Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-20-1984 City Council Minutes SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL TIME: Wednesday, JUne 20, 1984 - 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue TYPE: Regular Meeting I. ORGANIZATION A. ROLL dAT.T.- CoUnCilmembers Hlava, Moyles and Mayor Fanelli present at 7:04. CoUncilmember Clevenger present at 7:15; Councilmember Callon present at 9:58. B. MINUTES - 6/6/84 MOYLES/FAN~r.T.I MOVED APPROVAL WITH TWO CORRECTIONS; ON PAGE 4 THE AMOUNT OF THE PROPOSED TAX ON COMMERCIAL PARCELS WOe BE $160 THE FIRST YEAR; ON PAGE 5 SIMPSON REQUESTED THAT OBRAD DP~ NOT BE CLOSED. Passed 2-0 (Callon, Clevenger absent; Hlava abstaining because she had not been a CoUncilmember. ) II. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS David P~ Smith, Quito Rd., raised objections to procedures followed in connection with the removal of trees for the construction of Quito Rd. bicycle path. He implied that a handwritten Unsigned note justifying tree removal might have been written after their removal. CoUncilmember Moyles pointed out that the City had not violated the tree removal permit and suggested that perhaps the difficulty was with the interpretation of the reason for the tree removal as explained on the permit. Mayor Fanelli noted that Council had received a diagram of proposed tree removal before voting on the issue. She felt the CoUncil had believed the tree removal was important if the bicycle path were to be constructed. Councilmember Clevenger felt that she might have changed her vote when the Council considered the matter if she had noticed that large trees were to be removed. She requested that staff point out more clearly when large trees are to be removed. City Manager noted that removal of the trees was essential to improvement of the bicycle path. He noted that the City staff follows the same procedures for tree removal as is required of private property owners. There was consensus for staff to return with recommendations on replacement trees. Community Development Director stated that handwritten note referred to by Mr. Smith had been written by City parks supervisor on date of issuance of permit. Dolores Smith, 14560 Westcott Dr., reported that there had been a traffic accident on Saratoga-Los Gatos Rd., where the speed limit had recently been raised. Mayor Fanelli stated that the CoUncil had previously commUnicated with the State Department Of Transportation urging reduction of the speed limit. Community Development Director noted that State had agreed to perform a speed zone study after one year. Councilmembers discussed the possibility of requesting Assemblyman Konnyu to intercede for Saratoga after providing him with documentation. After further discussion there was consensus to agendize the matter for a study session. III. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Denial of Claim - Tronson B. Denial of Claim - San Jose Water Co. (by Pinelli - 21075 Michaels Dr. ) C. Resolution Granting Appeal of Denial of Variance at 14016 Camino Barco (V- 636, heard 6/6/84 ) RESOLUTION 2155 D. Resolution Denying Appeal of Tentative Subdivision Approval for 36 Lots at Brookview School Site, 12301 Radoyka Dr. (SD 1554, heard 6/6/84) RESOLUTION 2156 F. Final Building Site Approval, SDR 1346, Anthony Lawrence, Lomita Ave., 1 lot F. Approval of Warrant List MOYI.F-q/CLEVtlqGER MOVtD APPROVAL OF COMPL~T~ CONStlqT C/~I.ENDAR. Passed 4-0. 2-6/20/84 IV. SCHRD[~.Rn MA'ITE~S A. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS -~,~ 1. Quito Read Bike Path - Application to P.U.C. for Railread Crossing · MOI~.F-q/CLEVENGER MOVtI) TO APPROVE SUBMISSION OF APPLICATION. Passed 4-0. 2. Report on Pierce Read landslide Repair City Manager explained that recommendations would be ready for study session July 24. 