Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-18-1990 City Council Minutes MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL TIME: Wednesday, April 18, 1990 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Ave. STUDY SESSION - 5:30 p.m. Adult Day Care Center, 19655 Allendale Ave. The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. Councilmembers Anderson, Moyles, Peterson, Stutzman and Mayor Clevenger were. present. Staff members present were City Manager Peacock, City Attorney Toppel, and City Engineer Perlin. 1. Non-point Source Pollution Report The City Engineer made a presentation on Volume III - Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Control Program. He explained the history of the project and Saratoga's participation to date. He discussed the concept of the use of control measures which are proposed to be instituted Valley-wide and a range of measures which could be applied on a community basis to reduce non-point source pollutants entering South San Francisco Bay. He indicated the current estimated annual cost to implement Valley-wide,control measures at between $2 and $2.5 million; Saratoga's share is 1.59% as set by the current formula. This formula is the most advantageous to the City from a cost perspective. Funds for this cost will have to be budgeted starting in July 1990 and continue for an indefinite period. A joint permit application has been filed on behalf of 15 county jurisdictions. Once the permit is approved a more accurate cost for the program will be generated as decisions on implementation are made. The Council complimented the excellent work the City Engineer has done in this area and the quality of his presentation of a most complex technical subject. 2. Agenda for Policy Development Conference The City council reviewed the 45 items listed in the City Manager's Report of April 18, 1990, and directed the following items to be placed on its aqenda for the May 5 policy development meeting. a. Road permit ordinance b. Bike path maintenance c. Amendments to State Law to increase penalties for violation of California Environmental Quality Act d. Further restrictions on house size in hillside areas. e. Candidate areas for inclusion in Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District f. Future funding of household hazardous waste collection g. Emergency Preparedness Needs for Improving Capability h. Oak Tree Preservation and Planting Program i. Creation of on-line computer link from Realty offices to City property records j. Creation of Senior Community Services Officer Position k. Develcpment of Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan 1. Staff needs to handle new regional environmental programs, mitigation monitoring and freeway development m. Need for a master water and irrigation system for Hakone Gardens n. Policy for Support of the Performing Arts o. Performance Df Seismic Safety Analysis of the Berrocal Fault p. Increasing tran~i~ a~i~ and public tran~o~atiun service q. Promote creation of a Community Band and a Community Garden Club There being no further business, the City Council adjourned to its regular meeting at 7:23 p.m. REGULAR MEETING - 7:30 p.m. 1. ROLL CALL Councilmembers Anderson, Moyles, Peterson, Stutzman and Mayor Clevenger present at 7:30 p.m. City Council Minutes 2 April 18, 1990 2. CEREMONIAL ITEMS A. Resolution No. 2641 commending Gay J. Crawford for service in connection with saratoga cable television. B. Resolution No. 2642 commending Steven Benzing for serving on Heritage Preservation Commission. C. commendation for participation in Mayors Golf Tournament for Earthquake Relief. MayOr Clevenger read and presented a proclamation from the City of Saratoga to-Roger Clapp, Steve Moore, Dorothy Houde and Clyde Mosier and thanked them for their participation in thelMayors Golf Tournament. D.' Resolution No. 2643 commending Jan Harris for serving on Planning Commission. Mayor clevenger stated that Ms. Crawford, Mr. Benzing'and Ms. Harris were unable to attend the meeting tonight and would be presented with their resolutions at a later time. MOYLES/PETERSON MOVED TO APPROVED ITEMS A, B AND D.. Passed 5-0. 3. ROUTINE MATTERS A-~ Approval of Minutes - 4/4/90 ANDERSON/PETERSON MOVED TO APPROVE THE MIN~3TES OF APRIL 4, 1990 AS 'SUBMITTED. Passed 5-0. B. ' ApproVal of Warrant List PETERSON/MOYLES MOVED TO APPROVE AS SUBMITTED. Passed 5-0. C.' Reportof City Clerk on Posting of Agenda 'Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on April 13. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR A. ~lann~ng Commission Actions, 4/11/90 - Noted and filed B. Parks and Recreation commission Minutes, 3/5/90 Noted and filed C. Heritage Preservation commission Minutes, 3/21/90 - Noted and ~filed D. City'council/Library Commission Joint Meeting Minutes, 4/10/90 - Noted and filed E. Ordinance 71.74 regulating fencing on hillsides; this ordinance would~ create an exemption from the existing 4,000 sq. ft. fencing limitation on a neighborhood basis through a petition · and,hearing process before the City Planning Commission (Second 'reading and adoption) F. 