Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-20-1991 City Council Minutes MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL TIME: Wednesday, November 20, 1991 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Ave. TYPE: Regular Meeting 1. ROLL CALL Councilmembers Present: Anderson, Clevenger, Monia, Stutzman, Mayor Kohler. Staff Present: City Manager Peacock, City Attorney Riback, City Engineer Perlin, Interim Planning Director Eisner, Assistant Planner Riggs. 2. CEREMONIAL ITEMS - None. 3. ROUTINE MATTERS A. Approval of Minutes - 11/6; 11/12; verbatim transcripts of joint meetings of 8/6; 9/10; 9/17; 10/22 Councilmember Clevenger modified the minutes of 11/6 as follows: Page 6, Paragraph 2, should read "Councilmember Clevenger stated she objects to the cap on the asymptotic curve..." Councilmember Stutzman requested to be included in the Minutes, with reference to the Williamson matter, he voted for it with the stipulation that the trees be planted by March. MONIA/CLEVENGER MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF 11/6, AS AMENDED. PASSED 5-0 STUTZMAN/AMDERSON MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF 11/12, AS PRESENTED. PASSED 5-0 MONIA/ANDERSON MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE VERBATIM TRANSCRIPTS OF JOINT MEETINGS OF 8/6; 9/10; 9/17; 10/22, AS PRESENTED. PASSED 5- 0 B. Approval of Warrant List CLEVENGER/MONIA MOVED APPROVAL OF THE WARRANT LIST. PASSED 5-0 C. Report of City Clerk on Posting of Agenda City Manager Peacock stated pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on November 15. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Planning Commission Actions, 11/13 - Noted and filed (see below) B. Ordinance 71-100 relating to Assuring completion of Improvements in connection with Final Map Approvals for Land Subdivision (secOnd reading and adoption) (see below) C. Ordinance 71-101 amending the City Code to limit the construction tax to buildings.and structures which have a roof and require a building permit at a rate of $.57 per square foot (second reading and adoption) D. Hakone Foundation Fund Raising - 9/3-11/4/91 E. City Financial Reports for October: 1) Treasurer,s Report 2) Investment Report 3) Financial Report city Council Minutes 2 November 20, 1991 F. Proclamation on Youth Appreciation Week requested by Optimists Club Mayor Kohler requested the removal of item A and Councilmember Monia requested the removal of item B. MONIA/STUTZMAN MOVED APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT CALENDAR WITH THE. EXCEPTION OF ITEMS A AND B. PASSED 5-0 A. Planning Commission Actions, 11/13 - Note and file. Mayor Kohler noted he artended the meeting of the Planning Commission regarding the Paul Masson Retirement Plan. He stated he is unsure of the support from the seniors and requested they speak up regarding this item. Councilmember Stutzman stated this item is being appealed to the Council hopefully people will speak up then. Councilmember Anderson stated she hoped there would be a large turn out of people at the next hearing. Councilmember Monia requested a copy of the minutes regarding this issue and also requested that the residents who attended the meeting be informed of the hearing. MONIA/STUTZMANMOVED APPROVAL OF ITEM A. PASSED 5-0 B. Ordinance relating to Assuring Completion of Improvements in connection with Final Map Approvals for Land Subdivision (second reading and adoption) Councilmember Monia made the following changes to the Ordinance: Page 2, 3rd line from bottom of (b)(6) word "for" added before "which"; page 3 (b) change word "construction" to "development"; Page 4 (b)(2) 14- 30.130 (b) should be (c) and commas be added to last sentence. MONIA/STUTZMAN MOVED APPROVAL OF THE ORDINANCE WITH THE CHANGES INDICATED ABOVE. PASSED 5-0. 5. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS AND THE PUBLIC A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Jonathan Sweet, 12280 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd., stated he was requested by the Chews to assist them in the matter of the abatement. Mr. Sweet presented a statement to the Council, he also presented photos of Mr. Chew's residence. He questioned the proceedings. City Manager Peacock stated he visited the site on Monday and presented photos of his visit. City Attorney Riback stated today an inspection and abatement warrant was issued from a Municipal Court Judge, which allows the City to enter the property and abate that which constitutes a public nuisance. Me stated the abatement may not begin until 24 hours after the service of the warrant. In response to Councilmember Monia~s question, Mr. Sweet stated the property is in compliance with the neighborhood, and if Mr. Chew is making an attempt to comply with the City, then the City should not have to serve the abatement. City Attorney Riback explained the procedure in obtaining a warrant. He stated just cause must be shown. In response to Councilmember Anderson's question, Mr. Riback stated the building materials on the property would not fit into the abatement category. In response to Councilmember Stutzman's question, Mr. Peacock stated the property was as bad as it was prior to the last abatement. Councilmember Anderson felt there is no reason to disturb the process as it included an inspection. Councilmember Monia concurred. City Council 'Minutes 3 November 20, 1991 Mr. Sweet stated the building material is covered and not a health hazard and is not visible. Mayor Kohler suggested that Mr. Sweet be in attendance when the inspection takes place. Mr. Sweet requested an inspection be made to determined which material must go and which can stay. This way Mr. Chew's property rights are protected. Councilmember Clevenger stated the procedure should go through and the inspection will decide which material is to be abated. Mr. Barco stated he had a statement regarding item 9B and requested the Mayor read this when the item comes up on the agenda. B. