Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-16-1992 City Council Minutes MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL TIME: Wednesday, December 16, 1992 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Ave. TYPE: Regular Meeting 5z00-6=00 Discussion of Water Quality of Saratoga Creek Administration Meeting Room Councilmembers Present: Tucker, Kohler, Monia, Burger, Mayor Anderson. Don Whetstone made a presentation on his views of Saratoga Creek.' He showed a video of the outfall at the 4th Street bridge and the report of the hazardous material spill reported on Thanksgiving Day and the following day with children playing in the creek. He also showed the grease interceptors and catch basins in the restaurant area between 4th and 5th Street in the City parking district. Be also showed the second hazardous materials call on December 2. Mr. Whetstone then presented lab results of the direct outfall under the Route 85 bridge. Me stated that fecal coliform levels were in excess of 1600. He also had tests taken at Springer and Congress Springs Lane and Saratoga Springs. The results were as follows: Saratoga Springs - fecal 130, total 1600 Congress Springs - fecal 110, total 500 Springer - fecal 240, total 300 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road - fecal 300, total over 1600 He stated that the City has not taken on its responsibilities. It doesn't clean the streets or the catch basins. The City's NPDES program requirements make it mandatory to do testing and cleaning and prevent pollution. The City should have fire people trained to sample and get a lab out to take the samples and test them. We also need to have sediment testing performed as soon as possible. He stated the City should enforce its ordinances on pollution. The City must get moving. Councilmember Kohler arrived at 6:15 p.m. 6:00 Interviews with Commission Applicants Administration Meeting Room The Council conducted an interview with Finance Committee applicant Charlene Low from 6:10 to 6:25 p.m. The Council conducted interviews with Planning Commission applicants Asfour, Burllngham and Jacobs from 6:25 to 6:43. Mr. Asfour suggested that new commissioners be given a Saturday training session by an architect on how to read plans. Planning Commission applicants .Uchiyama and Forbes were interviewed from 6:43 to 6:55 p.m. Planning Commission applicants Waltonsmit~, Wolfe and McCready were interviewed from 6:55 to 7:12 p.m. BURGER/TUCKER MOVED TO APPOINT GASKELL TO THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION. Passed 5-0. MONIA/BURGER MOVED TO APPOINT LOW AND OUSLEY TO THE FINANCE COMMITTEE. Passed 5-0. There was consensus to take up Planning Commission appointments at the end of the regular meeting. Regular Meeting - 7:30 p.m. Civic Theater Cit~ Council Agenda 2 December 16, 1992 Pledge of Allegiance 1. ROLL CALL The regular meeting was called to order at 7:40 p.m. The same. Councilmembers were present. Staff Present: City Manager Peacock, City Attorney Riback, City Engineer Perlin. 2. CEREMONIAL ITEMS - None 3. ROUTINE MATTERS A. Approval of Minutes - 12/2~ 12/8 Councilmember Monia made the following corrections to the minutes of 12/2: Page 9, add a sentence stating "Councilmember Monia requested copies of the NPDES permit and all reports from other agencies and staff regarding the creek." MONIA/TUCKER MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF 12/2, AS CORRECTED. PASSED 5-0. MONIA/TUCKER MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF 12/8, AS PRESENTED. PASSED 5-0. B. Approval of Warrant List BURGER/TUCKER MOVED TO APPROVE THE WARRANT LIST. PASSED 5-0. C. Report of city clerk on Posting of Agenda Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on December 11. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Plannlng Commission Actions, 12/9 - Noted and filed. B. Library Commission Minutes, 10/28 - Noted and filed. C. Finance Committee Minutes, 12/1 - Noted and filed. D. Response to Mr. Vincent~s Oral Communication of December 2, 1992, relating to Building Permit - Receive and file~ transmit copy of staff report to Mr. Vincent. E. Resolution 92-081 abandoning light and air easement at 14855 Baranga Lane (Lin) F. Resolution 91-46.18 amending budget to fund estimated cost of testing water quallty at Saratoga Creek G. City Financial Reports for November: 1) Treasurer~s Report 2) Investment Report 3) Financial Report BURGER/MONIA MOVED TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR. PASSED 5-0. 5. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS AND THE PUBLIC A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Councilmember Kohler noted he talked to Mr. Vincent, who addressed the Council at the last meeting regarding his buildiffg permit. He indicated he was very satisfied with the response he received from Mr. City Council Agenda 3 December 16, 1992 Oncay, the Building Codes Administrator. Mr. Jack Lucas, Councilmember, Monte Sereno, stated he attended the Mayors and Managers meeting and was elected to serve as a representative on the Traffic Authority for the remainder of the Measure A project. He stated he is attending this meeting to introduce. himself and will do the same to the other cities he is representing. Mayor Anderson stated she has served on the Traffic Authority with Mr. Lucas and noted he is a responsible person and will represent the city well. She asked Mr. Lucas to look into the color of the wall on Cox Ave. and if it could be changed to match the other freeway walls in the City. Mr. Don Whetstone, 14768 Vickery Ave. stated he has arranged and paid for a series of tests to be done on the creek. He expressed concern about the water coming out of stormdrains with fecal coliformpresent. He stated this is a serious matter and children, as well as wildlife, are in danger when they go into the creek. He noted the creek is sick and this must be taken seriously. Ms. Anne Mehaffey, 14340 Paul Ave., stated she has distributed copies of Mr. Whetstone's report throughout her neighborhood. She stated because of children playing in the creek there is an urgency to clean it up. Mayor Anderson stated they are taking this matter seriously and will be meeting with restaurant owners tomorrow. Councilmember Monia stated he would like to discuss this further under Council Items. Councilmember Burger stated any Concerned citizens should obtain a copy of the actions the City has initiated. Mr. Ross Hannibal, 14375 Paul Ave., concurred with Mrs. Mehaffey regarding the safety of the creek and children playing in it. He stated he appreciates the signs which have been posted. B. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS i) Octel Communications Corporation, 890 Tasman Dr., Milpitas, urging location of cellular antenna in Saratoga. City Manager Peacock stated he received a letter from Mr. Bob Puette regarding this matter. Mr. Peacock noted that the City of Saratoga does not prohibit antennas in the City, but the issue is where they should be placed. He stated this is a sensitive issue. Councilmember Burger stated staff's response should be sent to both Mr. Cohn and Mr. Puette. 6. OLD BUSINESS A. Bonnet Way Soundwall, Capital Project No. 9113 - Award of Construction Contract City Engineer Perlin presented the staff ~eport. He noted he had an informational meeting with the neighborhood to discuss the Bonnet Way sound wall. Mr. Perlin noted bids have been solicited and the contractor selected is presently working in Saratoga. He noted the wall will be extended at the property owners' request. Mr. Perlin reviewed staff's recommendations as outlined in the staff report and also explained the care of the trees during construction. He stated the overall cost of dealing with the trees will be $20,000 - $40,000 and the discretionary landscaping funds can be used for this. He stated there was no discussion about which type of wall would be built at the neighborhood meeting. He pointed out that no matter which type of wall is built, the trees will have to be removed and this will be done under the supervision of Mr. Barry Coate, Arborist. City Council Agenda · December 16, 1992 Councilmember Monia expressed concern about less money for the landscaping plan because of the tree removal. In response to Councilmember Monia's question regarding the survey, City Engineer Perlin stated they did not know exactly where the wall would be placed until the survey was done on the Southern Pacific~ Railroad right of way by Caltrans. He stated Cal-Trans only set the right-of-way about four to six weeks ago and that was when the problem with the trees was apparent. He stated Cal-Trans only surveys what is needed at the time the contractor is doing construction in a certain area. Mayor Anderson pointed out that initially the wall was supposed to be in a different location and at the neighbors' request the wall was moved. Councilmember Monia expressed concern about Councilmembers making decisions without all the information and also expressed concern about inaccurate plans. Councilmember Burger stated in all construction work adjustments must be made throughout the project. City Engineer Perlin stated the plans are accurate. He noted a solution regarding the trees will be reached before construction and he will come back with a recommendation to the Council. Councilmember Kohler stated the City needs to be careful when dealing with the trees. He noted the trees are not guaranteed to live when they are replanted. He stated this process should be done under Mr. Coate's supervision. BURGER/MONIA MOVED TO DECLARE SERRANO AND CONE INC., OFSAN RAMON TO BE THE LOWEST RESPONSIBLE BIDDER FOR THE PROJECT. PASSED 5-0. BURGER/MONIA MOVED TO AUTHORIZE STAFF TO PROCEED WITH THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT IN THE AMOUNT OF $355,393.75 PASSED 5-0. BURGER/MONIA MOVED TO AUTHORIZE STAFF TO EXECUTE CHANGE ORDERS TO TEE CONTRACT UP TO $24,375. PASSED 5-0. BURGER/MONIA MOVED TO APPROVE A BUDGET ADJUSTMENT OF $35,000 FOR TEE PROJECT AND DIRECT STAFF TO RETURN WITH THE NECESSARY APPROPRIATION RESOLUTIONS. PASSED 5-0. 