3. Final Map Approval, Tr. 7283, Garner-Sorenson, Fanelli, Oak St. (1 lot, 8 apartments) Mayor Fenelli announced that she would abstain from discussion and voting on this matter because she had an interest in the property. MOYI.F-q/CLEVEN~ER MOVED TO APPROVE FINAL MAP AND AUTHORIZE EXECUTION OF CONTRACi~S FOR LMPRO~ AGRRM~ENT. Passed 3-0 (Fanelli abstaining). B. REPORTS FROM COMMISSIONS AND COM_Mi'IT~:~q 1.Recommendation on Prioritization of Proposed Traffic signals from Public Safety CuL~,dssion In answer to Councilmember Hlava, Community Development Director stated tha~ staff had reoaY,'L'ended the installation of the Herriman/Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd. signal ~. partly because the Quito Rd./Westmont Ave. should have been taken care of by San -- Jose; moreover, it was in the West Valley Corridor, which put its future in doubt. CLEVtlqGER/MOYLES MOVED TO ADOPT A MINUTE RESOLUTION ASKING THE STATE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH PLANS FOR THE SIGNAL AT HERRIMAN E SARATOGA-SUNNYV'AI.F- Passed 4-0. Mayor Fanelli expressed the hope that the public would be notified that the Council had taken action as a result of the Public Safety Commission recommendation, especially in view of previous misinformation that the Council had opposed the · ~ signal. 2. Recommendation on Proposed Ordinance Prohibiting the Possession of Opened Alcoholic Beverage Containers on Posted Premises from Public Safety Cc~f.~ssion In answer to Councilmember Clevenger, City Manager explained that proposed ordinance would close a loophole now existing in the law. MOYLES/HLAVA MOVRD TO READ ORDINANCE BY TITLE ONLY, WAIVING FURTHER READING. Passed 4-0. CT.RVENGER/HLAVA MOVRD TO INTRODUCE ORDINANCE AS READ BY TITLE. Passed 4-0. C. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS 1. Ordinance Imposing Special Tax for Road Maintenance (first reading) Mr. Toppel of the City Attorney's office explained revisions in ordinance. Mayor Fanelli suggested adding the words "not to exceed the following schedule" to the explanation of the tax to be levied, and there was consensus to do so. Mayor Fanelli invited anyone from the public to speak who wished, but no one appeared to speak. FDYT.F,q/(~GER MO~IHD TO 1~ ~j~L!~tD 0RDIIq~CE BY TITLE ONLY, WAIVING FURTHER READING. Passed 4-0. MO~r[.F.q/C~GER ~K)~FED TO INTRODUCE ORDINANCE AS READ BY TITLE. Passed 4-0. 3-6/20/84 2. Ordinance Amending Text of Article 4A (Planned Community District) of the Zoning Ordinance (C-207) (second reading) FANELT.I/CLEVENGER. MOVED TO READ ORDINANCE BY TITLE ONLY, WAIVING FURTHER READING. Passed 4-0. MOYLES/CLEVENGE~ MOVED TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NS 3.58 AS READ BY TITLE. Passed 4-0. 3. Garbage Disposal Ordinance (second reading) CLEVtI~GER/MOYLES MOVED TO READ ORDINANCE 38.119 BY TITLE ONLY, WA/VING FURTHER READING. Passed 3-0 (Hlava abstaining). MOYLES/cY,EVENGER MOVED TO 'ADOPT ORDINANCE 38.119 AS READ BY TITLF~ Passed 3-0 (Hlava abstaining). Councilmeater Hlava noted that she was abstaining because she did not feel familiar enough with this issue, having joined the Council only recently. 4. Ordinance Rezoning a Site at 14234 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd. from R-M- 4000 to R-M-3000 (second reading) MOYLES/HIAVA MOVED TO READ ORDINANCE BY TITLE ONLY, WA/VING FUTHER READING. Passed 4-0. HLAVA/MOYLES MOVED TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NS 3-ZC. 90 AS READ BY TITL~ Passed 3-1 ( Clevenger opposed ). Councilmember Clevenger stated that she opposed the ordinance because she did not favor the increase in density. She feared it would change the character of the 5. Resolution Approving 1984-85 Capital Improvement Budget and Making Appropriations and Transfers City Manager distributed revised copies of the resolution. Finance Director explained changes. In answer to Councilmember Hlava, City Manager explained that the consultant for Route 85 analysis did not appear in capital improvements because it was felt desirable to wait until proposals were received. Councilmember Moyles stated that he felt the budget did not provide enough for the pavement management program, but he would vote for it because it was prudent to hold the money in reserves until it is known whether "Jarvis i~P' passes. He feared that if the measure passes the City would have to refund money to the State from reserves. Councilmember Hlava noted that .in spite of the funds kept in the reserves, pavement management was nevertheless being funded at a higher level than in the past. MOYLES/HIAVA MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2151.1. Passed 4-0. D. BIDS AND CONTRACTS 1. Award of Contract - Allendale Avenue Improvements Cu~alAunity Development Director explained that project was within budget. CLEVENGBK/MOYLE,q MOVED TO AWARD PR~ TO CALHOUN BROTHEP~ FOR BID AMOUNT OF $59,600.00. Passed 4-0. ~.