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS 1) Nancy Skinner, City of Berkeley, encouraging comments on nuclear waste dump proposed for Ward Valley. MONIA/CLEVENGER MOVED TO RECEIVE AND FILE. PASSED 5-0 Mr. Rolan Finston, 856 Thornwood Dr., Palo Alto, stated the Council took the appropriate action on this matter. 2) Notification of Amendments to the Measure A Initial Expenditure Plan, November 4, 1991 MONIA/STUTZMAN MOVED TO RECEIVE AND FILE. PASSED 5-0 6. OLD BUSINESS A. Report from City Engineer on Quito Oaks Way Property Owners' request for detachment from Landscaping and Lighting District, Annexation 1991-2, with Resolution of Intention. City Engineer Perlin reiterated comments from the staff report dated November 20, 1991. He stated there is a memo attached from the City Attorney explaining the detachment process. In response to Councilmember Monia's question, Mr. Perlin stated the fee is fixed annually and subsequent City Councils could change it. city Manager Peacock stated the zones in the district are assessed annually. Mr. Warren Merten, 13975 Quito Oaks Way, stated this proposal was done without the neighbors knowing about it. He objects to the variable fee. He stated he is against the park as it is of no value to the residents as they have no access. He stated, should this proceed and be approved, the money should come out of the general fund. He noted the majority of people voted against this. He said he did file a protest. Mr. Dean Donielson, 13971 Quito Oaks, stated he received no copy of the change of date of the hearing or the agenda. Mr. Donielson commented on the Real Estate Taxes. He feels the council are not doing what the people want. Mr. Leonard Borello, 14004 Quito Road, stated he never received notice of the meeting. He objected to no notification before this property was purchased. He stated although there are 12 parcels on Quito Oaks, there are only 8 tax bills. He feels the tax assessment is unfair. Mr. Perlin stated the assessment used was based on 8 parcels. Mr. E.R. Rivoir, 13973 Quito Oaks Way, read comments from his letter dated November 17, 1991 addressed to the Council. He requested release of the tax required for the improvements as the residents would not use this improvement. He strongly objects to taxation without City Council Minutes 4 November 20, 1991 representation. Councilmember Stutzman stated at the time this was considered it was on the bases of creating small community parks. He does not feel this will hurt the value of homes, but increase it. He stated the Council is trying to create community parks which should have been done sometime ago, as stated in the General Plan. He spoke in support of. leaving this as is. Councilmember Clevenger stated that the Quito Oaks residents were not part of the active group involved when the property was developed. She noted there are people involved in this who are not any closer to the park than the Quito Oaks residents. She stated decisions to be made by the City Council are very difficult as everyone will not be pleased. With regards to this issue, she stated the Council must look at the whole picture, and stated the assessment should not be raised in the future. City Manager Peacock stated the more houses the less the assessment will be. Councilmember Clevenger stated she feels the residents were legally noticed and hopes they use the park. She expressed concern about de- annexing this property and setting a precedent. Mr. Donielson stated the City owns the property at the corner of Quito and Pollard and why did the park not go there. City Manager Peacock stated his research did not find that the City owned this property. He noted there is an easement for a bicycle path. The property is owned by the County of Santa Clara according to the records at City Hall. MONIA/STUTZMANMOVED TO DENY THE REQUEST FOR THE DETACHMENT. PASSED 5- 0 At this time the Council moved to the public hearing. 