Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-03-1988 City Council Minutes MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL TIME: Wednesday, August 3, 1988 PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, S~ratoga CA TYPE: Regular Meeting 1. ROLL CALL: Mayor Anderson, Councilmembers Clevenger, Moyles, Peterson, Stutzman present at 7:30 P.M. 2. CEREMONIAL ITEMS: - None. 3. ROUTINE MATTERS A. Approval of Minutes: Meetings of July 5, 6, 12, 26, 1988 Councilmember Moyles stated that he would prepare a synopsis of his comments at the Meeting of July 5, 1988, to be made part of the record. MOYLES/PETERSON MOVED APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JULY 5, 1988, AS AMENDED. Passed 5-0. CLEVENGER/MOYLES MOVED APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JULY 6, 1988, AS PRESENTED. Passed 5-0. CLEVENGER/MOYLES MOVED APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JULY 12, 1988, AS PRESENTED. Passed 5-0. CLEVENGER/MOYLES MOVED APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JULY 26, 1988, AS PRESENTED. Passed 5-0. B. Approval of Wan'ant 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 29, 1988. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: A. Planning Commission Actions, July 13, and July 27, 1988, - Noted and flied. B. Heritage Preservation Commission Minutes, July 6, 1988, - Noted and filed. C. Public Safety Cornmission Minutes, July 11', 1988, - Noted and fried. D. Community CATV Access Board Minutes, July 19, 1988, - Noted and fried. E. Library Commission Minutes, July 27, 1988, - Noted and filed. F. Resolution 399.7 setting public hearing on formation of Underground. trcilit,.,.,.y Distrio+. No, 6 G. Resolution 2503 authorizing Sheriffs Office tO conduct background investigations on behalf of City H. Addendum to Letter of Agreement with County Relating to Coordination of City and County ha/ardous Materials Activities. I. Ordinance 71.47 amending the Zoning Ordinance to require design review approval of any single story structure over 18 feet in height (second reading and adoption) MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 2 AUGUST 3, 1988 CONSENT CALENDAR Continued J. Resolution 2504 upholding Planning Commission Denial of Saratoga Partners Applications (heard July 6, 1988) K. Resolution Upholding Planning Commission Denial of Tmttoria Restaurant Applications (heard July 6, 1988) L. Award of Contract of Consultant Agreement - Quito Rd. Bridge Replacements Project to Cree gan & D'Angelo for an estimated amount not to exceed $57,050. M. Acceptance and Acknowledgment of Donation to Hakone - Suzume de Gakko N. Acceptance and Acknowledgment of Donation to Hakone - Emick O. Final Acceptance and Release of Bond, DR 1630, Sobey Road (Developers, Dolan/ Carter) P. Rescission of Building Site Approval (2 lots), SDR 1604, AltaVista Dr., (David Miner, Developer) Q. Authorization for City Engineer Attendance at APWA International Public Works Congress, September, 1988, in Toronto, with reasonable and necessary expenses. R. Acceptance of June 1988 Financial Reports 1) Treasure-r's Report 2) Investment Report 3) Financial Transactions Report Mayor Anderson requested removal of Consent Calendar Item 4 J. Councilmember Clevenger requested removal of Consent Calendar Item 4 K. MOYLES/STU'I~MAN MOVED APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR,' REMOVING ITEMS 4 J. AND 4 K. Passed 5-0. Mayor Anderson questioned 3. (c) of the Resolution upholding the decision of the Planning Commission denial of the Saratoga Partners Applications. The City Manager noted that if the Council were silent on the issue, the Commission could deliberate and return a recommendation to the Council. City Attorney added that the Applicant wished to leave open for consideration three driveways. CLEVENGER/MO;YLES MOVED TO AMEND THE RESOLUTION, DELETING 3.C. Passed 5-0. MOYLES/CLEVENGER MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 2504 AS AMENDED. Passed 5-0. Councilmember Clevenger noted in Item 4. K., that her main objection to outdoor dining at Trattoria Restaurant had been that such was located 'in a common area;'however, she learned that other business owners were agreeable to this use and wished the item reconsidered. CLEVENGER/STUTZaMAN MOVED TO RECONSIDER THE COUNCIL'S DECISION ON UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF TRATTORIA RESTAU- RANT. Passed 4-1, Councilmember Moyles dissenting. The City Manager stated this item ~avuld be advertised for rehearing Sepu. 7, 1988. 4. CC~S~NT C3r.~'NI21~LR II - CLAIMS A. Tonneson Claim concerning injury caused by fail from bicycle on railroad tracks CLEVENGER/MOYLES MOVED TO DENY CLAIM OF TONNESON. Passed 5-0. 5. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS AND THE PUBLIC: A. Oral Communications from the Public and Commissions MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page AUGUST 3, 1988 COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS AND THE PUBLIC Continued Mr. Willem Kohler, Pierce Canyon Homeowners Association, 'stated that 26 Oak trees were earmarked for eventual removal on Pieme Rd. between Surrey Ln. and Old Oak Wy. He noted General Plan Guidelines for area development and asked that Staff be instructed to inform the developer that these trees could not be removed. Consensus reached by the Council that General Plan Guidelines be sent to the developer. Ms. Joan Hershkowitz, Chairperson, Protect Our Environment, stated that in light of the fact that a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement on Route 85 was required, that the ballot initative be postponed from the November 1988 election and rescheduled. Ms. Cheriel Jensen, Treasurer, Protect Our Environment, reviewed the current status of the Route 85 Freeway Agreement and noted that since the required number of signatures for a ballot initiative had not been obtained, the question of interchanges was a City issue; she asked that this issue be postponed until environmental studies were completed. B. Written Communications from the Public - None. 6. OLD BUSINESS A. Report on Status of Brookglen Park Mayor Anderson commented that the Parks and Recreations Commission wished to further consider the neighborhood's needs and asked direction of the Council. Consensus reached that Parks and Recreations Commission to hold hearing and issue a Report; recommendation of the Commission to be incorporated into the 1989-90 budget hearings. CLEVENGER/MOYLES MOVED TO NOTE AND FILE THE REPORT ON STATUS OF BROOKGLEN PARK. Passed 5-0. B. Report on Appointment of Members of Village Design Task Force Consensus reached to Continue this Item to the August 17, 1988, Meeting of the Council. 7. NEW BUSINESS A. Public Safety Commission Final Report recommending Changes in Neighborhood Watch Program. The City Manager reviewed the Report to the Mayor and City Council of July 29, 1988. Councilmember Peterson was favorable to the recommendation for a quarter time staff position; Councilmember Clevenger concurred, asking that such be considered in the budgeting process. Mayor Anderson suggested that an annual program be used to recertify neighborhood groups. Councilmember Stutzman wished to see the neighborhood watch program be reactivated; he felt that groups of one street or one cul-de-sac would be much more effective than large areas. Councilmember Moyles supported the concept of neighborhood watch programs; hi~wever, he wished to consider this request within the budgeting process. PETERSON/CLEVENGER MOVED TO APPROVE THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION REPORT IN CONCEPT, WITH SPECIFIC ACTIONS ON THE COMMISSION'S RECOM- MENDATIONS TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE CONTEXT OF THE FISCAL YEAR 1989-1990 BUDGET DEVELOPMENT PROCESS. Passed 5-0. MOYLES/CLEVENGER MOVED APPROVAL OF THE BALANCE OF STAFF RECOM- MENDATION. Passed 5-0. Councilmember Peterson disagreed with Recommendation C., the decertification process. Councilmember Clevenger suggested the Council direct the Public Safety Commission to work with the existing Neighborhood Watch Program so that decertification was unnecessary. Mayor Anderson proceeded to Public Hearings. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 4 AUGUST 3, 1988 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Noise Element of the General Plan Planner Young reviewed the Report to Mayor and City CoUncil dated August 3, 1988. Mr. Richard Arjo, Community Planning Consultants, reviewed the Revised Noise Element and the preparation of the document; he answered questions addressed by the Council Councilmember Stutzman cited the Revised Noise Element, Page 8, Statement 3., stating that it was his understanding that the mitigation measure which would be imposed would consist of rezoning; if this statement were incorporated into the Noise Element, the door would then be opened to developers to say that since noise levels were ex, cessive, this was a reason to rezone. Mr. Arjo responded that this was an argument used to rationalize development; various plan- ning techniques such as physical or design measures could be used as mitigations, not neces- saxily a change in land use. He confumed that the concept of utilizing other uses as a buffer for neighborhoods had been very successful in the past; however, such exposed more people to noise, using them as a buffer for other neighborhoods. