Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-02-1986 City Council Minutes ~y, ~ul~ 2, 1986 - 7:~ Ci~c ~=, 13777 ~i~1e ~lar ~ti~ 1, RO~ ~ - Co~cilmem~rs ~derson, Cleve~er, ~oyles, Peterson, and ~yor Hlava present at 7:04 p.m. 2. ~ - A. Resolution Co~end~ng K~m~rly Renee Williams, Kathy K~lkenny and ~onda ~o ~/C~G~ ~S ~ ~ ~0~ION 2353. Pass~ 5-0. ~yor Hlava presented the resolution to Miss Willi~s and Miss Saucedo. 3. ~ ~'rl~ A. ~1 of ~n~, 6/18 MOYLES/CLEVENGER MO~D TO APPRO~ MI~S AS SUBMI'rf~. Pass~ 3-0-2 (~derson and Peterson abstaining because they had not been present as Councilmembers at the ~eting). B. ~p~l of ~t Ust ~VA/~ON ~ ~ ~PRO~ W~ LI~. Pass~ 5-0. A. P~,-d~ ~-,.,,;ss~ A~t~, 6/25 - Not~ and fil~. B. Parki~ ~ib~ti~ - ~k St. at St. ~rl~ - Approv~ Resolutio~ ~-167. C. ~f~t~m of ~i~ ~ ~rat~-S~le Rd. at Verde V~s~ ~ - Approve, 4. ~ ~T~ II - ~ A. ~derati~ of Cla~ - B. ~id~atim of Cla~ - Tayl~ C. ~d~ati~ of Cla~ - ~lds C~~O~.F-q ~ ~ D~ C~ A-C. Pass~ 5-0. 5. ~I~TIONS ~0~ ~I~I~ ~ ~ ~IC Marilyn Kanemura, Chairperson of the Library Commission, thanked the Council for f~ding the S~day o~ing of the ~ity Library. ~e re,fred on the acti~ties of the Commission and requested that the Council write a letter to Assembl~an Konnyu urging his support of AB 2493 concerning llbrary funding. ~ere was consensus to do sO. Nan Swanson, Woodmont Drive, requested that the Council re-establish a Youth ~ssi~. ~ere was consensus to discuss the matter ~der Item 9A. Rollin Swanson, W~mont ~ive, supprted Mrs. Swanson's r~uest, stating that a Youth ~ission could address m~y of the Foblems with which the Public Safety Co~issi~, of which he is a m~r, is conceded. B. ~itt~ C- ..... m~ti~ f~ ~e ~1~c 2-7/2/86 l) Letter fo~ Maurice Martin on Leo~ard Rd. Dlaintenance There was consensus to approve the ~taff recommendation to direct the Maintenance Director to reply to Mr. Martin that Leonard Road is a private street. 2) Letter from Carol Batson:requesting delay of payment of fees for second trait use :permit at 18710 Aspesi Dr. There was consensus to approve the staff recommendation to approve request subject to review by City Attorney for conflict with Municipal Code and to require agreemant to pay even if the loan is not approved, .to be recorded as lien on property. 6. OLD BUSII~SS · A. Report On Sa~e Appeal beard 6/18 Mayor Hlava announced that, although she had been absent from the 6/18 meetir~, she had listened to the tape recordings, visited the site, and read the minutes. Planning Director stated that the staff had reviewed the revised plans and found that the figures were accurate. He recommended that the Council adopt the resolution granting Mr. Saude's appeal if they wished to approve the revised plans. Mr. Saude then spoke as the applicant, explaining the reductions in the revised plans. ' He stated that he wished to make a 970 addition to the guidelines on a lot which was 377. larger than required. He believed that any problems which had been of concern, such as compaction and erosion, had been properly handled. Councilmember Peterson noted that the staff report to the Planning Commission on this item had not been a part of the packet; he requested that it be included in such cases in the future. In answer to Councilmember Anderson, ~Mr. Saude replied that the pool was included in the application, and it was not cantiievered. Bob McBain, designer for the appellant, explained that the pool rested on piers. She then asked if the pool wer~ contained by dirt, and Mr. McBain stated that the pool was on cut material aS approved by the soil engineer and a geologist. The City Engineer added that the Geologist, as well as the Engineering Department, would review the plans before any permits were issued. City Manager then pointed out that the application before the Council was for ~esign review approval, and l:hat included nothing about a swimming pool; he questioned whether the pool should even be discussed. Councilmember Anderson suggested that iMr. Saude build a smaller house so the pool could go in the ground. Councilmembers 'discussed sending the project beck to the Planning Commission, 'since the design which was appealed had been changed. Mr. McBain objected, saying that the structural design of the house had not been drawn, and that would take 6 weeks. He feared that the house could no~ be built this season if the project were returned to the Commission. Mayor Hlava felt tha~ applicants should make all the changes they feel they can make at the Planning Commission level. Councilmember Peterson saw