Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-19-1988 City Council Minutes MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL DATE: October 19, 1988 - 7:30 P.M. PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting 1. Roll Call: Mayor Anderson, Councilmembers Clevenger, Moyles, Peterson, Stutzman present at 7:30 RM. 2. CEREMONIAL ITEMS: Mayor Anderson presented a Proclamation honoring Mr. Rich Collier and Mr. Jim Collier of Green Valley Disposal Company, for aiding a Saratoga resident, apprehending one robbery suspect and providing information leading to the possible arrest of the second suspect. 3. ROUTINE MATTERS: A. Approval of Minutes: Meetings of October 5, 1988, and October 1I, 1988. CLEVENGER/PETERSON MOVED APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF OCTOBER 5, 1988, AS PRESENTED. Passed 5-0. MOYLES/CLEVENGER MOVED APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF OCTOBER 11, 1988, AS PRESENTED. Passed 5-0. 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 t9 Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on October 14, 1988. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: A. Planning Commission Actions, October 12, 1988, - Noted and filed. B. Heritage Preservation Commission Minutes, October 5, 1988 - (No Meeting) C. Parks and Recreation Commission Action Minutes, October 3, 1988, - Noted and filed. D. Resolution 2492.4 Budget resolution on Cable TV E. Approval ofContract with Project Match for 1988/89 CDBG Funding F. Final Map Approval, SDR 1470, Park Drive (Applicant, R. Kocher) G. Final Building Site Approval, SD 88-009, Sobey Rd., (1 lot) (Applicant, M. Pierce) H. Proclamation on Children's Day I. Proclamation Commending Collier Brothers Councilmember Stutzman requested removal of Consent Calendar Item E MOYLES/PETERSON MOVED APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT CALENDAR WITH THE REMOVAL OF ITEM E Passed 5-0. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 2 OCTOBER 19, 1988 CONSENT CALENDAR Continued Councilmember Stutzman felt the lot was unstable and represented possible problems for the City if utilized as a building site; the lower portion of the lot was in a flood plain, surrounded by steep hillside slopes; the adobe subsoil was susceptible to retaining water and sliding. He submitted a document outlining problems on-site and felt that approval of this application was inappropriate. The City Engineer reviewed the status of this Application and stated that the City Geologist, Wm. Cotton Assoc., felt that the reports completed were adequate for a Final Map Approval. Councilmember Stutzman felt that the Conditions of the Tentative Map had not been satisfied, specifically, the contour map did not accurately reflect the topography and the appropriate soils studies had not been done. He recommended that engineering and soils studies be done. The City Attorney reviewed the Final Map Approval process, which was a ministerial' act. The suitability of the site was addressed at the Tentative Map Approval stage. Mr. RussCrowther stated he strongly objected to some 6f the advice given by the City Attorney and asked to address this Item. Mayor Anderson responded that this was not a Public Hearing. Councilmember Moyles noted that these concerns were addressed by Councilmember Stutzman at the Tentative Map Approval; if such were the case, it was too late to raise concerns for reeon- sideration. The Tentative Map had been issued; Final Map Approval was a ministerial act. Councilmember Peterson commented that the issue was whether Conditions of the Tentative Map had been met; furthermore, comprehensive studies would be done at the building stage. Councilmember Stutzman stated that he was not satisfied with the way Staff and the Council had handled this matter in the past; if he could see a properly drawn contour map he would be satisfied. Councilmember Peterson objected to the characterization of Staff; City Staff were very professional Councilmember Clevenger suggested a Continuance of this Item to obtain further information. Councilmember Stutzman agreed to a Continuance to reinsure that Conditions had been met. Mrs. Kocher, Applicant, objected to the reconsideration of this Application. A member of the audience objected to the amount of time spent considering this Item. STUTZMAN/CLEVENGER MOVED TO CONTINUE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM F, FINAL MAP APPROVAL, SDR 1470, TO NOVEMBER 2, 1988. Passed 3'2,Councilmembe~ Peterson and Moyles dissenting. 5. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS AND THE PUBLIC: A. Oral Communications from the Public and Commissions Mr. Willem Kohler, Pierce Canyon Homeowners Assoc., stated that a number of large Oak trees on Old Oak Way were marked for removal; he objected to a continuing pattern of tree removal and agreed to send a written statement regarding this concern. Ms. Dora Grens, Old Oak Way, Saratoga, noted that the Cocciardi/Chadwick Final Map was con- ditioned upon accessibility of City water; there was no public notice of the Final Map hearing. Mr. Charles Grens, Old Oak Way, Saratoga, presented pictures of Oak trees marked for removal and felt that Conditions of the Cocciardi/Chadwick Final Map approval were not being met. Notice of the Tentative Map Approval had not been noticed. Mr. RussCrov~ther~., Norada Ct., Saratoga, questioned whether a Tentative Map had to be granted an extension when the Applicant had not completed the Conditions of Approval. Mayor Anderson proceeded to the Public Hearings: 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Appeal of variance to construct home on a 31.2% slope at 20881 Canyon View Dr. where 30% is the maximum allowed in the R-l-40,000 zoning district (Appellant, Kissel; Applicant, Krueger) (V 88-010) (Continued from September 7, 1988) Planner Caldwell reviewed the Report on Application V-88-010, dated October 19, 1988. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 3 OCTOBER 19, 1988 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued The Public Hearing was opened at 8:25 P.M. Mr. Donald Krueger, Applicant, commented as follows: Asked that the City Council make a decision on this Application The Council listened to a number of individuals who had no technical expertise on this matter and who presented information which did not have the slightest bearing on this Appeal Mrs. Armbruster lived a half mile away on a lot with nearly 50% slope; her house did not have the proper foundation The house proposed would have a state of the art foundation, designed for a hillside lot Appellant had a monetary interest in this project since he would have to relocate utility and sewer lines improperly placed The Planning Commission twice recommended the Appeal be denied; the City Geologist, Wm. Cotton Associates, concluded that there were no geotcehnical reasons which prevented a single family home from being built on this lot The Appeal resulted from a disgruntled citizen who did not comply with the law and was trying to convince the City Council that this one lot, out of forty similar hillside lots, was unsafe Cited financial costs involved in the delay and asked that the Appeal be denied or the lot taken Mr. Ted Sayre, Win. Cotton Assoc., referenced the Reports prepared on this site since 1980; they were comfortable that the residential development of this lot could proceed. PET. ERSON/MOYLES MOVED TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARINGS AT 8:30 P.M. Passed 5-0. PETERSON/MOYLES MOVED TO DENY THE APPEAL AND LIPHOLD THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON V-88-010. Councilmember Peterson stated that information presented confirmed that the lot was developable. Councilmember Moyles added that Mrs. Armbruster's comments reflected concerns of the Home- owners Association; the additional information requested was warranted; both in-house and independent study had been comp].eted. Councilmember Stutzman had reservations regarding building on lots exceeding a '30% slope; he felt that the General Plan should either be amended on this item or the Council should abide by it. The history of the area presented by residents was helpful; he would vote to uphold the Appeal. Councilmember Clevenger stated that information requested by the Council indicated that it was possible to engineer a home on this site; she was obliged to accept the information provided by professional engineers. She would vote to deny the Appeal. Mayor Anderson also was reluctant to approve this Application; she cited examples where geologic reports had been in error. However, it would be be a problem to require a Report which stated that the site was developable and then deny the Application. The Applicant had a right to build on this site if the lot was safe; in the opinion of Wm. Cotton Associates, such was the case. The City Attorney noted for the record that the choice was to approve the Application or make a determination supported by substantial evidence that the lot was not suitable for development; if the latter were the case, the City would not be obliged to purchase the lot. Mayor Anderson called for a vote on the Motion. Passed 4-1, Councilmember Stutzman dissenting. B. Appeal of use permit approval of plans to provide child care services to no more than 175 children at the former Hansen School Site, 12211 Titus Ave. The property is zoned R-I- 10,000_, General Plan CFS (Applicant, Cupertino Union School District/Primary Plus; appellant, C. Taaffe) (UP 88-010) Planner Caldwell reviewed the Report on UP-88-010 dated October 19, 1988. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:47.P.M. Ms. Diane Siegel, 20290 Pierce Rd., Saratoga, noted the need for full time, flexible child care; currently in Saratoga there were only two child care facilities, both with limited space. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 4 OCTOBER 19, 1988 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Christopher Taaffe, Appellant, speaking for the neighborhood cited the following issues: Parking: reviewed the current parking available and the needs of the Alternative School Neighbors had determined that a parking deficit would occur if Primary Plus were allowed to use this site; schedule of parked cars through out the day was presented Teacher/student ratio was higher for small children and there was no drop off zone for parents The overflow would park on Titus Ave. Staff Report stated that there was no significant impact since the proposed enrollment would be less than when the school was operating at peak capacity; the problem with this statement was that formerly school children walked or biked to school except on a rainy day Altemative transportation (public, walking, biking) would not be used by children There would be 600-900 cars per day, from 6:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M; impact on safety, traffic circulation patterns and pedestrian crossings noted Was concerned that Primary Plus, limited to 175 students, would not beimeconomically viable operation; thus, space would be subleased to private