Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-15-1996 City Council Minutes MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL TIME: Wednesday, May 15, 1996 7:30 p.m. PLACE: civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Ave. TYPE: Regular Meeting 7:30 - Pledge of Allegiance - Led by Cissy Hoffman 1. ROLL CALL Councilmembers present: Councilmembers Burger, Tucker, Moran, Wolfe and Mayor Jacobs. Staff present: City Manager Peacock, City Attorney Riback, Director of Public Works Perlin, Director of Community Development Curtis. 2. CEREMONIAL ITEMS A. Resolution for Phil Koen for Service to Finance Advisory Committee TUCKER/MORAN TO APPROVE THE RESOLUTION. PASSED 5-0. B. Commendations for Volunteers giving over 100 Hours of Service Mayor Jacobs presented the volunteers with commendations for 100 hours of service to Bernice Giansiracuza, Cissy Hoffman, Ann Campbell, and Stephanie Torrez. He thanked them for volunteering their time to the community. C. Proclamation declaring May 19-25 as National Public Works Week MORAN/BURGER TO ADOPT THE PROCLAMATION. PASSED 5-0. 3. REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on May 10. 4. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS AND THE PUBLIC A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Bill Sheridan, 19766 Elisa Avenue, discussed an incident that occurred on May 7, 1996 in the evening at the completion of the City Council meeting at the City Hall concerning Measure G. He said that he and City Manager Peacock were engaged in a conversation outside the building when Councilmember Wolfe summoned the City Manager in a loud, arrogant voice. Mr. Peacock did not respond to Mr. Wolfe's command and continued speaking with Mr. Sheridan. Mr. Wolfe again demanded Mr. Peacock's presence; Mr. Peacock once again did not respond. Mr. Sheridan said he responded to Mr. Wolfe in a loud voice that Mr. Peacock would not respond to his command. Mr. Sheridan said that Mr. Wolfe then Came rushing toward Mr. Peacock and himself and hurriedly walked around him. He said that Mr. Wolfe's attempt to intimidate him was not successful. Mr. Wolfe then continued to summon Mr. Peacock's presence in a demanding tone. Mr. Sheridan said that addressing Mr. Peacock in that manner was inappropriate. Mr. Wolfe and Mr. Peacock retreated to the parking lot and Mr. Wolfe twice raised his hand in gesture for Mr. Sheridan to go away and said "Goodnight, Mr. Sheridan". Mr. Sheridan said he then continued to the parking lot after which time Mr. Wolfe and Mr. Peacock met with at least three other councilmembers, huddled in a group. He said it was likely they were discussing some holiday event and that the meeting held in the parking lot after the City Council meeting was not in violation of the Brown Act? Mr. Sheridan commented on the City Council expenditure of funds for 4th of July festivities. He said for 25 years he been trying to get City money to clean up the undeveloped Kevin Moran Park which is overrun with debris, skunks and rats. City Council Minutes 2 May 15, 1996 F. L. Stutzman, 15195 Park Drive, said hat his comments were related to the May 7 City Council meeting. H, Istated he was present at the meeting from 7:30 until 9:30 p.m., at ~ich time he had to leave the meeting to pick up his wife from the ~Foothill Club where she was attending their annual dinner. Mr. St~ zman said that in the past he has attended other City Council meeti] ~, spoke during the allotted time, and then left the meeting when tk lagenda item for which he was appearing was concluded. He said he un !rstood that at the end of the ?nklnd remarks about Mr. Monia May 7 meeting, Councilmember Burger mad~ ' ' and Mr. Stutzman making sometime derog ~ory comments to the Council, and then leaving the meeting. Mr. Stut2 ~n said he felt the public was at a disadvantage because they were all tted only 3 minutes to speak, whereas the councilmembers take 5 to 15 ~inutes to respond without the public having the opportunity to readdr~ ~ the issues brought up by the Council regarding the speakers' comment ! He likened the situation to the myth that the gunfighters in the o] west would face off and have a shoot out face to face, whereas in re ity they were invariably shot from behind. He said he resented peop ~ taking potshots at him when his back was turned; and he was accusto~ ~ to criticism. He asked that the Council have the dignity, cOurte ~ and courage to treat him decently and in turn he would do the sa ~. Mr. Stutzman said the second item of ~oncern was relative to the meeting held in the parking lot after [e May 7 Council meeting. He said he felt it was in violation of the ~rown Act if anything was said by two councilmembers in that particulaI !roup regarding city business. He asked City Manager Peacock if anythj ~ was said in that particular meeting regarding city business. Mr. Stutzman suggested that City Attorney Riback or City Manager Peacock ~ake a point of initiating new councilmembers in the intricacies of tk Brown Act. Councilmember Burger said that at the propriate time in the meeting she would respond to the speakers' com hts. City Manager Peacock then addressed Mr. [utz stating that he could n man, rest assured that no city busines I was discussed during the conversations held following the May 7 ouncil meeting. B. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMI88I( - None. C. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - None 5. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Prevlously-Discussed Items 1) Resolution ~96-24 confi Eng decision made 5/1/96 on Candidates Statements ~r November 1996 Municipal Election TUCKER/BURGER TO APPROVE CONSENT CALEN ~ ITEM 5.A.1. PASSED 5-0. B. New Items 1) Planning commission Act ~s, 5/8 - Note and file. 2) Parks and Recreation Co~ ~sion Minutes, 1/8; 3/4; 4/1 - Note and file. 3) Resolution rescinding i ~olution 95-44, which vacated a portion of Esterlee A' ~ue - REMOVED FROM A8ENDA. 4) City Financial Reports April: a) Treasurer,s Report Receive and file. b) Investment Report ~eceive and file. c) Financial Report ~eceive and file. n 1995-96 Budget to add funds 5) Resolution 95-30.14 smel ,g for: EIR on Nelson Gar~ ~s and Odd Fellows projects; City Council Minutes 3 May 15, 1996 three debt service funds~ Tract 6701 Repairs~ and refund of certain Leonard Road assessment fees 6) Authorization to purchase Airless Paint Striper from Dispensing Technology Corp. for $5315.98 7) Quarterly Report to Regional Water Quality Control Board on City NPDES Activity 8) Resolution 96-25 Annexing Peach Hill Road - Wilson/Davison (A95-001) 9) Resolution 96-26 declaring Weeds and Brush a Public Nuisance and Setting Abatement Hearing 10) Final Map Approvalfor 2 lots at 20140 Mendelsohn Lane (SD91-004~ Husain) 11) Approval of Check Register Councilmember Wolfe requested that Item 5.B.6 be removed from the consent calendar for discussion. BURGER/MORAN MOVED TO APPROVE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS 5.B.1 THROUGH 5.B.5, AND ITEMS 5.B.7 THROUGH 5.B.11. PASSED 5-0. 6) Authorization to purchase Airless Paint Striper from Dispensing Technology Corp. for $5315.98 Councilmember Wolfe commented that the paint striper was purchased for a substantial savings and congratulated staff on the operation. MORAN/WOLFE TO APPROVE ITEM 5.B.6 OF THE CONSENT CALENDAR. PASSED 5-0. C. CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY - None. Mayor Roberts moved to the agenda to Item 8A. 8. NEW BUSINESS A. Oral Communications (continued) and instructions to staff regarding actions on current oral communications. Councilmember Burger clarified that the City Council members worked well together as a group, and are also friends, and sometimes take the opportunity to stand together for friendly conversation about matters not related to City business. She said that the Council is well aware of the Brown Act and its ramifications, and do not discuss City business outside of open meetings; it has not been done in the past and it would not be done in the future. Councilmember Tucker responded to Mr. Stutzman's comment about limiting speakers to three minutes at some Council meetings. She clarified that there are Council meetings where the public is not limited to three minutes' speaking; there are different forums with different time limits. She said that the Tuesday evening Council meeting is a different forum and the speakers are not limited to three minutes. Mayor Jacobs clarified that there was not a time limit on speakers at the May 7 meeting and about 2 hours was spent on open discussion on the issue. Mayor Jacobs responded to Mr. Sheridan's comments. He explained that the festivities for the 4th of July are not being funded by the City of Saratoga, but are being funded entirely by private donations. He reported that the Parks and Recreation Commission has a management plan for the completion of parks within Saratoga and noted the Kevin Moran Park is part of the plan. He suggested that a letter be sent to the Parks and Recreation Commission to express concerns about the parks. Councilmember Moran announced that on June 8th the Parks and Recreation Commission will be holding a community workshop open to the public. The workshop will be held to discuss the development of parks and City Council Minutes 4 May 15, 1996 recreation facilities in Saratoga. S invited the public to attend and provide input. B. Ordinance establishing Unlfo Procedure for the Submittal and Processing of Claims fo] .Money, Damages or Refunds Of Money City Manager Peacock explained that he ordinance is primarily a procedural ordinance with the effect oj ~ ardizing the current code rand which has separate sections and standa: lizes the process. BURGER/TUCKER TO INTRODUCE BY TITLE ONE ! AND WAIVING READING IN FULL, THE ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING UNIFORM P~ ;EDURE FOR THE SUBMITTAL AND PROCESSING OF CLAIMS FOR MONEY, DAMAGE OR REFUNDS OF MONEY. PASSED Mayor Jacobs moved the agenda to Item . D. Approval of Proposal for ndscape Design Services for Saratoga-sunnyvale Road Medi Improvements, CIP 9601 Item 8D was continued to May 21, 1996. E. Memo Authorizing Publlclty Upcoming Hearings ~- LLA-1; Budget; Brush Abatement City Manager Peacock reported that af the memorandum was written there was an appeal on denial of reque for a tentative subdivision map to subdivide the two parcels of la into 15 single family lots; that will be scheduled for the 5th. of J ~e. Staff is not recommending any additional notification beyond ~ 500 feet. The Planning Commission was not satisfied with the [oposed layout of the streets and suggested an alternative layout wh h the applicant does not want to pursue, therefore the tentative map ~ being appealed. BURGER/TUCKER TO APPROVE. PASSED 5-0. 