no advantage in sending the application back to the Commission, and felt that if that were the Council's will, the applicant should have been told that at the last meeting. He preferred to vote on the house, but not the pooI. Councilmember Clevenger felt the best choice was to return the application to the Commission. She would not vote to increase the size of the house, she said, because it is on a small pad. ' HLAVA/MOYLES MOVED TO RETURN THE PROJECT TO THE PLANNING COMMISION TO LOOK AT THE NEW APPLICATION WITH THE INCLUSION OF A POOL. Passed 4-1 (Peterson opposed). (Clerk's note: This motion was later reconsidered; see below.) City Attorney noted that the decision of the Planning Commission approval would be final, with no further action by the Council necessary. Mr. Saude stated thai: he wished to have a vote on the issue tonight. If the Council 3-7/2/86 did not approve his appeal, he said, he would simply remove square footage from the planned four-car garage in order to comply with the Planning Commission's condition of his approval. CLEVENGER/HLAVA MOVED TO RECONSIDER THE MOTION TO RETURN THE APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. Passed 5-0. Councilmember Moyles stated that he had originally voted to return the application to 1 the Planning Commission because he had believed that was Mayor H ava's preference. Mayor Hlava replied that since the applicant preferred a vote tonight, that was satisfactory to her. Councilmember Moyles said that in that case he was willing to vote on the matter tonight. CLEVENGER/HLAVA MOVED TO RETURN THE PROJECT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO LOOK AT THE NEW APPLICATION WITH THE INCLUSION OF A POOL. Failed 0-5. Councilmember Peterson stated that he disliked seeing many cars on a street, and the Council should not act in such a way as to discourage the building of an adequate four- car garage for this project. He felt the project had no undesirable impact on the neighbors, and he was flexible as to the guidelines. Councilmember Moyles agreed with Councilmember Peterson in his opinion that the home as proposed was proportionate to its lot and compatible with the neighborhood. CLEVENGER/HLAVA MOVED TO DENY THE APPEAL AND UPHOLD THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION ON A-1189 APPROVING THE PROJECT WITH CONDITIONS. Passed 3-2 (Moyles, Peterson opposed). Mayor Hlava explained that she opposed the application because she felt the pad was small. In addition, the '~udor fortress" style of the house caused it to appear bulkier; she felt it looked unacceptable on the lot. Mayor Hlava noted that Mr. Saude was still able to build a house of 6200 sq. ft. as ::approved by the Planning Commission. B. Discussion of Policy Advisory Board Motion made at 6/25/86 meeting concerning Route85 (added at meeting) There was consensus to agendize the matter for the July 16 meeting. Councilmembers expressed concern on points B and E and requested information from staff-on what constitutes "consistently applied mitigation measures" as indicated in point E; how long and how deep is the depressed portion of the freeway through Cupertino; how much, beth in percentage and in mileage, is it depressed through San Jose; if the Cambrian area is added to the depressed section, how much more depressed area would that add. The City Manager added that the report would also include the marginal costs to upgrade it for public transit. Councilmember Peterson requested that he and Councilmember Anderson, as new Councilmembers, be given an opportunity to be brought up to date on the free~ay with CalTrans officals. The City Manager stated that would be arranged. 7o ~ BIJSII~SS A. Request for Advance on F~nds for preliminary Site Plan - ltakone Gantens Bill Glennon, a trustee of the Hakone Foundation, spoke in favor of the request. He explained that the proposed plan was a Master Plan and reported that fund-raising was slow, partly because of the lack of a Master Plan. A total of $3500 would be needed, he said, with $3250 for the plan and $250 for a public presentation. The latter, however, might not be needed, he said. Councilmember Anderson noted that the Council had already loaned $20,000 to the Foundation. Mr. Glennon replied that the $20,000 was for a brochure and would be paid beck in good time. As to fund-raising, he said, it would probably be necessary to hire a professional at a cost of about $50,000, Councilmember Moyles said the memorandum requesting the funds indicated that the Foundation had progressed to a point from