commercial enterprises Read into the record the advertisement of Saratoga Music and Fine Arts Ms. Kathleen Brondyke, 12057 County Squire Ln., Saratoga, commented as follows; Nobody would argue against day care; residents were concerned about day care at Hartsen Cited the number of school age children in the area Presented a map showing the traffic counts in a one hour period of time Mr. Andrew Bougaard, 1202 Titus Ave., Saratoga, presented and discussed Hunsen School Mutual Use Parking Req. uirements, Ms. Debbie Lillo, 12054 Kristy Ln., Saratoga, commented as follows: Noted the number of school age children in the neighborhood Questioned whether the changes made to the school to accommodate pre-school children would be for the long term good of the community Residents had waited nine years for the school to reopen Cited the portables used at other sites; asked that the demographics of the area be considered Mr. Don Brondyke, 12057 Country Squire Ln., Saratoga, felt misrepresentations had been made by the Board of Education, Cupertino School District and Primary Plus; residents felt a decision was made before they had a chance to address the Planning Commission. Ms. Lee Taaffe, Titus Ave., Saratoga, had concerns regarding safety of the children; in addition, the noise from 6:30 A.M. to 6:30 EM. had not been considered. Mr. Ed Hayes, 12050 Country Squire Ln., Saratoga, commented as follows: Cupertino School District/Primary Plus failed to prove their case for use of the Hartsen site Traffic would be greater than anticipated and create unreasonable noise and safety hazards A four month review was too late; parents would then be relying on the operation Questioned whether the City would be willing to revoke this Use Permit if necessary Day care was not the issue; the issues was noise and safety Looked to the City Council to preserve the ambiance and serenity of Saratoga Ms. Karen Bougaard, Titus Ave., Saratoga, presented photographs of the parking at the Hansen and Quito School sites. Mr. George Plumleigh, Assets Manager, Cupertino School Site, commented as follows: Reviewed the District's decision regarding schools in general and the plans for Hartsen site Purpose and types of leases for school site were discussed History of the Application was reviewed Traffic satiety: only two accidents had occurred and were due to driver error Reviewed the financial investment already made at the site The District believed that the proposed use was the best balance of community and District needs and a wise use of tax dollars; the District could not afford to let the site remain vacant The District felt that other alternative considered would have created greater traffic impacts; the use proposed created the least traffic impact In response to Mayor Anderson's question, Mr. Plumleigh stated that the District would have a very strict contract with Primary Plus, limited to child care for 175 students; he confirmed that adult classes as done at Brookview School would not be permitted at the Hunsen School Site. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 5 OCTOBER 19, 1988 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Ms. Carole J. Freitas, Primary Plus, commented as follows: Reviewed the history of Primary Plus and presented a booklet showing their operation Reviewed the dance program at Primary Plus; a similar program was envisioned at Hansen Reviewed the traffic counts at other Primary Plus sites Mr. Frank Clerk, Principal, Christie MacAuliffe School (Hansen School) invited neighbors to visit the school and see the program. Ms. Louise Shaeffer, Park Dr., Saratoga, strongly favored the proposed program and noted the need for child care and the scarcity of such programs in Saratoga. Ms. Nancy White, Director, Alternative Program, stated that a crossing guard was being consider- ed; the City had control regarding the proposed use. Members of the public were invited to visit. Ms. Carol Kennelly, Saratoga resident and Primary Plus Director, reviewed operations at other sites; she noted the need for child care in the City. There has never been a complaint at the El Quito on traffic, noise or safety; numerous compliments had been received by the area. Mr. John Mitchell, County Squire Ln., Saratoga, questioned why residents of Saratoga should provide day care for other cities; furthermore, there would be no limit on the hours of operation. Mr. Jim Craig, Saratoga, commented as follows: Questioned whether requirements of the Fire District were being observed; he did not feel that there would be room for emergency vehicles to access this site. School had already broken the rules regarding parking and service areas Existing traffic impacts and the number of accidents cited Residents did not object to a school operation; they objected to a commercial venture at this site Ms.Freitas, responding to Mayor Anderson's question, stated that approximately 25% of El Quito students were from Saratoga; this site is on the: border of San Jose, Campbell and Saratoga. Pre- school students were about 85% Saratogans; projections for Hansen site were 65% Saratogans. Mr. Clerk added that the Central Fire District Chief had been consulted regarding access of emergency vehicle; there was no problem. Mr. Larry Smith, Saratoga, disagreed; there was hardly enough room for a car to pass. He had moved into the area in order for his children to attend Hansen; within a year the school was closed. Ms. Nancy White questioned the concept of the neighborhood school. Ms.' Sheila Goldstein, 12041 County Squire