7. NEW BUSINESS A. ConStitutionality of imposing requirements on posting temporary political signs Acknowledgement of responsibility to remove Staff recommends that the City Council direct the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance which would require those posting temporary political signs to register an acknowledgement of responsibility to remove with the City Clerk prior to posting said signs. City Attorney Riback addressed his memo dated December 7, 1992. He stated it was determined that it is constitutional to impose the requirement. In response to Councilmember Kohler's question regarding implementation, Mr. Riback stated enforcement is not easy, but can be done. He stated the staff will contact the committee that is in support of the candidate or for or against a measure and advise them to come in and fill out the appropriate forms or the signs will be removed. Regarding primaries, Mr. Riback stated a candidate who is continuing to run will not have to remove the signs. City Manager Peacock stated this was looked into because it is a problem for the Clerk's office to find people after the signs have been posted. He feels it will be easier to enforce if forms are filed. He did point out that they are only dealing with signs in the public City Council Agenda 5 December 16, 1992 right-of-way. MONIA/BURGER MOVED TO DIRECT STAFF TO PURSUE THIS MATTER AND COME BACK TO THE COUNCIL WITH AN ORDINANCE. PASSED 5-0. B. Confidentiality of Names of Persons reporting Possible Code Violations City Manager Peacock stated the City has an informal policy not to disclose names of persons reporting code violations. Mr. Peacock stated the system requires the creation of certain documents whose status under the Public Records Act is subject to interpretation as to whether the public interest is best served by keeping such information confidential. He stated this is an effort to formalize the existing policy and make it clear that this is an exception to the Public Records Act. MONIA/KOHLER MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 92-082. PASSED 5-0. C. Memo Authorizing Publicity for Upcoming Hearings Councilmember Monia questioned the recycling ordinance. City Manager Peacock stated this ordinance applies to businesses which do not currently exist in Saratoga. He stated, that regardless of who is involved in the recycling business, there is a need for the business to report to the City regarding recycling. Mayor Anderson announced the new Commissioners for the Finance and Public Safety Commissions. Councilmember Burger stated selections for the Planning Commission will take place at the end of the meeting. 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS - 8:30 p.m. A. Appeal of condition of tentative map approval to subdivide a 22,910 sq. ft. parcel into two single-family residential building sites of 11,455 sq. ft. each at 20241 Herriman Avenue in the R-1-10,000 zone district. The condition being appealed would limit future development of the newly- created vacant parcel to 2,400 sq. ft. The variance allows the parcels to be created with 82-ft. lot widths where a minimum width of 85 feet is required. (Appellant/applicant, Behel) (SD92-007; V92-012) Staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeal. Planning Director Curtis presented the staff report dated December 16, 1992. He stated the square footage numbers outlined on the map in the staff report were taken from the building code records. Mayor Anderson opened the public hearing at 8:42 p.m. Mr. John Behel, representing Norma Behel, stated he would like to appeal certain conditions. Mr. Behel addressed the letter from Norma Behel dated November 16, 1992. He'expressed concern about the two year time period for completion of construction and requested that condition 9 be eliminated. He requested that they comply with the current zoning. Mr. Charles Maclean, 20315 Herriman Ave., stated he was on the committee which set up the basic guidelines for the Planning Commission. He stated commercial property was limited to certain areas and the idea was to have large comfortable homes. He expressed concern about homes built 37 years ago being used today for uniformity when new homes are bigger and costs are higher. Mr. John Behel stated the property belongs to his mother and he has no financial interest. Mayor Anderson closed the public hearing at 9:02 p.m. City Council Agenda 6 December 16, 1992 In response to Councilmember Burger's question, Mr. Peacock stated the height limitation is 20 feet for the new house under the tentative map conditions. Councilmember Tucker stated'compatibility should be discussed in the design review process and spoke in favor of granting the appeal. In response to Councilmember Mcnia's question, Mr. Curtis stated the Planning Commission were concerned about the size of the home after looking at homes existing in the neighborhood. He explained the. certificate of occupancy and noted once this is granted the property owner can apply for an expansion to their home. He stated the reason for this was to provide consistency in the neighborhood and did not want to remove the expansion capability