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS - 8:30 p.m. A. Appeal of denial of design review approval to construct a new 4,123 sq. ft. two-story residence on a 22,651 sq. ft. parcel in the R-1-20,000 zone district at 20420 Montalvo oaks (Applicant/appellant, J. Waller)(DR91-041)(continued from 11/6) MONIA/ANDERSON MOVED TO ACCEPT THE REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE TO DECEMBER 4, 1991. PASSES 5-0 B. Appeal of denial of design review approval to construct two 40-foot cellular transmission towers in the Professional and Administrative office zone district at 14375 Saratoga Avenue (Applicant/appellant, GTE Mobilnet)(AR91-016) Assistant Planner Riggs presented the staff report. She stated the applicant is proposing to screen the towers with redwood trees. The Planning Commission is concerned about health and safety and the transmission of interference problems. She stated conflicting documents have been received regarding the environmental issue. She suggested a third party be hired to look.into the health, safety and transmission issues. The Planning Commission could not make the design review guidelines. City Manager Peacock noted the city received written communication from Saratoga Foothill Club, dated November 18, 1991, signed by Mrs P.F. Bowlin expressing concerns over the possibility of interference with their in-house public address system. Interim Planning Director Eisner gave a presentation on the Environmental Review. He stated in the appeal, the applicants moved for a categorical exemption under CEQA. He stated he feels strongly about the environmental issues, particularly the environmental intent City Council Minutes 5 November 20, 1991 of CEQA and stated the legislative act would call for a study and a review of the elements as they relate to a specific location and the surroundings. Me stated this should be considered by the Council. The public hearing was Opened at 8:48 p.m. Ms. Peggy Cocker, GTE Mobilnet, gave a review of the services GTE provide and the increased service provided with the installation of the towers. She noted the services will benefit all residents of Saratoga and will serve in times of emergencies. She stated they have reduced the height to 40 ft. to lessen the visual impact. Ms. Cocker presented a photo to the Council of the proposed poles. She feels the design is compatible and not bulky. Regarding the parking, Ms. Cocker feels they do not intensify the non-conforming use as to the parking. She noted that CEQA do mention that it is categorically exempt and further environmental studies will be done if approved. She stated this is not a health hazard, or an interference problem. She suggested a condition be added that if interference occurs, GTE must solve the problem. In response to Councilmember Monia's question, Ms. Cocker stated the new design was not shown to the Planning Commission. In response to Mayor Kohler~s question, Ms. Cocker stated they have not done an EIR and will address this issue if requested. She stated they have had no reports of interference with other electronic equipment. Councilmember Stutzman questioned the frequency of waves. Mr. Coleman, GTE Mobilnet, gave a brief review of the frequency of waves and the history of cellular phones. Councilmember Stutzman expressed concern regarding long term effects on people. He stated there are no records that show these waves cause no harm. Ms. Cocker stated the Public Utilities Commission would restrict the operation if the antennas proved to be harmful. Councilmember Monia questioned the restrictions on the distance of these poles from residences. Ms. Cocker stated there are no restrictions apart from the setbacks required to install the poles. She stated the distance from residents varies. Ms. Cocker also noted in order to provide service adequately the poles must be 40 feet. In response to Councilmember Andersonis question, Ms. Cocker stated they did look into putting the antennas on top of buildings, but this was not preferred. Mr. Don Whetstone, 14768 Vickery Ave., stated the Federal Communication Commission and the Public Utilities Commission have put this in the hands of cities. He expressed concern regarding the operation of the facility and the wattage output of the transmitters. Mr. Whetstone commented on the parking and stated parking is inadequate at the present time and the proposal will delete parking spaces. He stated he has a petition signed by 85 people opposed to this installation. Mr. Whetstone stated the claims made by GTE about being categorically exempt do not apply to this application. He also expressed concern regarding the health issue. Ms. Laurel Dickerson, 14359 A. Saratoga Ave., asked if the people in Saratoga had identified the need for cellular phone use. She stated the two 40 ft. towers will only serve a one mile radius. She expressed concern regarding the interference and the visual impact and also aesthetically. She stated this conflicts with the village atmosphere. She urged the Council to deny the appeal. Mr. Coleman stated the antennas will service a 2 1/2 to 3 mile radius. Ms. Mary Monaghan, 14351 C Saratoga Ave, objects to the construction of 40 ft. poles for aesthetic reasons as well as health. City Council Minutes 6 November 20, 1991 Planning Commissioner Favero stated the Planning Commission voted 7- 0 against this application. He stated there was no confusion as to what was being proposed. The reasons for denial were as follows: the aesthetic impact on the village area; petition from residents: health hazards. Interim Planning Director Eisner reviewed the options for the Council.