Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-04-1990 City Council MinutesTIME: Wednesday, April 4, 1990 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Ave. TYPE: Regular Meeting 1. ROLL C.~T.T. Councilmembers Anderson, Moyles, Stutzman and Mayor Clevenger present at 7:30 p.m. Councilmember Peterson was absent due to a death in his family. 2. CEREMONIAL ITEMS A. Proclamations for ~he Last Pop Mayor Clevenger reported that the Proclamations will be given out at a later date. 3. ROUTINE MA~TERS A. Approval of Minutes - 3/21 Mayor Clevenger pointed out that on Page 6, the last paragraph should reference Mr. "Sudsw. Councilmember Anderson amended the last sentence of paragraph 4 on Page 4 to read and that the Applicant be requested to reduce the "appearance of b~lk". Councilmember Anderson pointed out that on Page 9, paragraph 3 under Item 9 should reference Nancy wCrampton". STUTZMAN/MOYLES MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MARCH 21, 1990 AS AMENDED. Passed 4-0 (Peterson absent). B. Approval of WaZTant List ANDERSON/MOYLES MOVED TO APPROVE AS SUBMITTED. Passed 4-0 (Peterson absent ). C. Reper~ of City Clerk on Posting of A~enda Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on March 30. 4. CONSMN~ CAT.~DAR A. Planning Commission A~tions, 3/28 - Noted and filed. B. Finance Advisoz7 Committee Minutes, 3/22 - Noted and filed. C. ~eritage Preservation Commission Ni),~,~es, 3/7 - Noted and filed. D. Library Commission Minutes, 3/29 - Noted and filed. E. PUblic Safety Commission Minutes, 3/12 - Noted and filed. F. Saratoga Co~uaity Access CATV Fot,~a~ion Board of Directors Minutes, 2/20 - Noted and file~o' G. Authorization for one staff member ana %~o comssioners to attend Historic Preservation Conference, April 25-28, in San Francisco H. Resolution No. 2639 reversing Planning Commission Decision on Ng appeal heard 3/21 I. Resolution No. 2640 upholding Planning Co~ission Decision on Blum appeal heard 3/21 J. Proclamation declaring AAUW We~ in Saratoga City Council Minutes 2 April 4, 19~0 K.. Report on Status of SD 88-O06 and Pierce Rd. Improvements in.response to letter from Steve de Keczer L.. Appointment of City Surveyor M. Acceptance of Grant of Easement from Neale; Authorization for Mayor to sign Agreement with Neale for temporary 'construction easement N. Approval of Storm Drainage Agreement for Tr. 8311 and Authorization for City Manager to execute Agreement ' ] O~ Approval of Agreement with Santa Clara Valley Dischargers · to Implement a Non-POint Source Control Progain and Authorization for City Manager to execute Agreement Councilmember Stutzman pulled item 4A, and Councilmember Anderson 'ipulled items 4B and 4I from the Consent Calendar. MOYLES/ANDERSON MOVED TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR WITH EXCEPTION OF ITEMS 4A, 4B, AND 4I. Passed 4-0 (Peterson absent). · Regarding the Planning Commission Actions of 3/28/90, Consent Calendar item 4A, Councilmember Stutzman asked for clarification of the basis for the~granting of slope variances on locations which exceed a 30% .'slope for items 9 and 12. Mr. Steve EmSlie, Planning Director, explained that the variance on ~Diamond OaksCt, Item 9, was granted because there is no area within the lot' which has less than a 30% slope that can be deveioped. · ,. VarianCe was granted because of this unusual circumstance. The variance for Item 12, on Saratoga Hills Rd., was granted because of the same unusual circumstance. Regarding .item 4B on the Consent Calendar, Councilmember Anderson requested an update on the Finance Advisory's review of the .City ~oUncil's expense allowance. Mr. Harry Peacock, city Manager, reported that the Committee is scheduled to meet on April 7 to discuss the matter.- :" .' Regarding'item 4I, Councilmember Anderson requested clarification from. Mr. Hal Toppel, City Attorney as to what constitutes a "de novo" public hearing. Mr. Toppel stated that "de novo" means that if someone appeals an approval, then the end%re approval is opened. In this particular issue, the design' review request was approved and the variance request was denied. Subseqhently, the Applicant appealed the denial of'the variance. Mr. Toppel.said he would have concerns about re-opening the design review because that issue was not before the Council at the March 21 City Council Meeting. Mr. Toppel and Mr. Peacock agreed that this particular case was unusual. Mayor Clevenger suggested that Council discuss the issue of what constitutes a "de novo" hearing at a city council study Session. F0!lowing discussion, there was CONSENSUS TO DIRECT. THAT IN THE FUTURE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION NOT SEP~TE THE DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL AND VARIANCE APPROVAL BUT CON~IDER~THEM[AS ONE APPLICATIQN. MOYLES/ANDERSON MOVED !DPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR .ITEMS 4A, 4B, AND 4r.