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:37 P.M. Mr. Jim Forfin, 12811 Pierce Rd., Saratoga, commented as follows: In the 1984 General Plan, Ambient Noise Levels in Various Saratoga Neighborhoods, objected to deletion of a critical paragraph on setbacks in the Revised Noise Element Pages 5 and 6, paragraph discussing dBA's was not consistent with Table 2 60 dBA was too high; he suggested 52-54 dBA was reasonable for residential areas Page 6, Figure 2: asked that night time hours be defined and suggested 6 P.M. to 8 A.M. Suggested baseline measurements be taken after Labor Day due to the probable decrease in noise levelsduring the summertime months; requested comparative tables between seasons Relationship of City to the Noise Element should be explored; cited enforcement problems Ms. Dabney, 15765 Apollo Heights Ct., Saratoga, asked that noise impacts of outdoor con- certs at Paul Masson be addressed; he cited the high noise levels and late hours of the concerts. Ms. Dora Grens, 13450 Old Oak Way, Saratoga, commented as follows: Cited Revised Noise Element, Page 4 and questioned the use of an 18 year old documetit Agreed that a 60 dBA level for residential areas was too high Questioned the definition of a "single event noise level;" cited examples of an 86 dBA Noted the noise impacts of the Quarry Creek Repair Project grading Noted the lack of mitigation due to topography of the hillside area Mr. Joe Drees, 15471 Bohlmann Rd., Saratoga, also objected to the Paul Masson concerts. Ms. Mori Kaesal cited noise impacts from the sirens of the Sheriffs Department Mr. Russ Crowther commented as follows: Document seemed to be internally inconsistent; examples were cited Felt that the contom presented were not realistic or valid Document was one more erosion of Samtoga's standard of living; examples cited Expressed concern that the City seemed to be evading State Variance Laws Concurred that a 60 dBA was too high Felt that the increased noise levels were hidden in the way the document was written Urged that the Council not adopt this Revised Noise Element and felt that the Freeway should be designed to meet the City's standards, not the other way around PETERSON/CLEVENGER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:55 P.M. Passed 5-0. Mr. Arjo responded to the above comments as follows: Concurred that setbacks of the Zoning Ordinance alone were not adequate nor . were they a sufficient mitigation measure; a combination of more than one measure was required Ambient Noise Level of 45 was used as a definition, namely, an existing noise level with no introduced noise sources; such was used for comparison, not an achievable standard 60 dBA was the standard adopted by the State as e~forceable and reasonable to achieve MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 5 AUGUST 3, 1988 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Arjo continued as follows: Measurement of noise from automobiles: noted the variables influencing traffic noise Measurements of 5 dBA: such was an easy and practical method of measurement Nighttime noise levels were approximately 10 - 8 dBA; night hours were 8 P.M. to 8 A.M. Single event noise level of 86 dBA reflected the Noise Element standard; examples cited 1970 document was referenced since it was the most widely used, accepted and recognized tool of it s time; document was selected due to it s familiarity and as a basis for comparison Maps: explained the noise contour lines and distance factor in reading the maps presented; maps showed the properties exposed to the noise from the roadway and provided a method to not increase such exposure COnfkrmed that figures were a 24 hour average, based on day and night time noise levels Discussed mitigation measures: depression of the freeway, landscaping, berms and wails Councilmember Clevenger did not feel that churches/parks should be considered noise sensitive axeas; she asked that the residential quality of Saratoga be protected. Mayor Anderson suggested that further consideration was required. Councilmember Clevenger concurred and felt that additional questions required answers. Councilmember Stutzman wished to further address areas of concern in a Study Session. Councilmember Peterson commented as follows: Felt the Planning Commission and Staff had done an excellent job Maps were not previously part of this document; such would be a very useful tool Noise Element was a broad concept; Ordinances addressed Specific questions Councilmember Moyles commented as follows: He had followed the progress of this document through the Planning Commission's discussion; his initial concerns had been addressed He had no objection to allowing additional time for consideration as requested above IIDYLES/CLEVFNGER YlDVlilD TO CIIDSE THE PUBLIC ~G AND CONT]lrtJE THE GEI,IERAL PLAN NOISE k'r.