~ He noted Council can direct staff to obtain a third party to study the environmental impact. Assistant Planner Riggs stated that staff determined that the parking. lot is non-conforming and may not be altered. She stated the structure will take one parking space, but GTE will provide one on- site, but cannot provide additional parking. Mr. Whetstone expressed concern about losing parking spaces. Ms. Cocker stated parking will not be changed, there will still be 26 parking spaces. She stated there will be no additional traffic to the facility. She stated they are working closely with staff and are not threatening to sue the City. She noted they will comply with staff's recommendations. City Manager Peacock stated the proposal is non-conforming on the basis that it is an intensification of use because the current use does not have adequate parking under current standards. Mr. Bob Pierce stated he objects to the aesthetic impact this will have on the village. He urged the Council to deny the appeal. The p~blic hearing was closed at 9:36 p.m. CLEVENGER/ANDERSON MOVED TO DENY THE APPEAL FROM GTE MOBILNET. Councilmember. Monia stated, that although cellular phones are important, this is a health issue. Councilmember Clevenger stated her motion for denial is based on the design review. Councilmember Stutzman expressed concern regarding a health hazard. He also does not like the aesthetic impact or the intensification of use. He stated they may not fully recognize the risk of these antennas until 10 or 20 years. He stated he needs full proof that this is not harmful. Mayor Kohler expressed concern regarding health risks but felt that the main problem was aesthetic. Councilmember Anderson does not feel the service is so poor as to require these antennas. She also expressed concern regarding health hazards. The above motion was carried 5-0. 6. B. Items in connection with Orosz appeal heard 11/6: 1) Discussion of acceptable color for Orosz residence 2) Resolution granting and modifying Orosz appeal City Manager Peacock noted the Orosz's had submitted a sample of the color to be used, which is smoke-rose. Councilmember Monia expressed concern regarding the elevation and the placement of the trees. He suggested staff supplying the Council with a footprint and a layout of where the building will be. He is concerned about the placement of the house with reference to the Oak trees. Mr. Eisner stated the issue cannot be resolved at this time, but staff will monitor the project to save the trees. City Council Minutes 7 November 20, 1991 City Manager Peacock stated that Cond. 1 and 2 address this issue. Mayor Kohler suggested as a condition of approval, the applicant must plant one tree for any one lost. City Manager Peacock suggested modifying Cond. 8 to read "In the event an Ordinance size tree is removed it shall be placed as required by City Code". ANDERSON/MONIA MOVED TO MODIFY CONDITION 8 AS SUGGESTED BY THE CITY MANAGER. PASSED 5-0. Councilmember Anderson expressed concern about the amount of grading to take place and suggested revisiting this issue. She suggested the fire department look at the tree where the grading occurs to see if it is a fire hazard and needs to be removed. In that case less grading would be necessary. Interim Planning Director Eisner stated the amount of dirt to be moved from around the tree is not substantial in terms of the total dirt being removed. ANDERSON/CLEVENGER MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 91-72 GRANTING ]%NAPPEAL FROM THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DR-91-022 AND SD-89-011.2 WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS: ADD A SENTENCE TO COND. 8 TO READ ,,ANY ORDINANCE SIZE TREE SHALL BE REPLACED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY CODE; ADD THE COLOR SMOKE ROSE TO COND. 12. PASSED 3-2 (Monia, stutzman opposed) 9. B. Reflected Noise from Soundwalls Mr. Bob Cooper, Jericho Coalition, noted the Coalition looked at Cal- Trans Noise Abatement Program, the process and problems associated with soundwalls. He stated Cal-Trans ignore complaints from people. He presented documentation to the Council regarding reflective noise, graffiti and vandalism. He stated the homeless also build shanties behind the soundwalls. He stated Cal-Trans need to do more tests regarding the soundwall and the problems associated with them and noted Cal-Trans need to come up with a solution that does not put the problems in the hands of others. In response to Councilmember Monia's question, Mr. Cooper stated they do not have the funding to do testing of these soundwalls. Ms. Sally Guilie, 1574 Coronach Ave., Sunnyvale, stated they had no problem with freeway noise until the soundwall was put up. She noted she and a few neighbors have done a reading of the noise and it reads 58-62 DBA. Councilmember Clevenger noted she has talked to people who never heard the freeway until the wall was constructed. Mr. Charles Niemeier, Sunnyvale, stated that he lives five blocks from the freeway and hears the noise now that the soundwall has been put in. Mr. Harry Fox, 1556 Dominion Ave.