Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-19-1986 City Council Minutes MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL TIME: November 19, 1986 PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga CA TYPE: Regular Meeting 1. ROLL CALL: Mayor Hlava, Councilmembers Clevenger, Anderson, Moyles, Peterson present at 7:09 P.M. 2. CEREMONIAL ITEMS: A. Administration of Oath of Office to Public Safety Commissioners Mayor Hlava administered the Oath of Office to Mr. O'Rorke and Mr. Crane. Mr. Borah was not present at the Meeting of the City Council. B. Proclamation of "Great American Smokeout" sponsored by Councilmember Clevenger. CLEVENGER/ANDERSON MOVED FOR APPROVAL OF THE PROCLAMATION OF "GREAT AMERICAN SMOKEOUT." Passed 5-0. 3. ROUTINE MATTERS A. Minutes of City Council Meeting of November 5, 1986, approved with the following corrections: Councilmember Clevenger requested an addition, page 4, New Business, second paragraph, add to furst sentence, "She proposed taking the entire $41,000 from HCDA Funds --$34,575 from Supplemental Appropriation and the remaining $6,425 from Housing Rehabilitation Funds." Councilmember Anderson requested the following addition, page 9, paragraph 8, after the sentence, "Councilmember Anderson favored residential use..." insert, "She also favored a commercial access through the adjoining property on Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd. and residential townhouses access on the opposite side of Wildcat Creek, Pierce Rd." On page 10, delete Transportation Authority Meeting, to read, "Transportation Commission Meeting." City Attorney Toppel asked that on page 10, F., in'st paragraph, add, "..this would apply where an automatic sprinkler system is installed as an alternative installation." B. Approval of Warrant List as submitted. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: A. Planning Commission Actions, November 12, 1986, - Noted and filed. B. Heritage Presentation Commission Minutes, November 5, 1986, - Noted and filed. C. Public Safety Commission Minutes, November 10, 1986, -Noted and fried. D. Resolution 2387 Reversing in part and Upholding in part Decision on Gregory Application heard by Council on November 5, 1986. MEETING OF TE[E CITY COUNCIL Page 2 NOVEMBER 19, 1986 CONSENT CALENDAR Continued E. Ordinance 71.11 adopting and modifying the 1985 Uniform Fire Cede and amending Article 16-60 of the City Cede concerning early warning f~re alarm systems (second reading and adoption) F. Ordinances 71.12 and 71.13 decreasing speed limits on a Portion of Pierce Road and on 5:obey Road (second reading and adoption) G. Ordinance 71.10 Amending the Second Unit Ordinance to Allow New Second Units in the R-l- 10,000 Zoning District under certain circumstances (second reading and adoption.) H. Acceptance and Acknowledgment of Donation to Hakone Gardens - McClure I. Acceptance and Acknowledgment of Donation to Halcone Gardens - Campen J. Acceptance and Acknowledgment of Donation to Hakone Gardens - McKenzie K. Acceptance and Acknowledgment of Donation to Halcone Gardens - Schott L. Acceptance and Acknowledgment of Donation to Hakone Gardens - Buchholz M. Acceptance and Acknowledgment of Donation to Hakone Gardens - Sakamoto Councilmember Moyles requested the removal of Item G. from Consent Calendar. Councilmember Anderson requested the removal of Item C. from Consent Calendar. She stated that she rccei.ved a report that there was a party on On Orbit Dr;, Mayor Hlava noted that On Orbit Dr. is in the County of Santa Clara, not the City of Saratoga and thus, would not be reported in the Mirtutes of the Public Safety Commission of November 10, 1986. MOYLES/CLEVENGER MOVED THE ADOPTION OF CONSENT CALENDAR WITH THE REMOVAL OF ITEM G. Passed 5-0. ANDERSON/PETERSON MOVED TO READ THE ORDINANCE 71.10, AMENDING THE SECOND UNIT ORDINANCE BY TITLE ONLY. Passed 5-0. I-ILAVA/CLEVENGER MOVED TO ADOPT ORDINANCE 71.10 AS READ BY TITLE ONLY. Passed 3-2, Councilmembers Clevenger and Moyles opposed. 5. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS AND THE PUBLIC: A. Oral Commissions from the Public and Commissions - None. B. Written Communications from the Public The City Manager presented letters protesting street improvement requirements (Item 6A) from: Mr. Randy Bli:~s Ms. Jean Bogosian Ms. Jane Francis Hopkins Susan and Michael McChesney 6. OLD BUSINI~;SS A. Report on Letter from James Hopkins protesting imposition of exactions Councilmember Clevenger commented that when the Planning Commission heard this application in 1984, they were unaware that the street would deteriorate due to a faulty road ~'~ bed. Placing an oil and screen over such a road bed is ineffective and she questioned the requirement to improve Lomita Ave. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 3 NOVEMBER 19, 1986 OLD BUSINESS Continued The City Engineer reviewed the standards for minimum access roads and noted that Lornita Ave. may differ from other private access roads in that an asphalt surface should have been required instead of the oil and screen. The option for a higher grade of surfacing is available upon request by property owners. The Councilmember noted that she did not intend that the property owners along this road be required to do more, but rather that the Council not require an oil and screen when it would be ineffective. In reference to the letter of Ms. Jane Francis Hopkins, the City Attomey called attention to the Memorandum to the City Council, November 5, 1986, and stated that views expressed stand; he advised the Council of appropriate actions available to them. Councilmember Peterson noted that conditioning road improvements is a continuing problem; he expressed concern, both philosophically and conceptually, that homeowners have the right to determine whether a road will be improved. When an applicant requests improvement of a house a roy:Low of the road condition should be done. In response to Councilmember Moyles' question, the City Attorney reviewed differences between a public road as opposed to private roads. He noted the uniqueness of the argument that the City's requirement to improve the road, is creating a liability; usually in not maintaining a road the City allows a dangerous condition to exist. He stated that the City does not incur a liability by waiving a requirement nor does the City incur liability by imposing a requirement to improve the street. City Engineer, Mr. Shook, reviewed the deferred improvement agreements for future public improvements on Lomita Ave. and confnTned that this was not an issue at the hearing. At present, Mr. Hopkins is being asked to bring Lomita Ave. up to private road standards; he objects to the requirement. Councilmember Clevenger stated that money used to bring Lornita Ave. up to private road standards was wasted given the condition of the roadbed. Councilmember Moyles stated that he would second the motion to waive the requirement with an explanation. H~ concurred with Councilmember Peterson's concern; however, Lomita Ave. is a legitimate exception due to historical status. If a proposed improvement wasted money, did not bring about a benefit and the neighborhood does not want any benefit derived, following City policy does not serve a purpose. He asked that the exception be carefully restricted to the circumstance in question and further stated that he wished to distance himself from comments made in the letter of Ms. Jane Francis Hopkins. He was not influenced by the substance nor the tone of the letter. Mayor Hlava would vote no on waiving the requirement from a process viewpoint; she noted the Planning Commission's decision of two years ago. If the Council allows such action as requested here, a number of Planning Commission decisions will come unravelled. She noted City policy and favored the upholding of iL Councilmember Clevenger stated that she would vote to oven-ule the decision of the Planning Commission since in the two years since their decision, the outcome of the improvement on Lomita Ave. has become apparent. She did not view this as an overruling of the Planning Commission as much as the gaining of experience. Counellmember Anderson noted that despite minimum standards for private roads and the fact that residents on Lomita Ave. felt it was to their benefit to have an impassable road, if the action being considered is insufficient, the Council should require whatever is sufficient to improve the road and bring Lomita Ave. up to acceptable standards. She noted that all have restrictions on their private property; an impassable road cannot be allowed simply due to preference of residents. Mayor Hlava concurred with Councilmember Anderson. Councilmember Peterson stated that he would vote no on waiving the requirement; he noted the disparity between requirements placed on building a house and allowing residents to maintain a road in poor condition. The distinction between private and public roads, from a Use standpoint, is minimal. CLEVENGER/MOYLES MOVED TO WAIVE THE REQUIREMENT TO BRING LOMITA AVE. UP TO PR1VATE ROAD STANDARDS AS A CONDITION OF IMPROVEMENT TO MR. HOPKINS' HOUSE. Failed 2-3, Mayor Hlava, Councilmembers Anderson, Peterson opposed. MEETING OF 'HIE CITY COUNCIL Page 4 NOVEMBER 19, 1986 OLD BUSINESS Continued In response to Conncilmember Anderson's request adding a Condition preventing further deterioration of Lomita Ave., the City Attorney stated that a new Condition could not be added at this time. In response to Councilmember PetersoWs question, the City Engineer stated that a review of the situation may be required since Lomita Ave. provides a connection to other