HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-16-1988 City Council Minutes MINUTES
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
DATE; November 16, 1988 - 7:30 P.M.
PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA
TYPE: Regular Meeting
1. Roll Call: Mayor Anderson, CounCilmembers Moyles, Peterson, Stutzman present at
7:35 P.M. Councilmembers Clevenger present at 7:37 P.M.
2. CEREMONIAL ITEMS:
A. Proclamation concerning Adoption Awareness Week
B. Proclamation for Friends of Saratoga Libraries
Mayor Anderson presented the Proclamation to Representatives of Friends of Saratoga Libraries.
3. ROUTINE MATTERS:
A. Approval of Minutes: Meeting of November 2, 1988
PETERSON/MOYLES MOVED APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 2, 1988, AS
PRESENTED. Passed 5-0.
B. Approval of Warrant List:
PETERSON/MOYLES 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
November 10, 1988.
4. CONSENT CALENDAR:
A. Planning Commission Actions, November 9, 1988, - Noted and filed.
B. Heritage Preservation Commission Minutes, September 21, 1988, October 5th and 19th,
1988, - Noted and filed.
C. Ordinance I-IP'-15 designatin property at 18490 Ravenwood Dr. as Heritage Resource
(second reading and adoption.~
D. Acceptance of Project and Notice of Completion - Reconstruction of Fruitvale Avenue by
Raisch Construction Co. and Resolution 2492.6 appropriating additional funds.
E. Final Acceptance, Tr. 6528, Unit 2, Parker Ranch and Resolution 36-B-231.
F. 1986-87 Audit Report
The City Manager requested removal of Consent Calendar Item E
MOYLES/PETERSON MOVED APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS A
THROUGH E. Passed 5-0.
The City Manager presented a Memorandum to the Council Re: 1986-87 Audit Report.
Consensus reached to agendize Item for a Study Session
MOYLES/PETERSON MOVED TO CONTINUE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM E TO A
STUDY SESSION. ,a2,~D TO DIRECT THE FINANCE ADVXSORY CCI',NITI'k~: TO iL~EW THE
AUDIT REPOt~/?. Passed 5-0.
MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 2
NOVEMBER 16, 1988
4. CONSENT CALENDAR II: CLAIMS
A. R&M Paving Claim for Indemnity (car slipped on gravel left on road by contractor)
MOYLES/CLEVENGERMOVEDTO~ RETURN CLAIM AS UNTIMELY.
Passed 5-0.
5. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS AND THE PUBLIC:
A. Oral Communications from the Public and Commissions
Mr. Richard Tyrrell thanked thee Council and Staff for restoring the median strip on Kosich Ave.
B. Written Communications from the Public
The following Written Communications were acted on in one Motion.
1) J.E. Toevs, 110 Wood Rd., E-19, Los Gatos CA 95030, requesting permission
to hold barbecue on Odd Fellows Grounds.
2) Barbara J. Campbell, Retired Public Employees Association, 35 E1 Paseo,
Campbell CA 95008, similar to above.
3) Charles Cruz, Pacific Service Employees Association, 111 Almaden Blvd., San
Jose CA 95115-0005, similar to above.
The City Manager updated the Council on the status of this situation, noting that complaints had
been received from the neighbors; applicable zoning regulations were cited.
Councilmember Moyles noted that the Odd Fellows site had been used for such activities since
1914; he suggested consideration of reasonable controls rather than requiring the use to cease.
Consensus reached that a letter be sent to the above individuals, advising the of a possible change
in the Zoning Ordinance which would address this situation and invite their participation in any
discussions that would be held at the Planning Commission level.
6. OLD BUSINESS:
A. Amendments to Freeway Agreements - Passage of MeasureL
Councilmember Stutzman issued a statement that the electorate had indicated a desire for an inter-
change on Route 85; the pro-interchange forces were to be congratulated for waging a successful
campaign. The issue had been highly divisive; to heal the wounds, a method must be found to
reassure the 44% of the voters opposing this measure that promises of less traffic on City streets,
greater safety, cleaner air, noise mitigation and a shorter emergency response time would be realiz-
ed. The survival of Saratoga as envisioned by residents depended on the accomplishment of such.