-Passed 4-0 {Peterson absent). 5- COMMUNICATIONS FR~EI CO~NISEIOMS AND THE PUBLIC - A. ORAL CO]~YNICATIONS vic Monia,'Granite Way, spoke of the'importance of having the Saratoga Community Access Television Station provide coverage of a debate by the candidates and their positions on the issues.in the upcoming election. He reported·several methods of coverage whichMr. Todd Argow, Community Services Director informed him of. He felt it is improper for the Station City Council Minutes 3 April 4, 1990 to televise forums sponsored by any political action committee such as the Good Government Group and urged Council to assure the City and its citizens are served well through a suitable format for public airing of candidates' views and positions. He said that denial of opposing candidates' free speech rights on major community issues could be interpreted as an aide to the incum- bents and the status quo. Mr. Monia asked that this issue be delivered by Council's Representative to the Cable Television Board to which Mayor Clevenger replied that the issue will be discussed under Councilmember's Reports. Luanne Nieman addressed the Council regarding the Cocciardi/Chadwick hillside development. She stated it is unreasonable that a decision was made not to revegetate the area until fall. She pointed out that the Stop Work Order posted last November stated that the hillside must be restored to its original condition before further work could be done and reported that, at this point in time, no restoration has been done except in the direction of the development. Mayor Clevenger stated no such decision had been made .and that the City is pursuing its options in court because the developer has not offeredrto do the restoration. Mr. peacock reported this matter is coming back to Council on May 2 for determination as to whether or not these nuisance abatements should be done by the City. Mrs. Nieman objected to the time frame'which the City must walt to abate the nuisance and said she feels the City has given preference to the developer and his rights. She pointed out that she also has rights. Mr. Toppel reported the matter is proceeding both in criminal and civil courts. The developers are submitting plans for restoration and revegetation of the area and the matter is proceeding in a legal manner. He invited Mrs. Nieman to call on him for further discussion. Mayor Clevenger moved the agenda to Public Hemrings, since the hour of 8:00 p.m. had passed. 8. PUBLICHEA~INf=S A. Appeal of denial of design review approval to construct a 736sC~. ft. second floor add~tiontoxnexis~lngone-story home at 20334 Thelma Ave. for a total .of 3,481 sq. ft. in the R-l-10,000 zone district (Appellant/applicant, Pool) (DR 88-102) (continued from 3-21) There being noobjection, Mayor Clevenger continued this item to April 18, 1990 at the reques~ of the Applicant. B. Appeal of denial of design review approval' to construct a 637 sq. ft. second story addition to an existing one-story hc~e at 18851 Ansley Place for a total of '3367 sq. ft. in the B-l-10,000 zone district ( Appellant/applicant, Levin)(Da89-124) Mr. Emslie reported the Planning Conunission denied the plans on the finding that the proposed second-story addition was incompatible with the predominantly one-story neighborhood. Staff believes it is important for Council to investigate all feasible alternatives to mitigate compatibility concerns raised and believee that mitigation of privacy and visual impact concerne can be worked out by reduction of and glazing of the windows and with additional landscapinq. Mrs. Virginia Fsnelli, representing Dr. and Mrs. Levin, requested approval of the addition as it meets all zoning ordinance re- quirements and is compatible with the existing home, the sur- rounding homes and meets all design criteria guidelines. She explained that the addition is within the