roads. Standards tbr minimum access roads are variable, but generally related to grade of the street. He was uncertain whether discretion on the grade of the street lies with the City Engineer, the matter would be reviewed with the City Attorney. Mayor Hlava summarized that the majority of the Council favored improvement on Lomita Ave. The City Manager noted. that in addition to the in-kmediate question, there was a question of the current status of City Standards and how they are applied. Staff could be asked to review adequacy of the Standurds and make recommendations on any additional criteria required would insure that the Standard being applied be mlequate for the road condition. Mayor Hlava concurred and asked that the issue of whether a private road is a through road or a cul-de-sac be addressed. B. Resolu~on Amending Budget concerning Allocation of Deferred FY 1986-87 HCDA Funds tu use only HCDA funds for Senior Center Addition The City Manager summarized the proposed resolution. Resolution 2347.6 had been prepared per Council directlye, in which additional funding for the Senior Center would come from HCDA Funding. An application to the County will request that the additional funding be shifted from the housing allocation to the general HCDA allocation. CLEVENGER/MOYLES MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2347.6, INCREASING APPROPRIATIONS AND AMENDING THE 1986-87 HSCAL YEAR BUDGET. Passed 5-0. 7. NEW BUSINESS A. Resolution Declaring Weeds on Certain Described Property a Public Nuisance. The City Manager stated that this Resolution sets a Public Hearing for December 17, 1986. PETERSON/HLAVA MOVED THAT RESOLUTION 2388 BE ADOFrED DECLARING WEEDS GROWING ON CERTAIN DESCRIBED PROPERTY TO BE A PUBLIC NUISANCE WITH A PUBLIC HEARING TO BE ON DECEMBER 17, 1986. Passed 5-0. B. Approval of Installation of Perimeter Fencing and Pond Filtration for Hakone Gardens and Appropofiation of Funds Thereof. Director of Maintenance Trinidad ca/led attention to the Staff Report; he stated that problems can best be handiexl by maintaining a dog on the property. He reviewed pond ffitrafion system proposal; such a system is necessa~ to revitalize the pond. Mr. Trinidad responded to questions on the filtration system, placement, type and color of fencing to be used and training of the dog. Mayor Hlava complimented the Maintenance Director on the estimate presented which was considerably lower than previously presented and the fact that community support had been solicited for the installation of the improvements. HLAVA/PETERSON MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 2347.7 INCREASING APPROPRIATIONS AND AMENDING THE 1986-87 FISCAL YEAR BUDGET. Passed 5-0. 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Discussion of the Santa Clara County Traffic Authority Draft Strategic Plan which was fom~ulated to address means of achieving the improvement of Routes 85, 101, and 237 in spite of possible shortfall of funds generated by County Measure A. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 5 NOVEMBER 19, 1986 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mayor Hlava stated that the Traffic Authority postponed the decision on the Strategic Plan to January 5, 1987; the Public Hearing initiated at this time would be continued to December 3, 1986, City Council Meeting. Mr. Will Kempton, Executive Director, County Traffic Authority gave an update on status of the Measure A Strategic Plan. The development of the Strategic Plan came about as a method of effectively managing the program and because the revenue picture verses project costs had changed since original discussions in November 1984. He reviewed projections made at that time. As a result of a decline in the economy of Silicon Valley, revenues are declining; projections are now relatively conservative estimates. There is a sizable gap in revenue in terms of what it will take to fund the program--all the more reason to develop the Measure A Strategic Plan, which is a blueprint for program implementation and will provide the Traffic Authority with the management tool necessary to effectively bring the. program in on time and under budget. He reviewed City and County agencies, community roterest groups that have provided input into the plan. A careful review of division of Measure A resources is necessary. Mr. Kempton presented Measure A Strategic Plan for consideration by the Council and reviewed the initial phases of the Plan. He noted that from a cost effective standpoint, the widening of Route 101 from Bemal Rd. to San Mateo County Line was the most cost effective expenditure of Measure A dollars; this explains its inclusion in the initial phase of the project. The initial plan does defer certain, higher cost and/or lower volume interchange improvements on Route 85. The