~ Sunnyvale, stated he wrote a letter to the newspaper as he was curious if the noise would be worse with the wall, and soon found out it is. He stated 75% of the people he had talked to are concerned about the reflective noise. Ms. Susan Keating, Dominion Ave., Sunnyvale, stated the neighbors are not an organized group, but a small group of concerned neighbors. She feels people in the area who don't speak up about this problem have concerns about property value. She stated the freeway noise is worse now that the wall is built. In response to Councilmember Monia's questions, Ms. Keating stated the different elevations do contribute to the noise problem. Mr. Bill Clark, 19404 Schubert Dr., suggested that the Council get a cease order to stop construction on the soundwalls and also the City should do some studies. He expressed concern regarding refraction coming off the walls and also expressed concern regarding the safety City Council Minutes 8 November 20, 1991 factor. He explained ways to help the noise factor. Mayor Kohler reiterated comments from Mr. Barco's letter, who suggested that trees be planted instead of a soundwall, this will help to alleviate the noise. Ms. Joan Hershkowitz, 19346 Schubert Ct., stated the environment needs to be protected along the 85 corridor. She requested that the Council consider the new problems with the soundwall and asked the Council to stop construction of the sound walls until studies are done. She suggested the following: 1) A supplemental EIR be done by Cal-Trans; - 2) All construction in Saratoga be halted until the EIR is completed and a solution is put in place; 3) Independent consultant do a sound study up to one half mile radius from freeway. She stated these are necessary to avoid problems being experienced in other cities. Councilmember Anderson suggested doing a study along an area where Cal- Trans is putting up a wall and get the before and after effects. Councilmember Clevenger stated that something has to be done, they need to find out from Cal-Trans if noise studies have been done before and after the construction of a soundwall. She stated the problem needs to be identified before it can be solved. Councilmember Stutzman stated that Cal-Trans could not build so many miles of wall withoutldoing studies. He feels Cal-Trans areaware of this problem, but the public is not informed. He stated noise will bounce off masonry walls and is not sure what Cal-Trans can do. He stated the freeway should have been in a tunnel. Councilmember Anderson stated that there was a suggestion' that reclaimed water lines should have been put in along this freeway so landscaping could go in even if the drought continues. She stated an independent consultant should do a study and then move forward with the landscaping if recommended by the consultant. Councilmember Monia stated that the cities need to get together to work on this problem, the cities need to work together to get action. He questioned what the City could do if the noise level exceeded the noise level allowed in the City Ordinance. City Attorney Riback stated the City has no regulatory control over a noise source coming from a State Highway. Councilmember Stutzman stated that Los Gatos and San Jose planted redwood trees along the freeways before the soundwall was constructed and this was the best sound mitigation and should be considered. Councilmember Anderson stated she attended the Traffic Authority meeting and cities are concerned about this issue. She concurred with Councilmember Monia that the Cities need to work together to solve the problem. She noted she is reluctant to stop the construction because the neighbors requested the wall. Mayor Kohler concurred with Councilmember Anderson and stated the City needs to take action now. Mr. Kempton, Santa.Clara County Traffic Authority, stated this issue did come up and the Traffic Authority asked Cal-Trans to address the concerns of the reflection noise. He stated he will look into this matter further and request written responses to the concerns. He stated trucks will be prohibited on the new freeway which will reduce the DBA. He noted he talked to the Traffic Authority Noise Consultant regarding reflective noise and landscaping. His response was that reflectivity should not be viewed as a phenomenal problem, but after listening to the neighbors it is clear that there is a problem. He further stated that the Traffic Authority do not intend to reduce mitigation expenditures. He noted the consultant believes the landscaping will decrease the reflective noise and add to the absorbency of the noise attenuation. He stated there is not enough significant data available on reflective noise impact. Mayor Kohler asked if the landscaping program allowed for changes City Council Minutes 9 November 20, 1991 necessary to mitigate for additional echo noise. Mr. Kempton stated change is possible within certain parameters. He explained the noise absorption and attenuation related to the trees. Councilmember Monia questioned what would happen if the neighbors' concerns are proven to be correct. Mr. Kempton stated the State would have to re-think its noise policy. In response to Councilmember Monia's question, Mr. Kempton stated the issue is not with the height of the wall, but with the terrain of surroundings of the facility. Where homes are elevated above the freeway it is an aggravated problem. Councilmember Monia stated the only option the City has is a totally depressed freeway. The Council needs more information on this noise problem. Mr. Kempton stated if the issue of delaying the freeway is considered many other issues will come into play. He stated if there is a problem