from other property owners. He stated staff's calculation of the 3200 square feet is based on the square footage of the lot. Councilmember Burger expressed concern about imposing design review conditions at the tentative map stage, as addressed by Councilmember Tucker. She stated the time to discuss the design issue is when the plans come before the Planning Commission. She noted the restriction placed on the tentative map seems excessive for a 3 foot short fall. She noted if an architect designs the home with sensitivity to the lot and neighborhood, without imposing restrictions, he may come up with a better design. She stated she would support the appeal. Mayor Anderson expressed concern about having to comply with the 2400 square feet limit and then applying for an expansion soon thereafter. She feels this is leading to poor design and is expensive to the property owner. She noted most of the lots have a frontage of 80 feet and nO other property has these restrictions. She pointed out if the restrictions are imposed a 4500 square feet house could be built because of the expansion allowance. She feels this is an old neighborhood in transition. In response to Councilmember Kohler's question, Mr. Curtis stated the Planning Commission directed staff to do an analysis of the area and based upon the average size of homes, 2400 square feet was recommended. Councilmember Mcnia expressed concern about the City granting variances on newly created lots. He also stated the property owner can develop his property without being granted the three feet, but has the advantage of a second lot if the appeal is granted. He stated the Planning Commission made their decisions on the neighborhood compatibility. He did agree that 2400 s.q. proposed is not adequate, but feels the property owner is getting an extra lot. BURGER/TUCKER MOVED TO GRANT THE APPEAL AND REMOVE THE CONDITION WHICH LIMITS THE HOME TO 2400 8.F. Councilmember Tucker stated the Planning Commission usually looks at a piece of property and felt it was difficult to put a large home on this property given the entire neighborhood. She stated it should be conveyed at the subdivision level that the Planning Commission will be looking at the size of the house as far as compatibility with the neighborhood. The above motion was carried 5-0. City Attorney Riback stated the City code'requirement, regarding the time period for construction, is that construction must be completed within 24 months and is not subject to being modified. He stated it also provides for an extension up to 36 months. Mr. Peacock stated that the variance and the two year time period were never intended to be applied to the lot itself. City Attorney Riback stated it is reasonable to agree that there are special circumstances related to this property in so far as all the properties in the area have substandard frontages. He noted this is a reasonable finding. City'Council Agenda 7 December 16, 1992 City Manager Peacock stated his concern is that the idea of the variance being null and void in 24 months, the property already having been legally divided and sold. Planning Director Curtis stated when a variance is granted upon special circumstances, the typical variance is for the construction of something and the wording of the condition reflects this. He feels the word "construction" is the wrong word and will work on the wording. MONIA/BURGER MOVED TO AMENDSECTION 3 OF THE VARiANCE TO HEADTHE FINAL MAP SD92-007 MUST BE RECORDED IN 24 MONTHS OR APPROVAL WILL EXPIRE. PASSED 5-0. B. Appeal of denial of appeal of administrative decision of Heritage Preservation Commission regarding final placement of a historic adobe wall at 15229 Quito Road within an open space easement as required by subdivision condition. (Appellant/applicant, Sinsley) Staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeal. Planning Director curtis presented the staff report dated December 16, 1992. He noted the only item before the Council at this time is the location of the wall. Mayor Anderson opened the public hearing. Ms. Virginia Fanelli, representing Mr. Sinsley, requested a modification to the recommendation made by the Heritage Preservation Commission. She noted it was the original owner's responsibility to place the wall in the easement. She noted there was no criterion of where the wall should be placed or that the City should make this determination. Ms. Fanelli addressed the historic value of the wall, the aesthetics in relationship to Casa Tierra and private property rights and responsibilities. Ms. Fanelli presented a map to the Council outlining Mr. Sinsley's proposed location for the wall. Mr. Daryl Boyle, 15231 Quito Road, strongly urged the Council to reaffirm the decision made by the Heritage Preservation Commission. He noted both he and his neighbors support the decision. He stated the decision on the precise location of the wall is being appealed and the issue before the Council is to confirm the wall location. Mr. John Kolstad, 13600 Westover Dr., stated he was on the Planning Commission when the wall was first