allowable height limit for a one-story home, which is twenty-two feet, and went on to explain the design of the addition which the applicant believes does not impact neighbors' privacy. She pointed out the Planning Commission Minutes indicate that the Commission did not consider the design issue but instead focused on the question of whether there should be any more two-story homes in the area. The Planning Commission denied the City Council Minutes ~ April 4, 1990 applicant's request for a continuance to allow neighbors in favor of two-story homes to express their p6sition. Mrs. Fanelli referred to a map depicting 28, two-story homes within the homeowner's association boundary, ~seven of which are within 1 1/2 'blocks of the Levin's home. She referred to letters in the meeting packet supporting the addition and[said she believes if the Planning Commission wishes to limit certain areas to one-story homes, it should notify residents, hold hearings, and take the proper zoning actions so · the restrictions are clearly stated in the future. She requested approval of the original design width the greenhouse window and with the additionallandscaping as required. Mayor Clevenger opened the Public ~earing at 8:20 p.m. John Lundell, 18951 Ansley Place, Raid his concern is not about the details.of the design, but that is~more concerned with the impact of tWo-story additions in ~Saratoga Woods. He presented pictures to Codncil depicting some of the homes which have been expanded but which' still conform to single-story homes'. He urged Council to affirm that the project is inappropriate for the neighborhood.~ Richard' Much, 18830 Ansley Place, objected to the proposed modifications as compromising therarchitectural design of Saratoga Woods. He distributed photographs depicting infringement of privacy, blocking of sunlight and air flow to his yard from his neighbor's home to the south of his home. He said the issue is a matter of precedence and asked what kind of criteria is Used to judge these issues and how this will be controlled in the future. Ray Simpson, President, Saratoga P~rk Woods Homeowner~s Association, .12300 Radoyka Drive, said that although he does not live in the immediate area, he has received Calls from many people from the neighborhood opposed to second-story additions. He reiterated the impact on privacy issue. In resp6nse to Councilmember Moyles, Mr. Simpson said there are 375 homes in~Saratoga Woods.. Art Bliss, 12430 Curry Court, Director of Saratoga Woods Homeowner's · Association, agreed with the findings of the Planning Commission that the structure is incompatible with the neighborhood. A polling of Saratoga Woods homeowners was taken which favored keeping single-story ranch-style homes in the neighborhood. It did not support two-story homes. ~ In response to Councilmember Moyles~question of why Mr. Bliss felt one of the Councilmembers may abstain !from voting on this issue, Mayor Clevenger stated that her husband~ and Dr. Levin are in the same Department at Kaiser Permanente Hospital. She pointed out that the FPPC reported that she could vote on this matter. She said that because she is elected by the public to participate she will do so and will be responsible for her vote. Chuck Brady, next door neighbor to the Levins, supported the addition and said he felt the' poll taken was not scientifically proposed. He explained why. He said the Levins ~are good neighbors and should not have to move simply because they require more living space. Ruth Nielson spoke in favor of' Saratoga Woods as a one-story neighborhood and said that was a~ big reason she moved into the neighborhood. She felt the privacy Of one-story homes in Saratoga must be ?~-^~,~a and expressed concern for her rights to maintain her privacy, her investment axad n~L wQy~of life. Elaine Harris, 12317 Radoyka Drive,! spoke of the Levins as concerned and good neighbors and supported the proposed addition. Marilyn Bliss, 12430 Curry Court, stated she purchased her home in Saratoga Park Woods because the CC and Rs specifically stated the development would be limited to 1 and 11/2 story homes. She urged Council not to vote to allow resident's privacy to be compromised. City Council Minutes 5 April 4, 1990 Chuck Little, 12526 Radoyka DriVe, supported the two-story addition. He felt that no one this evening seems to be objecting to the design of the home