~v~I~G~/HLAVA MOVED TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SUPPLEMENTAL LW/TkR{ OF AGREEMENT WITH POST OFFICE. Passed 4-0. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS ~ Reduction of Alternatives Proposed for Route 85 Transportation Corridor through Saratoga Councilmember Clevenger, as the Council's representative to the Route 85 Policy Advisory Board, made a statement explaining her recommendations concerning the reduction of alternatives to be studied: any facility to be depressed twenty feet below grade from Prospect Rd. to Quito Rd. and not change the alignment of existing local streets; maximum of 4 lanes to be considered, with 46-fcot median to accommedate either buSways or light rail transit; median to be designed so that it 4-6/20/84 future road lanes could not be added to the medians; as much width on each side to be preserved for landscaping as possible; no construction until all right of way acquired; no determination on interchanges until analysis by City consultantl light rail only alternative to be studied so that its environmental impacts may be c6mpared with those of roadways; two no-build alternatives are required by the State to be studied. She stated that the Technical Advisory Committee had relied only on engineering data, not environmental data, so she felt it premature to eliminate light rail only without the full data. City Manager distributed materials concerning the proposed alternatives from the City of Cupertino. Akos Szobeszlay, 1348 Sierra Avenue, San Jose, spoke as a representative of the Modern Transit Society. He favored the light rail only alternative, saying that a freeway would encourage development and traf£ic. An unidentified woman representing "Protect Our Environment" spoke in favor of no construction until all right-of-way was acquired; 20' depression of roadway; two lanes in each direction; no non-local trucks; no off-ramp at Saratoga Avenue. She felt that if these concerns could not be met, the roadway should be re-routed outside of Saratoga, and she presented petitions which she said contained 1800 signatures of individuals supporting her position. Dr. Darwin Barrett, 14050 Marilyn, submitted a petition in Opposition to that submitted by P.O.F~ He feared that if no access were allowed on Saratoga Avenue, excess traffic would result on Quito Road. Barbara Simmons, 12791 Idlewood, spoke representing the League of Women Voters. She favored the freeway with either high occupancy vehicle or light rail provisions. Mike Bullock spoke in favor of light rail. Betty Maas, 20360 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, Opposed light rail, stating that it would not move traffic. She favored an eight-lane freeway. Pat Kemp, 12486 Sumner, favored a freeway because she felt mass transit would not work. Shelley Williams, 11951 Brookridge, stated that more planning for freeways was needed. He believed mass transit would not be widely used. Norman Martin, 12524 Miller, favored a four-lane roadway with a median for high occupancy vehicles. Bill Notz, 18276 Purdue, represented the Sunland Park Homeowners Association. He stated that they did not favor a ramp leading to Quito Road; they supported the depression of the roadway by twenty feet Paul Somplink spoke in favor of eliminating light rail as an inefficient alternative. He favored a depressed roadway with a high occupancy vehicle lane. Gregory Novak, 4763 Hacienda, Campbell, said Caltrans assumptions were misleading because they