~- MENT TO AUGUST 17, 1988, WITH A STUDY SESSION AUGUST 9TH. Passed 5-0. Break: 9:25 - 9:49 P.M. B. Protest Hearing for Village Parking District #3 Mayor Anderson read into the record the Memorandum of Proceedings to be considered in connection with the Viiiage Parking District No. 3. The City Clerk confirmed that necessary documents were on file; a Letter of Protest had previously been received from Jim and Arlene Rosenreid, Assessment Parcel 503-24-012. Letters of Protest were received from the following individuals: Alice Meade Thelma Melton et al. Chabre Thelma Mellon Downey Savings and Loan Bernard Wallace The Public Heating was opened at 9:40 P.M. Mr. Richard C. Smith presented the Final Engineer's Report including the following: General Description of the Boundaries of this Project Description of the Proposed Improvements Method of Spreading the Assessments Brief Description of the Construction Bids Received Explanation of the Benefits Derived from the Proposed Improvements Mr. Jim Rosenfeld, 14471 Big Basin Way, Saratoga, commented as follows: Addressed the debt to be incurred when the Parking District was formed Asked that his obligation be reduced substantially Only he and an adjacent property owner, Mr. Masek, built buildings in 1980-85 period of time where they were required to meet all the specifications for the parking district Neither his building or parking lot had been enlarged in size. Parking lot was resurfaced and restripped less than two years ago; such was acknowledged by City Engineers MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page AUGUST 3, 1988 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Rosenfeld continued as follows: Curbs, gutter, lighting, drainage and landscaping had been done and was correct In 1979-80 a legal opinion was obtained on this issue Compared assessment of hiS property (Parcel 6) with Mr. Masek's property as follows: his assessment amounted to $70,000 in comparison to Mr. Masek's assessment of $17,600-4 1/2 times greater;, he asked the Council to reexamine these figures When Appraisers were asked if their findings were objective they stated that they were not Felt that a grievous mistake had been made Mr. Anthony Lagorio, Representing the Chabre interest, (Lot 14) commented as followed: Asked that in the formal protest filed, a correction be made in the address of one of the buildings to read 14413 Big Basin Way The Chabre s were protesting the lack of any special benefit to their interest; he noted the existing parking lot behind the stores Cited the $293,000 Assessment; noted the 84 existing parking places Questioned the benefit of the Parking District to this property owner since such would not improve what the Applicants already had Asked that the Chabre s be removed from the Parking District Mr. Joseph Masek, 14467 Big Basin Way, (Parcel 7) Saratoga, questioned the Assessment in excess of $100,000 for parking spaces when such had already been provided and completed to City requirements at his cost; in addition, there was a 3,000 sq. ft. easement given to the City ten years ago. Mr. Alden Bloxham, Representing the Chabre Parcel 14, commented as follows: Parcel contained approximately 85 parking spaces in addition to on-street parking which totaled about 90 spaces 'Credit was being given for on-street parking; such existed in front of buildings located at 14413, 15, 17 and 19 Big Basin Way Chabre had not joined the Parking District despite reports and did not wish to participate Parcels 12, 13, 14 and 15 were analysed as a group and contained 98% of the excess parking in Upper Lot A, where parking may be used to balance off the lack of parking in other pans of the Disuict Cited letters written to the City which had not been acknowledged or answered Noted the considerable difficulty in obtaining the cooperation of the City in this matter Chabre would not agree at any time to any acquisition connected with an easement Noted that in 1981, the City Manager at that time decided that 2.7 million dollar cost of the Parking District was excessive and the property owners would not approve it 37% of the above cost was to raise the necessary financing and 30% for administrative expenses; the figures today were not any