Mr. Will Kempton, Santa Clara County Traffic Authority, stated that the Traffic Authority was
pleased that a decision had been reached by voters of Saratoga on the question of an interchange;
they expressed their willingness to work with the Council and Staff to reach an early resolution of
modifications to the Route 85 Freeway Agreement and Performance Agreement. A letter was
presented to this effect; he confirmed that the Traffic Authority was committed to work with local
communities through the design process and construction of this project.
In response to Councilmember Moyles' question on the need to move expeditiously on this issue,
Mr. Kempton responded that the Traffic Authority was getting ready to go to bid on a number of
bridge overcrossings, including work in the City of Saratoga. He noted the cost of project delays
and confirmed that bids being made were for the Cox Ave. underpass and the pedestrian bridge at
Blue Hills School; he estimated that for each month of project delay on the proposed interchange in
the Town of Los Gatos, a $~00,000 cost would result.
Ms. Karen Dowdy read into the record the letter of Mr. J. R. Geddes, FACS, stating their
position in the light of the recent passage of Measure L.
Councilmember Stutzman nominated Mayor Anderson to act as the Council's Representative for
any upcoming discussions on Freeway Agreement amendments.
MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 3
NOVEMBER 16, 1988
OLD BUSINESS Continued
Councilmember Clevenger noted that precedent had been established in that Ms. Hlava acted in this
Capacity when she was Mayor of Saratoga.
Councilmember Moyles questioned whether a negotiator was required at all since the freeway over-
pass was designed; all that remained was to integrate such with the Freeway Agreement. He
suggested the City Manager bring back the Freeway Amendment for the Council's review.
Mayor Anderson felt that procedures for any amendment would parallel the Route 85 discussions.
Councilmember Moyles responded that if the consensus was that Council representation be provid-
ed for on-going discussions, Councilmember Peterson also represent the Council. He was
uncertain whether there was absolute agreement by the Council on procedures; in addition, there
were individuals who wished the assurance that a Councilmember who advocated the interchanges
would be involved in negotiating such.
Councilmember Clevenger stated that the advantage of having the Mayor represent the Council was
to expedite the negotiating process; only one negotiator was required.
Councilmember Moyles disagreed, stating the Council lacked the sufficient level of trust necessary
to delegate this task to the Mayor; this was a policy question, not a personal matter. Mayor Ander-
son had stated in the "Saratoga News" she had preconditions to signing a Freeway Agreement
which Councilmember Moyles did not share; he wished to see a representative who shared his
L:~fizspective. ff expediting the process was the concern, he suggested the City Manager report to the
Council any discussions held or recommendations made.
Councilmember Clevenger noted that voters favored an interchange; the voters had spoken. Mayor
Anderson would act as a messenger between the Traffic Authority and the Council regarding the
planning of this interchange in Saratoga.
Councilmember Peterson stated that he had a fundamental problem with the above suggestion; he
felt that at the least, those favoring the interchange ought to be represented.
Mayor Anderson cited the role of a representative; she assured the Council that she would represent
the consensus of the Council. She noted the Council's responsibility to the citizens of Saratoga.
Councilmember Peterson interjected that there was not a consensus of the Council on this issue.
Councilmember Moyles hoped there was no significant disagreement on this issue; however, the
Council did not have the consensus given to the former Mayor Hlava. A position was adopted by
the Council and presented by Ms. Hlava in her role as the Councirs representative; in this instance,
the voters had over ruled the Council; it was only logical and consistent from a voter's perspective,
that the advocates for the change be responsible' for implementing such. To ask an anti-freeway,
anti-interchange majority on the Council to design the City's interchange was unnatural.