'Ordinance 71.75 amending the City Code to: 'a) prohibit the consumption of alooholio beverages by persons under the age of ~eimbursement for the costs of a second police response to a disturbance to be paid by the property owner or person ~ ~esponsible for such disturbance to the City (Second reading and adoption) Authorization to advertise for bids for the 1990 Street Maintenance Program City council Minutes 3 April 18, 1990 H. Resolution 2644 granting final acceptance of widened portion of Pierce Rd. and release of bond for SD-86-003 (Developer, Bostedt) I. Resolution 2645 in support of senate Bill 2503 (Leonard) J. Treasurer's Report - March K. Investment Report- March L. Financial Report - March M. Finance Advisory committee Minutes, 4/5/90 - Noted and filed Councilmember Anderson pulled item 4G from the Consent Calendar. STUTZMAN/MOYLES MOVED TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR WITH EXCEPTION O[ ITEM 4G. Passed 5-0. Councilmember Anderson recalled a discussion last year regarding the City of Campbell's strategy for selecting a contractor and suggested that the City of Saratoga look into that possibility. She said she believes the quality of the work is more important than the cost of the work. Discussion ensued regarding a question from Mayor Clevenger as to whether the City must accept a low bid if it has had a bad experience with a contractor. She also asked if the City could wait for two weeks to bid in order for staff to report on the financial consequences of Councilmember Anderson's suggestion. Mr. Larry Perlin, City Engineer, stated that the City should go out to bid early because many cities are going out to bid at this time, and contractors are lining up their work for the summer. Mayor Clevenger then suggested going out to bid and requested that Mr. Perlin talk with the Director of Public Works for the City of Campbell regarding Campbell's selection process. STUTZMAN/PETERSON MOVED TO APPROVE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 4G. Passed 5-0. 5. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMIS8IONS AND THE PUBLIC A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 1) Ms. Ann Cook, 12305 Candy Court, Saratoga, distributed a letter to the Council. She was representing the Saratoga Inner Wheel Club, which is made up of spouses of Rotarians. She indicated that for the past five years they have had their installation of officers at the picnic area of Hakone Garden. They were informed this year that there would be a $400 charge for use of the park even though only the picnic area would be used. They were told if the City Council would co- sponsor the event the fee could be waived. She requested that the Council co-sponsor the event in the spirit that they are a service organization and money will be raised for charity. In response to Councilmember Moyles' question regarding the urgency nature of the request, Ms. Cook stated that raffle tickets will be sold as a fundraiser, and the tickets need to be printed within the next few days in order to begin selling them. ANDERSON/STUTZMAN MOVED TO AGENDIZE THIS ITEM FOR DISCUSSION UNDER COUNCILMEMBERS' REPORTS. Passed 5-0. 2) Col. E. T. Barco addressed the Council regarding the recycling program. He indicated he personally checked a number of neighborhoods on collection day, and on any given collection day only about one in every seven households puts out bins with bottles and/or cans. He said few if any families generate enough recyclables to justify a weekly pickup, and the result is that two days of every week the neighborhoods are littered with unsightly blue and green bins. Col. Barco suggested that pickup of recyclables be only once or twice a month in order to save money on operational costs and to keep the City from being cluttered with the bins. City CounCil Minutes 4 April 18,. 1990 Col. Barco also voiced a complaint regarding the City Manager. He reported he was told by an unnamed individual that when copies of certain unclassified documents were requested of the City Manager he refused.to release them citing case law. C01. Barco said he requested to look at other documents similar to others he viewed numerous times in the past and was refused because the City Council had not seen the documents and the City Manager did not want to release them. He suggested the City Council discuss the subject of secrecy in government with.the City Attorney and the City Manager. 3) Mr.