better Chabre has a completely developed parking lot Added that the acquisition of easements was unbelievable and they did not ascribe to such Mr. Jessie Jack, Attorney commented as follows: Represented property owners of Parcels 14491, 93, 95 and 77, (Parcels 3, 4 and 5) Protests had been filed and copies made available for the Council Noted a correction in the Letter of Protest from Pearl Smith Partnership in the statement that the City Manager had not been cooperative; such was not the case Urged the City Council to reconsider the question of this Parking District It appeared that there was an assumption made that property owners would dedicate an easement to the City in exchange for a Parking District This situation had now changed resulting in a substantial economic impact on the City With respect to interests represented by Parcels 3 and 4, no credit had been given for the 6 parking spaces agreed upon.in litigation in the 1960's Ms. Alice Meade, 1~.4~. 1 Big Basin Way (Assessor's Parcel 10) commented as follows: Several parking spaces to the rear of her property were not being included in the Parking District nor taken for the District; she did not have a problem with such Establishment of Parking District boundaries and allowance for parking in a ramp area would result in no vehicular access between the Parking District and her existing spaces If her neighbor expanded his business, her property would be land locked; such was her primary concern CLEVENGER/MOYLES MOVED TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARINGS AT 10:19 P.M. Passed 5-0. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 7 AUGUST 3, 1988 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mayor Anderson recessed the Meeting to allow the EngLnoe.r ~o calculate prol-.~sts ~nd announced the City Council would meet in closed .session at 10: 20 p~ra. ~ting reconvoned at 10:40 p.m. Mayor Anderson stated for the record that upon advi e of the City Attorney, the City Council did not go into Closed Session; she called for a Report on the pementages of Protests received. Mr. Richard Smith stated that Assessment Parcels 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 14 and 15 protested the hear- ings, rapresenting an aggregate of 48.64% of the District. There was not a majority protest. Councilmember Moyles stated that during the recess the Council discussed the appropriateness of holding a Closed Session; such was the sole topic of discussion. Mr. Philip Assaf, Attomey, reviewed procedures for condemnation of property and stated that property owners were entitled to fair market value for property taken. Mr. Srcath commented as follows: Confirmed that the agreement reached in litigation surrounding Parcel 3 in the 1960's was being considered in calculations being made at this time Question addressed to him during the recess was what kind of credits were given under the assessment proceedings against parking spaces that were credited Stated that he calculated the square footage of buildings, calculated the required parking space ratio under the agreement (350: 1) with credit given for the number of parking spaces on Big Basin Way--only on Big Basin Way Property owners felt that credit should have been given for parking spaces on Third Street; such was not done under the Stipulation of Agreement macbed In addition, Third Street was part of the District and the improvements in that area The City Attorney reviewed the Stipulation for Agreement reached, Mr. Smith commented as follows: Answered questions on calculations made and parking credits given Addressed the manner in which existing parking lots of property owners were calculated Discussed the concerns Ms. Meade expressed and suggested a solution to her predicament Noted that the Parking District would not block off the rear parking to her property A problem would arise if the adjacent property owner wished to expand his business into his portion of the shared driveway The City Attorney reviewed applicable zoning regulations and noted that it would be inappro- priate for the City to prohibit a property owner from building to his property line because an adjacent property owner required such for a driveway when no easement existed. Councilmember Clevenger asked that the issue of Marjolalne be further considered. The City Manager noted the excess spaces in the Parking District; one alternative would to be eliminate two of these parking spaces. In the future if both businesses expanded, eliminating the common area, the parking spaces could be reinstated since they were City owned. Mr. Dennis Schraeder requested