which they could proceed to more concrete accomplishments. He suggested that Mr. Glennon check with the City Manager about 4-7/2/86 possible need for accounting documentation, as well as a comprehensive review. Mr. Glennon stated that they would submie a formal accounting when the plan was presented. Councilmember Moyles then .compliment~d Mr. Glennon on the negotiations resulting in the use of about 1/2 acre of the neighboring Morrow property for Hakone Gardens parking. Mayor Hlava noted that she saw nothing in the proposal concerning evaluating the current geotechnical informat:ion the City has. ~ She feared that structures might be planned on an area which bad had :landslides in the past. Mr. Glennon said he would remind the consultant of that issue. HLAVA/ANDERSON MOVED TO APPROVE REQUEST FOR $3500 FOR PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN FOR HAKONE GARDENS. Passed 5-0. City Manager stated that the staff would prepare a ~esolution amending the budget In accordance with the motion for the July 16 meeting. There was consensus to meet with the Hakone trustees 0nI July 22. B. Request by l~intenance Director for funds from Capital Improv~nent l~gget to be used for Restrooms at E1 Q,.ito Park City Manager explained request. Councilmember Moyles questioned whether a bathronm were needed, especially in view of problems sometimes connected with pork bathrooms, such as vandalism ~nd attraction of out-of-town people. Maintenance Director. responded that th~ pork is used by youth sports leagues and is the second-most used park in Saratoga. The senior pot course would also be better used, he believed, if there were: a restroom. In answer to Mayor Hlava, he stated that maintenance staff would lock the restroom 1/2 hour after sunset. This would be something of a burden, he said, but it would add to the pork's Usability. CLEVENGER/ANDERSON MOVED TO PURCHASE AND AUTHORIZE EXPENDITURE OF $50,000 FC~ PROJECT. Passed 5-0. In answer to Councilmeznber Moyles, City~ Manager stated that the money would come from the unexpended balance of the Park Development Fund. Councilmember Moyles asked that the homeowners in the neigJ~berhood be informed so that their concerns could be addressed. 8. PUBLIC ItFARINGS A. Appeal of denial of design review approval to construct a 247 sq. ft. rear addition to an e~sting si~le family home at 14035 SaratogS Av~., in the R-1- 20,000 zoning district (Appellant/applicants, Nr. and Mrs. Nichael Rosa)(A- 1198) Planning Director explained appeal. Th~ public hearing was opened at 8:23 p.m. Michael Rosa, 14035 Saratoga Avenue, spoke as the appellant/applicant. He stated that he wished an addition of only 120 to 247 ~sq. ft. He reiterated the points in his appeal letter and stated that his addition would be an improvement over what had been there previously. He said that he had not ~had an opportunity to meet with the Planning Commission in a study session. Further, he believed that Commissioner Pines had asked a n~nber of questions which appeared in the minutes, while his answers to them did not. As to impervious coverage, Mr. Rosa stated [that the addition would not add to it because it was on the patio, and the apricot tree would not be removed. Lastly, he said, the neighbors were not bethered by the project. In answer to City Manager, Mr. Rosa said that although his appeal letter proposed an addition of at least 150 sq. ft., he would be willing to settle for 120 sq. ft. Planning Director clarified that the applicant had requested 247 sq. ft. from the Commission, but 150 sq. ft. was mentioned. While they did not consider 120 sq. ft., he :felt 'the Commission would not have approved any addition whatsoever to the house. · No one further appearing to speak, the public hearing was closed at 8:38 p.m. Councilmember Moyles stated he could vote tonight to oppose the a~ppeal because he believed the house with the addition would be ton large for the lot. Councilmember Peterson supported the appeal because the fontprint of the house was 1020 5-7/2/86 sq. ft., whichhe felt was not too large for the lot, even with the addition. I~DY].F-~/CLEVENGER I~DVED TO DENY APPEAL. Passed 4-1 (Peterson opposed). B. Appeal of approval of negative declaration, te~tati~ building site, variance and design review of a two-story 24.5 ft. high single-family residence over 6,200 sq. ft. in area, which requires grading in excess of 1,000 cu., yds., at 19288 Bainter Ave., in the H(ID zoning district (Appellant, It Slomnr~s et al.; applicant, C. Hwang)(S~ 1620, A-1176-1, V-730) Planning Director