Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-20-1995 City Council Minutes MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL TIME: Wednesday, December 20, 1995 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue TYPE: Regular Meeting Pledge ofAllegiamce The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. Councilmembers Burger, Moran, Tucker, Wolfe, and Mayor Jacobs were present. Staff present: City Manager Peacock, Public Works Director Perlin, City Attorney Riback, Community Development Director Curtis, and Finance Director Fil. 2. CEP. NMONIAL ITEMS - None. 3. REPORT OF ClTY CLEREONPOSTING OF AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on December 15, 1995. 4. COMMUNICATIONS FROM CONMISSlONSI~BDTn~ PUBLIC A. OI~L COMMUNICATIONS (limited to 15 minutes) Mr. John Power, 12150 Krlsty Lane, Saratoga, addressed the Council. He stated he was a resident of Saratoga for 25 years, and was a scientist and engineer with extensive expertise in event evaluation. Mr. Power discussed the letter sent by the City Council to the Public Utilities Commission (PUG) and the newspaper coverage of interviews. He said he believed that the letter and the interviews were inappropriate, unfair and inaccurate. He stated his frustration and said he was incensed by the letters and interviews because he felt they. were basically bureaucratic protest relative to an event still underway. He said he felt that some of the accusations and implications expressed in the letter were inaccurate and might have represented a certain portion of Saratoga. There may have been a concern about the outage and the return to power, but theletter was written in the midst of the severe storm and he questioned why someone would write such a letter at that particular time. Mr. Power said the letter referred to permanent outage and power loss which was not the case. He pointed out that his home did not experience any outage, nor some of his neighbors. Hr. Power noted observations of the recent storm: (1) The storm was severe and widespread but yet shortllved~ there was warning ahead of time~ it was well tracked over the news media and weather station3 the storm was a difficult, tough storm, and was widespread into-the large municipal areas of San Francisco. (2) There has been a series of recent adverse weather environmental conditions in the last six years such as an earthquake, three winters, three drought winters, major fires, floods and storms. He said the power during those times was reliable. In s~mmary, Mr. Power requested that the information used as a basis for the writing of the letter be made available to him. He said he felt that the Council owed PG&E an apology and the people of Saratoga a better communications system in the future. Mayor Jacobs responded that he, not the entire City Council, was responsible for writing the letter to the Public Utilities Commission. He explained that the PUG would investigate the recent outages and would decide if the complaints were justified. He said he felt it, appropriate that the PUG make the decisions about the actions taken. Mayor Jacobs pointed out that the letter was written when the stormwas over. Mayor Jacobs said he felt there was no reason to apologize to PG&E or to the citizens of Saratoga. COuncilmember Wolfe reported that he, like Mr. Power, did not lose power outage in his home. Me said he felt the letter sent was a responsible response by a leader in a position to know the needs of a City Council Minutes 2 December 20, 1995 large n-mher of Saratogans who were in need at the time. The quick action prevented more damage and disruption of household outages. B. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS - None. C. WRITTEN COMMUNICATION8 - None. 5. CONSENT CJ~LEND]UI A. Previously Discussed Items - None. B. New Items l) Planning Commission Actions, 12/13 - Note and file. 2) Public Safety Commission Minutes, 11/13 - Note and file. 3) City Financial Reports for November: a) Treasurer~s Report - Receive and file. b) InveStment Report - Receive and file. c) Financial Report - Receive and file. 4) Approval of Check Register. 5) Final Acceptance end Notice of Completion for Saratoga- s,,-~vale Road Improvements, Capital Project Resolution MV-221 Implementing Various Minor Parking Restrictions (including those authorised at 12/6 meeting on Paseo Presada across fromEl ~uito Park). 7) Resolution 95-57of SummaxTVacation of a Portion of Street Might of way (Fruitvale Avenue). S) Resolution 95-45.1 Amending Resolution 95-45 Appointing Council Representatives to agencies in Accordance with Council Discussion 11/21/95. 