Ln., Saratoga, commented as followed: Area in uestion was residential; residents wish to preserve the area without noise or traffic Hansen ~chool site was not designed to absorb the level of traffic projected; it was designed for a neighborhood school with one ingress and egress Strongly objected to the proposed hours of operation and the noise from small children Cited the number of accidents at the corner of Prospect Blvd. and Titus Ave. Suggested Hansen remain closed with the exception of the Alternative School; consideration to be given in a few years to reopening as a neighborhood school Requested a financial comparison of school maintenance costs with the projected revenues from Primary Plus; asked that the greater good of the Saratoga community be considered A member of the public was interested in Hansen becoming a neighborhood school and requested information on the proposed operation and area demographics. Mr. Dave Ev~/ns, 12088 Kristy Ln., Saratoga, favored the use of Hartsen site as a neighborhood school and questioned whether a decision needed to be made at this time; if a neighborhood school could be opened in a reasonable amount of time, would use by Primary Plus preclude such? Ms. Jan Law, 12147 Country Squire Ln., Saratoga, questioned a combined use by the Aternative School and neighborhood children; while she was not opposed to child care, she was concerned that adapting the School for Primary Plus would rule out use as a grade school. A resident of Metida Ct., Saratoga, stated his daughter attended the Alternative School; he noted that neighborhood schools were a fading commodity; increased traffic and parking existed at all schools. The neighborhood had become used to a "maintained vacant lot" without impacts. The proposal endorsed by the Planning Commission was a solid approach. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 6 OCTOBER 19, 1988 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Dick Martin, 19111 Cox Dr., Saratoga, stated that traffic was a serious issue; however, traffic and the impacts had to be accommodated. He noted the services of Saratoga Music and Arts. Mr. Jim Van Dressen, 1215 Country Squire Ln., Saratoga, was familiar with traffic patterns when Hansen was operating as a neighborhood school; residents wished to preserve their neighborhood. While he did not object to Primary Plus or child care, he did not wish them to be at this site. Ms. Susan Siliver, Cupertino Union School District Board Member, commented as follows: Issues under consideration were community issues and required community solutions Reviewed benefits to be derived by this proposal; namely, provide immediate child care and allow the District to receive some income to maintain this site Noted the studies completed and projections made for the next five years; confirmed that if the number of children in the area warranted such, the neighborhood school would be opened Noted the value of open space in Silicon Valley Requested approval for the compromise offered by the District of allowing Primary Plus to admit 175 children; assured the neighborhood that communications would be maintained Mr. Plumleigh reviewed the District's Master Plan in response to questions of the Council. Councilmember Clevenger noted the great pride residents took in Hansen School and their dis- appointment when it was closed; she questioned the closure of Hansen School only nine years after Blue Hills was built. In addition, Blue Hills area residents were unhappy with the portable units. Ms. Siliver responded that School Districts did not plan better because they were budgeted on a year by year basis; however, inroads were being made on better planning. Ms. Frietas presented additional petitions and added that the hours of operation should read, 6:30 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. This application was an opportunity to work together; only a use permit would allow the necessary dialogue between Primary Plus and the community. Mr. Taaffe concurred that he was very disappointed when Hartsen School was closed; he felt the District wished the use proposed so that other school sites could be opened in Cupertino. Mr. Bougaard added that Route 85 may create a problem for the Blue Hills site; he asked that parking be able to accommodate any use allowed. MOYLES/CLEVENGER MOVED TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARINGS AT 11:08 P.M. Passed 5-0. Councilmember Moyles commented as follows: Supported the decision of the Planning Commission after lengthy consideration of this Item During his tenure on the Council, this was the third time a school site had been heard; however, the School Board was responsible for decisions made on school sites From a municipal perspective, the General Plan required encouragement of preservation of open space; this provision was written into the General Plan in response to closures of Congress Springs and Brookview Schools Preservation of this school site required the City to look toward compatible uses; the use pro- posed for this site was compatible with the former educational use With respect to impacts, there are adverse impacts to the neighbors Any use would be an intensification of that which had been enjoyed since the school's closure; the question was whether such impacts were reasonable Traffic Study indicated an A or B Level of Serviee--much better than many parts of town Parking: a concern remained; however, parking could be conditioned and reviewed Subleasing: the control point was the 175 students allowed