Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-06-1988 City Council Minutes MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL TIME: Wednesday, July 6, 1988 PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga CA TYPE: Regular Meeting 1. ROLL CALL: Mayor Anderson, Councilmembers Clevenger, Moyles, Peterson, Stutzman, present at 7:35 P.M. 2. CEREMONIAL ITEMS: None. 3. ROUTINE MATTERS A. Approval of Minutes: Meetings of June 15, 1988, and June 30, 1988 MOYLES/CLEVENGER MOVED APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JUNE 15, 1988, AS PRESENTED. Passed 5-0 CLEVENGERfMOYLES MOVED APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JUNE 30, 1988, AS PRESENTED. Passed4-0-1, Mayor Anderson abstaining. B. Approval of Warrant List: MOYLES/CLEVENGER MOVED APPROVAL OF THE WARRANT LIST. Passed 5-0. C. Report of City Clerk on Posting of Agenda Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on July 1; 1988. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: A. Planning Commission Actions, June 22, 1988, - Noted and filed. B. Heritage Preservation Commission Minutes, June 15, 1988, - Noted and filed. C. Public Safety Commission Minutes, June 13, 1988, - Noted and filed. D. Saratoga Community Access Television Policy Board Minutes, June 21, 1988, - Noted and filed. E. Saratoga Community Access Television Free Speech Document - Noted and filed. F. Award of Contract for Reconstruction of Fruitvale Avenue to Raisch Construction in the Amount of $170,263.61 G. Authorization to advertise for 1988-89 Surface Treatment of Various City Streets H. Resolution 2497 reversing Planning Commission Approval of Cocciardi Project (Appeal heard June 15, 1988) I. Construction Acceptance and Release of Cash Bond, Tr. 7763, Prospect Rd. (Dividend Development) J. Final Building Site Approval, SD 87-018, Ambric Knolls Rd., (Hayes, Developer) K. Final Building Site Approval, SD 88-007, Sunset Dr., (Ralston, Developer) L. Final Building Site Approval, SD 88-003, Fruitvale Avenue (Luque, Developer) M.Final Acceptance and Release of Bond, SDR 1620, Bainter Avenue (Hwang, Developer) MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page JULY 6, 1988 CONSENT CALENDAR Continued N. Authorization of Execution of Easement to PG&E and Pacific Bell for City Property at Cox Avenue and Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd. O. Authorization of Attendance of Chief Building Inspector at ICBO Meeting, Seattle, September 28 - October 2, with reasonable and necessary expenses in accordance with administrative policy ' P. Acceptance and Acknowledgment of Donation to Hakone Gardens - Girl Scout Troop 500 Councilmember Clevenger requested removal of Consent Calendar Item 4. C. Councilmember Stutzman requested removal of Consent Calendar Item 4. M. MOYLES/CLEVENGER MOVED APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR WITH REMOVAL OF ITEMS 4. C. AND 4. M. Passed 5-0. Councilmember Clevenger inquired about Public Safety Commission Minutes, June 13, 1988, Stop Sign Requests: Community Services Director Argow provided information requested. Consensus reached that Item be reheard by the Public Safety Commission in August; 500 ft. radius of Regan Ln./Blauer Dr. and Regan Ln./Argonaut Dr. intersections to be noticed. CLEVENGER/ANDERSON MOVED APPROVAL OF ITEM 4. C. Passed 5-0. Councilmember Stutzman asked that a member of the public be allowed to speak to Item 4. M; Ms. Cheriel Jensen asked that a vote on the Item be postponed until after Oral Communications. City Engineer Shook reviewed the improvements completed; such did not involve the house. Councilmember Stutzman withdrew the request to po~e. MOYLES/PETERSON MOVED TO GRANT FINAL ACCEPTANCE AND RELEASE BOND FOR SDR-1620. Passed 5-0. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR II - CLAIMS: A. Claim for Indemnity - Saratoga Heights Homeowners Association CLEVENGER/MOYLES MOVED TO DENY CLAIM FOR INDEMNITY OF SARATOGA HEIGHTS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION. Passed 5-0. 5. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS AND THE PUBLIC: Ms. Cheriel Jensen, Quito Rd., Saratoga, noted tha. t Code requirements had not been met on SDR-1620, Bainter Avenue, in that a chain link fence had been installed and there was the problem of the retaining wall; she asked that the situation be evaluated. Mr. Barry Cohn, President of California Landscape Contractors Association, commented on water conservation measures for the outdoor areas; he noted the potential unemploy- ment during a drought for those associated with the landscape industry. Mr. Shel Jacobs read into the record a statement of J.R. Geddes, Chairman FACS, July 5, 1988, proposing an open debate on Route 85 intemhanges. Mr. Wilhelm Kohler, 21842 Via Regina, Saratoga, was opposed to freeway interchanges. Mr. Joseph Parker, The Vineyards, Saratoga, noted that information on the Route 85 issue had been promised by the Council. Mr. Monte Boyson requested a working public address system B. Written Communications from the Public 1) Donald and Leah Valencia, 21780 Via Regina, opposing apparent proposal to make Via Regina an access to adjoining subdivisions Consensus reached by the Council to authorize sending the draft reply. 