9) Resolution 95-30.07Amending 1995-96Budget - Packard Grant end Nelson Property TUCKER/BURGERAPPROVE CONSENT eat~NDARITEIi8 5B, 1-9. PASSED 5-0. C. CLAIMS AGAINST i'm CITY - None. Mayor Jacobs moved the agenda to Item 7B. 7. B. NoratorlumOrdinence on Cellular Antenna Sites. City Manager Peacock reviewed the background of the item as outlined in the staff report. Councilmember Moran asked if the moratorium represented a pause in the planning process to allow the City Council to regroup to study the issue further. She questioned the length of the moratorium. Mr. Peacock stated that the moratorium period was dependent upon the complexity of the issue and noted that it should not take more than 6 months. He explained that staff would review the policy issues and make recommendations to the Council in terms of the policy rather than craft an ordinance. In response to a question from Councilmember Burger, City Attorney Riback explained that State law provides two options for adopting an interim urgency ordinance. The first option is to adopt an urgency ordinance which would go into effect immediately for the period not to exceed 45 days. Within the 45 days, the City Council would have to hold a public hearing in order to extend the 45 day perlodl the extension would be over a period of 10 months and 15 days and the total time period of one year. The 10 month, 15 day period could then be extended for a period of one year by a third 4/5 vote by the Council. Mr. Riback summarized the options asz (1) taking action at the next City Council meeting, adopting an urgency ordinance on a 4/5 vote that lasts the maximum 45 daysl within that time period a public hearing City Council Minutes 3 December 20, 1995 might be held during which the.City Council would decide whether to extend the 45 day period for another 10 months and 15 days, which would also require · 4/5 vote. (2) The second option is similar, to have a public hearing occurring first in order to adopt an ordinance which would then be in effect only for 45 days after which a second public hearing would be required in order to extend the ordinance for 22 months and 15 days. Mr. Riback recommended the first option which calls for a public hearing within a 45 day period. Councilmember Wolfe stated the moratorium was an elaborate process for a measure that could possibly be under discussion for a period of time. Discussion continued regarding the complexity of the moratorium, wherein staff answered questions. Mr. Riback explained that City Council could have the ordinance apply to all applications, whether by permitted use or offlcial use permit, or have the ordinance apply only to discretionary approval permits. TUCKER/MOP~NTOADOPTOPTIONNO. I FOR aNURGENCYMO!iATORI~MORDIMANCE ON CELLULAR A~ BITE8 FOR CONSIDERATION AT ~A~OARY 3, 1996, MEETING. PASSED S-0. 6. PUBLIC ~XP/NG - S:00 p.m. A. Ordinance changing Speed Zone Designations on S~ratoga Avenue and Quito Road (first reading and introduction). Public Works Director Perlin reviewed the background of the item as outlined in the staff report. He summarized the recommended changes in speed limits' at three locations in Saratoga. In response to a question from Councilmember Moran, Mr. Perlin explained that the survey included approximately 15 streets, end the three specific locations were identified as having established speed limits in the city code that differ from the speed limit recommended. in the survey. Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing at 8:06 p.m. As there were no requests to speak, the public hearing was closed. MOPa3//BURGER TO INTRODUCE Tat~ ORDINANCE BY TITLE ONLY, WA~wiNG FUn'rareR READING. PASSED S-0. 7. OLD BUBIMEBS A. Report on Initiative Petition regarding General Plan Amendments and Resolution Calling Election for March 1996. City Manager Peacock explained that there were three staff reports relative to the proposed initiative which would require voter approval of changes to the General Plan with respect to various residentlal and open space designations. The three reports included a report from the Community Development Director on zoning land use issues relatlve to the inltiative~ a report from the City Attorney discussing the legal issues$ and a report from the City Manager relative to the financial issues. Mr. Peacock reviewed the four recommended actions as outlined in the staff report. City Attorney Riback explained the legal issues relative to the proposed measure, as outlined in the memorandum from his office. Discussion followed wherein Mr. Riback answered Councilmembers' questions. He stated that the City and State were in dispute relative to the City's housing element being in compliance with state law. Mr. Riback explained that the housing element is a set of goals, objectives and policies. If the City has adopted those goals, objectives and policies and believes they are in compliance with state law, but the state agency does not agree, they cannot be implemented until the state agency advises that it is in compliance with state law. City Council Minutes · December 20, 1995 A lengthy discussion followed wherein staff answered Councilmembers' questions. Community' Development Director Curtis reviewed the General Plan Amendments, history of the General Plan Map, potential GPA and zone change applications subject to an initiative, as outlined in the staff report. He explained the report in detail and anSwered Councilm~mhers' questions. In response to a question from Councilmember Burger, Mr. Riback stated that the resolution language would be part of the ballot language. A discussion ensued regarding the report on procedural