Councilmember Moyles cited post election statements of Mayor Anderson printed in the "Saratoga
News" and felt the Mayor would not subordinate her personal views. Residents along Saratoga-
Sunnyvale Rd. had taken offense at being called "enemies;" in addition, citizens who supported
FACS resented being characterized by the Mayor as dishonest people. Because such statements '
were made, the Mayor's role as representative of the entire community was severely limited.
Perhaps the Mayor was not the best representative of the Council or residents of Saratoga.
Councilmember Stutzman responded that he had great confidence in Mayor Anderson; she would
not have been chosen mayor had she not had the intellectual integrity worthy of the position. The
Council would be making the final decision; the role of representative was an advisory one. He
was confident that Mayor Anderson could act as the Council's representative; to insinuate other-
wise would be to impugn her honesty. He cited Councilmember Moyles" comment printed in the
"San Jose Mercury News" on November 9, 1988, and stated that he felt that the Council had to he
very concerned about individuals living in the Saratoga Avenue area; the Mayor was very
concerned about them. Negotiations could be expedited by having only one representative.
MOYLES MOVED TO NOMINATE COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON AS THE REPRESEN-
TATWE FOR DISCUSSIONS ON AMENDMENTS TO THE FREEWAY AGREEMENT.
There was no second to this Motion.
CLE'VENGER/STUTZMAN MOVED TO NOMINATE MAYOR ANDERSON AS THE
COUNCIL'S REPRESENTATWE FOR DISCUSSIONS ON AMENDMENTS TO THE FREE-
WAY AGREEMENT.
MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 4
NOVEMBER 16, 1988
OLD BUSINESS Continued
Mayor Anderson stated that even though she was known to be an opponent of Rouie 85, she could
fairly represent the community at large in negotiations to take place in the spring. The Council had
the interests of the entire community at heart; those who opposed the freeway had made
constructive comments and criticisms during the process. It was important that the Representative
be someone who would look out for the interests of those living near the interchange area. She
would have such interests at heart more than an individual who simply favored the interchange.
Councilmember Peterson agreed with Councilmember Moyles' concerns; the fact that three
members of the Council were apparently unwilling to place someone favoring the interchange on
the negotiating team was highly suspicious.
Councilmember Moyles added that it seemed apparent it was more important to exclude an individ-
ual favorable to the interchange. He offered an amendment to Councilmember Clevenger's Motion
and strongly urged approval of the Amended Motion.
MOYLES/PETERSON MOVED TO AMEND THE MOTION NOMINATING MAYOR ANDER-
SON AS THE COUNCIL'S REPRESENTATIVE FOR DISCUSSIONS ON AMENDMENTS
TO THE FREEWAY AGREEMENT, ADDING COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON AS A
SECOND REPRESENTATIVE ON THE NEGOTIATING TEAM.
Councilmember Clevenger felt that too much was being made of the. question of Representative to
the Freeway Agreement negotiations; Mayor Anderson would not be designing the interchange.
She added that she had seen similar situations where an issue was made of the representative; she
did not intend to make such the issue in this case. The issue before the .Council ~vas how the
proposed interchange was to be designed, not who represented the City.
Mayor Anderson called for a Vote on the Amendment to the Motion.
Failed, 2-3, Mayor Anderson, Councilmembers Clevenger Stutzman dissenting.
Mayor Anderson called for a Vote on the Motion to appoint Mayor Anderson as the Council's
Representative for the negotiating team on the Freeway Agreement Amendments.
Passed 3-2, Councilmembers Moyles, Peterson dissenting.
Councilmember Moyles assured citizens favoring an interchange that he would participate in
discussionsas South Zone Representative; those who shared his concerns, which
included safety of pedestrians and residents adjacent to the freeway, would be adequately repre-
sented. If in fact, the Mayor entered discussions without reservation or equivocation as she sug-
gested, there: would be no remaining disagreement; however, assurances of such were appropriate.