='IJeff Schwartz addressed the Council regarding the issue of .safety'of the bike lanes on Cox Avenue during construction of Highway 85. =He said he felt the City should ask Caltrans to do a better job on the safety issue and hoped the City would actively and aggressively manage the issue. Mayor Clevenger pointed out that later on the agenda the Council-would address mitigation for Highway 85 and one of those is at Saratoga Avenue and Cox. Councilmember Anderson suggested the .Council discuss this issue at the priorities meeting on May 5 when the issue of hike lanes will be addressed. B', WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS ~ 1. Letter from Joseph Waller, 20420 Hill Ave., objecting to ~' ' improvements required to be made on Hill Ave. 'Councilmember Anderson noted that Mr. Waller was present and requested that he address the signage on Hill Avenue. Mr. Waller said there are 'preSently eight signs on Hill Avenue, and he would like to see fewer signs as 'it is confusing. He suggested that the one way signs be removed. Councilmember Anderson said'she felt that two of the one way signs are probably not necessary to inform the public how to get onto the street, .but since there may be confusion for visitors coming down from Montalvo .signage should be required there. Councilmembar Moyles agreed and stated if there is discretion he would .like tO see the signage toned down. However, if the City Engineer feels the signs are necessary and could not recommend fewer signs he would'defer to Mr. Perlin's judgment. . COunCilSember Peterson expressed his belief that this area represents "sign pollution". He said he would not like to contradict staff but Would like to suggest that a reasonable compromise be found which takes.iht0consideration safety'and the residential character of the neighborhood. CounCilmember Stutzman stated 'he felt arrows indicating direction · rather than=all the one way signs would be adequate. He said he would like tosses some of the signs removed, particularly the one way signs. Mayor Clevenger asked for and received Council consensus to direct the City Engineer to work with Mr. Waller to try to reduce the number of traffic signs. Mr. Waller also addressed the issue of asphalt and, following lengthy discussion, it was pointed out to him that the paving meets City standards. Mayor Clevenger said she did not believe-the Council can · resolve.this problem, and Mr. Waller should work with his contractor. Mayor Clevenger moved the agenda to Public Hearings since. the hour of 8!07 p~m/had passed. 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS A.'. Appeal of denial Of design review approval'to construct a 736 sq. ft. second floor addition to an existing one- story home at - 20334 Thelma Ave. for a total of 3,481 sq. ft. in the R-1-10,000 zonedistrict (Appellant/applicant, Pool) (DR 8S-102) (continued from 3/21 and 4/4) City Council Minutes 5 April 18, 1990 Mr. Steve Emslie, Planning Director, presented a chronology of the events which occurred since the applicant initially approached the City with his request to add on to his existing residence. Staff recommended that the City Council conditionally approve DR-88-102 subject to submission of a revised elevation showing the improved architectural relief on the side elevation. The revised elevation would be presented as an exhibit to the City Council's resolution approving the project. Mayor Clevenger opened the Public Hearing at 8:12 p.m. Mr. Frank Nicoletti, Attorney at Law, 100 N. Winchester Blvd., Santa Clara, represented the applicant. He stated the applicant has reviewed the staff recommendation and report. He also commended staff for the work done on the proposal. Mr. Nicoletti requested that the Council adopt staff's recommendation. Mr. Lenny Bee, 20355 Franklin Avenue, addressed the council on behalf of himself and also represented Mr. and Mrs. Angelo Butera who reside at 20335 Franklin Avenue. He said he and the Buteras realize that not much can be done with the work that has been completed, and they understand the reasons for it being in existence. He did request, however, that if the second-story addition is permitted there not be any invasion of privacy of the residents residing to the south. In response to a question from Councilmember Moyles, Mr. Bee stated he did not feel that, in all fairness to the applicant, it would be just to have the applicant tear down what has been completed since there were mistakes made at the outset. They are only requesting that their privacy be maintained. CLEVENGER/PETERSON MOVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CONDITIONALLY APPROVE DR-88-102 SUBJECT TO THE SUBMISSION OF A REVISED ELEVATION SHOWING ARCHITECTURAL RELIEF ON THE SIDE ELEVATION OF THE ADDITION. THE REVISED ELEVATION SHOULD BE INCORPORATED AS AN EXHIBIT TO THE COUNCIL RESOLUTION APPROVING THIS PROJECT. (Clerk's note: The motion was voted on later in the meeting; see p. 6.) Mayor Clevenger closed the Public Hearing at 8:17 p.m. Councilmember