decisions on the initiative petition. Councilmember Burger requested that staff investigate the statement that there is no provision for any person'or group other than the City council and the proponents to write arguments and rebuttals for anlnltlatlve petition. Mr. Riback said he could not speculate at this point and would investigate further, noting that the City Council was the only body allowed to provide opposing arguments. Discussion continued regarding the report on procedural decisions on initiative petition. Mr. Peacock recommended that the City Council designate two members to compose the argument, which is due in the Clerk's office by ~anuary 5. Councilmember Moranquestloned if a large parcel of property zoned residential were to be rezoned commercial, would staff be unable to advise the Council on that matter, or would it have to go to a vote to the Planning Commission. Mr. Riback explained that the issue that would presented to the voters would be whether or not a General Plan land use redesignation would take place. He said it may involve a pro~ect that also requires design review, subdivision map, conditional use permit, etc. He said there would be certain limitations but all the other approvals, while consistent with the General Plan land use redesignation voted upon, would still in some way be acted upon. Mr. Curtis continued his presentation and answered questions. Mayor ~acobs opened the public hearing for public input. - Mr. ~eff Schwartz, Saratoga resident, stated that he would not present an argument for the initiative, but wished to comment on. the legal analysis and present the Council with areas in which a legal report was submitted. Mr. Schwartz said he would respond to the City Attorney's report to the City Council concerning legal issues raised by the Saratoga Neighborhood Preservation Initiative. He said that under legal issues raised under the initiative, deception begins with an analysis of whether the initiative would require a vote of the people before the city could consider both processes. He said most of Mr. Riback~s and Mr. Curtis' remarks were based on that assumption. Mr. Schwartz pointed out what he considered to be inaccuracies in the report. He stated that the Planning Commission and City Council should fully consider an application and then place it on the ballot only if it is permitted through currently existing procedures. Mayor Jacobs requested a copy of the letter Mr. Schwartz was reading, stating it was difficult for the Council to digest the volume of information being presented. Mr. Schwartz indicated he would give the Council a copy of the letter. In response to a question from Councilmember Tucker, Mr. Schwartz stated that he was questioning the legal issues, and that he also took the initiative to contact the City of Nape who has a similar initiative. He presented a copy of the City of Napa,s resolution which it passed following a vote which states specifically that (1) In 1991, Nape decided vote regular process of course, and if approved put the vote to the people~ and (2) Nape voted to have the developer pay for the cost of the election. He pointed out that it can be done effectively, as shown in other locations. Mr. Riback pointed out that there were substantial differences between the Saratoga initiative and the Nape County initiative. He stated that in the Nape County initiative it actually states that whenever the board adopts an amendment requiring approval by a vote of the people City Council Minutes 5 December 20, 1995 pursuant to the provisions of this subsection, the board action shall have no effect until after such a vote is held and majority of the voters vote in favor. That clearly established a process in Napa County. Mr. Riback stated that Mr. Schwartz was correct~ that is what takes place in Napa County because that is what the initiative specifies. Mr. Riback pointed out that this initiative is silent in the issue of process. Councilmember Tucker suggested that speakers submit written material to the Council before the meeting, which would allow the Councilmembers time to read the material and digest the information prior to the meeting. Mr. Jim Stuart, 19149 Allendale Avenue, Saratoga, read a letter to the City Council which refuted information presented to the City Council in December of 1995 in the form of memorandums from the Community Development Director and the City Manager. He alleged that the memorandums contained significant misstatements and substantial omissions and said that the City Manager and Community Development Director did not understand the initiative. He said that in reality the initiative will simply do the job of the current General Plan and current zoning ordinances. The initiative will introduce an extra level of protection for residents of the community. He pointed out that it is the same General Plan and zoning ordinance that the Council has been working with since being elected. He said the initiative will introduce an extra level of protection for community residents for certain tlrpes of changes to be made to the General Plan and zoning ordinances. The initiative