Crossing Guards at Prospect Ave: consideration of Primary Plus providing such, if necessary It did not matter where the children resided; there was a responsibility for those that needed day care/educational services Reiterated concern for preservation of open space; in addition, recreational needs would be met Issue was day care; he wished to do more than pay lip service to provision of such in Saratoga Councilmember Clevenger stated that she was a proponent for what was good for the neighbor- hood. It was difficult when Hansen closed; residents had anticipated that their children would attend this school. Now, not only would this site not be opened as a neighborhood school, the hours of operation were lengthy. There did not seem to be any benefit for the neighborhood. This was the problem; there needs to be some benefit to offset impacts for area residents. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 7 OCTOBER 19, 1988 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Councilmember Clevenger continued as follows: There was another traffic report which stated that when trips exceeded 1,000 per day, there was a noticeable impact on neighborhood quality. She was concerned that the increased traffic would be added to a neighborhood area. She felt that the neighborhood was not being offered any return. Councilmember Stutzman commented as follows: Society had a need for child care and there were not many facilities available Open space: schools were designated sites for such as well as for recreational use Route 85 may result in the loss of some existing facilities In addition, schools were operating on limited funding and with decreasing enrollment Hansen School had been renovated at considerable expense; Primary Plus could provide additional revenue for the School District Agreed that Primary Plus and the Alternative School would inconvenience the neighborhood Suggested that provision of additional parking be considered Felt that the noise would come from the Alternative School where children played outside Number of students to be limited and the use evaluated every four months for the first year with restrictions on the subleasing by Primary Plus While the situation was not ideal, if funding were not made available for the maintenance of this site, the school would be closed; every effort should be made to keep this school open Residential development of this site would result in greater traffic and noise impacts Would approve this Conditional Use Permit with severe restrictions Councilmember Peterson stated that his first official involvement in City activities was the Regional Site Utilization Committee; prior to this Hearing, he would have said that alternative uses to keep the school from closing was a positive thing. He stated that he understood and shared the concerns expressed by the neighbors; however, there was a larger need. The Conditional Use Permit could be reviewed and if needed, be reconsidered and/or revoked. Mayor Anderson concurred that this was a difficult question and noted her own need for day care. Ten years ago children walked or biked to neighborhood schools; now about 80% of the children arrived by car. Schools were not geared for the tremendous traffic and parking impacts; even if Hartsen opened as a neighborhood school, there would be traffic and parking problems, especially at 8:30 A. M.; in addition, child care would be offered. She had lobbied for the reopening of Hansen as a neighborhood school and intended to continue her efforts. She recognized and sympathized with the neighborhood concerns; however, the City did not want to encourage in any fashion, the closure and possible sale of this school. She proposed that hours of operation be from 7:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M., with car pool p!an for the Alternative School to be presented to the Planning Commission at the four month review, active recruitment of neighborhood children for the Alternative School. She was concerned regarding the possible subleasing of space and asked that the Commission review this situation every four months of the first year of operation. There was to be no parking overflow on Titus Ave; sufficient on-site parking and a loading zone area must be provided. The City Attorney cautioned against evaluation performance standards of the Use Permit based on attendance at the Alternative School; the Alternative program was the prerogative of the District. The City Manager asked that Primary Plus be required to provide a roster of attendance and student's ages; a limitation of twelve years of age in accord with the request for a K-6 operation. Ms.~alas responded that a 7:00 A.M. opening hour was a problem; Staff needed to be on-site by 6:30 A.M. to prepare for the day. In addition, 3-5 children needed to be dropped off by 6:45 A.M. She offered to provide a list of these children All other conditions suggested were acceptable. MOYLES/PETERSON MOVED TO DENY THE APPEAL, UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON UP-88-010 ADDING CONDITIONS REQUIRING THE APPLfe2ANT TO PROVIDE AND FUND A CROSSING GUARD AT PROSPECT AVE. AS NEEDED, HOURS OF OPERATION TO BE 6:45 A.M. TO 6:00 P.M., CAR POOL PLAN TO BE PRESENTED AT THE FOUR MONTH REVIEW, PRIMARY PLUS TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL PARKING AS REQUIRED, LIMITED TO K - 6 ,WITH A ROSTER OF ATTENDANCE AND AGES OF STUDENTS TO BE AVAILABLE TO THE CITY, REVIEW OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION EVERY FOUR MONTHS OF THE THE FIRST YEAR OF OPERATION, NO SUBLEASING WITHOUT PRIOR CONSENT OF THE CITY, MAXIMUM OF 175 STUDENTS ALLOWED. Passed 4-1, Commissioner Clevenger dissenting. Break: 11:50-12 Midnight MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 8 OCTOBER 19,. 