Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-19-1989 City Council Minutes MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL DATE: Wednesday, April 19, - 1989 - 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 7:40 P.M. 2. CEREMONIAL ITEMS: A. Resolution 2562 appointing Linda Davis and Willys Peck to Heritage Preservation Com- mission and Roseann Rose to Public Safety Commission MOYLES/CLEVENGER MOVED APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 2562 APPOINTING MEM- BERS OF THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION AND HERITAGE PRESERVATION. COMMISSION. Passed 5-0. B. Administration of oath of office to above Mayor Anderson administered the Oath of Office to Ms. Davis, Mr. Peck and Ms. Rose. 3. ROUTINE MATTERS: A. Approval of Minutes: Meeting of April 5, 1989; April 11, 1989 CLEVENGERfMOYLES MOVED APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF APRIL 5, 1989, AS PRESENTED. Passed 4-0-1, Mayor Anderson abstaining. MOYLES/STUTZMAN MOVED APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF APRIL 11, 1989, AS PRESENTED. Passed 5-0. B. Approval of Warrant List: PETERSONfMOYLES MOVED APPROVAL OF THE WARRANT LIST. Passed 5-0. C. Report of City Clerk on Posting of Agenda Pursuant to Government Cede 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on April 14, 1989 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: A. Planning Commission Actions, April 12, 1989 - Noted and filed. B. Heritage PreservationCommission Minutes, March 15, 1989 - Noted and fried. C. Public Safety Commission Minutes, April 3, 1989 - Noted and fled. D. Resolution 2563 upholding Planning Commission Decision on Maynard Appeal heard April 5, 1989 E. Authorization to go to bid for Handicapped Access to Government Buildings and Curb Cuts at Saratoga Avenue and Fruitvale Avenue F. Final Acceptance of SDR 1429 and Release of Bond, Saratoga Avenue (Developer, M. Oudewaal G. Ordinance HP-16 Heritage Resource Designation for 20600 Lomita Avenue (second reading and adoption) H. Financial Report - March 1989 PETERSONfMOYLES MOVED APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT CALENDAR. Passed 5-0. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 2 APRIL 19, 1989 ' 5. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS AND THE PUBLIC: · A. Oral Communications from the Public and Commissions MS. Kathy Harrow,]-2304;Gol~ta Ave., Saratoga, requested information on the student care center at Blue Hills School; she noted that portable classroom units were located adjacent to the street. The City Attorney responding to Councilmember Clevenger's inquiry, suggested the speaker con- tact the School Board; concerns regarding the placement of the structures on-site, the site plan and architectural conskierations should be addressed to the State Architect's Office. Councilmember Clevenger suggested a representative of the Council meet with Cuper~no Union School District at the earliest possible date, to discuss the concerns raised. Mr. Jim Schnidier, 12302 Go~a Ct., Saratoga, suggested legal action be taken against Copenino Union School District; he felt the meeting scheduled for April 28, 1989, would be postponed or otherwise delayed until the neighbor s lost interest. COuncilmember Peterson advised residents to attend the School Board Meetings as a unified group. and make their concerns known; he agreed the Council should communicate with the District Ms. Janet Schnidler, 12302 GoL~a Ct., Saratoga, noted the projected increase in students in the coming year,, there were already five portable classroom units on-site. Consensus reached that Mayor Anderson and Councilmember Clevenger represent the Council in communications with Cupertino Union School District; a mutually agreeable meeting date to be set. B. Written Communications from the Public 1) Blanche Walton, 21060 Sarataga Hills Rd., suggesting that Saratoga buy Nelson property. - Noted and filed. 2) Letter from Santa Clara County Transportation Agency re commuter service study. - Recommended Motion to send draft reply adopted by consensus. 3) Steve Deitch, PRX, 255 W. Julian St., Suite 100, San Jose 95110-2406, notifying Council of signs concerning drought. No action taken. 4) Bill Carlson, 14503 Big Basin Way, requesting prohibition of smoking in all Saratoga restaurants. Consensus reached by the CoUncil to send the draft reply. 5) Susan Guch, 12091 Ph/mas Drive., resigning from the Planning Commission. Recommended action to direct Staff to post vacancy as required by law and advertise position adopted by consensus. 