but what is at issue is that many people want a new rule which will not allow any more two-story homes in Saratoga Woods. He felt the issue should be taken up by the Council as a separate issue. He felt it unfair for the Planning Commission to make a law which is enforced when someone is halfway through the process and expense of designing an addition. He encouraged those people against two-story homes to plan a way of getting an ordinance passed that would prohibit two-story homes in Saratoga Woods in the future. He urged Council to approve the proposed plan. Chris Anders~n, 12810 Saratoga Glen Court, pointed out that only 6 months ago a two-story home in the same neighborhood was approved by the Planning Commission. He felt the project is tastefully planned and does not interfere with anyone's privacy and that review of the issue is taking up Council's valuable time to argue something which is within the Levins' rights. Mort Lenske, 18940 Easton Place, spoke in support of the proposed plans as appropriate and an enhancement to the property. He commended the architect on his care in preserving the privacy of surrounding homes in the design plans. Bob Lapsovick, 12451 Curry Court, stated he is the neighbor who will be looking at. the Levins' west wall if the addition is built. He expressed his objection to the plans as an intrusion of privacy. Janice Lenske, 18940 Easton Place, spoke in support of the proposed plans because there is no ordinance against it. She felt the Levins received shabby treatment from the Planning Commission. James L. Reimers, 12450 Curry Court, requested that Council allow him to read his letter verbatim because the copy in the meeting packet was not legible. He spoke against the proposed plans and pointed out that the Planning Commission disapproved them on a vote of 5-1. He urged Council to. deny the request. Richard Berg, 12520 Easton Drive, stated he has always believed Saratoga Woods is a single-story, ranch-style development which he wishes to have it remain. Clark Heath, 18681 Kosich Drive, reported that his home was the last two-story home approved by the Planning Commission (6 months ago) in Saratoga Woods. He pointed out the Council must be consistent in the jurisdiction as there is no ordinance disallowing two story homes. He said that until there is, the Levins' proposed plans must be allowed to move forward. Virginia Fanelli reiterated that the issue is the design, its compatibility with the existing home, the surrounding neighbors and appropriateness of the design itself. She said that if more opposition from the public is encountered, it is her hope that a process different from the design review. process would be utilized. Mayor Clevenger closed the Public Hearing at 8:55 p.m. Councilmember Stutzman did not think it appropriate for Council to devote time and effort to making this kind of decision which would more appropriately be decided by the homeowner's group. In the absence of an ordj.nan~e~S.~'~-R~'n~nh~h~]n~ twn~tn~v additions. he believes there is no l'egal justification for denial and said he would vote for approval. Councilmember Moyles concurred with Councilmember Stutzman's judgement. He pointed out the letters received on both sides of the issue were very well thought out. He explained the findings process used by the Planning Commission and the Council and said the proposed plans, as amended by the architect, meet those findings and the mitigated efforts strike a fair balance between this family's desire to full enjoyment of their property and the contiguous neighbors concerns about unwarranted privacy impacts. He suggested a process that could be City Council Minutes 6~ April 4 1990 ~ , pursued bythose persons against two-story homes in Saratoga Woods. He said he would vote for approval Of the proposed plans. Councilmember Anderson pointed oht that Saratoga Woods has an Architectural Review Board which could be revitalized. She agreed with Councilmember Moyles regarding a pr6cess to amend the CC and Rs of the h0meowner's association. She felt. the structure is architecturally sensitive to privacy impacts and sa~id she would vote for the proposed plans with modifications. Ma~or Clevenger agreed with the other Councilmembers. She believes there is a need for a full public~ hearing on whether the community wishes~to proceed as in the past or ~hether the community wants an out- right ban on two-story homes in Saratoga Woods. ~OYLES/ANDERSON MOVED TO REVERSE A DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND 'APPROVE RESOLUTION DR-89-124 SUBJECT TO THE LOWERING OF THE FRONT ROOF LINE AND INCREASED LANDSCAPINGiAT THE REAR PROPERTY LINE. Passed 4-0 (Peterson absent). Mr. Peacock advised that the revised elevation will be shownas Exhibit A on the resolution which will be brought before the Council for approval at its next meeting. Mayor Clevengerdeclared a lrecess at 9:15 p.m. upon reconvening at 9:30 p.m. the same Councilmembers and staff were present. C. Ordinance No. 71.