additional information on parking credits for Parcel 3. Mr. Smith reviewed calculations for Parcel 3; Mr. Schraeder objected to a disparity between information previously provided to him and information now presented to the Council. Councilmember Moyles commented as follows: Noted that what distinguished the 150 ft. of parking adjacent to Parcel 3 and other parking was the public road inside the Parking District subject to an agreement Parking spaces could be improved and charged the property owner for benefits derived; he felt that action to be taken was fair and equitable Noted efforts of the City to mitigate the burden created for the property owners, namely, t-he,q600,000 the taxpayers would contribute; fair market value offers would be made Noted that a minority protest had been made within the special interest of the Village area Noted his concern that if Saratoga allowed its historical corn to deteriorate to a point where such was no longer commemially viable, the Community as a whole would suffer The City could address infrastmctum needs and provide a vehicle for business to flourish Was convinced that this action was masonable and fair to property owners Councilmember Peterson noted that the Village was a resoume previously ignored by the Council. The parking district and improvements were needed to benefit the entire Village. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 8 AUGUST 3, 1988 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Councilmember Clevenger commented as follows: Noted her involvement with the Village Parking District over the years and recent events that now made the District possible In order the make the Village viable and help the merchants, parking had to be resolved Felt issues had been addressed over the years; now Mm-jolaine's situation was resolved Elected officials believed that the benefits merited the effort to accomplish this project The Parking District would showcase the natural beauty of Saratoga and would save the Creek from future development; this project was one of the most important projects accomplished during her tenure on the Council Councilmember Stutzman commented as follows: Recognized the sacrifices being made by those protesting; however such may be instru- mental in saving their own business as well as others in the Village Noted that Cal Trans work on Big Basin Way would be a tremendous detriment for any traffic in the Village; in addition, the work would require a lengthy period of time The Parking District would provide access through the Village Mayor Anderson stated that she looked forward to Parking District No. 3 and regretted that there were so many protests. The Council felt that the District would improve the Village and aid business. She noted the improvements to be completed with this District Councilmember Moyles added that in coming to his decision, he had been persuaded that the assessments made by Mr. Smith were equitable and the improvements planned worth the cost. Mayor Anderson stated that the Council would do all in its power to insure fair market value. MOYLES/PETERSON MOVED APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 2473.,, OVERRULING PROTESTS FOR VILLAGE PARKING DISTRICT NO. 3. Passed 5-0. MOYLES/CLEVENGER MOVED APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 2473.5 APPROVING REPORT AND ASSESSMENT AND ORDERING IMPROVEMENT OF VILLAGE PARKING DISTRICT NO. 3. Passed 5-0. MOYLES/PETERSON MOVED TO SET A HEARING FOR AUGUST 22, 1988, AT 8 P.M. TO CONSIDER CONDEMNATION ACTIONS IN ASSOCIATION WITH PARKING DISTRICT NO. 3. Passed 5-0. Mayor Anderson returned to New Business B. Proposed Creation of Toxics Council and Toxics Protection Area by Santa Clara County. The City Manager reviewed the Report and recommended that such be noted and fded. MOYLES/CLEVENGER MOVED TO NOTE AND Fll .I~ REPORT. Passed 5-0. C. Report on Publicity - Kissel/Krueger Appeal; Blue Hills Rd. prezoning and annexation; Quito House Heritage Resource; Underground Utility District; Weed Abatement Hearing; Air Quality Section of Conservation Element of General Plan. CLEVENGER/MOYLES MOVED TO ADOPT STAFF RECOMMENDATION. Passed 5-0. D. Request for Support of SB 2600 and SB 2712, which would raise the State Gas Tax for 4 years. The City Manager reviewed the request for support of pending legislation. Councilmember Clevenger noted the numerous requests for support of legislative actions and the few endorsements given; she felt that this tradition should be continued in this instance. Councilmember Moyles concurred; while he personally supported the measure, he noted the monies paid into