Anderson said she would vote no on the project because she objects to the way it moved through the last couple of years and smacks of an effort to get a second story when a second story was denied. She stated even though she is happy to see the neighbors are no longer objecting it is a matter of principle with her. She did not favor having applicants think they can do whatever they want and the Council will okay it later. Councilmember Stutzman agreed with Councilmember Anderson's comments. He said he thought this was a good example of winning by a war of attrition as the project was turned down repeatedly in the past and it was made known what the Council was going to permit. He stated he believed approving this proposal would set a bad precedent in Saratoga and is an example of having rules that are not followed but if one persists long enough in violating the rules one will eventually win out by people in power giving in. Councilmember Stutzman said he is opposed to that sort of principle, and he would vote against the project. Councilmember Moyles agreed with the previous Councilmembers' comments and pointed out this is not the kind of second story that was proposed by Dr. Levin and i~ said he was concerned about the privacy impacts discussed at the previous meeting, and he is relieved to hear the neighbors can live with deletion of the windows on the south side. However, the procedural question remains. Councilmember Moyles stated that from what staff has reported there seems to have been a deliberate effort to evade compliance with direction previously given. He said he would like to be able to take advantage of the opportunity to improve the elevation as suggested by staff, but if he does that he is demoting a more important principle to get that advantage. He indicated if there had been events beyond the control of the applicant that compelled him to do what he did then he might feel differently, but it seems that City Council Minutes 6 April 18, 1990 everything that led to this point was a discretionary act on the applicant~s part and he is not comfortable accommodating him. Mayor Clevenger said she is comfortable accommodating the applicant because=no one is unhappy with the plan. The situation has stretched on, and the applicant has had a difficult time with it apparently because he did not seem to comply with what the City asked him to do. Staff has.come up with a good suggestion that meets the neighborst needs and the applicant's needs and since no one objects the project should be approved. In response 'to a question from Councilmember Peterson regarding the alternative if the project is turned down, Mr. Emslie said the house Vould have t'o be built pursuant to the building permit plans received in 1987. The structure is seven inches too high and must be reduced. Lengthy dfscussion ensued wherein various Councilmembers restated their comments. Mayor called for the v~te on her motion approving the appeal. Failed .2:3 (Anderson, Moyles, Stutzman opposed). ANDERSON/STUTZMAN MOVED TO DENY DR-88-102. Passed 3:2 (Clevenger, ~Peterson opposed). B. Appeal of denial'of subdivision approval to create two parcels of 20,100 and 22,686 sq. ft. from a property at }4584 Horseshoe Dr. on the corner of Horseshoe Dr. and Horseshoe Ct. in the R-1-20,000 zone district. Both the existing home and the proposed parcel will access Horseshoe Dr. (SD-89-017) (Applicant/appellant, Pierce/waller) (continued from 3/21) MrjEmslie presented the staff report on this item and r~commended that the 'city Council deny the appeal. He. reported that the Planning Commission 'noted the application was substantially the same as an application the City Council had reviewed and rejected a year ago. ~Mayor Clevenger opened the Public Hearing at 8:37 p.m. Mrs. Virginia Fanelli addressed the Council on behalf of the appellants. She reviewed the history of the applicat'ion and appeal. Mrs~ Fanelli distributed a map indicating there are no other lots in the Horseshoe Drive tract which could be further subdivided by using a flag lot~ She cited other flag lots in the immediate area and stated if the Council is uncomfortable creating a flag lot, access could be ~allOwed via Horseshoe Court without setting a precedent~. Mr. 'Patrick Carroll, 20418 Tricia Way, the future. resident of the subject property, addressed the Council. He said in terms of changing the character of .the area, he would treasure the wooded area. He indicated.