1988 Mayor Anderson returned to Communications from Commissions and the Public. B. Written Communications from the Public 1) Charles Reed, EO. Box 585, objecting to City letter requesting business license information. PETERSON/CLEVENGER MOVED TO SEND THE DRAFT REPLY. Passed 5-0. 2) Terrence M. Towner, Los Gatos-Saratoga High School District, requesting amend- ment to Municipal Code to enforce unauthorized use of school property - Saratoga High School Consensus reached to direct the City Attorney to review applicable Ordinance Amendments and the City Manager to discuss this issue with Captain Thomas of. the Police Department. 3) Mr. and Mrs. M.C. Town, 13035 Regan Lane, objecting to conditions at Argonaut Plaza Shopping Center. Consensus reached to ado t Recommended Action t.o ~ letter to Chaml:~r of Ccmrerce and to Argonaut Merits. 6. OLD BUSINESS: A. Discussion of Regional Measures 1 (Continued from October 5, 1988) Consensus reached by the Council to endorse Regional Measure 1. 7. NEW BUSINESS: A. Publicity for Upcoming Hearings - Brandenburg House and Goss Reversion to Acreage MOYLES/PETERSON MOVED TO ADOPT STAFF RECOMMENDATION. Passed 5-0. B. Resolution 2518 authorizing City to Join ABAG Workers' Compensation Insurance Pool effective January 1, 1989. MOYLES/PETERSON MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2518 AUTHORIZING THE CITY TO JOIN THE ABAG WORKERS' COMPENSATION POOL EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 1989; AUTHORIZING SELF INSURED STATUS FOR WORKERS COMPENSATION LIABILITIES; AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ACT FOR THE CITY IN FILING A CERTIFICATE OF CONSENT TO SELF INSURE WITH THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS. C. Revised Measure AStrategic Plan-August 1988 The City Manager reviewed the Report to the Mayor and City Council dated October: 18, 1988. Councilmember Clevenger cited the Strategic Plan for Measure A, page 2-18 and suggested a com- ment that the proposed configurations had not been reviewed nor approved by the City. Consensus reached to Continue the Revised Measure A Strategic Plan to November 2, 1988. D. Resolution 2383.4 Administrative Design Review Procedure The City Manhger reviewed the Report Re: Article 15-45, Administrative Review Proceduje. CLEVENGER/MOYLES MOVED TO SET THE FILING FEE FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW OF PROJECTS AT $100.00 BY ADOPTION RESOLUTION 2383.4 Passed 5-0. E. Resolution 2492.3 adjusting budget for Village Parking DistriM No. 3 The City Manager reviewed the Report Re: Budget Adjustment Resolution No. 2492.3. PETERSON/MOYLES MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2492.3 INCREASING APPROPRI- ATIONS AND AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 1989 BUDGET. Passed 5-0. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 9 OCTOBER 19, 1988 9. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS: A. Reports from Individual Councilmembers The following is a verbatim transcription. (Discussion on possible reconsideration of Final Map Approval, Tr. 7770, Chadwick Place, Oak Way and Chiquita Way, heard at the October 5, 1988, Meeting) Councilmember Stutzman: Madam Mayor, at this point I'd like to (unintelligible) IId like to... Mayor Anderson: Before we do that, Mr. Toppel, what's the proper procedure? City Attorney: I don't know what the point is. (unintelligible) Councilmember Stutzman: First of all...I would like to have an issue raised. I'd like to ask Mr. Toppel if the govemment follows rules oforder? 'r x.,~2x~d ~.ike ~o have '~.h~.s verha'l:im. City Attorney: For the Meetings? Council Meetings generally follow Robert's Rules of Order but as you can see, very, very loosely. We have never really made it a point to... The City Code technically says that they apply but we have never made a point to conduct the meetings strictly in accordance with Robert's Rules. I'm not sure I understand your question... Councilmember Stutzman: It wasn't (unintelligible) the next regular meeting after the last one in which we considered the Cocciardi/Chadwick property, is it not? City Manager: In terms of the Final Map Approval? Councilmember Stutzman: Yes, sir. And this would be to verify that I did vote for that Motion City Manager: The Minutes... City Attorney: Well the Minutes would reflect your vote, the Council vote. City Manager: We've got the Minutes here. Mayor Anderson: We've got the Minutes here, I'm pretty sure that you did. City Manager: If I catch your drift, you want to have a consideration of a reconsideration. Councilmember Clevenger: The Consent Calendar has five votes, so you have voted... Councilmember Stutzman: In view of those previous questions that have been asked, I would like to bring it up for reconsideration. City Manager: I think the first think you have to do... City Attorney: We have special problems as far as the agenda is .... City Manager: The first thing you have to do is to ask the Council to place the matter on the agenda; you have to get a four-fifths vote to do that under the Brown Act. City Attorney: Well, even there I think there has, I think... Mayor Anderson: We need to... City Attorney: Well, from what I gather, Dr. Stutzman as a person who voted in favor of the approval is now, wants the Council to reconsider that approval. Even to place something on the agenda has to be by virtue of a circumstance that arose after the agenda had been pos!ed, either an emergency or some new situation requiring prompt and immediate action by the Council. The threshold question right off the bat, under the Brown Act is whether we are dealing with that kind of a situation of the type to even receive any discussion or treatment by the Council tonight. And normally the most that could be done could be done and we are in Councilmember reports as well, the part that we are in. So, state law would dictate that the most that could be done tonight, unless the Council finds some emergency circumstances or something arose prior to the posting. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 10 OCTOBER 19, 1988 COUNCIL COUNCIL ITEMS Continued City Attorney Continued: Perhaps subsequent to posting the agenda would be to decide whether you wish to agendize it for action at the next meeting. Normally on Council Reports, there is no action taken; just a report of meetings artended or activities or whatever. And so we are, if you're requesting specific action by the Council, Dr. Stutzman, we do have a Brown Act problem (unintelligible) Mayor Anderson: I have another question. I was reading Robert's Rules with regard to this son of item... City Attorney: This has nothing to do with Robert's Rules; this is the Brown Act. Mayor Anderson: I know the Brown Act, but I mean, this is for future consideration. City Manager: (un!ntelligible) Mayor Anderson: Pardon? City Manager: (unintelligible) Mayor Anderson: No, no I had thought if you had voted against something, I thought once you had an approval, you couldn't bring it back up again... City Manager: No, Robert's Rules simply says that only someone who is in the majority can ask for a reconsideration. Mayor Anderson: I knew that, but I thought... City Attorney: The other ...that's right; that's a good point. I should preface my comments by saying that Robert's Rules (changing of the tape) though I think that the City Code says that if there's going to be a reconsideration it would have to be done during the same meeting on which the approval was granted. So I'm reminded, corrected, that we could not even procedurally reconsider that approval--only at the time of the original meeting. When I talked to Dr. Stutzman earlier on the phone concerning this project, my suggestion was to see if there was some specific concerns and if there was some problems that the developer shared, we might talk about the qualifications of an 'approved map by way of negotiating the situation but not as a condition of approval'or coming back later... So, I guess I'd have to say that even putting in on the agenda for a later meeting would be inappropriate for the purpose if doing so would be to reconsider an approval already given. Councilmember Stutzman: It was my understanding that the public was not informed of the Tentative Map Approval in January and was in fact on the Consent Calendar. City Attorney: That was noticed. Councilmember Stutzman: Pardon? City Attorney: That was noticed. Councilmember Stutzman: No. Ms. Grens: I think, sorry, Mr. Toppel. City Attorney: Well, if you want to have a debate I'll leave that up to the Council. Ms. Grens: It's in the record Councilmember Peterson: rm not interested in having any kind of a debate on this at 12:30 at night. Mayor Anderson: Does... Ms. Grens: I'm sorry, Madam... May I just indicate for the record. I've been gavelled down several times; we were not notified. I'm sorry, Mr. Peterson... Councilmember Peterson: I'm sorry too. It's 12:30. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 11 OCTOBER 19, 1988 CITY COUNCIL ITEMS Continued Ms. Grens: That's not my fault. Councilmember Stutzman: Forget the time. You can stay up all night if you have to. Ms. Grens: We have a situation... Counciimember Stutzman: (unintelligible) Councilmember Peterson: Stick it in your ear. Ms. Grens: I hope this is on the record, Madam. I'm sorry, this is just... We have been treated abysmally. Mayor Anderson: Now wait a minute. Why don't we do this. Do you want to agendize a discussion about this, in some fashion. We can't reconsider, once you've given an approval, ifs almost like these kind of things where they're brought to court and you've been acquitted. You just can't go back. If a person acts on an approval, that's the problem. If a person acts on an approva!.. Councilmember Moyles: (unintelligible) Mayor Anderson: Well, they act on it so it's an economic loss because it's a fact that they act on an approval. On the other hand, if it's a disapproval, they'don't act. So you can go ahead and approve later and everybody is real happy. So you can't change this final map. Councilmember Stutzman: I understand that. My concern is that I asked about it and Staff approved it (unintelligible) without fully understanding some of the ramifications of it and since that was done, I've found may other things about it that are very disconcerting. That's why I felt it was appropriate for re. consideration. Mayor Anderson: Well, we can't reconsider; so what do you want to do about it? Councilmember Stutzman: (unintelligible) ask Mr. Toppel, can't we do anything about it? City Attorney: Well, let me say, generally that, and I would appreciate not being interrupted-- extensions, the normal procedure is to notice extensions just as we notice tentative approvals. We do not, we do not give notice on final approvals because as I have said, that is a ministerial act. It is not a public