HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-23-1985 City Council Minutes MINUTES
SARATOGA 'CITY COUNCIL
T11~: Tuesday, July 23, 1985 - 7:30 p.m.
PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Ti1~: Adjourned Regular Meeting
The meeting was called to order at 7:45 p.m. Councilmembers Callon, Fanelli, Hlava,
Moyles and Mayor Clevenger were present.
1. Public Hearing to Consider Solid Waste Disposal Rates
Ccumunity Services Director explained staff's recomnendation that Saratoga proceed
with a three-year change over to the M~in Hurdman cost allocation formula. The
findings of the study revealed that Saratoga was lr/o short of covering its solid
waste disposal costs and was being subsidized with revenue from Los Gatos and
Campbell. Staff rectumended that 57° rate adjustment take effect 9/1/85, 47° the
second year, and a 2%, if needed, the third year. The 5'/o rate adjustment would
mean a 49 cent per month adjustment in the average residential solid waste disposal
bill. Green Valley Disposal Co. will not receive a rate increase this year since
their budget was balanced. This increase is to equalize cost of providing the
service between the cities.
Councilmember Hlava expressed a concern that we do not have a track record that can
say 117o is definitely the difference between Saratoga's rate and the amount that
other cities are subsidizing Saratoga. She felt there should be a review next year
to make sure that we need to go ahead with the remaining 47° and 27° adjustments.
Councilmember Fanelli said we may want staff to report back & review this next year;
there may be another less expensive method that comes up with the same kind of data.
. Councilmember Hlava 'asked what happened to the landfill costs increase. Mr. Argow
said Green Valley removed it from the table this year; in terms of landfill costs
increase, Green Valley has indicated it will be on the table next year. Council-
member Callon said she felt landfill expansion costs should be discussed early on
before there is any negotiation for any costs for expansion of landfill.
City Attorney said we have a garbage collection contract and a separate landfill
contract, and if there is an attempt by Green Valley to incorporate landfill costs
of any kind, other than what they're paying as part of their operating expense, into
the garbage collection contract then they have improperly c~ined the two subjects.
To his recollection, the landfill contract does not contain provision for an in-
crease in rates based upon expansion, but he will have to check on that.
Councilmember Moyles asked where we stand on the recycling proposal. Mr. Argow said
he is working with Dennis Varni of Green Valley to produce a flyer which would draw
attention to the existing Kiwanis recycling program we have operating behind the
City Hall facility on city-owned land. That flyer should be going out before the
end of this month. Over the long-term we are looking into the feasibility of
establishing a curbside recycling program
Conmunity Services Director said that strong policy direction from the Council is
needed -and can be very useful_to him for developing a recycling program. Perhaps
Mr. Varni could produce a report concerning the feasibility identifying alternatives
for initiating some form of curbside recycling program by the beginning of the next
contract period. Councilmember Moyles wondered if it should be made part of the
motion for the rate adjustment, and the report be to the City, in at least rough
draft, by March 15, 1986.
Councilmember Callon was concerned that curbside recycling was not cost effective
and she would not want to institute a curbside recycling program at the expense of
having the whole City pay additional garbage costs.
2-7/23/85' "
The public hearing was opened at 8:05 p.m. No one appearing ~o spe~k, the public
hearing was closed at 8:06 p.m.
HLAVA/FANEI,I~I MOVED TO APPROVE THE STAFF REC~ATION FOR A E-YEAR ADJUSII~
TO THE COST AIiDCATION FORMLrLA WITH A.5% ADJUSTMENT THIS YEAR (~'ECTIVE 9/1/85),
AND AI.If)CATION REVIEW AT .THE END OF NEXT YEAR WITH THE ~POSSIBILITY OF FURTHER
ADJUSTMENTS (4%, 2%), IF THAT APPEARS NECESSARY. Passed 5-0.
Mayor Clevenger reiterated tbat the rate increase is onlyito make up sc~re of the
difference between the actual costs of serving Saratoga versus the costs of serving
other cities, and that this is not a general rate increase for Green Valley.
There was Council consenses on Councilmember Moyles' suggestion requiring a curbside
recycling report from Green Valley by March 15, 1986. Mr. Argow asked if the
Council would like representatives from Main Hurdman & Associates to come before the
Council at a Study Session to go over their report on cost allocation. It was
agreed by Council that it would be timely to have them talk to Council next year
before the start of negotiations.
2. Discussion of Young Property Gallery Use
City Attorney said that he wanted to clarify for proponents and opponents of this
issue that there was a question put to him directly by the Planning Cc~misslon at
the time this matter was under consideration in connection with the application for
rezoning as to how the use might be conducted without rezoning the property. He
answered that question thinking of a possible way it could be done and that somehow
there' may be sane perception on the part of some people that this has become the
"Toppel proposal".. He just wanted to assure both sides that it is the f~ctlon of
staff to answer questions and try to present options. There was a staff report
relative to the specific application and that did contain a specific reco~nendation.
Anything beyond that are just discussions end thoughtsOn the part of staff as to
possible alternative approaches.
Mayor Clevenger ..:tated that in the Council's opinion an Attorney, City Manager or
staff member who provides the Council with options, is doing the Council a favor.
The Council like-q to know that they have a full range of all the available options
and they can choose which one is most appropriate.