9. ROUTINE MATTERS A. Approval of Minutes 5/1 Councilmember Burger requested that Pe 4 of the minutes, middle of page, paragraph that begins: "Council ember Burger stated . . ." be modified to reflect that she not only :eviewed the concerns of the Planning Commission but also visited t~ site. Councilmember Moran requested the follo~ lg change to Page 4, paragraph beginning "Councilmember Moran said .. ~, add "she also visited the site and applicant..." Also change th~ mntence on the third line of the paragraph to read: "overall she be] eves that a lot split on this property is inappropriate." TUCKER/WOLFE TO APPROVE MINUTES OF MAY MEETING AS AMENDED. PASSED 5-0. 10. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS A. Agenda items for joint meetin, Iith Heritage Commission 6/11: 1) Preservation of Histo~ Buildings (as prevlousl~ discussed concerning MO( :ty House) Mayor Jacobs clarified that the it, should read "Preservation Ordinance Sufficiency and Scope." B. Other items for 6/11 meeting 1) Commission Term Limits City Manager Peacock said the topic re ted to the same problem with the Commission where there is some spe !fic expertise categories and whether or not the Council will examine ts current policy of two year City Council Minutes 5 May 15, 1996 term offices. Mayor Jacobs questioned if there was resolution to the issue of late submittals of materials for hearings. City Manager Peacock said that the issue was discussed at a prior meeting and the conclusions of the Council are contained in the minutes of the subject meeting. He said most of the discussion centered on the desire to keep the flow of communication going with the public, but also recognizing the difficulty in dealing with last minute communications. City Attorney Riback clarified that if documents are submitted at a unreasonably late hour, the City Council can indicate that the material will be part of the record, but cannot be considered at that time. Discussion continued regarding upcoming agendas. Mayor Jacobs moved the agenda back to Item 6. 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS - 8:05 p.m. A. Requests to realign existing General Plan designation and Zoning District boundaries to match the reallgned parcel boundaries at 13570 Pierce Road. Parcel A (8.4 acres) is located within a Hillside Residential District and Parcel B (40,500 sq. ft.) within an R-1-40,000 District. GPA-96-001 & AZO-96-001 (Appllcant, Binkley) (APN 503-14-022 & 044) An environmental initial study and subsequent Negative Declaration have been prepared for this project pursuant to the terms and requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. MOP/N/BURGER TO CONTINUE THE REQUEST TO REALIGN EXISTING GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION AND ZONING DISTRICT BOUNDARIES TO MATCH THE REALIGNED PARCEL BOUNDARIES AT 13570 PIERCE ROAD TO JUNE 5, 1996. PASSED 5-0. B. Ordinance amending Chapter 15 of the Saratoga Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance) to require Use Permit review and approval for cellular and wlreless ~oommunioation antenna facilities in all zoning districts. (AZ0-96-002) An Initial Study and Negative Declaration have been prepared for this Ordinance Amendment finding that no significant adverse environmental impact will result from the ordinance. Community Development Director Paul Curtis reviewed the background of the item as summarized in the staff report. Community Development Director Curtis discussed the alternatives for appropriate locations for the wireless communication antenna sites which were consistent with the City's land use and neighborhood protection goals and policies. The conclusion of the Planning Commission was that the best alternative was to provide for the maximum number of potential sites while requiring detailed review on a case by case basis. The Planning Commission is recommending the amendment to'the zoning ordinance that allows wireless communication facility sites be located at any zoning district in the city, subject to approval of the use permit. Community Development Director Curtis discussed the changes to the ordinance, as outlined in the staff report. He recommended that the ordinance when introduced should include the deletion of Section 15- 18.020 which is the professional and administrative designations. Also Section 15-19.020 (a) (6) which is the commercial designations, is to be deleted. He pointed out that a section needed to be added to the ordinance to include conditional uses for multiple family. Community Development Director said that