will bring the property rights back to the individual homeowners and prevent high density developments. Mr. Stuart stated that the City Manager's memo which states that the same potential for lltlgatlon exists with this initiative as was the case in 1980 with the hillside initiative was incorrect. Almost all the hillside initiative litigation concerned a retroactivity clause, and Mr. Stuart pointed out this initiative was not retroactive. He said the 1980 hillside initiative was so successful that the City Council extended its provision to cover all of Saratoga's hillside rather than just the northwest hillside as the initiative testified. Also the hillside initiative has changed the standard for development of hillside land so the developer or owner in many cases is entitled to fewer lots under the initiative than would have been the case without the initiative. Mr. Stuart continued his presentation regarding the initiative. Mayor Jacobs stated that a decision had to be made whether or not to put the initiative on the ballot. He asked if there was agreement with the proposition that since both Mr. Schwartz and Mr. Stuart both disagreed with the staff report, there appears to be clearly a disagreement about the interpretation of the law and the thing for the Council to do is to put it on the ballot to allow time between now and when a decision is made for people to find out what the true facts are. A discussion ensued regarding theguldelines for putting the initiative on the ballot. Ms. Marcia Fariss, 18983 Saratoga Glen Place, addressed the Council and urged adoption of the Neighborhood Preservation Initiative. She urged adoption of the initiative rather than placing it on the March 1996 ballot. She said that calling a special election is costly to the city, and explained that placing the initiative on the upcoming primal7 election ballot was less costly. Ms. Fariss stated that the cost of a special election for the initiative could be more wisely spent for support of the teen center, senior center and the library. She said she felt costs for special elections mandated by the initiative when developers request rezoning should be borne by the developer. That procedure is commensurate with the Napa County ordinance. Therefore from the fiscal point of view it would be better to adopt the initiative now~ adoption would also save the initiative opponents as well as proponents thousands of dollars. Speaking to the second reason for adopting the initiative now, Ms. Fariss referred to the Council's stated desire to be responsive to its electorate. She said that the signatures of more than the required 15% City Council Minutes 6 December 20, 1995 of the registered voters were collected in the short period of time which speaks for the concern that Saratogans have for its future development. She said it was obvious through the rapid collection of signatures that 8aratogans want more direct control of their city's development. Ms. Farlss said that adoption of the Neighborhood Preservation Initiative would demonstrate the commitment both through fiscal responsibility and to Saratogan's concern regarding all future development. For those reasons, she urged adoption of the initiative. Mayor Jacobs asked Ms. Fariss if, when the petitions were signed, people were promised that the initiative would be put on the March ballot so they would have the opportunity to vote. He again questioned if the opponents were informed they would have the opportunity to debate the initiative. Ms. Fariss responded no, stating that at the time it was not known whether or not enough signatures would be gamered for the March ballot. She stated that she did not speak with any opponents. Following Ms. Fariss' response, Mayor Jacobs read a portion of a letter sent October 11 from Ms. Fariss to the Saratoga Mews. "One might be justified'in suspecting that some opponents are afraid to allow saratoga voters to exercise their right to vote for or against this initiative. Certainly the initiative deserves to be discussed, debated, analyzed, and examined. Once qualified for the March ballot, there will be plenty of time for those processes to occur, let~s debate when it counts.- Mayor Jacobs questioned whether it was unfair for most people that Ms. Farlss made the representations to that tonight she was at the Council meeting telling the Council to deprive them of the opportunity to debate. Ms. Fariss explalned that the quote was merely a response to letters publlshed in the newspaper. She said she did not tell anyone directly and did not understand how it would prevent debate. Mayor Jacobs pointed out that Ms. Fariss had asked the people to wait until it quailfled so that it could be debated between now and March and some people could vote on it in March. Mayor Jacobs said that the people should be given the opportunity to do what was promised them. He pointed out that there were not any opponents present and no full debate had taken place. Ms. Fariss responded that she felt there was significant debate publlshed by the Saratoga News and san Jose Mercur~ Mews. Councilmember Burger pointed out that