addressed and they relied on the property owner, at that time, to place the wall in the right location. He stated when Mr. Sinsley bought the property he discussed the wall with him. Mr. Kolstad noted he talked about this matter with the Planning staff, but did not get a clear answer. He stated it did go to the Planning Commission, but there was no concern about the wall. He noted Mr. Sinsley should be allowed to move the wall as recommended by the Heritage Preservation Commission. He noted Mr. Boyle is a citizen giving input and is not a co-owner. He urged the Council to support the Heritage Preservation Commission's recommendation. Mr. Larry Fine, Heritage Commission, stated the Heritage Preservation Commission had many meetings regarding this matter. He noted they asked both parties to work together and come to an agreement. When an agreement was not reached the Heritage Preservation Commission made the decision. He stated much thought went into this and all considerations were discussed. He noted consideration was given to preserve as much of the wall as possible and well as preserving the trees. He noted the final vote of the Heritage Preservation Commission was 6-1 with one Commissioner agreeing to the wall, but felt at one portion the wall was too close to the street and the Boyle's property. Mr. Eugene Zambetti, 14540 Big Basin Way, reviewed the location of the wall when the final map was approved. He presented a map outlining the location of the wall and noted this is the best location. Planning Director Curtis stated there was no agreement between the Sinsleys and the Boyles as to the location of the wall. City Courtoil Agen~a 8 Deoember 16w 1992 The Councilmembers reviewed the agreements signed by the previous property owner when this matter was first brought to the Heritage Preservation Commission. City Attorney Riback stated it is appropriate for the City to make a. decision on the location of the wall if the parties involved cannot come to an agreement. Mr. Zambetti stated the original location of the wall is the best. location. City Manager Peacock stated this matter was sent to the Heritage Preservation Commission because Casa Tierra and the wall were designated historic landmarks prior to final map approval. Mr. Peacock read the definition of the historic landmark. Councilmember Monia stated there have been many meetings regarding this issue and no compromises have been made. He noted the Heritage Preservation Commission has made a decision. He stated the City must consider access on to the easement and if the wall is moved too close to Mr. Boyle's residence, the access will be lost. He stated it is incumbent upon the appellant to prove why the Heritage Preservation Commission's decision should be overturned. He stated the Council can only exercise the power within the law. Councilmember Kohler stated this structure has been designated as an historic landmark and the Heritage Preservation Commission should make the decisions. Mr. Art Iverson, 15315 Silvia Road, stated he has been involved in this since February 1988. He expressed concern about the lot adjacent to his property and privacy intrusion. He stated the requirement of the easement should be maintained and urged the Council to maintain the agreement as reached and stipulated. Mr. Clark Beck, 15300 Silvia Road, stated the original agreement signed two years ago should be followed. He stated the easement is not being maintained and he is looking to the City Council to maintain the original agreement regarding the easement and wall. He did express concern about losing the easement. Mr. Boyle stated the wall would not have to be moved if it was placed in the right location in the first place. He stated Mr. Sinsley bought the property knowing the restrictions it had. He noted the proposal, as addressed by Ms. Fanelli, would result in losing the easement. Ms. Fanelli stated the offer to give the five feet to Mr. Boyle would remain in the easement. She stated the wall has not been designated as an historical landmark. Councilmember Tucker stated when the wall came to the Planning Commission it was her understanding that this issue was sent to the Heritage Preservation Commission to establish if it was a heritage landmark. City Manager Peacock stated the intent of the ordinance was to include the wall and the house. Councilmember Monia stated he visited the site many years ago and was informed that the wall was part of the historic landmark. Ms. Fanelli stated placing the wall in the location recommended by the Heritage Preservation Commission will cause liability problems for the City. Mayor Anderson closed the public hearing at 10:25 p.m. Mr. Boyle addressed the minutes of July 21, 1988 noting the wall should be preserved. In response to Mayor Anderson's question, City Attorney Riback stated the uncommon aspect of this is that the wall meanders through the open City Council Agenda 9 December 16~ 1992 space easement and the owners of parcel C will have some responsibility for the opposite side of the wall. He stated there could be some liability problems