2) Backer Naitid, 14554 Carnelian Glen Ct., pointing out overgrowth of vegetation near entry to Carnelian Glen Ct. Consensus reached by the Council to authorize sending the draft reply. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page JULY 6, 1988 Mayor Anderson proceeded to Public Hearings. 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS A.. Request for General Plan Amendment of 5.1 acres of partially developed property at 20851 Saratoga Hills Rd. to change the land use designation from Open Space, Outdoor Recreation (OSOR) to medium density residential (M-12.5) in order to construct a maximum of 9 new homes. A Negative Declaration has been prepared. (Applicant, Ainsley Development; Owner, Nelson Foundation) (GPA 87-003) (Continued from June 15, 1988) The City Manager reviewed the Report to the City Council of July 7, 1988. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:08 P.M. Mr. Jim Fortin, 12811 Pierce Rd., Saratoga, opposed the proposed General Plan Amendment and offered his support to other opponents of this measure. Mr. Gary Nemetz, 13690 Pontiac Ave., Saratoga, commented ad follows: Favored the Council sponsored Ad hoc Committee Asked that the Committee's charter be to search for alternatives of open space Asked that the rezoning requested be denied and not postponed again Ms. Linda Callon, Ainsley Development, commented as follows: Cited the letter from Ainsley Development waiving and granting the 90 day extension on the General Plan Amendment The General Plan Amendment requested was consistent with Ordinances of the City Asked that the scope of the Ad hoe Committee be limited to a proposal in keeping with the Application before the City, namely, residential development of the property Items open for consideration were: open space uses in conjunction with the residential use, park dedication, easements, number and siting of homes; such topics would be proper Ainsley Development protested the absence of limitation on the Committee in such manner as to interfere with the Applicant's interest in this property, removing the proposed use and attempting to find alternatives excluding residential development Mr. Russ Crowther questioned whether a continuance or postponement of this Item would not involve some commitment to the developer and possibly involve future litigation for the City; he suggested that it would be a service to the Applicant to be given an answer at this time. Ms. Cheriel Jensen, Quito Rd., Saratoga, suggested the Application be denied by just saying no MOYLES/CLEVENGER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:15 P.M. Passed 5-0. Councilmember Clevenger questioned whether the Council was making a commitment to a recommendation of the Committee ff such found that the only viable proposal was a residential development; she did not wish to make such a commitment. The City Attorney responded that a commitment of any kind was not being made; the question was the amount of time being given to the City in order for a decision to be made. Ms. Callon noted for the record that Applicants would protest the scope of an Ad hoc Commit- tee if such went beyond consideration of a residential development or other issues previously stated. Applicants had an interest in the land and consideration of such resources as the Trust for Public Land would not be an appropriate topic for discussion. Councilmember Clevenger understood the intent of the Committee to be an exploration of alter- natives; she did not wish to preclude consideration of open space. A Committee limited to some form of residential development would not accomplish the intent in establishing' such. Mayor Anderson concurred that the intent of the Council was that alternatives be considered. The City Attorney responded that an Ad hoc Committee could be considered an "extra- curricular activity" in the sense that such was not within usual Subdivision or General Plan Amendment procedures; Committee was viewed as an aid to a decision making process. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 4 JULY 6, 1988 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued The City Attorney continued stating that Council had the discretion to give the Committee whatever charter deemed appropriate; such was primarily a policy matter. The Council's option in this matter was conditioned upon the cancellation of the Williamson Act Contract; the cancellation was only tentative at this time. Councilmember Peterson noted that the interest of the Ainsley Development was not the issue; rather a private entity owned by the Nelson Foundation existed, with neighbors who objected to actions proposed. Councilmember Stutzman seconded the above comment and felt strongly that neighbors should have ini~ut into any Committee formed. Neighbors wished the institution of this committee to consider alternatives for preserving the site; if such were removed and they were denied this opportunity, then there was no point in appointing an Ad hoc Committee. Councilmember Moyles concurred.. When an Ad hoc Committee was previously considered, there were no restrictions on which. ideas could compete for the Committee's recommendation. He noted the increasing divergence between interested parties and questioned the purlx~se of a Committee if some compromise were not foreseeable. Mayor Anderson stated that in conversation with an Ainsley representative, there were no re- strictions placed on the Committee; he had indicated his interest in participating in such. Testimony of Ms: Callon would seem to indicate otherwise. It was the Mayor's understanding that all options would be reviewed. Mr. Jeff Wyatt, Ainsley Developmenf, stated that he was a Saratoga resident; he wished to participate in' any Committee formed and work toward a compromise. Councilmember Moyles stated that he would rely on the Mayor's judgement in this situation. Mr. Wyatt noted that the Nelson Foundation wished to sell the property and donate to charity; the Foundation also wished to participate in the Committee formed. Mr. Nemetz stated that there should be a Committee even if the General Plan Amendment were denied at this time; he was agreeable to the Nelson Foundation's participation in a Committee. However, Ainsley Development represented a sole business interest in residential development; other Committee member's interests would be divergent. This was the problem. Councilmember Stutzman was favorable to a Committee organizdl with the intent of seeking private and/or alternative financing to provide the same benefit to the Nelson Foundation as currently offered by Ainsley Development. Councilmember Clevenger wished to establish the Ad hoc Committee as discussed. The City Manager advised that if the General Plan Amendment under consideration were denied any Committee formed would not be a formal one, nor could City resources be utilized. Councilmember Clevenger stated that if such were the case, she favored postponing a vote. Councilmember Moyles commented that there would be value in postponing the vote on this issue only ff the Committee engaged in good faith evaluation of all options. Mayor Anderson noted that individuals were committed to this effort; the charter of the Committee would be to explore all options. She favored participation by a representative of the Nelson Foundation and Ainsley Development; she cited the benefit of a diversified group. MOYLES/PETERSON MOVED TO CONTINUE GP 87-003 AND A RESOLUTION TEN- TATIVELY RESCINDING A WILLIAMSON ACT CONTRACT TO DECEMBER 21, 1988. Passed 5-0. Consideration given to the make-up of the Ad hoc Committee; decision to be made at the Council's July 12, 1988, Meeting. B. Appeal of denial of use permit and variance to expand a restaumnt's seating capacity by installing outdoor dining at 14510 Big Basin Way in the C-C zone district without providing additional parking spaces. (Appellant/applicant, La Trattoria Restaurant) (UP 87-019; V 87-032) MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 5 JULY 6, 1988 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Planner Caldwell reviewed the Report to the Mayor and City Council of July 6, 1988; she confumed that the outdoor area in question was common area. The Public Hearing was opened at 9:02 P.M. A representative of the restaurant commented as follows: Reviewed the request of La Trattoria Restaurant for outdoor dining at lunch time Noted that other Village restaurants were not similarly restricted Request did not include evening dining due to the amount of business Objected to denim of their request due to parking problems Ms. Diana Parham, Oak Street, Saratoga, noted that there were no parking problems Sunday - Wednesday at the lunch time hours requested. She added that the building and parking con- figuration was