL~A~I~T OF THE GaRqERAL PLAN. Passed 5-0. FANF~I.I/MOYL~.q MOVtD TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 430.3 ADOPTING THE HOUSING F/.RMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN. Passed 5-01 C. Consideration of Special Tax for Road Maintenance City Manager explained issues. Councilmember Fanelli brought up the question of property tax relief for seniors and asked whether the proposed tax could be included in that program and whether vacant land could be removed frcm the list of parcels to be taxed. City Manager stated that any screening of the assessor's parcel list was estimated to cost $4000, and only the County could perform it. In answer to Councilmember Mallory, Mr. Toppel stated that the pavement management program was not referred to in the documents because it would not appear in the ballot pamphlet, and reference to it might cause confusiom The public hearing was opened at 11:55 p.m. E. T. Barco, Camino Barco, suggested that the measure not be placed on the November ballot because of the proposed County sales tax increase which was to appear on the same ballot. Alan Aspey, Lolly Ct., expressed the opinion that a flat per-parcel tax was inequitable. Dale McIntyre, President of the Brookview Hcmec~ners Association, opposed the tax as being unnecessary and stated that the public should be given more information about it. No one further appearing to speak, at 12:05 am~ Councilmember Fanelli and Mayor Moy~es moved and seconded to close the public hearing. (Clerk's Note: The motion was not voted upon immediately, and, after the discussion below, was withdrawn. ~) Councilmember Clevenger expressed concern about having the proposed tax on the November ballot along with the County's proposed sales tax increase. Mayor Moyles felt there would never be a favorable time for a tax issue, so it might as well be placed on the November hallot. Councilmember Fanelli also supported the November ballot, with a lower tax the first year. Councilmembers discussed the possibility of holding a special election at a time other than November. Ernie Kraule, Chief of the Saratoga Fire District, stated that the district had found it possible to conduct a special election by mail without excessive costs. Deputy City Clerk reported that she had " little current information on such elections but noted that it might not be possible to conduct one on a particular date. City Manager noted that a mail ballot conducted by San Diego was on an advisory issue, not.a tax, and it had been challenged in court. Deputy City Clerk noted that costs of a non-cQnsolidated electi. on would be significantly higher than those for a consolidated electiom Councilmember Clevenger suggested that an appeal process be included in the tax measure. Mayor Moyles felt an appeal process would be impractical. Councilmember Callon requested that staff detezmine whether a State proparty tax relief provision for seniors would apply to the proposed special tax. Councilmember Fanelli stated that since the City Mana er' had reported that differentiating between parcels would be a long and involved process, she was not interested in doing so. She also favored a lower tax for the first year. There was consensus to hold a special election at the polling 6-5/16/84 places in mid-September with no differentiation between types of parcels, with $85 per parcel assessed for the first year. The maker of the motion to close the public hearing withdrew the motion, and the second was withdrawn. Consensus to continue the public hearing to June 6. Councilmember Fanelli brought up the Fire Services Study Cn~nittee report. Mayor Moyles noted that it was an excellent report and should be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors with the highest endorsement. Mayor Moyles asked that everyone involved be. thanked in writing. CAT.T~N/MOYLES MOVED TO ADOPT A MINUTE RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE REPORT AND FORWARDING · IT TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS. Passed 5-0. D. Appeal of Denial of Design Review Approval for a TWo-Story Single ~amily Residence in Saratoga Heights Ct., lot 4 (Appellant/applicant, Parnas Corp.) (A-950).