Councilmember Moyles raised a policy question, namely, it had been suggested in print that
Saratoga would not accept an interchange if adjacent cities did not also accept one; he disagreed
with such a condition, adding that voters had not been asked to enumerate conditions. To place
conditions which preceded compliance with the voter's mandate would be inappropriate and
inconsistent with the previous attitude of this Council; he objected to a position, pretending the City
could dictate the acceptance of interchanges in adjacent cities when the City had been the lead pro-
ponent of other cities not telling Saratoga what to do within city limits.
· Mayor Anderson responded that statements referred to were campaign comments; she confirmed
that such statements were not made as a representative of the Council.
Councilmember Moyles asked that if a Public Hearing were being considered on amendments to
the Freeway Agreement, a date be set at this time.
Consensus reached that a Public Hearing be held January 18, 1988.
Mayor Andermn proceeded to Public Hearings.
8. PUBLIC ItEARINGS:
A. Reversion to acreage of a 2916 sq. ft. vacant lot and a 23,824 sq. ft. lot developed with a
single family home. The reversion is required in order to construct a detached garage for
the residence on the same site as the residence at 19180 Austin Way in the R-I-40,000
zoning district. (Applicant, Goss) (SD 88-014)
MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 5
NOVEMBER 16, 1988
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued
The City Engineer reviewed the Report Re: Charles Goss, Approve Reversion to Acreage.
The Public Hearing was then opened. There were no speakers.
MOYLES/PETERSON MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. Passed 5-0.
CLEVENGER/MOYLES MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 2523 REVERTING TO
ACREAGE CERTAIN ASSESSORS PARCELS NO. 510-6-12 AND 510-6-56 AND MAKING
FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOE Passed 5-0.
Mayor Anderson returned to Old Business.
B. Kocher Final Map Approval (Continued from November 2, 1988)
Item Continued to December 7, 1988, pending receipt of information from the Applicant.
C. Selection of Executive Search Firm for City Engineer Recruitment
The City Manager updated the Council on the status of researching an Executive Search Firm for
the recruitment of a new City Engineer; he recommended the contract be awarded to the firm of
Hughes, Heiss and Associates located in
CLEVENGER/MOYLES MOVED TO AWARD THE CONTRACT TO HUGHES, HEISS AND
ASSOCIATES IN THE RECRUITMENT OF A NEW CITY ENGINEER. Passed 5-0.
D. Rule 20 A Underground Utility Conversions (Continued from November 2, 1988)
The City Engineer reviewed the Report to the Mayor and the City Council dated November 9, 1988.
Councilmember Clevenger favored undergrounding utilities at the following locations: Side street
off Big Basin Way, Oak Street - Full length between Highway 9 and Sixth Street, Saratoga-Los
Gatos between Blaney Plaza and Oak Place; Councilmember Peterson concurred.
MOYLES/CLEVENGER MOVED TO APPROVE THE UNDERGROUNDING OF UTILITBES
AT THE FOLLOWING LOCATIONS: SIDE STREET OFF BIG BASIN WAY, OAK STREET -
FULL LENGTH BETWEEN HIGHWAY 9 AND SIXTH STREET, SARATOGA-LOS GATOS
BETWEEN BLANEY PLAZA AND OAK PLACE. Passed 5-0.'
E. Resolution 2499.1 Appointing Member of Route 85 Aesthetic Review Committee
MOYLES/PETERSON MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 2499.1 AMENDING RESOLU-
TION 2499 APPOINTING COUNCILMEMBER CLEVENGER AS A MEMBER OF ROUTE 85
AESTHETIC REVIEW COMMITTEE. Passed 5-0.
7. NEW BUSINESS:
A. Resolution 2522 Accepting 1989-91. Housing Assistance Plan
Administrative Assistant King reviewed the Report Re: Resolution Accepting Three-year Housing
Assistance Plan.
PETERSON/CLEVENGER MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2522 ACCEPTING A THREE-
YEAR HOUSING ASSISTANCE PLAN FOR 1989-91, PURSUANT TO TITLE I OF THE
HCDA OF 1974, AS AMENDED. Passed 5-0.