somewhat unique and questioned whether the limited outside se/vice of pa~xons would increase the existing parking problem. Ms. Jackie Welsh, Saratoga, commented that outdoor dining was one of the attractions of the Village; without the restaurants the Village would not have the flourishing quality that existed. She objected to denying such activities for the sake of a few parking spaces. Mr. John Di Manto, Property owner of 14550 Big Basin Way, Saratoga, reviewed his letter of June 28, 1988, objecting to the granting the Variance requested. CLEVENGER/MOYLES MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:17 P.M. Passed 5-0. Councilmember Clevenger commented as follows: Problem was not parking, but rather that a common area existed and acted as a passage way for several businesses; the proposed use was therefore, inappropriate In addition, there would be a problem monitoring the use proposed Councilmember Moyles concurred that the problem was that the o~tdoor area proposed for La Trattoria Restaurant was a public through fare; other restauran~ '~utdoor dining was adjacent to that proprietor's service and not a public passageway. Councilmember Peterson commented as follows: In his mind the issue was parking Did not share the concern regarding the use of a common area for outdoor dining; such was not a City concern but rother the responsibility of the shopping center owner Concurred with Ms. Welch's comments and noted a continuing problem promoting retail use in the Village while solving the parking shortage Councilmember Stutzman noted his concem of potential liability in the common area; such was sufficient to deny the appeal. Mayor Anderson commented as follows: Concurred that outdoor dining was pan of the ambiance of Saratoga Was concerned that the area in question was a common area; however, Councilmember Peterson may be correct that if a problem occurred, resolution of such would be the responsibility of the shopping center property owner MOYLES/CLEVENGER MOVED TO DENY THE APPEAL, AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. Passed 3-2, Mayor Anderson, Councilmember Peterson dissenting. C. Appeal of denial of tentative subdivision approval for a 12-lot subdivision of a 2.7 acre parcel to accommodate 10 townhomes and a common area lot, and a 1.29 acre retail parcel in the C-N zoning district; design review approval of plans to construct a 4,512 sq. ft, building and a 10,456 sq. ft. retail building on the 1.29 acre parcel; and use permit and design review approvals to construct the ten townhomes at 12902 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd. (Appellant/applicant, Saratoga Partners) (SD 87-019; DR 87-123; UP 87-017; DR-87-124) Planner Caldwell reviewed the Report to the Mayor and City Council of July 7, 1988. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page JULY 6, 1988 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued The Public Hearing was opened at 9:30 P.M. NIx. Jim Fortin, 12811 Pierce Rd., Saratoga, opposed the development, citing traffic conges- tion, safety hazards, noise, air pollution and adverse impacts on adjacent property values; he felt that the rezonlng was done very quietly and urged preservation of the residential character. Mr. Norm Matteoni, Attorney for the Appellant/applicam, commented as follows: Requested that procedures allow the applicant to address the Council Noted the existing agreement between the City and the Applicant Applicant, landscape architect and traffic consultant were prepared to address concerns Reviewed the site history and noted constraints placed on the property by the Creek Mr. Norm Hul~rg, Saratoga Parmers, commented as follows: Reviewed the history of the Application and presented slides of various proposals made Recognized that neighbors wished a park rather than commercial/residential development; however, the decision to develop this site had already been made by the Council - It was important to obtain a qu~ty development; applicants requested project approval Presented slides of similar developments showing the setback area Concluded that the project proposed was consistent with propor planning; density was half that allowed and less than similar developments in the City Applicants had fuifilled the terms of the contract; revision of the contract agreement would have to be accompanied by a fiscal adjustment Ms. Antoinette Romeo, 12848 Pierce Rd., Saratoga, commented as follows: Commended the Planning Commission for their review of this project Primary concern was traffic coming off Pierce Rd., even with installation of a traffic light; cited various safety hazards on Saratatoga-Suunyvale Rd./Cox Ave. intersection