6) E.T. Barco, 19101 Camino Barco, with various assertions about March 28, 1989, meeting on uffiity use tax extension. Col. E.T. Barco, Camino Barco, read into the record his letter of April 19, 1989. Councilmember Peterson noted that the Council had determined the place and the meeting agenda; Councilmember Clevenger added that the Council wanted an initial meeting to asses~ the public's reaction; currently, the Council was examining the questions and concerns raised at the hearing. Councilmember Moyles stated he took exception to the characterization that Minutes of the March 281h Meeting were misleading; he felt the content accurately reflected the participant's comments. ConsensUs reached to acknowledge, receive and fde; in addition, the City would make available the mailing list for the Meeting, if Col. Barco wished to directly forward his comments to participants. Mayor Anderson proceeded to Public Hearings. 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Appeal of modification of approved plans to allow relecation of an access driveway from Quarry Road to the subject lot located in the NHR zoning district. (Appellant, W. Kohler, applicant, T. Burke) (Lot 1, Tr. 7761) MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 3 APRIL 19, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Planning Director Emslie presented the Report Re: Appeal of SDR-1356. 1, reviewed the tentative map; he suggested an added Condition that the equestrian/pedesuian trail easement be recorded. The Public Heating was opened at 8:38 P.M. Mr. WRlem Kohler, Appellant, commented as follows: - Explained the sketch attached to his letter and presented copies of the geological map - Reviewed discussions held at the Planning Commission hearings and noted that the only con- sideration at that hearing was the proposed use on-site; no one considered the original sites - Stated that he would not like to see the remaining trees on-site removed - Suggested that the Commission should have considered a modification of the original plan - Due to the proximity of the proposed driveway to the scenic area, there would be repercussions on the adjacent, steep slope when the rains came next year - While his home was stable at present, he did not wish to see it endangered - Requested a modification to the driveway which would distance it from the steep slope - In addition, there were concerns about the equestrian trail along the quarry since the trail was very steep; an alternative design could loop the u'ail around the quarry site - Adjacent property owners agreed with his comments - Asked that the driveway not be located as approved by the Planning Commission, but rather, moved away from the quarry and the steep chop-off of the hill, and relocated toward the hillside - In addition, the equestrian trail should be modified to follow the property for about 75 ft., go around the quarry and then loop back along the proposed driveway Mr. Tom Burke, Applicant, commented as follows: - Felt the Planning Commission correctly interpreted the problem, which was an engineering one Questioned whether the original driveway could even be built; furthermore, this option would require five foot retaining walls on both side of the road - The area was heavily wooded and there was already a I~ernendous amount of grading done on- site to protect the property from slides, which were identified by the City Geologist, Mr. Cotton - The revised proposal used an 61d road, in existence ten to twenty years ago; the only substantial cutting completed at this lime was done to join the driveway to Quarry Road - With respect to the equestrian trail easements, Applicants had worked with Mr. William Brooks, Ad Hoc Trails and Pathways Committee; Applicants had been cooperative on this issue - They agreed they would try to connect the scenic trail/graded easement shown on the Tentative Map to other trails in the area; however, such was not a requirement of Tentative Map approval - This trail was surveyed by Wesffall Engineers and staked; the Ad Hoc Committee viewed the proposed location, which was later approved by the Parks and Recreation Commission - The Appellant seemed concerned that the modified driveway location would affect the slope, and through some sort of chain reaction, endanger his property; the main point the Applicant wished to make was that the Geologist's Report pointed out that there was no cut for the driveway on the quarry sate; the cut was made into three feet of fill - The distance between the driveway and the steep side of the quarry was 80 ft., from the property line, another 40 ft., and an additional 50 ft. to Mr. Kohler's house; it was difficult to conceive how the location of the modified driveway would threaten the Appellant's property - In addition, drainage would run along the uphill/inside of the driveway, in some sort of swale or gutter, it was a normal construction practice not to allow water to flow over the outside, or down a hill side; none of the water from the impervious surface would go toward the quarry - ' The cut into the hillside would be a fairly minor cut Mayor Anderson questioned whether the equestrian trail could be located between Lots 1 and 2; she was concerned the trail as proposed would cut deeply into Lot 1, adjacent to the building pad. Mr. Burke responded that such had been approVed by the Parks and Recreation Committee, but he had no objection to the suggestion to relocate the trail. Mr. George Tobin, Attorney for the Applicant, commented as follows: Estimated the distance between the site in question and Mr. Kohler's property to be 1200 ft.; the Appellant gave the impression that his property was an adjacent site Reviewed the site history; the issue under consideration was undoubtedly an engineering error The modification proposed was an environmentally better solution than the original approach Asked that the decision of the Planning Commission be upheld Mr. William Peretti, 13485 Old Oak Way, Saratoga, reviewed his letter of April 19, 1989, asking that no modifications or approvals be granted until the Quarry Creek Repair Project was completed. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 4 APRIL 19, 1989 ' PUBLIC HEARllqGS Continued Mr. Kohler added that this development was incompatible in parcel size with the existing neighbor- hood; furthermore, the developer had not taken care of the environment With respect to the Ad Hoc Trails and Pathways Committee, it was his understanding that Mr. Brooks and Ms. White were anxious to insure the installation of the trail; however, they would have preferred another mute. He noted the use of an old nail in the area and questioned whether prescriptive rights existed. Mr. Tobin added that there were three separate projects, namely, Quarry Creek Repair Project, Mr. Eden Estates and a four lot subdivision on Borrow Hill; consideration of these other projects was irrelevant to this discussion. Mr. Burke confirmed that the trail easement would be recorded with the Revised Tentative Map. CLEVENGER/PETERSON MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:09 P.M. Passed 5-0. Councilmember Clevenger suggested the following compromise: - - Agreed with the Applicant that the location of the original driveway was not the best placement; too many Oak trees would be lost and it appeared to be very steep - With regard to the proposed location of the driveway, the Appellant oorrecfiy identified the fact that the driveway would be very close to the steep slope - The problem was that this was a site with no good access; the best option was to shift the chive- way 6-10 ft. toward the hillside, removing the access away from the drop off of the hillside - The Appellant's concerns were valid; there had been a number of slides in the hillside area - Erosion of the hill would cut away the base of the Appellant's site; this was a reasonable concern - The driveway could be posi~oned in a way to save an existing Oak ave - The Appellant was correct that the equestrian trail that had been staked, was too steep; further- more, a fence should be installed between the driveway and the trail for the safety of the horses - Suggested consideration of a driveway surface that would be penetrable to absorb the ranoff - Asked that an easement be recorded for the equestrian trail Councilmember Peterson noted that this proposal require a minimum of five foot retaining walls; Councilmember Clevenger responded that shifting the access removed it from the scenic easement . Mayor Anderson asked the Planning Commission and the Ad Hoc Trails and Pathways Committee to cgnsider possible relocation of the trail between on the property line rather than through Lot 1. Mr. Burke responded that the area between Lot 1 and 2 was too steep to use for an equestrian trail; this was What was wrong with the location of the original driveway. Councilmember Snilu,an commented as follows: An ex post facto request presented to the Planning Commission for approval was disconcerting; he suggested stringent restrictions be placed on this development to prevent further violations Contested the Claim that an old mad existed in this area Agreed with the Appellant that the modified driveway was very Close to his property; he had walked the short distance to the Appellant's home Noted that the Appellant had considerable concern regarding the steep slope adjacent to his site; any destabilizafion of the hillside would