~that accessing the lot from Horseshoe Court would be preferable ~but respects the concerns raised and if there is a compromise required then having the flag lot from HorSeshoe Drive is acceptable. Regarding the drainage concerns, Mr. Carroll felt they had been addressed by the City Engineer as well as others. Mr.' Bill Cl~'rk stated he wrote a letter to Mr. Pierce expressing-his concerns. regarding the project, and those concerns have not been answered~ ~Mr. Clark addressed the staff report which indicates the area'does ~ot flood. He said it does flood and in order to correct the drainage problem a storm drain system would probably have to be put in. In order tO-build a house the trees will have to be removed and that will, fufeher~'~mp-~ct %he drainage.pr6blem. Mm. eterk .statea he c~ula not, conceiVe how the drainage problem will be solved and expressed concerns regarding how his property will be impacted. In response to .a question from Councilmember Peterson, Mr. Clark stated no one has talked With' him about the engineering plans for mitigating drainage ~oblems or'about flooding in the area. Mayor Clevenger closed the Public Hearing at 8:50 p.m. Councilmember Peterson stated he would like to see the matter continued and either the City's engineers or theapplicant's engineers meet with Mr. Clark. He said he would like to hear again from Mr. Clark regarding whether he thinks the drainage problem can be engineered. City Council Minutes ? April 18, 1990 Councilmember Anderson said she would concur with Councilmember Peterson's comments. She stated she felt the staff report has covered the problems of flooding in view of impervious coverage and drainage. There is an additional issue dealing with the appropriateness of zoning and the flag lot. Councilmember Anderson indicated the applicant asked her if she would be willing to hike the site. She indicated she would be.willing to postpone the matter and hike the site if the poison oak were cleared, but at this point she would be voting in a negative manner on this application. Councilmember Stutzman stated he felt the matter was' thoroughly reviewed and most of the Councilmembers had hiked the site. He said most'of the neighbors pointed out that the culvert carried the water under the road most of the time but on the other side of the culvert there was a deep gorge that had been created which indicates there is considerable flow through there. If the underbrush is removed and a house is put in, the volume of the flow will be considerably increased. Councilmember Stutzman also indicated he did not favor the idea of creating another flag lot as it is not compatible with Horseshoe Drive. He said he saw no reason for changing the Council's previous opinion on this issue. Mayor Clevenger agreed with Councilmember Stutzman and stated it would not make a difference to her to walk the site again. Various Councilmembers indicated they would like to continue this matter and walk the site. Mayor Clevenger reopened the public hearing at 8:58 p.m. and continued this matter to the May 16 meeting. Mayor Clevenger declared a recess at 9:00 p.m. Upon reconvening at 9:15 p.m. the same Councilmembers and staff were present. Mayor Clevenger returned to items preceding Public Hearings on the Agenda. 2. Letter from Judith R. Gremer, 12388 Radoyka Drive regarding the Levin appeal heard April 4, 1990 Mrs. Ruth Neilsen, 18921 Cyril Place, chose to address the Council at this time rather than at item 6B. She stated she respects that the Levins want to improve their home and that this was not an easy decision for the City Council to make. She said she was angry after the last meeting because she felt her rights and the rights of her neighbors were not being considered. Mrs. Neilsen indicated that many of the neighbors are opposed to two-story homes in the neighborhood. She indicated she believes a solution exists which can preserve the privacy of the neighborhood. She requested that the City Council reconsider its decision. Councilmember Anderson replied that once the City Council has given permission to an applicant it cannot reconsider the decision. Mayor Clevenger responded that the Council does not have the option to reconsider this matter since commitments have been made based on the granting of this request. She said she judged the second story based on the rules the City had in effect at the time the Levins Started the application. She felt the Levins had the right to expect, if they designed a reasonable second story to their home, their request would issue which now exists is that this situation has been brought to a head in the neighborhood. Mayor Clevenger suggested that if the neighbors believe there should not be any more two-story homes in the neighborhood they should get together, take a poll and make their wishes known to the Planning Commission or City Council before a similar situation occurs. Mrs. Judith Gremer, 12388 Radoyka Drive, stated she and the other neighbors would like to see this situation resolved but feel that getting the correct information on how to get the matter resolved is very confusing. City CouncilsMinutes S April 18, 1990 Councilmember Anderson expressed her feeling 'that if the neighbors .amend the CC&Rs she, as a