Noted visual impacts to traffic from the proposed Building 2 (B) Favored redesigned townhomes; however, only six guest parking spaces were provided Ms. Dee Fuigem, Wardell Homeowners Association, commented as follows: 1 ft. increased width on Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd. would not provide an adequate right turn lane; a 6-10 ft. addition to Cox Ave. would not provide more than the existing two lanes Cited safety and visibility irapacts for traffic and compared requirements for residential use as opposed to the requirements for this commercial/retail development Supported the Planning Commission's decision on this Application; major concerns were Building B and one of the driveways proposed Mr. Mark Kocir, 12795 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd., Saratoga, commented as follows: Noted that the County of Santa Clara was assessing citizens in order to purchase open space while the City of Saratoga was selling such Proposed project was overbuilt; cited the resulting traffic impacts The City still had a chance to not make another mistake by developing this site Suggested postponement until impacts of an adjacent development were assessed Ms. Dora Grens, Old Oak Way, Saratoga, commented as follows: Noted her lack of attention to the planning of this property Felt her efforts on the Genera/Plan Committee may have been futile Noted the General Plan text that there would not be any increase in commercialization Urged the Council to carefully consider this situation Confumed that she supported the Planning Commission's denial of this project Mr. Jerry Kocir, 12855 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd., Saratoga, had pleaded with the City Council for five years not to sell the property in question; he urged the Council to reconsider this site. Ms. Khokhani, 20391 Wolcot Way, Saratoga, cited the visual and traffic impacts from the proposed development; she objected to the height and density of the townhouse project. Mr. Hulberg concluded with the following comments: Traffic impacts: visibility impacts were caused by a hill on Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd; whether Building 2 (B) was moved closer to the comer or not did not impact visibility However, applicants would be willing to reconsider the setback of this building Driveway and intersection: Banon-Aschmann Traffic Report cited Townhouse Project: reviewed revisions made per neighbor's suggestion MEETING OF THE CiTY COUNCIL Page 7 JULY 6, 1988 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued PETERSON/CLEVENGER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:13 P.M. Passed 5-0. Councilmember Peterson commented as follows: Supported reduction of Building 2 (B) to 70 - 75% of current proposal with a minimum 36 ft. setback, aligfiing the Building almost parallel to Building 1 (C) Cautioned other Councilmembers not to close off a driveway access in the absence of a traffic study outlining potential problems Peak hour A.M. traffic would occur when this center was not yet open in the morning Favored elimination of one townhouse unit to the mar of the site Councilmember Clevenger commented as follows: Concurred with conclusions of the Planning Commission on Building 2 (B) Concurred with the Planning Commission that density of the townhouses was too high; felt that 8 townhouses be allowed with the Commission making the final determination Suggested consideration of allowing greater square footage for Building 1 (C) in com- pensation for the elimination of Building 2 (B) Councilmember Moyles commented as follows: Noted the unorthodox position in that the City was both public trustee and property owner Concurred with conclusions of the Planning Commission Favored elimination of Building 2 (B) preserving the landscaping on this comer; he was not adverse to some expansion of Building 1 (C) in compensation Townhouse project: reduction in density required; in order to address privacy impacts, he suggested elimination of the mar townhouse units Driveway: safety hazards cited; he suggested elimination of access near the comer Asked that the Council assume responsibility for direction of the project redesign Councilmember Stutzrnan commented as follows: Concurred that Building 2 (B) was inappropriate, extending too far toward the comer Property as proposed would be overbuilt Regretted he did not have input into the disposition of this property--now to be commercial Asked that townhouse development be a lower density Trees along the Creek were severely stressed due to fill placed on the base of these trees Mayor Anderson commented as follows: Noted her observations regarding