__ regulating fencing on hillsides; this ordinancewould create anexemption from the existing 4,000 sq. ft. fencing limitation on a neighborhoodbasisthrough a petition and hearing process before the City Planning Commission (first reading and introduction). Mr. Toppel reported that this ordinance has been before Council previously but was.not introduced because at that time it did not have three required votes. He reviewed~his memorandum'to Council wherein it states that the Parker Ranch H0meowner's Association requests a repeal or amendment of the restriction against fencing which encloses an area in excess of 4,000 square f~et on a single site. He said the ordinance will set a process which would allow the Commission to 'designate a certain geographic are~ as one in which a different rule could be established relating to enclosure of sites. Mr. Peacock explained the ordinance. Lengthy discussion ensued wherein staff answered various questions from Councilmembers regarding clarification of the ordinance. Mr.. Toppel pointed out that the Parker Ranch 'HOA does not intend to close off migratory routes of wildlife, etci, but would like to be able to enclose 50 - 60% maximum of a single, site. There is no intent to fence in the open space easements. Mr. Toppel reviewed the history of the issue up to this point in time. Mayor Clevenger opened the Public Hearing at 9:39 p.m. Robert Clarity, 12833 Starridge Court, stated that the area has already been granted as residential and that fencing considerations should be takeninto account. He pointed out!that 65 of the 218 acres cannot be built upon and are dedicated open s~ace to wildlife and to the public. In conjunction with conforming with~the weed abatement ordinance, Mr. Clarity favored revegetation of the areas stripped of weeds with a variety of 'at~,,~ -~-~on ~whicb protection from the deer which are many in number. He requested Council approval of 50-60%allowable fencing. John Edwards, 12'217 Vista Arroyo Court, Vice President of Parker Ranch HOA, said that although there are~problems residents have with the increased deer traffic, the issue is development of hillsides. He 'reiterated that the area has been granted as residential and he felt the City must give residents some self-determination to establish fencing standards in their area which is appropriate. He spoke in favor Of the ordinance. City Council Minutes 7 A~ril 4, 1990 Sagi Tannaguchi, representative for Saratoga Heights HOA, spoke in support of the ordinance reiterating comments by Mr. Edwards. She felt that the ordinance will ease the Planning Commission workload relevant to fencing variances. Jim Page, 21751 Congress Hall Lane, reported that an abundant amount of landscape screening was one of the requirements he complied with when his home was built. He spoke in favor of the ordinance as it will protect landscape investments and resident's efforts to beautify the neighborhood. Charles Masters, 21764 Congress Hall Lane, reiterated comments made by Mr. Page. He stated that according to information received from other cities regarding fencing, there are no other cities which have this type of restrictive fencing. He urged approval of the ordinance. Dr. Haye, former President of Parker Ranch HOA, stated that a year ago 75% of the homeowners were in favor of fencing and in favor of having the CC and Rs and the Association as the legal body to enforce this issue. He spoke of safety as an important factor which allowable fencing will address. Ron Matasura, 21536 Saratoga Heights Drive, stated that since he has lived here, he has experienced at least seven incidents of racial harassment including trespassing and rock throwing along with verbal racial obscenities. Fencing will allow him a non-violent protective