project no increased traffic if a roadway is built. He preferred to spend more time in traffic rather than having a freeway. Link Bradley, 19201 Portos, favored light rail as the best long-term solution to traffic problems. Charles Reilly stated that light rail was unrealistic. Charles Livermore, 12166 Portos Ct., believed that freeways were not a solution because they resulted in more traffic and more congestion. Karen Anderson, 19887 Seagull, opposed a freeway because of possible noise pollution and environmental damage. She suggested making existing e~pressways i.nto freeways so that another freeway would not be needed. · Dave Smith, Quito Road, favored prohibiting trucks on the roadway and felt it should be depresse~L He believed all right of way should be acquired before construction and the readway opened section by section. (]~3rles Newmen, Cupertino, spoke as Vice President of the Route 85 Task Force. He 5-6/20/84 favored a freeway designed with environmental and aesthetic concerns in mind and with a high occupancy vehicle lane Tom Tobin, 20656 Tenth St_, opposed the elimination of the light rail alternative, stating that it would be needed at scme time. Russ Crowther, Norada Court, supported Councilmember Clevenger's alternatives. He also suggested the improvement of Highways 280 and 17 because he considered them bottlenecks. Susan Nowacki, 21261 Glenmont Dr., spoke representing the Wildwood Heights HcmeownersAssociation. She opposed light rail and favored the freeway. Robert Williams, Sunnyvale, favored retention of the light rail option. He felt that when a freeway is built, traffic increases so that the amount of congestion remains the same. Incarna Walzer, 19430 DeHavilland Dr., urged the Council to plan for the future of the community as a whole. Omar Chatting of Morgan Hill stated that a freeway would relieve congestion on city Saratoga streets. Carol Machol, 13597 Ronnie Way, felt a freeway would damage Saratoga's environment and require additional law enforcement. Bill Phillips spoke in favor of the no-bu/ld alternative. Joe Clevenger, 19337 Titus Ct., stated that the Route 85 study was biased toward the freeway alternative. He felt that communication to the public had been poor, and that those supporting freeways were urgingquick construction of the freeway because in the future foreign oil problensmightmake the public resistant to freeways. Bill Simond, 18605 Lyons Ct., supported the no-build alternative; he felt a freeway would encourage development of outlying areas and increase traffic problems. Henrik Schmidt, 12624 Cheverly Ct., favored a freeway instead of an expresswa~ The freeway should be depressed, he said, and flexibility for other modes such as buses should be possible. Dolores Smith felt that Saratoga should take a strong stand to demonstrate its power to the State Department of Transportation. Fiona Wilson, 20318 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, spoke in favor of a freeway for traffic safety. Sherill Abbott, 12271 Saraglen Dr., stated that the public was not sufficiently informed of the hearing and suggested hiring a consultant for advice on the freeway. No one further appearing to speak, the public hearing was closed at 10:00 p.m. CouncilmemberCallon commented that since shehad missed most of the public hearing she would not vote on the issue. Councilmembers discussed the alternatives. Clevanger/Hlava moved to delete the 8-lane freeway alternative, retaining the two no- building alternatives, light rail only, and the two four-lane freeway alternatives. MOYLES/FANELT,T MOVED TO AMEND THE MOTION TO DELETE THE LIGHT RAIL ONLY ALTERNATIVE LF THE EIGHT-LANE FREEWAY IS D~,~U'ED. Passed 3-1-1 (Cl~venger opposed, Callon abstaining ). CLEVENC~/{/HLAVA MOVED TO RECOMMEND THE TWO NO-BUILD ALTb/{NATIVES AND TWO 4-LANE FREEWAY ALT~/RNATIVES WITH EITHER BUSWAY OR LIGHT RAIL IN THE MEDIAN. Passed 4-0-1 (Callon abstaining). CLEVENGER/MOYLES MOVED TO RECOMMEND TO THE POLICY ADVISORY BOARD THAT ANY ROADWAY BE DEPRESSED TWENTY b'EhT; FIFTY Fk~T FOR LANDSCAPING ON EACH SIDE BE PROVIDED; NO CONSTRUCTION TO-BEGIN UNTIL ALL RIGHT OF WAY IS ACQUIRED; LIMITPJ3 ACCESS IN SARATOGA BE PROVIDED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CONSULTANT'S RECOMMENDATIONS CONCERNING INTh~CHANGES. Passed 4-0-1 (Callon abstaining). 