Ms. Fariss had just requested adoption of the initiative, which was in direct contradiction to the letter referred to. Mr. Victor Monia, 14665 Granite Way, compared the meeting to the 1980 Measure A hillside initiative debate. He suggested that the benefits of the initiative be considered and not only negative aspects. Mr. Monia stated that one of the benefits of the initiative was that it took the ebbs and flows out of development changes. Mr. James Shaw, 18735 Kosich Drive, said that he appeared before the Council at a previous meeting and urged adoption of the initiative as an ordinance. He explained that he had a total belief in the product but had trouble in finding the magic phrase of the concept that would open minds and hearts to receive the message that the Neighborhood Preservation Initiative delivers. The clear and overwhelming message is that residents want their neighborhoods to remain essentially as they are now, and noted for the record not to increase density or intensity. Borrowing a phrase from Mr. Riback, Mr. shaw said that it appeared the intent is clear and simple~ people of good will can work out the rough edges with minimum disruption. He said the Council had an ad hoc committee to lead the movement in Saratoga to retain the neighborhoods as they now are. Councilmember Moran suggested that the Council act at the meeting to place the initiative on the ballot so that everyone in Saratoga can vote on it. when placed on the ballot, Councilmember Moran stated that she would urge saratogans to vote against the initiative because she City Council Minutes 7 December 20, 1995 was committed to preserving and protecting Saratoga as an attractive low density community and the initiative would harm the community in two ways. She explained that the initiative promises to detail Senior housing in Saratoga indefinitely. Senior housing is much needed in Saratoga. Supporters of the initiative want to block a proposal for senior housing which is the last available link in saratoga for senior housing. Councilmember Moran stated that the initiative effectively hijacks the planning process in saratoga. Councilmember Moran stated that the initiative backers want to substitute a costly and c-mhersome and continuing ballot system on land use issues; they want to substitute that for a process that already works. She stated that if citizens are not pleased with the land use decisions made by council members, the citizens should vote in new council members. Councilmember Moran urged the Council to put the initiative on the ballot, stating she would oppose it. Councilmember Burger concurred that she felt the initiative should be placed on the ballot, stating that she would urge Saratogans to vote against the initiative. She concurred with Councilmember Moran's comments and corrected the statement that the election would cost $50,000; pointing out that the election would cost about $6,000. Councilmember Burger stated in addition that the measure has been presented to the community as an anti-growth measure; however, she said it was more akin to anti-neighborhood. Neighborhood control will in fact be lost if the initiative is approved because the majority of the Saratoga residents may not share concerns and desires of the individual neighborhoods. The entire community will vote on what goes on in one neighborhood and the majority of the residents of the community may not care that commercial development occurs next to Kinko's on Saratoga Avenue. For the majority of Saratogans, it would not represent a great concern to them, but the additional tax revenue that may come from that may represent something desirable to them. Certainly the residents of that neighborhood will have lost control of the decisions for that neighborhood. she stated that the Saratoga Councils have had extremely sensitive response to neighborhood issues in that respect. She cited the exemples of the Councll rejection of the Home Depot proposal and commercial development on the Koslch property on Saratoga Avenue. Councilmember Tucker said she could understand why there might be support for the initiative because on the surface it appears like a good idea. She said she opposed the initiative because it was c-mhersome, unnecessary and expensive; and the council was Very sensitive to the needs of the community and will continue to be sensitive to the community. councilmember Tucker noted that the process in place allows everyone to voice their views and get the best decisions possible. Councilmember Wolfe said that he was sensitive to the issue and felt it was a sad day for Saratoga when so many have been "snookered" by a few selfish residents, in many cases using false statements, to persuade slgnln the initiative that is by design aimed at sacrificing senior citlzensv shelter. He said he had confidence in Saratogans that they would make the right decision, to reflect, study and arrive at the truth concerning the initiative, and vote in favor of retaining control of their neighborhoods, by rejecting the initiative at the polls. Mayor Jacobs said at this point he was less troubled at the nature of the