measure for the safety of his family. He urged approval of the ordinance. Melanie Kemp, Continental Circle, stated her family has not only met the landscaping requirements when they first moved into their home in December, but are now landscaping for the second time because of the deer. She requested approval of the fencing ordinance. Bernard La Kruet, 12832 Starridge Court, said the objective of the Parker Ranch HOA is to enhance the quality of the environment for the residents and wildlife. He said residents are prepared to establish guidelines to ensure no open space is fenced or tampered with and that open fencing won't harm the animals. He urged approval of the ordinance. Mayor Clevenger closed the Public Hearing at 10:05 p.m. Councilmember Moyles agreed with the process which the ordinance would establish to address resident's needs. Councilmember Anderson felt the fencing of 50% of the larger parcels is a lot and would consider limiting the amount of. fencing to a 1/2 acre enclosure as a maximum instead of 50%. She spoke of the importance that residents have an opportunity to have a fire protection area around their homes. Councilmember Stutzman said that although he had originally been opposed to the ordinance, he changed his mind after a site tour. He agreed there'is a real need to protect the vegetation from the deer with safe, allowable, open-fencing and would support the ordinance. Discussion ensued regarding what the maximum allowable fencing should be and specific measures to be added to the ordinance. MOyLESZANDE~SON MQVEDAPPROVAL OF THE NEGATIVE DECLARA~TON. Passed 4- 0 (Peterson absent). MOYLES/STUTZMAN MOVED TO INTRODUCE ORDINANCE NO. 71.__, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING SECTION 15-19.020 OF THE CITY CODE CONCERNING FENCING WITHIN HILLSIDE DISTRICTS, WHICH WILL SPECIFICALLY INCLUDE MEASURES FOR OPEN DESIGN, FENCING WITH NO SHARP POINTS, NO FENCING OF OPEN SPACE EASEMENTS AND FENCING UP TO 60% OF THE GROSS SITE AREA, BY TITLE ONLY, WAIVING FURTHER READING. Passed 4-0 (Peterson absent). City Council Minutes . 8 April 4, 1990 D. Ordinance No. 71. amending the City Code to: a) prohibit the consumption o['alaoholic beverages by persons under the age of 21 at certain gatherings on private property~ b) require reimbursement for the costs of a second police response to a disturbance to be peidbythe property owner or perso~ responsible for such disturbance to the City (firSt reading and i~troduction). Referring to his Memorandum directed to the City Council, Mr. Argow reported that the ordinance would make it a misdemeanor for anyone to serve alcohol to a juvenile on p~ivate property unless that juvenile is under the supervision of his/her parent or guardian. The ordinance also sets up a civil mechanism whereb~ the City can elect to recover its costs for a second police response to a public disturbance (such as a loud party) if one is required. It would apply to both adult and juvenile disturbances. In response to a concern from CoUncilmember Anderson regarding CASA'S position on the matter, Mr. ArgoW said that CASA is in support of a second response approach. He explained why the City should r~t fine an individual for a first response. Mayor Clevenger opened the Publi~ Hearing at 10:25 p.m. DarroldThomas, Santa Clara County Sheriff's Department, assigned to the Saratoga sub-station, spoke in support of the ordinance recommended. Gretchen Newby, 20174 Edinburgh Drive, President of Saratoga Union School District Board of Directors, Director of Juvenile Justice Programs for Santa Clara County, spoke of her experiences as a former Public Safety Commissioner, relevant to the aftermath of several local. parties, the importance of financial accountability for costs incurred for vandalism in the aftermath o~ parties, and of the importance of sending out the message that teenage drinking will not be tolerated. Gene.O'Rourke, Public Safety Commission, stated he'would like the youth of the City to know the Public safety commission is not against them having parties but are against vandalism. He spoke in favor of the ordinance as it sends out the message that after the first warning there will be monetary consequences. Mayor Clevenger closed the Public~ Hearing at 10:30 p.m. councilmember Anderson said she i~ pleased to see the ordinance since it has been in development for the last-year. She commended the Public Safety Commission on this successful endeavor. ANbERSON/MOYLES MOVED THE INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCE NO, 71,__, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA ADDING SECTIONS 6-15,120 AND 6- 15,130 TO THE CITY CODE CONCERNING. UNLAWFUL GATHERINGS AND DISTURBANCES REQUIRING A SECOND POLICE RESPONSE, BY TITLE ONLY, WAIVING FURTHER READING. Passed 4-0 (Peterson absent). Mayor Clevenger returned to items preceding Public Hearings on the Agenda. WRITTEI~ 1) Ch~le~ S~an, Valley Institute of Theatre Arts, P.O. Bo~c ~9~, req~esting forgiveness of res~ in the amount . .9~,;$.