Councilmember, would respect that and would not want to make a decision that flew in the face of community CC&Rs. counckl~ember Moyles agreed with Councilmember Anderson that if the neighbors amend the CC&Rs subsequent purchasers would be obliged to accept theM. He said, however, in the absence of CC&Rs that prohibit it'he Would not be comfortable with doing second-story additions by poll because he does not believe property owners~.rights exist at the ~sUfferance of their neighbors. There is a balance that will be different to each Councilmember on a case-by-case basis. DiscussiOn ensued, wherein Mr. Toppel stated that the City Council is ~not the primary enforcement authority for CC&Rs as they are a private contract between the various property owners within a subdivision. It ,is not'a binding commitment for the City to recognize the CC&Rs, and ifthe-Council chooses not to enforce them, it would be the obligation =of the prop~[.ty owners to enforce them as a private civil matter. Mayor Cleve~ger directed that Mr. Emslie work with Mrs. Gremer and the neighbo[s ~n order to assist them in working through the process. 3. .Letter from SASCC regarding Long Term Senior Care Facilities in Saratoga. 'CONSENSUS~THAT THE DRAFT LETTER BE SENT. 6.! OLD BUSINESS A. ~ Proposed Establishment of Hillside Sewer Maintenance Zone and Fees - West Valley Sanitation District (Presentation by William ~issler, District Manager/Engineer) Mr. Bill Gissler, Manager of the West Valley ISanitation District, reviewed'the Preliminary Report in detail. He stated a public hearing will be~held on April 25 by the Directors of the Sanitation District regarding-this issue. As Mayor Clevenger will be representing the City at that hearing, she requested this item be agendized in order to receive 'input from the Council and the Community. Mr. Gissler indicated -th~at the City of Monte Sereno is opposed to this issue. DisCussion .ensued wherein Mr. Gissler responded to various Councilmembers~ questions. Ms.]'Raquel' Arminjo, 21053 Canyon View Drive, addressed the City Council.f She stated that Mr. Gissler indicated this sewer charge is not for anything that has taken place already but is in anticipation of future problems. She said it appears that only a small fund of money ~would be collected which would lead her to believe that monumeht~lj problems are not anticipated. Since the. residents belong to a .larger district, they feel it is discriminatory to a few homeowners,to create what appears to be a mini district when the whole purpose of~belonging to a larger district is to take care of unexpected expenses. If the cost is spread across the board in the whole district it would be .minimal. Ms. Arminjo requested that the Council stand by its 1989deCision to oppose this surcharge. Ms. Gail Wright, 21081 Canyon View Drive, 'presented a statement on behalf of the Wildwood Heights Homeowners Association in opposition to the sewer maintenance Zone. bk..~ill~.Cunningham, 21070 C~n~Qn V~e~ ~r~ve~ ~r~e~~ ~iaoppositiQn to~=~he sewer maintenance zone. Mayor Clevenger reported she brought this issue up at a meeting of the State Sanitation Board of Directors, and the Directors advised that this should not be done because it would be an'administrative nightmare to work ou~. They suggested the situation should be approached by the use of .more~ expensive hook-up fees in areas where problems are anticipated. Mayor Clevenger commended Mr. Gissler for the work he has done on this proposal even though she does not agree with him on this issue. 'She requested direction from the Council. City Council Minutes 9 April 18, 1990 Councilmember Stutzman stated this issue is one of the best arguments that csn be put forth for good geologic studies. He said he believes problem areas can be identified and those individuals who knowingly build in those areas should be ~equired to pay a higher fee and, if necessary, to pay a continuing fee. He stated it is not fair to impose discriminatory fee on everyone who lives on the hillsides because many of the hillside areas are very stable and will not suffer damage. Councilmember Stutzman pointed out that residents who live in the flatter areas incur expenses, such as street maintenance, that those in the hillsides do not have. He stated he did not believe that different districts should be maintained for every different problem that arises and would like to stand by the Council's previous decision on this issue. Councilmember Moyles agreed with Councilmember Stutzman's comments and would recommend increasing the original hook-up fee and if an ongoing surcharge is required to develop a reserve, the new homes should bear that as well. Those who were there before the concept was developed should be included for the same risks that they bought into originslly. Councilmember Anderson said she did not favor the idea