initiative. He said it was clear from the discussions held that it was not agreed what the impact would be and for that reason alone it would be prudent to place the initiative on the ballot. Mayor Jacobs remarked that it was ironic that people who are insisting they don't trust the Council to make important decisions, and they feel the decisions should be put to the public vote but are asking the Council to take away from the public the right to vote on them. He said he felt it was not consistent. Ms. Fariss was not the only one who promised that the initiative would be on the ballot, but also Mr. Shaw did so in a letter to the Saratoga News. Mayor Jacobs pointed out, that at a minimum, if proponents were going to be consistent and fair to the public they need to agree with the Council, that if they told the public it was going to be on the ballot and they would have a right City Council Hinutes 8 December 20, 1995 to vote on it, the public should have the opportunity. Mayor Jacobs reiterated that he was troubled by some of the things that have been said in support of the initiative. A recent example is the letter from Hr. Shaw to the Hercury News wherein he stated that ,,Residents do not want more projects with 3300 square foot homes, with 7500 square foot lots, crammed in 94 strong, on Saratoga Avenue next to Highway 85. The City Council agreed to that project beceuse the developer threatened to walk away if forced to abide by typical Saratoga residential density rules.,: Hayor Jacobs pointed out that if people were told that, they were misinformed because those involved in the process, including some of the most vocal supporters of the initiative, know verywell that it was the tremendous pressure from the community in support of the project. He said that the implication is clear that the City Council caved into pressure. Hayor ~acobs stated that neighborhood people as well as people from other neighborhoods supported the project. Mayor ~acobs expressed concern that some of the petition gatherers were told that if they did not like what was built on the Paul Hasson site, they should vote for the initiative because it would prevent that kind of thing from happening again. He felt this was contradictory to the concept that the initiative would provide neighbors with what they want. Re stated that he would like the community to have the time to bring the facts into the open for debate. Re pointed out that if the community has the opportunity to examine the facts, it would be aware that the Council does not always vote against what the neighbors say they want. Me recommended the initiative be put on the ballot so that the public Could have the opportunity to debate the initiative. MORAN/BURGER TO T~KE RECOMMRMOED ACTION TO RECeive ]LMD FILE REPORTS. PASSED 5-0. M~RAN/BURGER TO ~OPT RESOLUTION 95-58 CIkLLING FOR SPECIAL ELECTION ON MARCH 26, 1996. PASSED 5-0. MORAN/WOLFE TO BEND 'ftus M~kBUR~ TO ~tus CITY ATTORNEY FOR TMI~RRTIAL AFALYSIB. PASSED 5-0. MORAN/BURGER TO DEBI-r~daTE Tn~ MAYOR AND VICE MayOR TO WRITE aRGUMeNT AGAINST 'x'~s WRz~URE AND REBUT 'fee ASGUarRMT IN FAVOR OF MXRRURE. PASSED 5-0. Mayor ~acobs declared a recess at X0:00 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 10:17 p.m. with the same Councilmembers end staff present. 8, haw BUSINESS A. O~ml Communications (continued) and instructions to staff regarding actions on cttrrent oral communications. Hr. Peacock provided an update on the storm activities and response actions taken by work crews on December ll and 12. He reported that approximately 59 overtime hours were involved on storm related issues, Costing about 51900. He reported that a total of 6000 residences in Saratoga were without power during the storm and that the crews / continued to keep updated with PG&E through Friday, December 15. Peacock reported on the operations of the Emergency Operations Center during. the storm. ~ discussion ensued regarding PG&E'S communication system during the storm. ~r. Peacock reported that City staff remained in close contact with local PG&E staff on maintenance activities and utilized city communication systems to remain in contact with PG&E and the community when PG&E communication systems failed. He stated that he would propose to continue to work with PG&E to get them to use their resources in the city to work more effectively in amergency situations. B. Resolution Rescinding Resolution approving Tentative Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract ~elative to Property at 20851 Saratoga Rills Road (Nelson Garden). City Council Minutes 9 December 20, 1995 City Attorney Riback reviewed the memorandum which outlined the settlement agreement reached. He reported the settlement agreement called for dismissal of litigation in return for the rescinding of resolution adopted May 17, 1995, as well as payment of attorney fees, paid partially by the city, Trinity Development and the Community Foundation. In response to Councilmember Burger's question, Mr. Riback stated that an enviroumenta~ impact report has been prepared and the draft EIR was being circulated. He explained that the draft