explained appeal. The public hearing was opened at 8:44 p.m. Margaret Slemmons, 19655 Redberry, Los Gatos, spoke as an appellant. She represented, she said, a coalition of homeowners in the area who had concerns about hillside development generally. Mrs. Slemmons pointed out that Commissioner Harris' no vote on the project had been incorrectly recorded as a yes vote, and Planning Director confirmed that Mrs. Slemmons was correct. While Mrs. Slemmons respected the owner's right to build, she felt the neighbors' rights should also be respected. She summarized the three points of her appeaI as being: (1) design of house, in that the stepped-up design climbed up the hill and appeared as three stories high; the house was 26' high instead of 24'; (2) code violations and violation of the General Plan; (3) legal issues concerning easements. William Young, 21400 Saratoga Hills Rd., spoke on behalf of the applicant. He explained how the applicant had reduced the size and bulk of his house and relocated it in order to minimize impact on neighbors and gain the approval of the Council on appeal. He displayed models of the original proposal and the reduced home, along with a model of the site. He then showed an aerial photograph and a chart indicating how much grading had been reduced. Perception of bulk was not a problem, he said, because the house was not visible from the neighbors' property. He stated that the house covered only 1/2 of 1% of the lot more than was presently covered, and there were comparable houses in the area. Mr. Young showed .slides indicating the locations of the neighbors and various large houses near the site. Joyce Consoli, 19370 Redberry, opposed the changing of the previously-existing road. She feared the road would be widened near her house and endanger her privacy. She felt it would affect the future of the neighborhood and the community. The house is two or three times larger than adjacent structures, she .said, and would take away property and privacy of the current residents for the sake of a new resident. In answer to Councilmember Anderson, City Attorney replied that the road had to have a paved width of 16', including shoulders. The City Engineer originally recommended 18', he said, while the Planning Commission, along with the Central Fire District, recommended 16', allowing a narrower width if necessary to get by the adobe structure. City Attorney confirmed that he had a letter from the Central Fire District to the effect that a narrower width by the adobe was acceptable. The City Engineer added that the staff generally requires a 20' width but allows narrower widths for trees, structures, etc. In answer to Councilmember Anderson, he stated that.he did not consider the Consoli fence an impediment in the same way a permanent structure such as the adobe was. Mr. Young quoted a letter from Ronald Moore, Chief of Fire Prevention District 4, as consenting to narrowing the 16' width to get around the adobe; the adobe will be within the serv/ce radius for the hydrant, so the street does not have to provide fire access for the two residences. All other addresses have access by way of Redberry, the Chief said. Furthermore, if an improved fire sprinkler system were installed the road width could be reduced, the Chief said, but he would have to review the plans for any of these modifications. Arthur Slemmons, 19655 Redberry, spoke against the project, saying the City was not following federal and State law and City ordinances. He believed that City ordinances were not consistent with the General Plan in that the General Plan was too vague, and the ordinances do not make it more specific. He quoted various sections of the City Code concerning variances, saying that no.variance could be granted on road width or slope requirements. He believed the law required an 18' width with 1' shoulders. He said also that Mrs. Consoli would not let her property be used for a roadway, and she had a prescriptive easement, so the road could not be widened there. He quoted other City Code sections requiring that infill structures be compatible in bulk with adjacent structures, but "bulk" is not defined. He believed the structure would be highly visible to many people from Highway 9 and would be very massive. He showed an 6-7/2/86 elevation of the building from two different views and slides of the footprint. The slope under the pad, he said, is grea~er than allowed. The construction on post and beam would be dangerous, he felt, especially since no drillings had been made under this