as the neighbors are saying, then the Traffic Authority will deal with it to the best of their ability. Mayor Kohler stated the City must take action regarding this problem and thanked the residents of Sunnyvale for bringing this issue forward. Councilmember Anderson suggested having a meeting with other cities and discuss sharing the cost of a sound study. Mr. Kempton stated the Traffic Authority would like to be involved with the City in pursuing this problem. The cost of the study was discussed. Mr. Bill Clark stated the design equation used for the soundwalls should be provided. Mr. Kempton stated the sound study is available for review from the field offices. Mr. Clark feels the Traffic Authority should not be part of the study. He also noted that one of the first freeways built had shrubbery. Mr. Jeff Schwartz, San Marcos Rd., stated he was opposed to the freeway at the beginning and as time goes on more problems arise. He requested the City obtain some literature review on noise studies, also look legally at whether the City can stop the construction of the freeway if there is evidence that the noise will exceed federally mandated noise levels. Mr. Robert Wilson expressed concerned about no data base available. He stated the City should not go ahead without answers to the concerns of the residents. He also concurred with comments Mr. Schwartz made. Mayor Kohler suggested directing staff to approach neighboring cities and request a fast response. Councilmember Monia stated they should indicate to the other cities, that this study is important and Saratoga have made a commitment to budget the money for such a study. Councilmember Anderson stated the study should include alternative walls. It was a consensus of the Council to send a letter to other cities indicating Saratoga's commitment. Mayor Kohler stated a literature study should be done. City Manager Peacock stated this can be done. He explained that if the DBA is higher than it was before the freeway, but still below federal standards, environmental standards will have been met. This should be kept in mind. City Council Minutes 10 November 20, 1991 6. C. Ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance, revising Design and Residential Development Standards (with the associated Negative Declaration) to: establish density standards for clustering in the HC-RD and NHR zones; establish a maximum house size of S000 sq. ft. in the HC-RD and NHR zones; revise setback standards for all R-1 and hillslde zones;. revise impervious coverage standards; revise the grading standards, including lowering the threshold for which a permit is required (second reading and adoption) City Manager Peacock stated the City Attorney made two minor changes: Page 10, #(10) to be deleted, because the City is unable to impose that type of requirement because the Subdivision Map Act precludes local agencies from taking that type of action. Councilmember Anderson expressed concern about the Cap. She feels this is encouraging property owners of large lots to subdivide. Councilmember Monia stated property owners can subdivide if the zoning allows it. City Manager Peacock stated the issue Mr. Riback is addressing has to do with clustering of lots. The next correction, Page 18 (f) add the word "appropriate" before the word "...design..." There was a consensus to add the modifications as suggested by the City Attorney. CLEVENGER/STUTZMAN MOVED TO ADOPT ORDINANCE 71-99 AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF THE ZONING REGULATIONS CONCERNING SUBDIVISION OF SITES, DESIGN REVIEW, IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE, SETBACKS AND GRADING IN THE RESIDENTIAL AND AGRICULTURAL DISTRICTS. PASSED 3-2 (Anderson, Clevenger opposed) , 7. NEW BUSINESS A. Santa Clara County Abandoned Vehicle Abatement Service Authority City Manager Peacock stated the State set up this system and the County has voted to form. He stated if the City does not join they can't share in the money. STUTZMAN/CLEVENGER MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 91-73 APPROVING PARTICIPATION IN AUTHORITY. Councilmember Anderson expressed concern as to why the people being abated are not paying. City Manager Peacock explained the reasons for this, primarily that the ownership of many abandoned vehicles can't be established. The above motion was carried 5-0. B. Memo Authorizing Publicity for Upcoming Hearings - Weed Abatement; Paul Masson Rezoning There was a consensus to send notice to .the people who testified at previous hearings on the Paul Masson Rezoning. 9. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS A. Agenda items for adjourned regular meeting with Parks and Recreation commission 11/26 1) Skateboard Ramp Status 2) Master Plan Priorities 3) council/commission communications City Council Minutes 11 November 20, 1991 C. Reports from Individual Councilmembers The Council discussed the schedule for the meetings in January, as January 1st falls on a Wednesday. City Manager Peacock stated the City Codes says, the Council can choose another date or cancel the meeting. It was a consensus to cancel the meeting on January 1, 1992. 11. ADJOURNED at 12 midnight to November 26 at 7:30 p.m. Respectful 1 y submitted, Catherine Robi 11 ard Minutes C1 erk