condition of the Oak trees; developer was also concerned Favored a maximum of 8 townhouses and suggested elimination of the 2 rear units Noted that she had advocated the pool area; asked that some open space/recreational space also be toward the front of the site for the enjoyment of residents and traffic on Cox Ave. Favored elimination of one driveway access and Building 2 (B) with approximately 2,000 sq. ft. of compensating area to be allowed for Building 1 (C) MOYLES/CLEVENGER MOVED TO DENY THE APPEAL SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOW- ING CONDITION; APPELLANT TO SUBMIT REVISED PLANS ELIMINATING BUILDING B, COMPENSATING SQUARE FOOTAGE ALLOWED FOR BUILDING C, ELIMINATION OF TWO TOWNHOMES IN THE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT AND ELIMINATION OF ONE DRIVEWAY. Passed 4-1, Councilmember Peterson dissenting. Break: 10:35 - 10:53 P.M. The Council proceeded to City Council Items: 9. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS: A. Reports from Individual Councilmembers Councilmember Clevenger presented a Report on Erosion Control Assessment District in connection with West Valley Sanitation District and introduced Mr. Giesler of the District. Mr. Bill Giesler presented Exhibits showing the hillside district proposed and noted the recent rupturing of sewer lines in the hillside areas. The District Proposal was reviewed. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page JULY 6, 1988 CITY COUNCIL ITEMS Continued A representative of the Sara Hills Homeowners Association commented as follows: Disagreed with the above comments Felt that such was not a surcharge but rather a tax causing a 50% increase in rates Objected to as unfair since residents would pay damages not occurring on their property Proposal was impractical and would be difficult to administer Suggested that the District have a reserve fund to which every resident contributed; such:would be fair and would not be difficult to administer Objected to the precedent setting nature of this proposal Ms. Susanne Armbruster, Wildwood Heights Homeowners Association, noted the objections of every person contacted to the proposed surcharge; they questioned the legality, fairness and practicality of such; she urged the Council to consider these objections. Mr. Jack Lucas, Councilmember from Monte Sereno, noted that their Council heard similar concerns regarding this proposal. Mr. Giesler responded that there were three alternatives under consideration; with respect to the administration of funds, such would not be a problem. With respect to a question of legality, documents under consideration had been drafted by legal counsel. Ms. Denise de Janie, Canyon View Dr., Saratoga, felt that the surcharge was discriminatory, questioned whether such was legal and whether the proposal was a stircharge or a tax. Mr. Tom Keller noted the impact of a 50% increase in charges for young families. Councilmember Clevenger stated that there was a need to establish a reserve account, establish a cap on the reserve fund and further define and forrealize the district boundaries. Ms. Lois Cockshaw, 20995 Canyon View Dr., Saratoga, noted the 100% opposition to this proposal and questioned the legality of this action. Councilmember Stutzman suggested the following alternatives for consideration: Assessing existing property owners was inequitable; it would be preferable in establishing a District, to grantfather in existing property owners and assess new homeowners Charge every homeowner the approximate eighty cents per year to acquire the necessary reserve account; such would not be establishing a precedent Mayor Anderson was favorable to suggestions made by.Councilmember Stutzman. Councilmember Moyles noted that some individuals would object to even eighty cents if con- sidered a tax. He cited examples of fees applied only in the hillside district; the difference being that such was levied on new homeowners only. Councilmember Clevenger thanked the Council and the public for comments made; such would be conveyed at the upcoming West Valley Sanitation District Meeting. Mayor Anderson returned to Public Hearings: D. 1988 Amendment to Santa Clara County Solid Waste Management Plan to combine the north and central subregions, rename the southwest region and provide continued access. to Guadalupe Mines reduction to achieve 25% goal by 1995. The City Manager reviewed the Report from Santa Clara County and answered questions. The Public Heating was opened at 11:47 P.M. There were no speakers. MOYLES/CLEVENGER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 11:47 P.M. Passed 5-0. CLEVENGER/MOYLES MOVED TO APPROVE THE 1988 AMENDMENT