have a severe impact on his property In addition, the equestrian trail as proposed was unnavigable in all but optimum conditions; the trail would have to be modified to have a more gradual incline Favored Councilmember Clevenger'_s proposal to shift the driveway a minimum of 6-10 ft.; in addition, the equestrian trail would have to be modified in order for him to approve this item Finally, a penetrable surface on the equestrian trail would be essential; the addition of another retaining was was not significant in an area were many retaining walls had been installed In response to Councilmember Moyles' question, the City Manager suggested that location of the equestrian trail be determined and staked by the City, and then surveyed by an engineer, secondly, he suggested a Condition be placed on the Tentative Map, which stated that failure to build to the required plan and the Conditions of Approval, herein and after, would carry a liquidated damages penalty in the mount of $500. per day. Councilmember Moyles commented as follows: Favored the City Manager's recommendation for the equestrian trail Agreed that an ex post facto request for a modification of the chiveway was disconcerting If the original location was to the City's advantage, he would not hesitate to approve it; how- ever, it was the Planning Commission's decision that this was not to the City's advantage ~ Noted the City's reluctance to cut Oak trees, as well as cuttinginto the hillsides and installing retaining walls; the solutions proposed required one or the other of the above actions MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 5 APRIL 19, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued The City Manager advised that it would be better to err on the side of safety; the further the drive- way and the equeswian trail could be shifted away from a precipitous slope, the better. Regardless of the drainage facilities or penetrable surfaces installed, increasing the distance between the drive- way and the slope improved the earth's ability to absorb water and reduced the risk of erosion. He suggested the outside edge of the trail be a minimum 10 ft. from the slope and the driveway a minxmum of 18 ft. Staff could be directed to present revised plans and to prepare a Resolution. Councilmember Peterson agreed with the City Manager's suggestion for location of the equesu'ian trail; a relocation of the driveway appeared to be the preferred alternative. He had reservations about the use of a permeable surface for the driveway; such could be properly engineered to channel runoff. Finally, he objected to a fence s'mce he did not envision heavy usage of the trails. Consensus reached to require a low-lying fence between the driveway and the equestrian trail, with Councilmember Peterson dissenting, shifting the driveway toward the hillside per recommendation of the City Manager, with consideration given to the use of a penetrable coverage for the driveway. In addition, the Resolution would include a Condition for liquidated damages. The City Attorney asked that the Applicant's engineer comment on the suggestion for use of a' penetrable Coverage on the driveway in relationship to the proposed drainage facilities. Councilmember Clevenger noted that she did not wish the Conditions imposed by the Planning Commission to be removed. CLEVENGER/ANDERSON MOVED TO MODIFY THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AS FOLLOWS: TO REQUIRE THAT THE EQLYESTRIAN TRAIL BE A MINI- MUM OF 10 FEET FROM THE TOP OF THE SLOPE, THE DRIVEWAY SHIFTED TOWARD THE HILLSIDE WITH A MINIMUM OF 18 FEET FROM THE TOP OF THE SLOPE, THAT A LOW-LYInG FENCE BE INSTALLED BETWEEN THE DRIVEWAY AND THE TRAIL, wrrH CONSIDERATION GIVEN TO PENETRABLE COVERAGE ON THE DRIVEWAY AND IN- CLUDING A CONDITION FOR LIQUIDATED DAMAGES IN THE AMOUNT OF FIVE HUNDRED ($500.00) DOLLARS PER DAY. STAFF WAS DIRECTED TO PREPARE A RESOLUTION TO BE PRESENTED AT THE MAY 3, 1989, CITY COUNCIL MEETING. Passed 5-0. Mayor Anderson asked that a stares report be prepared by Staff regarding Mr. Peretti's complaints; Counc'ilmember Clevenger concurred. The City Attorney responded that a meeting scheduled the following day would address the concerns of Mr. Peretti. Break: 9:44 - 9:58 P.M. B. Appeal of conditional use permit approval to operate a dog and cat veterinary hospital at Planning Director Emslie presented the Report Re: Appeal of UP-89-002. The Public Hearing was opened at 10:04 P.M. Ms. Jerry Kocir, Appellant, commented as follows: Stated he represented 57 residents who objected to the proposed use permit in this retail/office development; a petition was submitted in testimony of such