if someone did hurt themselves on the property. He pointed out if such person does not'have permission from the property owner to be on his property, then he is trespassing. Councilmember Kohler stated there will always be legal problems no matter where the wall is located. He noted he does not see the connection between the location of the wall and the legal problems. Mr. Riback pointed out that the property owners are not allowed to make use of the easement unless to maintain the wall. He stated the options for the Council at this time are to uphold the Heritage Preservation Commission decision, deny it or modify the decision. Councilmember Burger stated this wall will never be in the proper location and the Council needs to decide if the determination of the Heritage Preservation Commission and the Planning Commission is appropriate or not. City Attorney Riback stated if the Council is interested in having the entire issue reviewed, the only way this can be done is if Mr. Sinsley applies for a modification to this particular condition of approval. Councilmember Tucker pointed out, as stated in the agreement, that if the wall could not be repaired by Mr. Sinsley, he could put a fence on the property line. Councilmember Kohler stated this is not a high wall and is aesthetically pleasing. He noted the Heritage Preservation Commission looked into this and made a decision. MONIA/KOHLER MOVED TO DENY THE APPEAL AND UPHOLD THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSIONAN D HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION. PASSED 5-0. Councilmember Monia suggested pursuing a lot line adjustment if the findings can be identified. The Councilmembers concurred. 9. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS A. Oral Communications (continued) and response from City Council, if necessary Dr. Abrams stated he has a problem when his property is connected to the Paul Masson issue. He noted the developer wants to proceed in a rapid pace and would like some direction, as the Use Permit has expired. Dr. Abrams stated he is satisfied with the zoning of his property and does not see any reason to get involved in the Paul Masson property as it detracts from the main issue. He noted to make a decision on the Paul Masson property the surrounding uses should be taken into consideration and then decide the most appropriate use for this property. He stated his property will not be developed in the near future and does not want to have his property considered with the Paul Masson site. In response to Councilmember Monia's question, Planning Director Curtis stated Dr. Abrams' 10 acres were included. in the study area because this was the direction from the Planning Commission. He noted the study was to find out the options for the area and then decide the best approach. Councilmember Burger stated she can share Dr. Abrams concerns and noted his property does not need to be rezoned to be included when discussing the development of the Paul Masson site. She suggested this be discussed further. City Manager Peacock stated the Planning Director will prepare a memo outlining the considerations which go into a specific plan. He stated it is difficult to consider a parcel of land without considering the surrounding property, especially if there is vacant land beside it. City Council Agenda 10 December 16, 1992 Planning Director Curtis stated a questionnaire will be sent out to surrounding property owners within 1000 feet regarding development of these sites. Mayor Anderson stated this of interest to many citizens and would like it well publicized. B. Agency Assignment Reports 1. ABAG - Anderson 2. Cable TV Board - Monia 3. HCD Policy Committee - Tucker 4. Transportation Commission - Anderson 5. Hakone Foundation - Tucker 6. IGC - Kohler 7. Flood Control Advisory Board - Burger 8. League of Cities Peninsula Division ~ Tucker 9. Water District Commission - Anderson 10. Santa Clara County Cities Association - Tucker 11. Sister City Committee - Burger 12. Traffic Authority Policy Advisory. Board - Tucker 13. Transit Assist Board - Burger 14. Senior Coordinating Committee - Burger 15. West Valley Sanitation District - Burger Councilmember Burger reported on the SASCC meeting. She noted they have 1009 members. Councilmember Tucker reported on the Traffic Authority Policy Advisory Board meeting and noted they voted unanimously to support the Jump Start program. She noted SCCCA will be having a special dinner meeting on January 21, 1993 and the focus will be local government financing. She stated all Councilmembers are encouraged to attend. Councilmember Monia reported on Cable TV Board meeting noting that part of the new by-laws have been implemented. Mayor Anderson reported on the ABAG Committee meeting and noted a citizens committee will be working on the regional plan. She noted a representative from the Bay Area Council attended. C. General Council Items 1) Minimum age requirement to apply for Commission Seat - Tucker city Manager Peacock stated the question of minimum age requirement came up several weeks ago and after looking through the government code there is no reference to a minimum age. He noted the City Council can make a decision. It was a consensus of the Council to consider 18 as a minimum age, except for the Youth Commission, and citizenship should also be a requirement. City Attorney Riback stated he will look into this and prepare an appropriate policy resolution. 