B. Appeal of Administrative Denial of Permit to Sell Concealed Weapons (R. Yuen, Applicant)
Community Services Director Argow reviewed the Report Re: Denial of Permit Application to Sell
Concealable Weapons dated November 16, 1988.
Mayor Anderson recognized the following speaker.
MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 6
NOVEMBER 16, 1988
NEW BUSINESS Continued
Mr. Richard Yuen, Appellant, commented as follows:
Reviewed the history of his business, formerly established in his home in Mountain View
With respect to Municipal Code Section 15-40.010, Subsection (a), he stated that he did not
stock hand guns on his premises; the only time such was on the premises was when the pro-
spective buyer was ready to make the purchase
With respect to Subsection (k), he did not advertise or place signs on his property
There were no problems with neighbors in Mountain View
In response to questions of the-Council he reviewed the types of merchandise sold and
presented a scenario of a typical transaction
Confirmed that he had a full time job; the business in question was a very small operation
Stated that he could possibly work out an arrangement with the police department to store the
merchandise prior to the buyer taking possession of the item
The City Manager stated that the only way the City could determine whether or not a violation had
occurred would be if a complaint were received; in addition, the method of operation was not
consistent with Municipal Code Section 15-40.010 which did not permit the storage of manufac-
tured items for any period of time.
Councilmember Clevenger questioned whether allowing this request would set a precedent; in
addition, Such an operation would be very difficult to monitor.
The City .Attorney stated that the Home Occupation Ordinance was designed for the crafts person
who manufactured a product in the home. The Ordinance did not intend the home to be used as a
vehicle for commercial sales transactions; such could be construed as a retail operation. With
respect to whether this operation carried stock in trade,.a fine distinction may be made for the short
length of time the merchandise was on the premises; however, the requirement that products were
· to be manufactured on the premises reflected the intent of the Ordinance. Such was the reason
Staff took the position of denying the application; however, there was no objection to Mr. Yuen
handling the paper work for this operation in his home.
Councilmember Moyles stated that the product itself was not the basis for his decision; however,
the administrative denial of this application could not be overturned without proof of where the
merchandise was to be stored off site.
The City Manager stated that the intent of a Home Occupation Ordinance was to differentiate a
commercial and residential use of a property; if an individual were allowed to use residential pro-
perty in the same manner as a commercial property, the distinction was blurred. He felt that the
spirit and intent of the law would be breached by such a use; the City Attorney concurred.
Councilmember Peterson would uphold a denial unless he were absolutely satisfied that only paper
work was being done on site; evidence satisfactory to Staff would have to be presented.
MOYLES/PETERSON MOVED TO DENY THE APPEAk UPHOLDING THE DECISION TC
DENY THE APPLICATION FOR A PERMIT TO SELL CONCEALABLE WEAPONS. Passed
C. Authorization for Publicity for Upcoming Hearings '- Paul Masson, Tentative Maps
Ordinance, Intrusion Alarm Ordinance, Achkar Appeal, I.~xkrone Appeal, Bowie Appeal
The City Manager reviewed the Report of November 7, 1988.
Consensus reached to accept Staff Recommendation on Publicity for Upcoming Hearings.
D. Review and comment on County Transit Comprehensive Operational Analysis Report
Planner Young summarized the Memorandum Re: Santa Clara County Transit Comprehensive
Operational Analysis Report and called attention to the maps presented for review.
PETERSON/STUTZMAN MOVED TO DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE A LETTER OF
RESPONSE TO SANTA CLARA COUNTY TRANSIT.. Passed 5-0.
E. Expiring Terms on Planning Commission and Library Commission
Consensus reached to reappoint Members of the Planning 'Commission and Members of the
Library Commission who were eligible and wished to be reappointed; vacancies on the Library
Commission would be advertised as recommended by Staff.
MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 7
NOVEMBER 16, 1988
NEW BUSINESS Continued
F. Tax ContinUation Resolution required by AB 1600
Item Continued to the December 7, 1988, Meeting of the City Council.