area. He believed the slope was unstable, especially when wet. City Attorney responded that Mr. Slemmons was confusing provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and the Subdivision Ordinance concerning variances, and the standards which Mr. Slemmons referred to did not apply to the project. The Planning Commission, he said, was authorized to modify standards of the Subdivision Ordinance, includj[ng road widths, and a variance is not involved. The advice of other agencies such as the Fire District is regularly replied upon, he said, especially for road widths. As to the slope, he said, the average slope under the envelope may not exceed 3070, and one cannot. have 407o slope between any two 5' con.tour lines. However, this applies to natural slope, and the project is on a cut slope, the City Attorney said. Mr. Slemmons asserted 'that the only artificial slope was near the road, and the natural slope was greater than 4070 under the garage. Further, he said the General P].an does not allow "perception of bulk"; City Attorney replied that that was a matter of judgment, and the ordinance contains ~specific standards on square footage, height, setbacks, etc., which constitute bulk. Planning Director stat6~ that the staff~ visited the site and considered the slope under the structure to be artificial. As to the "prescriptive easement" question, City Attorney stated that that is a question of fact to b~; determined by a court of law, not by the City Council. It is the applicant's burden to provide a roadway, he said, and how he does it is not the Council's problem to solve. Mr. Heiss, the engineer for the project, explained the grading plan, discussed how measurements were taken, and showed slides of the slopes. He stated that the average slope was 29.47o under the house. · Councilmember Anderson remarked tha~ from her observation of the site, the only artifical slopes were 'by the driveway. Councilmember Clevenger felt it was difficul~ to know what the natural grade was; she believed that because there was a slope greater than 4070, a variance should have been required. City Attorney explained that there is a difference in ordinance requirements between natural and artificial slopes because naturally steep slopes are presumed t6 be more dangerous. Artificial slopes may be steep, he said, simp].y because of terraced grading, for example. Councilmember Anderson conceded that the slope by the driveway was unnatural, but not the upper slope. Mr. Young then quoted a letter from the'City Geologist dated 3/27/86 stating that there were over-steepened cut and fill slopes, but proper design and construction could mitigate the constraints. City Attorney suggested that the Council condition any approval on the City C{~logist's finding that the slope in question is artificia!~' Mr. Young went on to say that although certain soil tests had not been performed under the site, that would be done after approval was granted. Mr. Helss described three drillings that had been made on the property, all of which showed bedrock three feet below the surface and no shale. He believed there was no reason to think the soil under the house was different. Councilmember Peterson then summarized the various steps involved in geotechnical reports. Bill Robson, Ravine Road, then spoke against the project. He described the size of nearby houses and stated that the proposed house had a volume three times as large as the largest adjacent house, with a vertical projection of square footage amounting to 510,000 cubic feet. He felt the !perception of bulk was too great for the neighborhood. He also felt the ordinance was too subjective and that the house would be highly visible from a scenic highway~ Mr. Young then submitted letters supporting the project from Mr. Nelson and Mr. Haglund, whom he described as adjacent neighbors; Mr. Houde; and Mr'. Dierkes. John Stannard, 19280 Bainter, stated that every home built by Mr. Young was large. He felt it was unfair to the neighbors to have such large homes near them. 7-7/2/86 George Hwang then spoke as the property owner. He listed the benefits which would accrue to the area because of his project, including a new fire hydrant in the cul-de- sac; better drainage to control rainfall; less traffic because his house would replace houses occupied by several tenants. He considered Mr. Young a highly-respected builder who designed quality homes with good landscaping which would raise property values. The residents objecting to the house do not live near it, he said. Mr. Hwang