~,900. In [esponse to a q~eStion from Councilmember Moyles as to what assurance could be given to the ~ouncil that the internal management problems have been addressed, Mr. Swan reported that there is an entirely new structure with new~by-laws of the organization. The organization has requested a business volunteer for the arts to provide some accounting assistance to better the record keeping system. He said that the amount in arrears Was a shock to the organization when they were notified by the city~ He said it was inexcusable and apologized, to Council. City Council Minutes 9 April 4, 1990 Discussion ensued wherein Mr. Swan answered various questions from Councilmembers. Mr. Swan reported that three payments of $450.00 each have been made since the fall. Councilmember Anderson pointed out her concern that the City does not fund the Arts. She informed Mr. Swan that funding is done via the Dudget process. In response to a question from Mayor Clevenger, Mr. Toppel reported that if the request for forgiveness is granted, the $9,900 is not so much a gift of funds as much as it is acknowledging that a debt is uncollectible. Discussion ensued regarding possible alternate solutions to the problem of late rents. Councilmember Moyles suggested and there was CONSENSUS TO INSTRUCT THE CITY MANAGER.TO NEGOTIATE A NEW LEASE WITH CONDITIONS WHICH WOULD SATISFY COUNCIL'S CONCERNS AND THAT IT BE BROUGHT BACK TO TME._COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL BUT THAT THE $9,900 NOT BE FORGIVEN. 2) Kathleen Harrington, 19487 RobleCt., with objections to various garbage and recycling matters. CONSENSUS TO AUTHORIZE STAFF TO SEND DRAFT REPLY TO MRS. HARRINGTONAND TO THE SARATOGA NEWS. 3) Bill Carlson, Saratoga Blossom Festival Chairman, 14503 Big Basin Way, requesting City co-sponsorship of Blossom Festival. MOYLES/ANDERSON MOVED APPROVAL OF THE CITY'S PARTICIPATION AS CO- SPONSOR OF THE SARATOGA BLOSSOM FESTIVAL AND REQUEST THAT THE FESTIVAL COMMITTEE INSURE AND INDEMNIFY THE CITY AGAINST LIABILITY. Passed 4- 0 (Peterson absent). 4) Request from Foothill Club to hold annual Memorial Day event, May 28, 1~90. MOYLES/ANDERSON APPROVE THE EVENT, WAIVING ALL REQUIREMENTS OF SPECIAL EVENTS PERMIT ORDINANCE; AUTHORIZE A COMITY SERVICES OFFICER TO ASSIST WITH STREET CROSSINGS. Passed 4-0 (Peterson absent). 6. OLD BUSINESS A. Resolution 2575.15amendingFY1990budgetbyappropriating $2,500 to appraise the Nelson Property STUTZMAN/ANDERSON MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION. Passed 4'0 (Peterson absent). B. Resignation of Jan Harris from Planning Commission MOYLES/ANDERSON MOVED TO ACCEPT THE RESIGNATION AND DIRECT STAFF TO ADVERTISE THE VACANCY. A resolution of commendation i~ to be prepared for Mrs. Harris. C. Congestion Management Plan Agent7 - send letter on City's · position Councilmember Anderson stated that there is concern.there has not been enough participation on the Manager' sub-group and that policy issues are not being addressed. She said she would like to add a statement to the letter. Mayor Clevenger said since there is consensus among three Councilmembers to send the letter as presented, it will be sent as it. CONSENSUS TO DIRECT MAYOR TO SIGN LETTER. City CounCil Minutes 10 April 4, 1990 D. Intergovernmental Council Dues - Send letter clarifying ~ Saratoga,s commitment is for one year only MOYLES/CLEVENGER MOVED TO DIRECT ~. MAYOR TO SIGN LETTER CLARIFYING SARATOGA'S COMMITMENT FOR ONE YEAR ONLY. Passed 4-0 (Peterson absent). E- Upcoming Meetings Councilmembers agreed to attend thee Library Commission meeting next Tuesday at 7:30 p.m. Mr. peacock advised that Council must set a time to review 45 comments from the co~ununity regarding the budget process. Following dischssion, it was