6-6/20/84 City Manager stated that selection of the consultant would take approximately four to six weeks. Mayor Fanelli noted that the consultant would assist the City onthe design of the alternatives within Saratoga. Tne Council then recessed from 10:40 to 10:57 p.m. B. Appeal of Planning Commission Design Review Approval at 12329 VistaArroyo Ct., (Appellant, R. Crowther; Applicant, R. Dewey) (A-958) Community Development Director explained issues. Councilmember Clevenger stated that under the Stipulation for Settlement with Blackwell Homes, proposed houses were required toundergo normal design reviewprocedures. Mr. Toppel of the City Attorney's Office confirmed that fact. He also explained the sequence of events in connection with Mr. Crowther's attempts to correct the Planning Commissionminutes, noting that he had acquiesced in Mr. Crowther's correctinghis own statements, but not those of others. The public hearing was opened at 11:10 p.m. Russell Crowther spoke as the appellant. He stated that the proposed home was on a scenic ridge line end projected 21' above it. He felt it was inconsistent with the current and previous General Plans and with the NHR ordinance. The standards which had been applied as a result of the Stipulation for Settlement were invalid, he believed, because the initiative Measure A had applied stricter standards, and any change in such a measure could be made only by a vote of the people. Mr. Crowther disagreed with staff's contention that the HCRD ordinance applied to the house. He stated that the location of the house on the site was different from that shown on the site development plan; that it would interfere unreasonably with views; that it would not preserve the natural landscape; that approving the house would set a precedent for other houses proposed for scenic ridge lines; and that there were no "' other hcmes or ridge lines in the area to mitigate the impact of the house. Sandy Santoriello, 20802 Norada Ct., said he would like to have building in the area minimized. He believed that City ordinance provided that no building would be done on scenic ridge lines. Charles Hunter, 20846 Meadow Oak Way, stated that the recently-constructed roads were beginning to deteriorate. He feared for the health of a eucalyptus grove in the area near constructiota Whether the project conformed with the General Plan or not, he felt it was not good for Saratoga. Dora Grens, 13451 Old Oak Way, expressed dissatisfaction with the terms of the Blackwell Homes Stipulation for Settlement. Councilmember Clevengerpeint~dout that the TeerlinkandDeMartini settlements are regulated bythe HCRD Ordinance. Mr. Toppel further noted that the Specific Plan did not exist when previous settlements were negotiated. An unidentifiedmember of the audience statedthat the reads in the area werenarrow and dangerous in case of fire. He believed the hillside was crumbling because there was no reck, and he was concerned about the eucalyptus grove. Kurt Anderson, designer Of the project and representative of the applicant, presented various slides and pictures of the area. He pointedoutthat no variance is being requested, simply a design review which was approved by the Planning Commissiom The 21-fcot projection above the ridge line, he said, only extended for one foot because of the slope of the ridge line. In answer to Councilmember Clevenger, he said it was possible to build a house which did not project above the ridge line, but it would involve a larger retaining wall and more excavatiOD~ Bill Heiss, an engineer for the project, said in answer to Mayor Fanellithat a swimmingpool had been planned at one point but hadbeen eliminated. Mr. Heiss went on to say that a major part of the ridge waspreserved in open space as a result of the application of the HCRD Ordinance. He describedthe