Noted other uses in the Center, including a pizza place; the extent of odors from the veterinmy hospital was unknown The Staff Report stated that this use would generate no more traffic or demand for parking, than other retail uses emx~nfly permitted zoning district; the existing waffle gridlock was cited Compact spaces provided at this Center would be inadequate for the parking needs Staff Report had concluded that without the potential for noise impact, the use was very similar to that of a medical office eRrtie; he pointed out that animals were involuntary noise makers The operation in question would provide 24 hour service Presented slides of other veterinary facilities which were removed from residential areas as well as from'Other commercial/retail uses Staff Report .maintained that the use would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or be materially injurious; he questioned the impact of this use on their property values Added that the intent of the Center was to generate tax revenue for th~ City Concluded that residents opposed this use and the destruction of the rural character of the City MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 6 APRIL 19, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Dr. Ed Wieser, D.V.M., Applicant, commented as follows: - Noted that there had not been a new veterinary facility in the area to serve the people's needs; this clinic would add a certain amount of prestige to the area - Noted that those who opposed the use usually became pleased with the operation in a short time - In addition, their business would come from serving the needs of the neighborhood - The City had recourse through the Conditional Use Permit review process - Applicants would be making a significant financial investment in setting up the clinic and would not jeopardize their investment by angering the neighbors - Did not know of any veterinary clinic closed by the opposition of adjacent residents; clinics were good neighbors - Cited satisfactory reviews at other veterinary clinics and a recent sale of a home near a clinic Dr. Lynn Shannon, D.V.M., Applicant, reiterated that the veterinary clinic would be an asset to the community and not a problem; appropriate building materials would prevent noise impacts and hygienic practices required for all hospitals would ensure the cleanliness of the area. Examples of other veterinary clinics and the positive comments of adjacent residents were cited. Mr. Wallace Chan, Dry Clean USA, was concerned about the fact that only one dumpslet was' available for use and had been placed outside his back door, he was concerned regarding odors, hairs or other debris which might contaminate his customer's clothing. He respectfully requested that the Veterinary Clinic be required to have its own dumpster. in addition, the proposed tenant mix did not make sense; he understood a pizza parlor would also occupy space in the Center. Dr. Wieser, responding to Councilmember Clevenger's question, stated that a floor to ceiling wall would be installed between their space and the adjacent tenant space; in addition, the area would be insulated for sound. The clinic would dispose of trash in closed plastic bags; disposal of medical waste was stric~y regulated by the State. Dr. Shannon added that animal carcasses would be disposed of separately. Ms. Lynn Paulson, Manager of Saratoga Oaks Center, stated that the dumpster would be emptied as needed; it was the responsibility of tenants to keep the lid closed. The pizza operation was aware of the proposed veterinary clinic. She cited another pizza restaurant which was near a veterinary clinic; conversations with the owner confirmed that they had no complaint about the clinic. Mr. Romero, Pierce Rd., Saratoga, felt the dogs would create noise and pollution; he noted that his neighbor's dogs disturbed him on occasion. He felt health problems would be created from placing food and animals in close proximity; dogs or cats were not allowed in food stores. Mr. Mark Kocir, 12795 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd., Saratoga, noted that 95% of the residents were opposed to the veterinary clinic; this was the issue that the Council had to consider. Mr. Jerry Kocir contended that the Applicant had about eight franchises; other veterinary clinic were in separate buildings and/or on a third or quarter acre sites. From his business contacts with similar clinics, he understood the situation and strenuously objected to this use at the Center. Dr. Shannon responded that Dr. Wieser did not have eight franchises; he currently owned one veterinary hospital and had helped start