EIR covers not only the subdivision map issue, rezoning issue, General Plan amendment issue, but also covers the cancellation of the Willlamson Act contract. Mr. Riback said that the question of whether or not to approve a tentative cancellation of the Williamson Act contract will be presented to the Council again. Councilmember Burger summarized that the action taken would be to rescind the tentative approval for the purpose of addressing the concerns that were voiced regarding the Cpuncil's previous approval. The issue would be considered again but with additional information as requested by Friends of Nelson Gardens. Mr. Riback confirmed the explanation of the action to be taken. Councilmember Burger stated that it was important for community members to understand that the action is simply not an action to rescind tentative approval, but that the issue will be reviewed once again with more information. Mayor ~acobs clarified the action was needed to handle technical issues in terms of how the application was received, stating that they would be handled differently. BURGER/TUCKER TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 95-59 RESCINDING Tn~ RESOLuTXON APPSOVING Tn~ TEIFTATxv8 CANCELT,~TION OF TIIE WIL~TIMRON ACT CONTRaCT. Pi~JiSED 5-0. C. Adoption of Performance Standards in connection with the Cityes Store Water Management Program. a) Standards for Industrial/Commercial Inspection Program. b) Standards for Illicit Connection and Illegal Dumping Identification and Elimination Activities. Public Works Director Perlin reviewed the staff report relative to performance standards that would be presented to the Council over the next twelve months for consideration and adoption relating to control measures that the city is obligated to performunder the reissued NPDE5 permit. Mr. Perlin explained that the City of Saratoga cooperates with the other West Valley cities through a ~olnt stormwater management program, because it shares many similarities. Mr. Perlin reported that the performance standard for the industrial/commercial inspection program envisions using the Saratoga Fire District inspection program to perform the nonpoint source inspections that need to occur for certain targeted facilities such as gas stations, restaurants, and dry cleaning establishments. Other existing inspection programs utilized in the city by other agencies would serve to supplement the primary inspections that would be carried out by the Saratoga Fire District. The city would be responsible for following up on any violations noted by the Fire District inspectors. Mr. Perlin explained that proposed standard contemplates identifying and eliminating illicit connections and illegal dumping through the routine storm drain cleaning and maintenance activities that the city performs. Referring to the overhead chart, Ms. Kelly Carol, Program Coordinator for West Valley Cities, explained the program and the process followed, and answered Councilmembers' questions. BURGER/MORaN TO ~DOPT PERFORCE STANDARDS IN CONNECTION WITH 'x'an CITYsS STORNWA~RI~N~GKqxmNT PROGIt~N. P~SED 5-0. ~ brief discussion followed regarding cost benefit analysis. City Council Minutes 10 December 20, 1995 BUP~ER/NOP~tN ~N~NDED NOTION TO ADOPT PB]tFOI~NANC~ STANDARDS IN CONNECTION WITH 'r~ CITY*8 STORNFATHR wm~fa~x~T PRO~Paa, WITH COST BENEFIT ANaLYSIS. PA~SED The Council directed the City Manager to prepare a letter to the Regional Water Quality Control Board expressing concern about the cost/benefit. D. Cable Television Franchise - Recluest for Transfer of Ownership. MORAN/TUC~ERTOCONTIN~IE ITENTOFEBRUARY 21, 1996. PaM]SHD E. Memo Xuthorising Publicity for Upcoming Hearings. - None~ publicity for Butler Appeal on 1/3/96 has already been authorized. City Manager Peacock provided a brief update. 9. ROUTINE NA.x-f~RB A. Approval of N~nutes - 12/6/9S and 12/12/95. MORAN/BURGHRAPPROVEMIbu=~S OF 12/6/95AND12/IS/95NEETINGS. P~SSED 10. CITY COUNCIL IT~NR A. Agenda items for joint meeting With Mbrary Commission 1/9/96. Councilmember Moran expressed interest in communicating with the Library Commission about the possibility of utilizing the Internet and telecommunicatlons systems available. She expressed concern about the library cooperating with the seniors in various areas, which was discussed with the seniors at a recent meeting. Councilmember Moran requested an update on the after school usage of the library. Abrief discussion followed .regarding library funding. B. Other. Councilmember Moran discussed the possibility of holding a City Council ,,town hall,, meeting on the Saratoga High School campus on March 1996, at lunch time. Councilmember Burger discussed a packet recently received from O'Rorke which was put together for interested parties in applying for the Public Safety Commission. She suggested that City Council recommend that each commission develop a similar packet for applicants. There was a brief discussion about Planning Commission vacancies and interviews. 11. Adjournment ,. Mayor Jacobs adjourned the meeting at 11:27 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Elizabeth Elli~ Minutes Clerk