given the urgency ordinance that has been adopted creating a moratorium, once an ordinance has been placed to respond to concerns, the urgency ordinance needs to be rescinded. The moratorium/urgency ordinance prohibits an application from being accepted by staff, therefore staff would have to wait until City Counoil Minutes 6 May 15, 1996 the ordinance is effective, which is 0 days after it is adopted, before the application can be accepted nd processed. He recommended that the urgency ordinance be rescinde lin part upon the adoption of any new ordinances that would allow acce ring applications, which would allow processing. He noted that the City has been contact by two providers interested in locating antenna sites on city owne I[acilities. Nothing has yet been approved and staff will continue wC Flng with potential applicants who have identified city owned propert] sites. Councilmember Tucker asked what finding have to be made to protect the residential areas. Community Development Director responi that with any special use permitted that is subject to a conditio ~1 use permit, there has to be appropriate location, zones, and whate~ ~ the structure may be it has to be compatible with the surrounding a] ~; it may need to be screened, put in a particular location that doe: #t impact the use of utility poles. Typically there are specific f2 ]ings in terms of maintaining the residential character of the eighborhood, technically a conditional use permit allows a use to into a site only if it does not create any significant impacts. Councilmember Tucker asked if the Comm sion has considered excluding residential neighborhoods except for 1 those areas which might be appropriately large in terms of parcel tize. In response to Councilmember Tucker's !stion, Community Development Director said that the Commission ~id not consider excluding residential neighborhoods because it is !lmost impossible to identify. It could probably be done if it were rE ~dential properties in excess of 3 acres, but it would be just as ea~ Ito make findings that it was inappropriate because of particular sit ~tions. He said the Commission was not opposed to saying no. Community Development Director Curtis :pain d he deletion of 1 e that t reference to heights allowed more fle) }ility to the Commission. He said that the use permit is the most ~trictive tool other than the zoning act. Mayor Jacobs asked if the City Council as in a position to say no to the proliferation of requests for tes, or does it face the possibility of the federal government ~pping in and superseding its controls. Community Development Director Curtis ponded that from the land use perspective, as long as their location provided for and there is a review procedure, the Council can say r If there are findings that the land use is inappropriate or overco entrated you can say no; what the Council cannot do is simply say tt y are not going to allow the antennas. Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing t 8:27 p.m. Matt Mullen, representing GTE Mobilene ! thanked the City staff and Planning Commission for developing th~ ~ordinance. He said the end result is a reasonable balance between ~rotecting and preserving the integrity of the neighborhood as well las allowing the industry to develop the infrastructure to provide p service to Saratoga. While in agreement with what is presented 3e requested the Council to consider that the provision to allow th facilities in the commercial and professional administrative offic zone districts through the administrative approval process with t] ability to refer them on to the Planning Commission on a case by ca~ basis. In so doing, what is accomplished by this is encouraging t~ ~e kinds of facilities to be located in the zone districts and not ]~ilt out into the residential areas. Mr. Mullen explained thata procedure c ld be implemented whereby any action that the city is going to take o~ the project would be publicly noticed to give the opportunity for the ommunity to come forward with City Council Minutes 7 May 15, 1996 public input. Before the city takes action on it they have the ability to gather input from the community, refer it on to a higher level if necessary, and in those instances where the project design is appropriate it would not burden the overall system by going through the Planning Commission hearing; it would be dealt with at an appropriate level, reviewed by the city. He requested that the Council consider his comments for the ordinance. In response to Councilmember Wolfe#s question, Mr. Mullen indicated that Mr. Empey, representing GTE, previously appeared before the Planning Commission and discussed the administrative approval in the commercial areas. He noted that GTE also participated in the Planning Commission study session. He pointed out that sometimes the easiest mechanism is to require a conditional use permit for all the applications; however it may not be the best method. He said there may be a better route to take that is sensitive to the industry, that allows appropriate level review, gets the community input, is publicly