another. CLEVENGER/STUTZMAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:37 P.M. Passed 5-0. Councilmember Stutzman stated he had no objection to veterinary hospitals; in contacts with these operations, he had found them clean, well maintained and quiet. However, he felt strongly that residents should have some say about the composition of their neighborhood; while they may in- . correctly pemeive a clinic operation, their rights had to be respected. He cited the number of resi- dents who objected to the use; for this reason, he was adverse to approving the use at this Center. Councilmember Moyles stated he was concerned that the neighbors may have valid complaints; however, the mechanism devised by the Planning Commission was in place. If the neighbors were right, the Conditional Use Permit would be withdrawn upon review. Councilmember Peterson concurred that the Conditional Use Permit gave the City control; further- more, he could not make a Finding on traffic. While he had some concern about noise impacts, this was not a boarding kennel and noise could be mitigated. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 7 APRIL 19, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Councilmember Peterson added that with respect to the issue of collecting sales tax, the market today was orientated toward service businesses and was directed at a community, rather than retail use only. If the City allowed a strip commercial/retail center, they would have to be flexible in terms of directing the market. While he shared the neighbor's concerns, he noted for the record that if valid complaints arose, the Conditional Use Permit would be withdrawn. CounciLmember Cievenger confirmed that preserving and enhancing the quality of Saratoga neigh- borhoods was her first priority; she had agreed with the Appellant on other issues. However, she had spoken with a business owner who was adjacent to a veterinary clinic and he confirmed that noise from the operation could not be heard 25 ft. from the building; she was convinced that the Applicants would be good neighbors. The Conditional Use Permit provided the necessary safe- guards and there was a need in the community for good veterinary care. Mayor Anderson agreed that traffic generated by the veterinary clinic would not be greater than other retail uses in the Center; she concurred with Councilmember Peterson that the City would have to be flexible in terms of determining appropriate commercial uses. She had carefully re- viewed the correspondence submitted and had visited two veterinary clinics; neither clinic had a barking dog. In the view of other clinic managers, the key was not boarding healthy animals; in. addition, adjacent businesses were interviewed and they confumed that only momentary noises were emitted from the clinic. MOYLES/CLEVENGER MOVED TO UFHOLD THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COM- MISSION ON UP-89-002, DENYING THE APPEAL. Passed 4-1, Councilmember Smtzman dissenting. The Council returned to Old Business. 6. OLD BUSINESS: A. Saratoga Avenue Interchange Design Options The City Manager reviewed the Memorandum of Jim Ogren/Mike Zabaneh, Bissell & Karn, Inc., Re: Interchange Confi_L, urations at Rout 85/Samto_~a Avenue. dated April 14, 1989. Councilmember Peterson noted the benefits for the City of Alternative 1, the diamond interchange. Councilmember Clevenger agreed, but she suggested that public testimony be taken on this issue. The City Manager responded that there would be a hearing May 8, 1989, at which time the Traffic Authority would be making a presentation on the alternative interchange designs. Consensus reached that the City Manager ask the Traffic Authority to be prepared to discuss Alter- native 1, the diamond interchange, at the May 8th Meeting, 7:00 P.M. 7. NEW BUSINESS: A. Discussion of Flag Lot Ordinance PETERSON/CLEVENGER MOVED TO ADOPT AN INTERIM ORDINANCE ESTABLISH- ING A MORATORIUM ON THE APPROVAL OF CERTAIN FLAG LOTS, PENDING A STUDY OF PROBLEMS CREATED BY SUCH LOTS AND THE POSSIBLE ADOPTION OF NEW REGULATIONS TO CONTROL THE SAME. Councilmember Moyles questioned the urgency of passing the Flag Lot Ordinance; the proposed action of an urgency ordinance was extraordinary and not within the normal course of busIness. Planning Director Eroslie presented the Report Re: Urgency Ordinance to Impose a Moratorium 9R the Creation of New Fla~ Lots in the R-1 Zoning District: he reviewed discussions of the Planning CommiSSiOn. Upon rcview Of the record, eight flag lots applications had been received since 1988. Councilmember Moyles noted the limited number of flag lots created, namely four, one of which involved a historical home, approval of which was favored by the both the Council and neighbors. The creation of three flag lots in sixteen months was not a flood of approvals; the majority of requests were denied during the due course of business which indicated that the standards in place were adequate to the task. While he did not dispute the Ordinance objective, he had reservations regarding its urgency; any policy change required that individuals affected by such were entitled to the usual noticing and due process. Individuals ought to be given a change to utilize the laws as presently written; such was fair play. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 8 APRIL 19, 1989 NEW BUSINESS Continued Councilmember Clevenger felt an urgency existed and noted the previous deliberations of the Council on the item. When the Design Review Ordinance was considered, an unprecexlented num- ber of applications were received prior to the deadline; the City wished to avoid a similar situation. In response to Councilmember Peterson's question on the Planning Commission's considerations, Commissioner Harris responded that the Commission wished to have the time to deliberate the item. Councilmember Moyles noted that the Council, Commission and Staff were of similar mind to tighten the restrictions; however, he miterated his concern that due process be observed. Mayor Anderson noted thai the City was swamped with applications when the Design Review Or- dinance was being considered. The City Manager added that a reoccurrence of a similar situation was Staffs concern in recommending the adoption of an Urgency Ordinance establishing a moratorium on the creation of flag lots. Councilmember Peterson called for a Vote on the Motion (four-fifths vote required for approval). ' Failed 3-2, Mayor Anderson, Councilmember Moyles dissenting. ANDERSON/CLEVENGER MOVED TO CONTINUE THE URGENCY ORDINANCE TO MAY 17, 1989. Passed 5.0. B. Authorization for Publicity for Hearing on Heritage Resource Designation on Big Basin Way and Flag Lot Ordinance PETERSON/CLEVENGER MOVED TO AUTHORIZE THE PUBLICITY FOR UPCOMING HEARINGS AS RECOMMENDED. Passed 5-0. C. Authorization for staff to negotiate with Collishaw Construction to construct Handicap Picnic Area at Quito Park. MOYLES/PETERSON MOVED TO AUTHORIZE STAFF TO NEGOTIATE WITH COLLISHAW CONSTRUCTION, INC., .CONTRACTOR TO CONSTRUCT HANDICAP PICNIC AREA AT QU1TO PARK. Passed 5-0. D. Resolutions 2564 and 2564.1 in connection with Landscaping and Lighting District LLA- 1 (Existing) MOYLES/PETERSON MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 2564 DESCRIBING IMPROVE- MENTS AND DIRECTING PREPARATION OF ENGINEER'S REPORT FOR HSCAL YEAR 1989-1990. Passed 5-0. CLEVENGER/MOYLES MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 2564.1 APPOINTING AT- TORNEYS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1989-1990. Passed 5-0. E. Resolutions 2565 and 2565.1 in connection with Landscaping and Lighting District LLA- 1 (Annexation) CLEVENGER/MOYLES MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 2565 DETERMINING TO UNDERTAKE PROCEEDINGS FOR THE ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY TO AN EXIST- ING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT KNOWN AS "CITY OF SARATOGA LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT LLA-I" PURSUANT TO THE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972. Passed 5-0. CLEVENGER/PETERSON MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 2565.1 APPOINTING ATTORNEYS TO CONDUCT PROPOSED ANNEXATION NO. 1989-1 TO CITY OF SARATOGA LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT LLA-1. Passed 5-0. F. Resolution 2566 Adopting Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program MOYLES/ANDERSON MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2566 ADOPTING DIS- ADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE PROGRAM. Passed 5-0. · 9. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS: A. Reports from Individual Councilmembers · The Council received a draft of a letter for Assemblyman Quackenbush to ~e~_nd to the Attorney General concerning a request for an opinion on continuation of the Utility User Tax. There was consensus 'to au'~horize the _Mayor to spend $125 to $150 to purchase a gift for the Japanese sister cit~y when she visits MukO-shi in May. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 9 APRIL 19, 1989 CITY COUNCIL ITEMS Continued Councilmember Clevenger asked that a letter be sent on the Muko-shi Montalvo Exhibit Reception. Councilmember Moyles reported on recent events surrounding the construction of Route 85. The Meeting of the City Council was adjoumed at 11:45 P.M. l