Completion Plan includes project improvements for the remainder of the full measure A Program; the Traffic Authority is engaged in the process of obtaining necessary state and federal funds. Three of the major Measure A projects not included in the initial plan are on a County priority list. Due to inadequate time for cities to obtain community input, the Traffic Authority deferred action on this document until January 5, 1987; if the Traffic Authority does not receive the level of community input expected, and if a traffic study commissioned is not completed, consideration of the Measure A Strategic Plan would again be deferred. He announced two community meetings which will be noticed and held. In response to Councilmember Peterson's question, Mr. Kempton stated that the cost estimate for the scaled down initial plan of the Measure A program is about 900 million dollars which matches available revenues. The difference between the total cost of the program was included in the completion phase of the Strategic Plan. In response to Councilmember Anderson, Mr. Kempton stated that the dollar amount set aside in the Strategic Plan for completion of the through facilities matches current cost estimates for completion of that facility with the exceptions noted: deferral of local street interchanges and freeway to freeway connecting ramps in some locations. Current cost estimates include the level of landscaping normally provided through state and federal standards and, in addition, 10 million dollars has been set aside for a mitigation program over and above what the state would provide. In response to Councilmember Anderson, Mr. Kempton stated that hi whatever locations necessary for mitigation purposes, construction of pedestrian overpasses could be stated in the document. The Blue Hi/is overpass will be a required mitigation measure. In response to a further question by Mayor Hlava, he stated that the completion schedule reflects the division of work set up by CalTrans. The goal is to construct Route 85 in usable segments and will avoid potential negative impact on a community. In response to Councilmember Clevenger, he stated that the Traffic Authority will continue to purchase right of way. Mr. Kempton stated that the Traffic Authority would not be able to initiate any construction until they have signed freeway agreements with the cities. In response to Councilmember Anderson, Mr. Kempton stated that in Santa Clara Co. estimates are vex3, conservative. With some projected growth in both the consumer price index and sales tax revenues, earnings toward the latter years of the program in excess of 100 million dollars per year are expected. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 6 NOVEMBER 19, 1986 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued The Public Hearing was opened. There were no speakers. Public Hearing continued to December 3, 1986; Staff was directed to prepare a draft for review of the Council. B. Consideration of granting a one-year extension of a conditional rdzoning of a 2.2 acre parcel from RM-4,000 to RM-3,000 at 14234 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd., Saratoga CA per Ch. 15 of the City Cede. (C-206) (Morrison and Fox, Brookside Glen Apartments, 14234 Saratoga Sunnyvale Rd.) Mr. Hsia presented the Report to City Council, dated November 14, 1986. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:21 P.M. Ms. Linda Fox, Applicant, requested' the Council to approve a one year extension in order To reach agreement with the City permitting the Applicants to build on the property. MOYLES/PETERS ON MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:22 P.M. Passed 5-0.' MOYLES/PETERSON MOVED TO APPROVE AN EXTENSION OF TIME IN WHICH TO COMPLETE REQUIREMENTS OF A CONDITIONAL REZONING, NS 3-ZC-90. Passed 5-0. C. Appeal of denial of design review approval of plans to construct a second story addition to an existing single family residence at 20334 Thelma Ave. in the R- 1 - 10,000 zoning district (DR- 86-019) (Appellant/apphcant, B. Pool) (continued from November 5, 1986) Planning Director ltsia presented the Report to City Council dated October 23, 1986. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:24 P.M. Mr. Brian Pool, sou of the Applicants, presented information to Councilmembers. Additional time had been requested to get the appeal in order. The appeal is based on information presented and the hct that there are 7 two-story houses in a 500 ft. radius. He stated that he was adamant in the original application that Staff was incorrect regarding the fast three points addressed in Site Review Committee Minutes of September 10, 1986. He presented 52 sienalores of individuals that have no objection to two-story additions. The home is substandard; however, owners of the house were close to work and were reluctant to sell the house. In addition, the house fell into disrepair. Mr. Pool spent several years improving the house and property. Options for obtaining the needed additional space were explored; a basement was considered and rejected. He stated that the proposed addition would not impinge upon neighbors' air space, solar conditions or privacy; the closest structure to the rear of the property is 125-140 ft. away. He refuted 2. Site Review Committee Minutes, stating that the f~rst person to sign the petition presented was closest to the proposed structure. He reviewed the disadvantages of adding on to the rear of the house. In response to Councilmember Moyles' question regarding meaning of the statement in the petition, Mr. Pool stated that the City has about 10% of homes with second stories; signers of the petition are favorable to second story additions on houses, even in single story neighborhoeds. Mr. Lenny Bee, 20355 Franklin Ave., Saratoga, read a statement to the Council. He stated that a two-story slracture would destroy the sense of privacy for adjoining southly properties; property values would be decreased and landscaping would have to be refurbished. He had no ~.. objections to an addition to the house. He introduced Franklin Ave. residents in the audience and stated that none of these residents were approached with the petition. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 7 NOVEMBER 19, 1986 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Ms. Victoria Stems, 20375 Franklin Ave., Saratoga, added her support to Mr. and Mrs. Bee and the Potiveras; she concurred that a two-story addition would invade the privacy of adjacent homeowners. Mrs. Butera, 20335 Franklin Ave., Saratoga, stated that the Pools have plenty of room in the back yard to add on to their home. She stated that at one time them was a sign for Blue Candlestick Antiques placed on their front yard. She did not object to an addition to the house. Ms. Joan Martin, 20344 Franklin Ave., Saratoga, concurred with previous comments. She questioned whether signers of the petition fully understood the privacy impact and the objections of adjacent property owners. Mr. Pool stated that he was unaware that homeowners on Franklin Ave. would object to the Application. He suggested that there was an underlying lack of relationship between the Applicants and those raising objections. The Applicants felt they were in compliance with City Code Section 15-45.040; in addition, they felt they were avoiding unreasonable interference with adjacent homeowner's views and privacy. Applicants felt the second story addition was a better alternative than covering the lot with a one-story addition. He stated that he thought he could not legally be denied this application due to a disability of one of the Applicants. PETERSON/CLEVENGER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:58 P.M. Passed 5-0. Councilmember Clevenger noted that she carefully considered the viewpoint of neighbors insofar as possible under existing roles; she stated that after a site visit, she agreed with neighbors and the Staff Report that this was a single story neighborhood. There is no physical hardship which would necessitate a second story addition. She will uphold the decision of the Site Review Committee and commended Staff for the report submitted. Councilmember Peterson noted that the lot was 15,000 sq. ft. and would accommodate an addition and a rear yard. Mayor Hlava noted the 4,000 sq. ft. house in an R-l-10,000 zoning district; on this basis alone it is difficult to make a Finding for compatible bulk and height. MOYLES/CLEVENGER MOVED TO DENY THE APPEAL, AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE SITE REVIEW COMMITYEE. Passed 5-0. Mayor Hlava recessed the Meeting from 9:00 - 9:19 P.M. D. Discussion of Possible Uses for Warner Hutton House The City Manager stated that per Council direction, Staff had prepared a series of reports. The house would meet some of the needs of the City for additional meeting and operational space and, at the same time, address the issue raised by the Council, namely, whether the City would be able to substantially recover the cost of maintaining the facility. It was the recommendation of Staff that the City agree in concept to accept the Warner Hutton House for City and community use and to announce the preferred location and to have the relocation and siting of the house to be of no direct cost to the City. In response to Councilmember Moyles question, the City Manager reviewed financial aspects of the Staff Report. Mayor Hlava noted her concem regarding the functionality of the Wamer Hutton House for the uses proposed; the City Manager stated that Staff did not consider the house to be significantly inferior solution to a building designed specifically for suggested uses. This is not to say that Staff are suggesting that the Wamer Hutton House will meet long term additional housing needs for City operations, in fact, one of the major reasons the house was not located behind the Community Theater is that Staff is concerned about a reduction of flexibility in Master Planning this site for future growth. Staff recognized the Warner Hutton house as an opportunity to acquire a resource which can be put to productive use for a minimum capital ou~ay and meet some City needs by trans erring existing activities at the Community Center to another location, allowing the Center to serve original intended purposes. The Public Hearing was opened at 9:28 P.M. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 8 NOVEMBER 19, 1986 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Ms. Sharon Landsness, Chairwoman of the Heritage Preservation Commission, thanked the City Council for considering preservation of the Warner Hutton House. She stated that the Heritage Preservation Commissioners were present and unanimously supported the recommendations of the Staff. Mr. Joe Romeo, Pierce Rd., Saratoga, suggested that the logical place to put the house was on the city property at Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd. and Cox Ave. and use the house for senior citizens with an adjacent Hall for community activities. Such a use would solve potential traffic problems. Ms. Louise Cooper, President of the Saratoga Historical Foundation, stated that the Foundation is on record as supporting the moving of the Warnet Hutton house to appropriate city owned property for city and public use. She reviewed the histo~ of the House and m'ged the Council to utilize this opportunity for city and community use. Ms. Jackie Welch concurred with efforts to preserve the Warher Hutton House and noted that placing the house in an orchard would be pardcuiarly appropriate. She asked that it be opened to the public. Ms. Lisa Waiters, Representative of the Saratoga Contemporary Artists, supported the preservation of the; Warner Hutton House as a cultural center. Ms. Karen Duvoure, former owner of the Wamer Hutton House, favored the restoration of the house; both the Task Force for the Beautification Committee and the Heritage Preservation Commission encourage restoration of existing historical sites. She noted the uniqueness of the house. Mr. Don Reaves, current resident of the house, supported the preservation and relocation of the Warner Hutton House. Mr. Wallace McClimate Stated that he saw this house as an opportunity for the Council to participate in an exlucational venture and cited an example of this in New York State and the Wilson house in Cupertino. Mr. Kocir stated that he wished to see the Warner Hutton House moved to the Saratoga- Sunnyvale Rd./Cox Ave. location and cited the benefits of this location. He stated that this was an ideal opportunity for the City to protect neighborhood, rural living. He offered his services and services of other citizens to renovate the house as necessary. PETERSON/ANDERSON MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:44 P.M. Passed 5-0. Councilmember Peterson stated that he supported recommendations of the Staff Report. He noted the need in the City and commented on the minimal fiscal impact of the proposal. He strongly supported. the proposed location adjacent City Hall and complimented the Heritage Preservation Commission on their pro-active work and Staff on the Report presented. Councilmember Moyles summarized his opposition to the Staff Report; originally the Council had some hesitation about assuming responsibihty for the Warner Hutton House because of the lack of a clearly demonstrated need from the City's perspective. He noted his appreciation for the information presented by Staff, however, his judgment is not altered. There is a tendency to misstate the issne; the question is not whether one favors or opposes historical preservation. He noted his own ,efforts and financial support in preserving historical buildings in the City and favored preservation of the Wamer Hunon House. He questioned the insistence that the City fund this project and stated that he communicated privately to several citizens that he would consider finding a site for the Wamer Hutton House ff supporters of this project would approach the private sector for maintenance funds. In addition, he would be willing to dedicate projections of revenue from rental of the house to a Foundation, charged with maintenance of the Home. He noted his disappointment that no input was received along such lines. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 9 NOVEMBER 19, 1986 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Councilmember Moyles expressed concern regarding the location of the Warner Hutton House near City Hall; he questioned the compatibility of styles of architecture, whether state requirements would be met, whether the proposed use was compatible with historical preservation and whether the proposed use meets the City's need for more office space. He acknowledged both Staffs and the community's need for additional space, however, the proper mechanism for funding such needs is the goals and priority seuing process done in January. Councilmember Moyles will vote No to the proposal and urged the interested members of the audience to find an endowment for the Home and present this new proposal to the City Council. Councilmember Clevenger noted her disappointment when the Council seemed to reject the proposal at hand. She sees this proposal as an opportunity. She expressed her concern that Saratoga maintain its heritage and will support this project. She asked for consideration of siting the House on either side of Wildcat Creek to insure the support of the National Association of Historical Homes. Councilmember Anderson stated that she favored the Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd./Cox Ave. site and use of the Warner Hutton House in a historical park site with educational use. She commented on the Saratoga News article on this issue. In the interests of preserving the House for community use, she will support the proposal under consideration and the Staff Report. Mayor Hlava noted her concern regarding the Warner Hutton House and possible maintenance costs. She concurred with comments made by Councilmember Moyles. Ms. Louise Cooper's arguments were persuasive; however, in the past very substantial financial support has been received from the community. Examples were cited. She asked that the Council obtain a parking study and a pedestrian traffic study for the proposed community center. There are concerns regarding integration of this house in the site proposed and resolving parking issues. PETERSON/CLEVENGER MOVED TO AGREE IN CONCEPT TO ACCEPT THE WARNER HUTFON HOUSE FOR CITY AND COMMUNITY USE; CITY PREFERS THE HOUSE BE RELOCATED TO CITY PROPERTY BETWEEN WILDCAT CREEK AND THE CMC CENTER ON FRUITVALE AVE.; SITE PLAN TO BE REVIEWED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OR CITY CORNCIL FOR DETERMINATION ON PARKING, S1TE LOCATION, CONVENIENCE AND OTHER FACTORS; RELOCATION AND SITING OF HOUSE TO BE AT NO DIRECT COST TO THE CITY. Passed 3-2, Mayor Hlava, Councilmember Moyles opposed. Councilmember Clevenger concurred with Mayor Hiava and Councilmember Moyles, in favor of the development of a contribution fund to refurbish the Wamer Hutton House under auspices of the Heritage Preservation Commission. Mayor Hiava noted concern regarding the functionality of uses proposed and suggested the West Valley College architectural and interior design programs be utilized to refurbish the house. Ms. Landshess offered the support and the resources of the' Heritage Preservation Commission. Councilmember Moyles expressed his concern regarding procedure; namely, that the City Council directed Staff to place an add in the Saratoga News regarding the Wamer Hutton House. He noted that the Council has not done this before and asked the Council to consider whether such a practice brings into question the fairness of the procedure. In his opinion, such an add was a direct solicitation of certa'm testimony and may have excluded opposing views of other citizens. He urged careful consideration by the Council of use of City funds to solicit support for a project when in fact, the project is subject to a public hearing. 9. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS: A. Discussion of Oral Communications not referred to Staff - None. B .' Reports from Individual Councilmembers Councilmember Clevenger reported on Sanitation District 4. She reported on a citizen who is sustaining damage to property due to vehicles running onto the front lawn of their house. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 10 NOVEMBER 19, 1986 CITY COUNCIL ITEMS Continued Councilmemb~.~ Anderson reported on Water District Meeting. She reported on the Transportation Depa~huent, Urban Mass Transit Conference. Mayor Hlava stated that Mr. Jim B~llwas appointed to ~TC. She noted the reappointment of two members of the Air Quality District Board. She reported on the Solid Waste Committee Meeting. She reported on the Mayors and City Managers Luncheon. Study Session of November 25, 1986, cancelled. The City Manager noted that a letter from the Good Government Group concerning rotation of the Mayor's position had been received. Consensus to discuss at a study session in Jannary or February. 10. ADJOURNMENT: at 10:19 P.M. to a Closed Session to discuss personnel issues. Respectfully submitted, Carol A. Probst-Gaugh~L~ Recording Secretary