2) Other Councilmember Tucker stated she has a conflict between the Bakone Foundation meeting and SCCCA. She noted she would check if the Bakone Foundation could change their meeting to another night and report back to the Council. Councilmember Monia addressed the issue of the creek. Be stated the City needs to verify whether Mr. Whetstoneis data is accurate regarding the fecal coliform. City Manager Peacock stated the City will be doing its own testing. city council Agenda 11 December 16, 1992 He stated if Mr. Whetstone is getting his reading out of the outfall, this needs to be resolved and he will look into this. He noted they will test for the fecal coliform in the next round of testing. He stated the Health Department is involved and will review the sample tests. Councilmember Monia suggested that the City Manager talk to Dr. Barnard regarding the samples taken on Thanksgiving. City Manager stated the report from the Fire District indicates that they contacted the Santa Clara Valley Water District at the time the samples were taken and the Santa Clara Valley Water District said they would deal with it the following Monday. Councilmember Monia expressed concern about the City's exposure to the Water District. He requested that staff report back with the parameters the City will be dealing with regarding work load and money. City Manager stated he will keep Council apprised and that he is ordering a wider inspection of two storm drain lines to check for leaks and illegal connections. Mayor Anderson stated they should also look into the aspect of the fines covering some of the costs. Councilmember Monia stated the Council's goal should be to find the sources and shut them down. Mayor Anderson stated the creek will never reach drinking water or swimming pool standards, because wild animals do use the creek. In response to Councilmember Tucker's question, Mr. Peacock stated he would like Mr. Burlingham to come into the office to discuss the garbage issue as it is very complex. Mayor Anderson suggested a site visit to the land fill for both Mr. Burlingham and the Council. PLANNING COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS BURGER/TUCKER MOVED TO REAPPOINTMR. ASFOUR TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. PASSED 5-0. MONIA/KOHLER MOVED TO REAPPOINT MR. FORBES TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. Councilmember Tucker noted she would not support the motion as she feels both Mr. Forbes and Mr. Favero make decisions without basing them on findings they can support, and this puts the City in jeopardy. Councilmember Burger concurred. The above motion failed 2-3 (Anderson, Burger, Tucker No). MONIA/KOHLER MOVED TO RBAPPOINTME. FAVERO TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. Mayor Anderson stated she has had complaints from citizens regarding Mr. Favero. She also expressed concern about his attendance record. Councilmember Burger concurred. The above motion failed 2-3 (Anderson, Burger, Tucker No). MONIA/KOHLER MOVED TO APPOINT MS. ANN WALTONSMITH TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. Councilmember Monia stated he would like to see a better balance of women on the Commissions and stated she is heavily involved in the community. Councilmember Kohler stated he would support the motion as Ms. Waltonsmith has been a long time Saratogan and has been involved in land use issues. He feels she is the right person for the job. City Council Agenda 12 December 16, 1992 Councilmember Burger stated that Ms. Waltonsmith did not share many of her philosophies. Mayor Anderson feels that Ms. Waltonsmith's main issue is open space and she feels there are other issues which are equally important. The above motion failed 2-3 (Anderson, Burger, Tucker No). TUCKER/MONIA MOVED TO APPOINT MR. BURLINGHKM TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. Councilmember Monia noted ~he would not support the motion because he feels the issues presented by Mr. Burlingham were Council issues and not Planning Commission issues. He feels Mr.. Burlingham does not know how the Planning Commission operates and will not work well with the other Commissioners. Councilmembers Tucker and Monia withdrew the motion. Mayor Anderson stated her preference would be Mr. Jacobs and Mr. Wolfe. MONIA/BURGER MOVED TO APPOINT MR. WOLFE TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. PASSED 5-0. BURGER/TUCKER MOVED TO APPOINT MR. JACOB8 TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. PASSED 3-2 (Monia, Kohler No). Mayor Anderson thanked all the applicants. 10. CLOSED SESSION - None 11. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 12:00 midnight. Respectfully submitted, Catherine M. Robillard Minutes Clerk