hearing. The Commission does have the discretion to deny an extension although policy has been not to do so on the theory that the Applicant had been through the process and usually the reason for extension are such that they just can't get everything completed in the initial time. But extensions are noticed just as the original tentative approval is noticed; whether an individual may or may not have received notice is not the point. Thafs the policy and thafs the practice. The final map, though, is not noticed; it's not legally, in fact, even on an extension, I'm not sure there's a legal requirement to notice. But there is no legal requirement for public notice or public hearing on a final map approval; the reason being that the Council's discretion is non-existent; you're only scope of decision making is whether there is satisfaction of the original tentative map conditions. And for that reason, we do not give notice of final map approval. It is almost, invariably, is on your agenda as a consent item. Ms. Grens: Madam Mayor may I ask that Mr. Toppel read back in your agendas, if he would read back in the Planning Commission or Planning Staffs booboos, j~ you w4-/a-.~3elieve that .it was agendized and publicly noticed as a Planning Commission Tentative Map Extension; ~t was cancelled, removed from the agenda without public notice, We were guaranteed by Mr. Calkius that we would be notified because it would have to come before the City Council. We watched the papers for public notice, watched our mailboxes for public notice. I came by a Council Meeting one evening and happened to see it on the Consent Calendar. There was not public notice, Mr. Toppel. Mayor Anderson: He said that; he said that they... Ms. Grens: On the tentative map.. Mayor Anderson: Oh, on the tentative map... MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 12 OCTOBER 19, 1988 CITY COUNCIL ITEMS Continued Ms. Grens: ...extension. That had been extended for eight years. Mayor Anderson: Ok. Maybe what we would like to do is to agendize a discussion about noticing. We can't really take back this approval of the final map. What would you like to do. Councilmember Clevenger: Well, I'll tell you, I would like to know whether there was an opportunity for the public response when they were supposed to have a meeting which was on the extension. Is that right (unintelligible) City Attorney: The Planning Commission practice, whether it's on Consent Calendar or not is that Public Hearing Item, even if it's on a Consent Calendar can be removed from a Consent Calendar by any member of the audience who wishes to speak on it. Now, the Commission follows the same policy as the Council does; if there's been an item that's been agendized and noticed for public hearing and for one reason or another that hearing is continued, the continuance is announced and it should have been to a date certain. We do not have subsequent noticing of items that have already been noticed and then continued and it's up to the people interested to monitor that. Now I can't explain this situation, how people interested may not have followed the dates. But the normal procedure, and I would emphasize we're talking normal procedure here, is that a public hearing is noticed whether its an original approval or an extension. If the applicant requests a continuance or for any reason the matter is not concluded and it's continued for whatever the cause, it's continued to a date certain. And ifs put on an agenda and if on that later date, it's not ready, they continue it again. That is the normal operating procedure. Councilmember Clevenger: (unintelligible) Ms. Grens: If you'll look at your agendas... City Attorney. No.. Mayor Anderson: Wait a second. City Attorney: Just a minute, please. Mayor Anderson: Please, please. City Attorney: Just look at the Planning Commission agendas and you 'can track applications that will show up on the Consent Calendar continued from one date and then continued to. I'm not sure what you're asking us to do. I don't know in this particular case.. Mayor Anderson: Well, we'd like to have it investigated. Councilmember Clevenger: I just wanted to know because Mrs. Grens has raised this' question several times and I'd like to know if she's right. Ms. Grens: It was removed from the agenda, because we had traced those agendas. Mayor Anderson: Please. We'll take care of it. Ms. Grens: Well thank you for all your help; you've been most gracious, I must say. Mayor Anderson: We will take care of it. Counciimember Moyles: This l~d like to verify because I'm certain I have never voted on something that was not on an agenda and duly noted for the public. We've been having the City Clerk recite this, for I don't know how long. The verification is a simple thing but it's worth doing because Mrs. Grens and Mr. Kohler have repeatedly come down here and accused us of acting illegally on all these lawsuits; they've used terms like back room deals. All the settlements were voted on publicly at noticed meetings. There was no back room deal on any of these matters. But I think it's worth checking out; so I hope we can lay the confusion to rest. I have a suspicion, though, that no response will be satisfactory to these individuals. But let's do it. We've had a request; verification is simple. Mayor Anderson: Allright, that's fine. So we'll have a report at the next Council Meeting from Staff. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 13 OCTOBER 19, 1988 ADJOURNMENT: The Meeting of the City Council was adjourned at 12:35 A.M.