house and its site in fLLrther detail. Mr. Crowther suggested that the house be moved to a lower site; he felt that the house could notbe hiddenby landscaping. No one further appearing to speak, the public hearing was closed at 11:48 p.m. In response to CouncilmemberCallon, CommunityDevelopment Director stated that he was aware of no roads crumbling. CouncilmemberCallon noted that it had been the intent of the Council to have narrow reads to preserve the character of the area. 7-6~20/84 Concern/rig the eucalyptus grove, Community Development Director stated that the trees had depended upon a leaking cistern which had bean removed when the area was developed; they were not in their nattLral habitat and had declined when the cistern was removed. Councilmembers discussed the siting of the home, its impact on views, and whether findings could be made to grant the application. Councilmember Callon opposed the siting of the house so that it was visible over the ridge line. Although it had less impact than some other houses, she said, it should not be built. Councilmember Clevenger stated that she could not make the findings, feeling that the house was unreasonably bulky and interfered with the natural landscape. cjDunci]m~_mber Hlava; noting that she had voted for the application when on the Planning Commission, felt the impact on visibility was not excessive because most of the house was on the other side of the ridge from the appellant. A one-story design, she felt, could have more impact because it would require more impervious coverage. MOYLES/CLEVENGER MOVED TO GRANT THE APPEAL BECAUSE OF IMPACT OF THE PROPOSAL ON THE RIDGELINES. Passed 3-2 (Fanelli, Hlava opposed). Councilmember Fanelli noted that the applicant would have to apply for a new design review permit. Council and Bill Heiss discussed possible relocation of the house. Kurt Anderson stated that if he had to repeat the design review process and pay the fees again he would not be able to build the house. CATION/MOYLES MOVED TO RECONSIDER THE PREVIOUS MOTION. Passed 4-1 (Clevenger opposed ). CAT.TON/MOYLES MOVED TO RtI)IRECT THE APPLICANT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR DESIGN REVIEW WITHIN THE POLLOWING PARAMEt'~/~S: THE HOUSE MUST NOT PROJECT ABOVE THE RIDGE LINE; VEG~I~TION MUST BE PLAN'i'~jU TO SC~k~F~ ~ HOUSE. Passed 5-0. C. Second Unit Ordinance (first reading - required because of substantial change at previous first reading) Mr. Toppel of the City Attorney's Office explained changes in ordinance, Councilmember Moyles expressed concern over the Council's being required to act as a tryer of fact to determine whether particular second units existed before January 1, 1983. Mr. Toppel suggested adding to the 120-day requirement on p. 6 a provision that application for legitimization of an existing seeend unit would have to be submitted within one year. Councilmember Moyles agreed that a longer "window" would be necessary, as well as thorough noticing of the conununity so that everyone involved would have an opportunity to apply for legitimization. Councilmember Hlava stated that she opposed adding second units in the area served by Pierce Road. The public hearing was opened at 12:25 a.m. Armand DiGiovanni, 21931 Via Regina, stated that he had two UP_itS on his lot, which had an average slope over 10% and was served by septic tanks, and asked whether the situation were legal. Mr. Toppel explained that Mr. DiGiovanni would not be allowed to have a kitchen in the second structure because it would then be considered a second unit which did not meet the conditions for legitimizatior~ Furthermore, he said, the fact that the structure was built before incorporation of the City would place the unit under the non-conforming ordinance, which requires removal of a non- conforming structure and discontinuance of a non-conforming use after a certain period of time. Bill Notz, 18276 Purdue Drive, spoke as President of the Sunland Park Homeowners Association. He stated that the association opposed second units in the R-1-10,000 zoning district