believed that it would endanger no one's privacy, and that the 510,000 cubic-foot figure quoted by Mr. Robson was greatly exaggerated. Wanda Alexander spoke against the project, saying that the Planning Commission had not sufficiently considered the findings of staff. She quoted then-Commissioner Peterson as saying the house would resemble a six-story hotel. She felt the land might be subject to sliding, and she asked the Council to consider the geology, incompatibility, and other problems. She feared that her group was not having an adequate hearing. Saratoga annexed the area in order to have some control over the project, she said, but the City is not considering the rights and privileges of residents of the area. No one further appearing to speak, the public hearing was closed at 10:05 p.m. In answer to Councilmember Moyles, City Engineer confirmed that the staff usually reduced width of a road near a structure such as the adobe. Planning Director stated that the Planning Commission had considered the presence of the adobe in discussing the road width. Councilmember Anderson suggested that the roof of the adobe might overhang into - the road, and'City Engineer agreed that it could. Again in answer to Councilmember Moyles, City Engineer stated that it would not be a problem, as far as he was concerned, if the road width were less than 16' near the adobe. Planning Director stated that the staff had checked Mr.Young's slope calculations and found it was 26% where Mr. Young had calculated 29.4% under the pad. Councilmember Clevenger felt the house was incompatible with the neighborhood because it was much larger than the neighbors' houses. She stated that under a proposed new design review, the maximum square footage would be 6,005 because of the steephess of the slope. Councilmember Anderson agreed, saying the Council had more responsibility on infill lots in terms of compatibility. She wished the City Geologist to verify slope calculations; she believed another, less steep site on the lot would be preferable. CLEVENG~j~/ANDERSON MOVED TO GRANT APPEAL.. Failed 2-3 (Hlava, Moyles, Peterson opposed). Councilmember Moyles believed, contrary to Ms. Alexander's statement, that there had been ample hearings concerning the project. He had spent much time on the site. Although he had opposed the annexation, he had favored the previous appeal against the project because the house had been larger and more incompatible. Since then, the applicant had placed the house on the best site on the lot with respect to neighbors' privacy, he said, and had stepped the house into the hillside, as instructed by the Council, to make it appear less bulky. As to the slope, he deferred to experts. He agreed with Mr. Young that the building would improve the lot; an unattractive home, · which was 'more visible than the proposed house, would be removed. Moreover, he believed the project to be compatible with the neighborhood in terms of bulk, considering the area as a whole, and not just adjacent homes. Councilmember Peterson, noting that he opposed mass and bulk on the hillsides, said he favored the project. This was a difficult problem, he felt, but the presently-proposed solution ought to be held up as a model to other developers for dealing with the problem of building on hillsides. Mayor Hlava was pleased that last year's application had been denied because she felt the current proposal was much more desirable. She felt she could make the required findings. The entire area is HCRD, which has one-acre minimum lots, she said. In answer to those who felt the project was incompatible, she pointed out that the site is three times the size of the lots of some of those who object. MOYLES/P~I'~jF~SON MOVED TO DENY APPEAL, MOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF THE PROJECT, WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE CITY GEOLOGIST MAKE A GEOLOGICAL STUDY AT THE APPLICANT'S KXPENSE TO ENSURE THAT THE SLOPE IN QUESTION IS ARTIFICIAL AND TO REQUIRE THAT THE APPLICANT OBTAIN A VARIANCE IF ONE IS FOUND TO BE NECESSARY. Passed .3-2 (Anderson, Clevenger opposed). 8-7/2/86 The Council then recessed from 10:30 to 10:45 p.m. C. Urgency (~dinance extend/~ng moratorium on installation of certain radio aat.--,,h--a~ to May 20, 1987 The public hearing was opened at 10:45 p.m. No one appearing to speak, it was closed at 10:46 p.m. Ph'f~SON/HLAVA MDVED TO ADOPT ORDINANCE 3E-22. Passed 5-0. D. Protest ~aring on LLA-1 Annexation The Mayor read the statement explaining procedure~ and opened the public hearing a' 10:49. The City Clerk read the statement concerning noticing and the availability of the engineer's Report. No one appearing to speak, the public hearing was closed at 10:51 p.m. CLEVENGER/ANDERSON MOVED ,TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2331F. Passed 5-0. 