noticed and handled at a lower level. Mayor Jacobs asked if Mr. Mullen was suggesting the Council exempt commercial areas where permit requirements are used. Mr. Mullen said that he was suggesting allowing discretionary review under all circumstances, and have a level of review whereby a permit application is processed at a lower level in some instances before a planning director or other designated individual. He said he was not opposed to the proposal citing residential areas. Mayor Jacobs closed the public hearing at 8:33 p.m. Councilmember Moran said she strongly supported the decision of the Planning Commission. She said that in response to GTE's comments, in a city of Saratoga's size where the commercial areas are close to the residential areas, she was in favor of having the same process for all areas. The use permit process creates an incentive for locating in areas where there is low impact, visual and otherwise for the proposed installation. Councilmember Tucker said that she was concerned about the residential neighborhoods, primarily because ABAG is also reviewing the item and the antennas can be very obtrusive. She said she was not comfortable with putting them in residential areas. Councilmember Moran questioned what the options were. Councilmember Tucker said that commercial facilities were an option. She noted that one of the conditions should be that the user cannot deny another user coming in because Council does not want a proliferation. She said her opinion remained open; however she had concerns in residential neighborhoods because people will receive money if they allow the antennas on their property. She said she preferred antennas on roofs rather than poles, if possible. In response to Councilmember Burger°s questions, City Attorney Riback stated that as a condition of the use permit, it would be reasonable to have the requirement of pole location. He stated there are certain findings that must be made in order to approve the conditional use permit, and if it is determined that there is unreasonable detrimental impact on persons or property then you need not approve the use permit if the determination is supported by the evidence. Mayor Jacobs said he concurred with Councilmember Tucker's concern about antennas located in residential areas. He suggested that there may be facilities such as churches in residential areas which could be used if the antenna was located in a steeple and totally invisible as opposed to commercial areas with visual obtrusiveness. He said that it might not be advisable to restrict residential areas by simply saying no in the event of such locations such as churches in the residential areas. Mayor Jacobs said that it would be advisable to find a way to acco~umodate at least some of the antennas, other~qise the city could have them forced upon it by the federal government or Public Utilities Commission. It would be advantageous to leave room for a City Council Minutes 8 May 15, 1996 number of options in order to make the !st choices. Councilmember Wolfe pointed out tb Saratoga is primarily a residential community and there are b, ~nd to be concerns about the residential placement of the antennas. {e said that the key function phrase in the recommendations is the l ~ permit review which allows everyone the opportunity to be heard, y! still be declined. The city still has the flexibility on that. Councilmember Moran said that she understood and appreciated Councilmember Tucker#s concerns. She aestioned the possibility of establishing some guidelines for an upfz nt statement about the limits for the use permit. Councilmember Tucker said she felt ther as not sufficient information available. Councilmember Moran suggested the p si] lity of referring the problem OS to the Planning Commission. Mayor Jacobs indicated that a decisi~ was not mandatory at this meeting. There is an emergency ore nance in effect that is a moratorium and it may be beneficial ~ ~have some criteria for the issuance of a use permit. He suggested riteria limiting the location of antennas and a condition relatin, ~to pole location. He also suggested a condition relating to the ~ual impact of the antenna. Community Development Director Curtis .id it was staff's intent to address the issue on a case by cas basis. He explained that applicants are informed they can apply or a use permit and the site will be considered. Councilmember Burger expressed that a me ~age is sent when applications are reviewed on a case by case basis tha ~ssentially says every impact of the antenna will be considered and ~pproval may not be granted; whereas an application on another site ~ht. The City maintains full control on the guidelines. said that the problem with Community Development Director Curtif guidelines is that invariably the first pplication that comes in will be in conflict -with those guidelin, , and you take away that flexibility on a case by case basis. S S A lengthy discussion continued wherein ~aff an wered Councilmember ' questions. Councilmember Burger said she was in fav T of introducing the ordinance Without requesting a whole set of guide [nes. The Council's concerns aE~ well understood and are probably sh~ ~d by the Planning Commission and staff realizes that careful revielJ necessary. i · . . j .location; if it is deemed b eflclal the Councildoes not want t~ 3reclude something other than a use permit. ~er is, from having exclusive right to that particular site which i~ a condition on the property which will come under the condition e the use permit itself. The property owner cannot be compelled to g~ ~nt a second lease to another party. The property owner can be inform~ ~ that the use permit does not allow for exclusive right, which is a~ ~ondition of getting the use permit in the first place~ but the ow~ ~r is under no obligation to entertain a second proposal with anot~ ~ company; it is still their property. ~ the Discussion continued about location o antennas in residential zones. Community Development Director C~ itis said that the residential properties that have been discussed are ~rge sites that have no single family homes on them or possibly surpl s freeway parcels, leftovers Caltrans bought for Highway 85 wideninc ~nd inappropriate for housing City Council Minutes 9 May 15, 1996 so they can't sell them back at an auction. No one has proposed the single family homes site so one of the issues and one of the answers to solve the problem would be to put a size restriction on the property; whether it be 2 acres or 3 acres. The drawback to that is there may be some pumping station that already has an antenna from the water district and it might be appropriate. Mayor Jacobs said that it was not wise to limit the City's options; the City is going to be very strict about the location of the antennas and he felt there was no way that an antenna is going to be in a residential neighborhood unless it is virtually invisible. Councilmember Burger said she felt it might be that the Planning Commission recommendation for a conditional use permit is all that is needed. It would give the City a range of options. Mayor Jacobs said Saratoga is ahead of most cities on the issue. The City has identified it very early because it recognized from the start what the potential problem was. In San Jose there are many sites, both industrial and commercial; but Saratoga is not as large and can't be handled the same way. Councilmember Wolfe said he was comfortable with the review procedure process and the fact that the residents in the neighborhoods will not allow any intrusive obstructions to go up in their back yard. WOLFE/BURGER TO ACCEPT PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION BY TAKING THE FOLLOWING ACTION; (1) ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FINDING THAT NO SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT WOULD RESULT FROM THE AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE. PASSED 5-0. WOLFE/BURGER TO INTRODUCE AND WAIVE FURTHER READING OF AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING USE PERMIT REVIEW IN ALL ZONING DISTRICTS FOR COMMUNICATION ANTENNA FACILITIES WITH AMENDMENTS THAT WOULD INCLUDE DELETION OF 15-18.02(F)# 15-19.020-6 AND RN. PASSED 4-1 (Tucker opposed). Mayor Jacobs reiterated that he shared Councilmember Tucker's concerns. He said that when the process was started months ago, concerns were expressed about potential for proliferation of the antennas and their visual impact. He .said he did not approve of them in residential areas, and the City should control the procesS. The City needs to have as much flexibility as possible to make sure that the antennas are put in the most unobtrusive places. Councilmember Moran concurred with Mayor Jacobs. She said she shared the determination that the antennas should not be in residential areas, in backyards and frontyards. Councilmember Tucker stated she was opposed to it because the Council should be sending a message that they don't want antennas in residential areas, and if there is an exclusion, it should be identified. She said that by allowing them, it sends the message that the City wants them. She said she hoped the people in the audience with cellular antennas to be put up are hearing the message that even though they may get approval, it will not be an easy process. Councilmember Moran said that she felt that the Councilmembers would all concur. Mayor Jacobs declared a recess at 9:10 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:22 p.m. with the same Councilmembers and staff present. 7. OLD BUSINESS A. Implementation of Measure G (continued from 5/7) City Manager Peacock explained that the staff report contained a series of recommendations; the first one relating to determining whether or not a particular application for development is subject to Measure G. Measure G deals with 7 categories of land use under the General Plan. He listed the 7 which included outdoor recreation, hillside City Council Minutes 10 May 15, 1996 conservation single family, very low de ~ty single family, low density single family, medium density single Iamily, multiple family and planned development residential. City Manager Peacock explained that two part test applies to determine whether or not an applicatid is subject to the Measure G requirement. The first test is to d '.ermine whether the property b e kin one of the categories, it second the test is subject to the Measure G requiremend ~ The part of is that if the property is located isnal ae of the 7 designated areas, staff will look at what Measure G 3 ~ relative to the density or intensity of development of those par~ ~ular pieces of land, and if there appears there would be a dens~ iY or intensity change, the application would be subject to Measure .