of segregating one section for any reason. She stated the concept of a shared burden is a good one and is one that people have been in favor of for a number of years, and she does not see any reason to change it. ANDERSON/MOYLES MOVED TO DIRECT MAYOR CLEVENGER TO SUPPORT THE CITY'S POSITION AGAINST THE HILLSIDE SEWER MAINTENANCE ZONE. Passed 5-0. B. Resolution granting, with modifications, Levin appeal heard April 4. STUTZMAN/ANDERSON MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2646 AS SUBMITTED. Passed 4-0 (Peterson abstained). C.. Resolution increasing appropriations for Household Hazardous Waste Drop Off Day. MOYLES/STUTZMAN MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2575.16. Passed 5-0. D. Report to council on nuisance abatement costs for Winston Chew property at 12501 DeSanka Avenue. Mr. Winston Chew, 12501 DeSanka Avenue, addressed the City Council and disputed the charges. The charges were verified by Mr. Todd Argow, Community Services Director. Mr. Chew presented the City with a bill for the items which were removed from his property. MOYLES/ANDERSON MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2620.1. Passed 5-0. E. Re-evaluation of mitigation measures for Route 85 Mr. Perlin discussed the mitigation measures for Route 85. Lengthy discussion ensued regarding various aspects of the mitigation measures and safety concerns. Councilmember Moyles responded to the point raised by Mr. Schwartz earlier in the meeting. He said he felt Mr. Schwartz' complaint was an important one and cited a safety video for children shown by the T~a~ic ~uthority_. at various sc~ooTs~ ~e s~a~e~ input ~as been · requested from the community regarding the safety issue. Mr. Perlin requested input from the City Council on how to deal with the pedestrian crossing controls on the Saratoga Avenue interchange when that project is under construction. He said the alternatives recommended by the engineers on the project ranged from striping crosswalks in the road to providing'temporary signals on Saratoga Avenue. Councilmember Moyles said he is in favor of temporary pedestrian signals as close to the site as possible or would suggest an allowance for crossing guards. City Council'Minutes 10 April 18, 1990 CONSENSUS TO'AGREE WITH STAFF REPORT BUT STAFF IS DIRECTED TO MAKE SURE THE ISSUE OF PARKING IS ADDRESSED ON SARATOGA AVENUE. F. 'Finance Advisory Committee report on financing for acquisition of Nelson Garden. · Mayor Clevenger stated the priorities list has been established for the ~riorit'ies session on May 5 and a decision was made to discuss 'NelsOn Garden in the context of open space review and the discussion of parks. and acquisition of open space on July 10. Mr. Donald]McCrea addressed the City Council as a representative of the Friends of Nelson Garden. He said his organization was not satisfied with the report and did not feel it addressed what the Committee was asked ~o do. .Mr. McCrea requested that his organization be given an opportdnity to participate in the discussion regarding Nelson Garden as they.may be able to provide additional information. Mayor ~levenger suggested that Mr. McCrea observe the July 10 meeting and make suggestions regarding funding after hearing the input at that time~- She~said the issue was put off until July 10 in order to meet With'Parks and Recreation and the Finance Advisory committee. It was not felt the matter could be thoroughly addressed at the present time. Ms.~AnnWalt'onsmith, 21060 Saratoga Hills Road, stated she was unhappy wi'th.the report and requested it be sent back to the Finance Committee ~in order to come up with options in the event the City decides to buy the park. C0uncil~ember Stutzman' concurred with Ms. Waltonsmith~s comments. He said he was very disappointed in the Advisory Committee~s report and felt the report said nothing. He requested that the report be sent back to the Finance Committee and for further input and that the Committee address the possibility of long-term bonds and various ways of financing if the City wishes to acquire the park. Councilmember Moyles pointed out that when the refe~rai was made he criticized it as lacking any focus or specificity..He said he did not feel the Council told the Committee what it was to do, the Committee responded the best it could and the response is consistent with the referral. He also stated that another good reason for holding this matter until July is that if there is a consensus to buy Nelson Garden it.will leave a big hole in the capital budget and the new Council should be responsible for that. He said he would lik~ to see the issue discussed thoroughly throughout the election so he can explain the basis for his opposition to spending any money on acquiring this park. Councilmember Anderson stated she felt the Council was premature as it is still awaiting an appraisal. She