TO THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN TO COMBINE THE NORTH AND CENTRAL SUBREGIONS, RENAME THE SOUTHWEST SUBREGION AND PROVIDE CONTINUED ACCESS TO GUADALUPE MINES LANDFILL AND PROVIDE FOR ANNUAL REPORTING REGARDING WASTE REDUCTION TO ACHIEVE 25% GOAL BY 1995. Passed 5-0. (Reso3.u'kS. on 2500 ) MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page JULY 6, 1988 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued E. Ordinance relating to Modification of Zoning Standards through Subdivision Approval and Use Permits (AZO 88-002) (Continued from June 18, 1988; to be Continued) F. Ordinance Amending Design Review Ordinance to require design review approval for s single story structures over 18 feet in height (furst reading) (Continued from June 15, 1988) The City Attorney reviewed the Memorandum of April 18, 1988. The Public Hearing was opened at 11:48 P.M. There were no speakers. CLEVENGER/MOYLES MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 11:48 P.M. Passed 5-0. CLEVENGER/MOYLES MOVED TO INTRODUCE AN ORDINANCE BY TITLE ONLY AMENDING SUBSECTION 15-45,060 (A) CONCERNING THE REQUIREMENT'FOR DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL, WAIVING FURTHER READING. Passed 5-0. Mayor Anderson returned to Old Business. 6. OLD BUSINESS A. Resolution 2498 Placing the Issue of lnterehanges on the November Ballot The City Manager reviewed the Report of July 6, 1988. MOYLES/CLEVENGER MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2498 ORDERING AND CALLING FOR A SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD IN THE CITY OF SARATOGA ON NOVEMBER 8, 1988; REQUESTING THE SERVICES OF THE REGIS- TRAR OF VOTERS; REQUESTING CONSOLIDATION OF ELECTIONS; SPECIFYING CERTAIN PROCEDURES FOR THE CONSOLIDATED ELECTION; AND PROVIDING FOR GIVING NOTICE OF ELECTION. Passed 5-0. Consensus reached to continue to July 12, 1988, discussion on ballot measure arguments. CLEVENGER/MOYLES MOVED TO DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS ON THIS ADVISORY MEASURE. Passed 5-0. B. Appointment of Nelson Garden Ad Hoc Committee Consensus reached to Continue Item to the Meeting of July 12, 1988. C. Reconsideration of Bicycle Safety Signs on Pierce and Quito Roads City Engineer Shook reviewed the Memorandum. CLEVENGERfMOYLES MOVED TO AUTHORIZE REMOVAL OF BICYCLE WARNING SIGNS ON PIERCE RD. AND ON QUITO RD. AUTHORIZE "NARROW ROADWAY" SIGNS TO BE INSTALLED IN PLACE OF THE "NARROW ROADWAY - UNSAFE FOR BICYCLES" SIGNS. Passed 5-0. 7. NEW BUSINESS A. Measure A Strategic Plan Revisions Councilmember Moyles noted that Mr. Will Kempton, Executive Director, Traffic Authority, was detained and could not make a presentation to the Council at this time. Consensus reached to Continue Item to July 12, 1988. B. Resolution. 2~p9 Creation of Village Design Task Force PETERSON/CLEVENGER MOVED APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION2499 ESTABLISH- ING A VILLAGE DESIGN TASK FORCE. Passed 5-0. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 10 JULY 6, 1988 NEW BUSINESS Continued C. Advertising for Vacancies on Parks and Recreation Commission MOYLES/ANDERSON MOVED TO AUTHORIT~ STAFF TO ADVERTISE VACANCIES ON PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION. Passed 5-0. D. Report from Heritage Commission regarding Temporary Sign for Warner Hutton House MOYLES/CLEVENGER MOVED TO.AUTHORIZE- THE HERITAGE COMMISSION TO PURSUE SIGN CONSTRUCTION AND INSTALLATION. Pass.ed 5-0. E. :-council Liaison Appointments for 1988-89 Agency Councilmember Association of Bay Area Governments Peterson Saratoga City Finance Liaison Deleted CASA Liaison Deleted Community Access TV Board Moyles (Stutzman, Alternate) County HCD Policy Committee Clevenger County Transportation Commission Anderson Inter-City Council Peterson (Stutzman, Alternate) Intergovernmental Council Anderson (Clevenger Alternate) Peninsula Division, League of Cai. Cities Anderson (Peterson Alternate) North Centrai Flood Control Advisory Board Stutzman Route 85 Policy Advisory Board Deleted Route 85 Freeway Agreement Liaison Deleted West Valley Sanitation District Bd. of Directors Clevenger Sister City Liaison Clevenger Hakone Foundation Liaison Moyles Traffic Authority Moyles Traffic Authority Policy Advisory Board Clevenger Transit ASSIST JPA Board Stutzman Santa Clara Valley Water District Commission Stutzman SASCC Liaison Clevenger Mayor Anderson returned to City Council Items. Councilmember Moyles updated the Council on the recent denial of Protect Our Environ- ment's Appeal on Route 85 The meeting of the City Council was adjourned at 12:27 A.M. to July 12, 1988. ll~.ubmitted, Carol A. Probst-Cau~ey Recording Secretary