G. Discussion of Toxics Policy Council
The City Manager reviewed discussions surrounding a proposal to create a Toxics Policy Council
and recommended that the proposal dated September 28, 1988, not be endorsed as presented.
There were no resources or funding attached to the prolYosal.
Councilmember Peterson advised the Council to accept the recommendation of the City Manager;
however, he wished to see further discussions on this issue. Mayor Anderson concurred.
CLEVENGER/MOYLES MOVED TO RECOMMEND THAT TOXICS POLICY COUNCIL NOT
BE PLACED UNDER IGC AEGIS. Passed 5-0.
H. Request for waiver of annexation of 1.26 acres of vacant hillside property in order to con-
struct one home in Santa Clara County at 15839 Hidden Hill Rd., RHS Zone (Residential,
Hillside), APN 510-24-19 (Applicant, Velinsky) (A 88-001)
Planning Director Eroslie presented the MemOrandum dated November 16, 1988. I.
Mayor Anderson recognized the following speaker.
Mr. Velinsky, Applicant, commented as follows:
Questioned services that would be provided for his tax dollar that were not already provided
Questioned the purpose of the construction tax; all properties surrounding this undeveloped
parcel had already been developed
Noted that the only 'access/egress to his property was through County roads
Noted the minimal grachng on-site that was being proposed
Councilmember Stutzman noted the small size of the proposed house; in addition, there were no
trees scheduled to be removed.
Councilmember Peterson stated that the important issue was that the City have a policy on annexa-
lion that was consistent and well defined.
Councilmember Clevenger commented that Saratoga and Monte Sereno would be meeting to deter-
mine spheres of influence, urban services boundaries and annexation policies. She did not wish to
see a similar controversy develop as had recently occurred on a LomasLn. property. She concurred
with Councilmember Peterson that the City should have a policy of annexation. The City would be
presenting an annexation policy to LAFCO in the near future; it would not be advisable to grant the
request under consideration if the City wished to be considered favorably before LAFCO.
Councilmember Moyles questioned the statement in the Memorandum stating that the Council had
indicated it was interested in annexing all properties within the urban service boundary. The last annexa-
tion waiver requesthad been denied per the neighbors request. If annexed, the parcel would
become the only property on the street annexed to the City; them would be no impact on the urban
serviced provided and the site was not on a ridgeline. He would grant the waiver requested;
however, he favored the adoption of an annexation policy.
Councilmember Stutzman saw no point annexing this solitary parcel until a policy was developed.
Mayor Anderson cited examples of unannexed homes built to unacceptable standards; she felt
strongly that this parcel should be annexed to the City in order to exercise design review controls.
Councilmember Clevenger understood that the County allowed grading during the rainy season.
Mr. Velinsky provided information on County requirements for grading; he added that he was an
architect and he wished to design the house in a way that would satisfy City requirements. He was
reluctant to pay City taxes and noted that the surrounding area was developed within the County.
Councilmember Peterson questioned the purpose of granting a waiver of annexation in this case; he
was not persuaded that there were no good masons not to control this property which was contig-
uous to City limits. The City should be aggressive in the expansion of the sphere of influence.
MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 8
NOVEMBER 16, 1988
NEW BUSINESS Continued
PETERSON/CLEVENGER MOVED TO DENY A WAIVER OF ANNEXATION AND
INSTRUCT THE APPLICANT TO APPLY FOR ANNEXATION TO THE CITY. Passed 3-2,
Councilmembers Moyles and Stutzman dissenting.
9. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS:
A. Discussion of Agenda for Joint Meeting with Parks and Recreation Commission November
22, 1988.
Councilmembers communicated to the City Manager any items they wished added to the agcnda.
B. Reports from Individual Councilmembers.
Councilmember Clcvcngcr reported on her recent visit to Japan.
She reported on the West Valley Sanitation District.
Councilmember Moylcs asked that a Resolution be prepared honoring Mr. Robert Clancoy,
Saratoga Community Access TV Foundation, upon his resignation from the Board.
ADJOURNMENT:
The Mc~ting of the City Council was adjourned at 10:15 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
u