said it would be difficult.to discuss financing alternates since the cost of the parcel is unknown. She was i~ favor of discussing this matter in July. ICLEVENGER/MOYLES MOVED THAT THE REPORT BE NOTED AND FILED UNTIL AFTER ~THE~JULY 10 ~MEETING. Passed 4-1 (Stutzman opposed). · . G. DiscUssion of filllng Heritage Preservation commission vacancy. MOYLES/PETERSON MOVED TO APPOINT MR. SABIN TO THE COMMISSION, COMMUNICATETHE REASONS FOR THE APPOINTMENT TO MRS. GIVENS AND ASK THAT SHE ALLOW THE CITY TO KEEP HER APPLICATION ON FILE~ paSsed~.5-0. H. Resolution' 2622.1 amending previously-adopted resolution granting variance on velinsky appeal. D~scu~sion ensued wherein Mr. Toppel answered guestions'regarding the resolution. PET[RSON/~NDERSON MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2622.1. Passed .5-0.. ~. NEW BUSINESS A.'. Approval of Emergency Plan for the City of Saratoga City Council Minutes 11 April 18, 1990 Community Services Officer Paula Reeve presented a report on the proposed emergency plan. Mr. Gene O'Rourke, Chairman of the Public Safety Commission, stated the Public Safety Commission reviewed the document and finds it to be a great improvement over the existing plan. ANDERSON/PETERSON MOVED TO ADOPT THE EMERGENCY PLAN AS PROPOSED. Passed 5-0. B. Review of Finance Advisory Committee recommendation to increase Council Expense Allowance. Councilmember Anderson said she has discovered there are ways in which councils in other cities are compensated and suggested a more detailed study on this issue. She requested continuing the item in order for further study to take place. Lengthy discussion ensued regarding Councilmembers' expenses. Mayor Clevenger requested that Councilmember Anderson obtain additional information and report back to the Council on May 16. C. Surplus Property Declaration PETERSON/ANDERSON MOVED TO APPROVE. Passed 5-0. D. Publicity for Upcoming Hearings - Sung/Harbor Builders Appeal; Guilardi Appeal CLEVENGER/MOYLES MOVED TO APPROVE PUBLICITY AS RECOMMENDED. Passed 5- 0. 9. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS The Council discussed co-sponsoring the Rotary Club event discussed previously in the meeting. Mr. Peacock expressed concern regarding liability and the precedent which would be set if the Council were to co-sponsor this event. Staff was directed to return to the Council with a policy for use of City facilities for fundraising events. PETERSON/ANDERSON MOVED TO WAIVE THE FEES TO THE INNER WHEEL ORGANIZATION TO USE THE PICNIC AREA AT HAKONE GARDEN WITH THE PROVISION THAT THE ORGANIZATION COVER COSTS OF CIT~ STAFF TIME INCURRED AS A RESULT OF USE OF THE FACILITY. Passed 4-1 (Stutzman opposed). A. Reports from Individual Councilmembers Clevenger - asked for Councilmembers' opinions regarding sponsoring of various events. ANDERSON/STUTZMAN MOVED TO APPROVE THAT THE CITY SPONSOR WATER AWARENESS MONTH. Passed 5-0. Mayor Clevenger stated that a joint powers meeting will be held regarding the Giants. She said there is controversy regarding who will be Chair and Vice chair and she would attend the meeting and vote in Anderson - said she felt the council should discuss what will be done when construction trucks ignore rules about staying on major streets and travel through residential neighborhoods. Mr. Peacock said he intends to have the Sheriff's Department cite the individuals involved and will report back to the Council in two weeks. Councilmember Anderson reported that the TV Unit met and the representative from the college felt strongly about liability on the part of the Board and felt it was wrong to have five-minute candidate spots allowed by the TV Board, the City or the College in connection City Council Minutes 12 April 18, 1990 with the City CoUncil election. An emergency meeting will be held to deal with the concerns. Mr. Peacock responded to the comments made earlier in the meeting by Col. Barco. He said the first instance cited by Col. Barco related to a request of someone in the community to have a list of nomination papers filed by candidates for City Council. He stated he discussed the matter with the City Attorney and it was determined that those documents Were part of the public record and were released. He reported the second instance occurred when Col. Barco requested copies of the applications filed for the Planning Commission vacancy. He said he determined, and it was verified by the City 'Attorney, that the applications were personnel records and not part of the public record. Mr.~Peacock indicated that in both cases cited by Col. Barco he neither pretended to be the City Attorney nor did he fail to consult with the City Attorne~ before directing whether particular items could be released to. the public. 10. ADJOURNMENT Ma~o~ Clevenger adjourned the meeting at 11:46 p.m. Respe&tfully'submitted, Rebecca Minutes Clerk