decided that Council will meet on April .18 at 5:30 p.m. to discuss items the non-point source pollution program review .and. will hold a joint meeting with the Finance Advisory Committee on Budget and Capital Improvement Program. Council will meet 2on May 5 at 8:00 a.m. to discuss the Budget Policy'Conference. F. Draft 1990 Community Open Space Survey Mr. Peacock reported that the survey was sent to the Planning Commission and the Parks and Recreation Commission for their comments before it was presented to Council. He suggested a planning session be scheduled with the committees. Following discussion, there was CONSENSUS TO MEET IN REGULAR COUNCIL '/ STUDY SESSION ON JULY 10 TO DISCUSS THE OPEN SPACE SURVEY WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION, THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION AND THE HERITAGE COMMISSION. '7. NEW 'BUSINESS ' A · A~rreement concerning DiskM/rsement of B~ul~ - Makone Foundation MOYLES/ANDERSON MOVED TO DIRECT CITY Fd~NAGER TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY. Passed 4-0 (Peterson absent). 9. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS A. Proposed Agenda Items ~ for Joint Meeting with Library Commission April 10 . There were no additions or deletions to the proposed agenda. B. Reports from Indxvldual Councilmembers AndersOn - reported that, because 6f problem encountered after the election of 1988, it was determined that the League of Women Voters would be the body to handle the pubr. icity for City Council Candidates. She pointed out the two existing issues are 1) how to best handle the candidate interviews so it is fair 'to everyone, and 2) how to handle Discussion ensued regarding the best way to have City Council Candidate .coverage. Mr. Monia stated that Council should take a pro-active position to do whatever they can to allow free speech time to each candidate via the Saratoga Community Access Cable TV Station. He felt it would not be in the best interest of the City if the City became involved with a 'political-action committee in sponsoring a forum for candidates. City Council Minutes 11 April 4, 1990 Councilmember Stutzman agreed with Mr. Monia stating that one of the most important functions the public access channel can perform is to create exposure of the candidates. In this manner the government can be more available to the public. Following discussion, there was CONSENSUS TO ENCOURAGE COUNCIL'S REPRESENTATIVE ON THE CABLE TELEVISION COMMITTEE TO MAKE THE CHANNEL AVAILABLE TO CITY COUNCIL CANDIDATES GIVING EACH CANDIDATE 5 MINUTES EACH OR THE SAME OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK, EVERY WEEK, AND THAT THE CANDIDATES BE NOTIFIED. Mr. Monia felt that if there is only one debate, many of the candidates will not be able to speak because during debates candidates must answer questions. If there are many forums provided, or if they have the opportunity to appear on television, they will be better able to get their points of view across to the public on various issues. Clevenger - reported that a resident will coordinate cleanup of a certain portion of Highway 9 on Earth Day. She invited all ideas for public participation to be submitted to the City Manager. Mr. Peacock reported that there was 84% participation by Saratogans' in recycling efforts according to eary figures from Green Valley Disposal. Moyles - reported on the legislative action regarding the proposed freeway at Winchester Boulevard. The legislative bills are being held off the calendar in the Ways and Means Committee and the Senate pending discussions. The City of San Jose approved the freeway agreement subject to the conditions worked out at their last meeting with Mayor Ferrito of the Town of Los Gatos. Moyles - requested Council to consider sending a letter to the Town of Los Gatos stating Saratoga's point of view and interest on the Winchester access. Discussion ensued regarding the figures from the traffic studies. Mr. Peacock advised there is nothing new to report on potential litigation concerning Draft Environmental Impact Report for E1 Paseo Redevelopmerit prepared by City of San Jose and on illegal grading, clearing and tree removal on Cocciardi/Chadwick development, Tr. 7770. 10o ADJOD]IXB~MTo Mayor Clevenger adjourned the meeting at 11:39 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Victoria R. Li~d~ean Minutes Clerk