~ Cc~nunity Development Director seized appeal, and Mr. Toppel of the City Attorney's Office noted that under the settlement agreement with the Parnas · Corporation, all hc~es in the tract would be subject to the normal design review process, not Measure A or Specific Plan standards. Accordingly, he said, they were I-~ processed under HCRD standards. The public hearing was opened at 12:42 a.m.. Steve Barnard spoke as the attorney for the Parnas Corporation and Shiraz Kordestani. He stated that the Planning CQLm~ssion had acted arbitrarily and made a - very subjective judgment in denying design review approval for the proposed house, since they had previously approved a larger, higher, and more visible house in the area. He expressed willingness to cc~',~jly with conditions which the Council might impose if they wished to approve the application. Councilmember Callon asked why the applicant wished to retain the design and siting as proposed rather than stepping it beck into the hill to reduce the apparent bulk to which the Planning Culmi~ssion had objected. Mat Kamangar replied that the ! C~.~ssion had suggested a study session to discuss that issue, but he felt that would delay the process too long. Cc~munity Development Director stated that the Conmission had discussed the possibility of moving the structure on the site, but felt it would not solve the problemh Councilmember Fanelli eaLm,ented t_hat the Cn~,~ssion's concern seemed to be the lack of a break in the rear elevation visible from Pierce Road. Mr. Bernard stated that landscaping would hide much of the wall. Mr. Kamangar stated the house would not be very visible from Pierce Road in any case; Councilmembers disputed that statement. No one further appearing to speak, the public hearing was closed at 12:56 am~ Councilmembers stated that no new evidence had been presented at the public hearing" FANRT.T.I/CLEVENGER MOVED TO D~NY THE APPEAL AND PERMIT THE APPLICANT TO RE-SUBMIT A Mayor Moyles stated that he felt the finding concerning perception of excessive bulk point of view that the finding could not be made. E. Consideration of Amending the Text of the Zoning Ordinance to Allow Multi- Story Additions of 100 sq. ft. or less without a formal Design Review Application or Public Hearing. Such additions would be subject to staff · approval if the necessary findings under Section 13/L4 can be made (C-208) The public hearing was opened at 1:01 amu No one appearing to speak, it was closed at 1:02 a.m. MO!rr.P-q/Cr.~v~qea~t{ MOVED TO APPROVE THE NEC~TIVE DECLARATION. Passed 5-0. MO~.F-q/FAN~.LT MOVRn TO READ THE ORDINANCE BY TITLE ONLY/WA/VING FURTHER READING. Passed 5-0. FAN~.T.T/MOYLES MOVMD TO INTRODUCE THE ORDINANCE AS READ BY TITLE ONLY. Passed 5-0. A. Discussion of Oral Communications, if any.- None. 7-5/16/84 B. Written Cu~,~nications frcm the Public #1 from B. Griner objecting to provisions of false alarm ordinance - noted end filed. #2 from several writers supporting traffic light at Herriman end Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road - referred to Public Safety Commission. #3 from P~ Gross requesting support for pending water legislation - referred to staff for analysis end recc~:nendation. C. New Business from Coundilmembers Councilmember Callon requested that she be signed u~D for the Legislative Conference in June. Mayor Moyles suggested that a space be held for the Councilmember to be elected in June. Councilmember Callon also stated that she had not been receiving Western City magazine and requested that staff follow up. Councilmembers 'then discussed the budget schedule end decided to adjourn the meeting to Monday. Mayor Moyles then suggested that the council adopt the resolution discussed .under oral cc~nunications. There was consensus to do so. MOYT.F~q/CALLON MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLTION 2148 PROCLAIMING PROJECT GRADUATION ALCOHOL AWARENESS W~i~K. Passed 5-0. Mayor Moyles then returned to an administrative report which had been deferred from the previous portion of the agenda. 2. Report on Proposed 1/2 Cent Sales Tax for TrensportatiOn Improvements City Manager suk~itted a report on other cities' positions on the proposed tax. Mayor Moyles expressed his belief that the points raised by the City of Sunnyvale were a good synopsis of concerns. Other Councilmembers expressed their opinions, end Mayor Moyles cfm~_nted that since individual opinions were varied, it would be best to remain neutral as a Council. Shelley Williams rose to speak in favor of building Highway 85 in 1985 in en enviror~nentAlly sensitive manner. D. New Business frcm Staff, Administrative Reports not Scheduled Deputy City Clerk reported that Susan Buchan had resigned from the Parks 'and Recreation Cul~.~ssion. There was consensus to authorize advertising for the vacancy end schedule interviews for scme time after Jene 12. VII. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 1:30 a.m. to May 21. Respectfully sulmlitted, Grace E. Cory Deputy City Clerk