City Attorney said that the Village Overlay District does .not change any existing,
underlying zoning category. The Council would still have to!go back and rezone. The
only purpose of the overlay, in connection with the Village Plan, is that the
Village Task Force Ccumission reccemended certain special rules applicable to the
Village mainly with respect to signage, perking, and design. The reason he latched
on to the overlay district was because it would be a special rule; it would be
applicable to only' a confined geographic area. It is a way to retain the underlying
zoning without ~king a conmercial use available throughout any residential dis-
trict.
Councilmember Callon asked whether the City Attorney was saying that if we wanted to
pursue this we would take a look at the Village boundaries and then create an
overlay zone that would relate to any residential property within the Village
boundaries if they got a conditional use permit. City Attorney responded we would
have as part of the Village Overlay District regulations a category of home occupa-
tion as a conditional use that would allow, say employees and on-site sales, but
subject to the issuance of an use permit and whatever conditions are contained in
that use permit. The Young site is one property away from what is now proposed as
the Village boundary. To make it contiguous you would have to include the Mattis
property and then the Young property, he said; you would not have to include the
Grodhaus property.
3-7/23/85
Mayor Clevenger said she would like to see a map before the next meeting to see
where the Village Overlay District would go and what would be included in it.
Mr. Grodhaus, 20379 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road asked if it would be possible to
postpone consideration of the item to the following Council meeting if any Council-
m~mbers were absent at the August 7, 1985, meeting since there might be a tie vote,
which would mean it would have to be carried over. Mayor Clevenger stated that she
knew one Councilm~mber would be absent on August 7th. Mr. Toppol said that the item
has been noticed and the Public Hearing would have to be opened, but Council can
determine at that time to continue the matter if they deem it appropriate. City
Attorney noted that all Council meetings are taped in addition to the minutes, so if
the matter is continued, any Councilmember who is not here for the August 7 meeting
could listen to the tapes.
City Attorney then stated that our Code provides that if there is a tie vote by the
Council, the item would automatically be continued to the next meeting. If there is
another tie vote for any reason, then the motion is deemed to be denied.
3. Review of Draft Request for Proposals for Senior Center Improvements through
Senior Center ~ond Act Funds.
Housing and Cxmmunity Development Coordinator Stan Carnekie and SASCC President
Richard Drake addressed Council on where staff is at on development of a request for
proposal issued by the Council on Aging for the allocation of Senior Center Bond Act
monies. Tae Senior Center Bond Act was passed last year and provides 50 million
dollars state-wide for senior center acquisition, construction, alteration, renova-
tion, equipment and start up. $1,802,900 will be made available to Santa Clara
County jurisdiction non-profit agencies. In March, 1985, the City Manager signed a
letter of intent to apply for these bond act funds. In April/May, City staff,
members of the SASCC board, and Mayor Clevenger, as Council representative to the
SASCC, met a nunher of times to determine the most feasible option for increasing
services to the senior citizens of the commmity. The most feasible option appeared
to be to proceed with plans to expand the existing senior center since no school
site appeared to be readily available. In May/June the SASCC, staff and architect
began work on proposed plans for the addition to the Senior Center. On June 14th
the Council on Aging released the Request for Proposal; on July 1st, members of the
SASCC attended a bidders conference.
The proposal would provide for the addition of 1,917 square feet to the existing
Saratoga Senior Wing in the Conmunity Center. It is proposed that the Council
authorize the Acting City Manger to request $150,000 in Senior Center Bond Act funds
for this addition. Two significant assurances that the City would have to make to
receive these funds are a matching requirement of 15% of the total grant and the
requirement that the Senior Center use be maintained for a minimLm period of 10
years. The other assurances that the City must make to receive these funds are the
normal assurances of expeditious compliance with contract requirements over site,
budget adherence, and provision of records.
The proposed additions would consist of an addition to existing multi-purpose room,
the addiction of a new meeting room, new dietary kitchen with a pantry, an adult day
care room, and a restroom. The existing kitchen would be converted and utilized for
needed storage space.
Estimated Costs:
Approximately 2,000 sq. ft. addition $100,000
Kitchen equipment 35,000
Misc. costs, contingencies & architect fees 15,000
Total Request $150,000
The City staff and Coordinating Counci2 are also pro3~ting the .need of an
additional $20,000 for landscaping, '~paths, walkways and the~ possibility of
additional parking. These funds could be allocated i~fom ~next year's block grant
funds. The Request: for Proposal will be presented to Council at the August 7, 1985,
meeting so it can be submitted to the Council on Aging by 4:00 pan. on Augu.qt 8.
" 4. Appoin~n~ont of Council Representatives to .Agencies
FANEI.I,I/MOYLES MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLIrrION ~26.2 APPOINTING COIjN~iL F~FEESENTATIVES TO
VARIOUS CC~MITII~;F-q AND AGENCIES. Passed 5-0.
5. New Business fr'c~ Counc]ln~mhers
Date has been set for City Conmission Recognition Dinner: ~r~esday, September 24,
1985, 6:30 p.m. at the Foothill Club.
Volunteer recognition will take place in the Spring.
Councilmember Hlava suggested that the appraisal report on ~he Cox Avenue/Saratoga-
S~nnyvale Road City-owned property be .referred to the Finance ~}.,,,,ittee for their
response.
Council agreed to cancel the study session of August .27, 1985, and the Regular
Council Meeting of September 4, 1985.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m. ~o 'a closed sessinn on
Respectfully submitted,
Acting Deputy City Clerk