the federal system by California taxpayers without a fair share being returned. Consensus reached to note and file Request. MEETING OF THE C1TY COUNCIL Page AUGUST 3, 1988 NEW BUSINESS Continued E. Second Amendment to Hakone Foundation Trust Agreement The City Attorney reviewed the request. CLEVENGEP4PETERSON MOVED TO APPROVE THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO HAKONE FOUNDATION TRUST AGREEMENT AS RECOMMENDED. Passed 5-0. F. Award of Contract, Schedules B and C of Ove~ay, to Raisch Construction Co. in the amount of $19,285. PETERSON/MOYLES MOVED TO AWARD CONTRACT SCHEDULE B AND C (LOMITA AVENUE) OF OVERLAY TO RAISCH CONSTRUCTION COMPANY IN THE AMOUNT OF $19,285. Passed 5-0. 9. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS: A. Reports from Individual Councilmembers Coundlmember Moyles reported on alternatives for street improvements on Big Basin Wy. He thanked the City Manager for a prompt response in cleaning City sign lettering He reported on recent land donation to Hakone Gardens which would ease parking needs He noted a recent State Supreme Count decision declining to reslrain the Traffic Authority Councilmember Clevenger requested models of the Route 85 interchanges be provided She discussed the Staff training program and the request that the Council participate She requested information on the Route 85 Supplemental Environment Impact Report Mayor Anderson asked that the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report be released in a timely manner in connection with the November Ballot Initiative in Saratoga on Route 85 interchanges; Consensus reached that this concern be related to Mr. Kempton She reported on the Lomas Project B. Appeal on Council's own motion Mayor Anderson reviewed the request for amending the Municipal Code to empower the City Council with decision review on its own motion rather than awaiting a possible appeal; in addition, she suggested consideration of extending the appeal period to 21 days. Councilmember Clevenger was favorable to this proposal and noted that while not often used, it was helpful to know that the Council could call up an issue of concern. The City Attorney reviewed the previous Ordinance provision for this item and the reasons for rescinding such. He cautioned that a 21 day.appeal period may elicit strong negative reaction from the public and recommended that if adopted, provision be made to allow the public to appeal before the Council would call up an action. Councilmember Moyles commented as follows: Reviewed the previous Ordinance provision and questioned the reconsideration of such There was nothing to suggest that current procedures were inappropriate Questioned why the Council was considering this action in the absence of a problem Felt that the separation of powers was appropriate for the City, with more discretion being given to the Planning Commission Commended the Commission on the work done and noted the Council's efforts to appoint individuals representing the diversity of the community Removing the Council from this situation, elevated the integrity of the Commission Reinstigation of the old Ordinance provision would convey a lack of mast Furthermore, if a Councilmember took an appeal while sitting on the appeal board, an unbiased appeal and/or fair hearing was called into question If the Council were favorable to this request, he suggested that such be discussed jointly with the Commission Mayor Anderson noted a recent decision of the Commission which concerned her. Councilmember Peterson was unfavorable to an appeal on it s own motion; such would send the wrong message to all the Commissions; he noted the lack of need in the past six years. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 10 AUGUST 3, 1988 C1TY COUNCIL FIEMS Continued Councilmember Clevenger noted that if the Council could appeal on its own motion and did not do so, such complimented the Commissions; she did not feel strongly regarding this action. Consensus reached to take no action on this Item at this time. C. SB 2581 - Santa Clara Valley Open Space District Councilmember Peterson was unfavorable to supporting SB 258 I. Councilmember Moyles suggested the Mayor write a letter reiterating the City's position. The meeting of the City Council adjourned in memory of Mr. Ralph P. Doetsch, Sr., Councilmember of the City of Campbell; the meeting was adjourned at 12:24 A.M. to Closed Session on the matters listed below and then to 6:00 P.M. August 9, 1988. A. Saratoga vs. VMS B. Magnuson Claim C. Cocciardi vs. Saratoga D. Sarahills Cases Respectfully submitted, Recording Secretary