7. 1~ BUSINESS (continued) C. Scheduling of C~,.,~issioner Interv/ews There was consensus to conduct all ;interviews on July 22 with dinner at 5:00 and interv/ews starting at 5:30 p.m. D. Petition on d,~larjn~ 19466 Miller Court a public nuisance City Manager explained petition and reported how such problems were handled in another city. Marge Anderson, stating that she lived next door to the property, discussed the history of problems and said that she might file a civ/1 suit declaring the property a private nuisance. City Attorney noted that the property owner would probably have two years to bring the property up to code. Mrs. Anderson then stated that a neighbor apparently informs the property owner jwhen the Sheriff is called by means of a citizens band radio. Armin Worth, 19502 Miller Ct., stated that the property is a health hazard m~ a fire hazard. Ruby Welch felt the neighbars had attempted to be of assistance to the proporty owner,. and he should now reciprocat~ and show concern for the neighbors' rights. There was consensus to instruct the Community Serv/ces Officers and Sheriffs deputies to patrol area; to modify 1985 building code at the time of its adoption to allow abatement action in situations where general condition of property is unsatisfactory; possibly to modify ordinances so that public nuisance is automatically declared/.f work on house is not completed within two years. 9. CITY CO!~IL l'lJ~l~r A. Discussion of .Oral ~-,.~micatio~s not referrod to Staff Mayor Hlava was reluctant to establ~ish another commission unadvisedly, and she suggested appointing a Councilmember t~o act as a liaison person with those interested in re-establishing the Youth Commissioh. There was consensus to appoint Councilmember Anderson as liaison person. B. Reports fran l]adividual Counci]~-~ers Councilmember Moyles reported that the 'Traffic Authority is investigating selling bends to raise revenue. Councilmember Clevenger reported on her meeting with Saratoga Area Senior Coordinating Council members concerning the use 6f the Paul Masson site as a continuing care facility. They requested a study session with the Council on the matter, she said. She also reported that they were concerned about the second unit ordinance. 9-7/2/86 Mayor Hlava reported that Steve Schmoll had stated that the Council on Aging was also interested in a continuing care facility and might assist with funding. Councilmember Clevenger then reported that she had received a call that the Hanson School site was unsightly. City Manager replied that the staff would contact the school district. Mayor Hlava announced that she would hold office hours in City Hall on the Fridays before Council meetings from 3:00 to 5:00 p.m. Concerning Transit Assist, she reported that some cities were providing funds for the paratransit system because sales tax revenues which were to fund the program are too low. She also stated that she had received complaints of a serious rat problem in the roof of the Village Library where the VITA office is housed. City Manager reported that the printed budgets for 1986-87 were available for distribution. He also noted that a meeting with Commission chairs was scheduled for the study session of 3uly 8. There was consensus to change the meeting date to September 9 in order ~to allow the Chairs more time to gather their concerns for the Council. C. Appointment of Counci]m~-~ers to Agencies Councilmembers decided by consensus on all appoin~T~nts excep~ Rou~e 85 Policy ~dviso~Z B~ard. On ~ha~ appointment, the followin9 votes were ~ken: ANDERSON/CLEVENGER MDVED TO APPOINT CLEVENGER TO RDUIZ 85 POLICY ADVISORY BOARD. Failed 2-3 (Hlava, Moyles, Peterson opposed). PETERSON/HLAVA MDVED TO APPOINT MDYLES TO RObTE 85 POLICY ADVISORY BOARD. Passed 3-1-1 (Anderson opposed, Clevenger abstaining). (Clerk' s note: Confirming resolution to be agendized for July 16 meeting.) 10. CLO~ SESSI(]N At 11:46 p.m. the meeting was adjourned to a litigation session concerning pending litigation with Santa Clara County. At 12:14 a.m. the Council reconvened to direct the City Attorney to defend the city in a lawsuit with Santa Clara County, as decided in the closed session, and adjourned. Respectfully suk~nitted, Grace E. Cory Deputy City. Clerk ·