because they would have too much impact. Winifred Tyler, 20710 CarD/el Ave., spoke as leQislative chair of the Los-Gatos Saratoga American Association of University Woman. She stated the the Executive Board supported the second unit ordinance, especially the legitimization of existing second units in the R-1-10,000 zoning district, since it preserved safe housing which was already in use. They opposed limiting occupancy based on age. Margaret Russell stated that she lived in an R-1-10,000 zoning district and opposed second units because of parking difficulties. Mayor Fanelli pointed out t_hat the only second units to be allowed in that district were existing ones. Richard Drake, 20509 Gordon Ct., spoke for the Saratoga Area Senior Coordinating 8-6/20/84 Council. They supported the ordinance as amended. Kay Toevs inquired as to second units existing before the incorporation of the City. Mr. Toppel explained that they would have to meat the requirements of the ordinance in order to be legitimized. In answer to Mayor Fenelli, Mr. Toppel explained that second units were not allowed on substandard sized lots. Bert Toevs inquiredas tothe retroactivityof the ordinance as applied to second units which cannotbe legitimized, stating that lawsuits might result similar to those filed as a result of Mensure~ ~. Toppel expia~]ed that the non-conforming ordinance gave the City the right to require removal of non-conforming uses or structures; there was no relation whatsoever to Measure/~ No one further appearing to speak, the public hearing was closed at 12:48 a.m. Councilmember'Callon suggested a number of reductions in permittedvariances so that impact would be lessened. Mayor Fanelli pointed out that these variances were not automatically granted by the Planning Commission; if the impact were too great, the variance could be denied. Councilmember Hlava stated that she understood that very few lots would be affected by the proposed reductions, at least in Sunland Park. MOYLKq/HLAVA MOV~I) TO READ THE ORDINANCE BY TITLE ONLY, WAIVING FURTHER READING, WITH THE AMENDMENT THAT IN PARAGRAPH A, SECTION 16~.11, A SENi'ENCE IS ADDED READING, '~qO USE PERMIT MAY BE GRA~i'ED FOR AN EXISTING SECOND UNIT UIqI,F. qS APPLICATION FOR SUCH USE PERMIT IS FILED WITHIN ONE YEAR FROM THE K~'kCTIVE DATE OF THIS ARTI~" Passed 5-0. MOYLES/HIAVA MOVED TO INTRODUCE THE ORDINANCE AS READ BY TITLE ONLY. Passed 4-1 (Clevenger opposed). Councilmember Hlava noted that the ordinance provided for review of the ordinance one year after adoption. She suggested that staff maintain empirical data on which the Council could base its review. City Manager replied that staff intended to do so. VI. NEW BUSINESS A. Discussion of Oral Cu~,L~anications, if any - NOne. B. Written C~u~,anications fremthePublic #1 from B. Kelly objecting to denial of trea removal request - noted and filed. Mr. Toppelexplainedthat hehad written Mr. Kelly that caring for the tree was the landowner's responsibility. #2 from two residents objecting to elimination of single cangarbage servicebecause it discourages recycling - noted and filed. #3 from N. Behel objecting to new garbage policy because of its effect on seniors - noted and filed. #4 from K. Eshieman, AAUW, requesting feawaiver for use of CommunityCenter - to be agendized at a study session. C. New BusineSs frc~aCouncilmenbers Fanelli stated that City Manager would prepare a chart showing committea assignments, so Councilmembers should consider where they wished to serve. She also requested thatthey make notes on items to be considered at their next sessions. D. New Business frcra Staff, Administrative Reports not Scheduled City Manager reported thatthe Citywas about to beginanextensive read maintenance program; if complaints were received, they should be referred to staff. He submitted the Median Landscape Master Plan prepared by Callendar and Associates and asked that Council review it for discussion in the next few months. VII. ADJOURNMENT The meating was adjourned at 12:55 a.m. Respectfully sutmitted, Grace E. Cory Deputy City Clerk