~ requirements. City Manager Peacock outlined the proce~ for administration of Measure G, which included processing applica~ DnS for projects, placing a project on the ballot, dealing with e~ ~ptions, and conclusion and recommendations, as outlined in the ate. ~hed staff report. Mayor Jacobs opened the meeting for pu ic input. Mr. Jim Shaw, 18735 Kosich Drive, Sarat a Woods, said that following last week's meeting the City Council ~ ~ld adopt the implementation policy created by staff. He presente the following views: "Going directly to the ballot is not prescribe Dr even encouraged by Measure G. If adopted, this policy is your pro~ =t and responsibility and not associated with or supported by Measu G, drafters or supporters. Measure G was drafted with the assump~ }n that current policies and procedures would remain in place. Perk DS the flaw is that it relies on common sense. It defies my sense if fair play that the staff, Planning Commission, City Council would onsider abdicating its duties to evaluate development projects and to record their collective decisions under projects that fall undi Measure G. The drafters in support of Measure G do not want the fu ~tions of the staff, Planning Commission and City council abdicated. Sou were hired and elected to 'in in t er Measure G, and to render o r best interest of the City. decisions which you believe to be in t~ As Measure G supporters maintained thro~ !hout the campaign, the voters want an opportunity to affirm all tho-48 rules that current decision making process and results, but only i~ the decision is to increase density or intensity. Mayor Jacobs, laa week you were concerned that if applications are processed before go~. ~ to the ballot, the City will be perceived as selling the ~an2ns%h~! project. ~ ~ are correct; that's exactly what you should be doing. ~s what I believe Measure G supporters want and expect. A background of Measure G being · ~ . . in place, is that the evaluation and e clslon making process should proceed with great care, thus if a projl ~t which increases density or intensity, makes it through the proce !s with G in the background against your evaluation decision making } ~ [ocess, I think the electorate can assume that you have given great c~ ie. to that particular project and as such would give it great consider ~on because we all agree that the best interests of Saratoga is what ~.rybody wants. It is another hoop to go through for you and your dec ~on making process. Measure G was intended to help the Council, no' hinder Or take away anything that you should be concerned with.' Shaw Mayor Jacobs stated that in regard to i' 's concern about going to the ballot or not, he read Measure G an attempt to find something that gives direction as to the procedul ~ to follow and was unable to find anything indicating whether or not ~ should go on the ballot any particular time or that the City shou ~ or should not in terms of administrative policies go one directiol ~r another. He asked Mr. Shaw if he could cite specifics. Mr. Shaw said it was neutral, and he f. ~t in drafting the Measure G initiative, it was a basic assumption ~t they are not changing any of the processes. Me said he would not ant to evaluate the fate of a ~ t evaluation, Planning project without having the benefit of ~ aff's Commission and City Council. City council Minutes 11 May 15, 1996 Mayor Jacobs said that the city should remain neutral in the process. He said he has expressed his opinion before about the City remaining neutral. He said that the property owner is in reality asking for a favor; no one has the right to have the General Plan changed; the right to develop the property and the right to change the General Plan are two different things. Everyone has the right to develop their own property, but not everyone has the right to a General Plan amendment. He stated it was his view that if the property owner wants this additional thing which is a privilege, not a right, it is their burden to sell that to the public and the City Council should not be essentially helping them to sell a change in the General Plan to the public. He asked Mr. Shaw if it could be accomplished in such a way that the City wasn't essentially selling it, would that satisfy his needs? Mr. Shaw disagreed with Mayor Jacobs, stating that the landlord or property owner is not looking for a favor, but merely asking to change the General Plan and it is his duty to provide justification. He said it was his inclination to say that anything that puts the merit, description or the project out into the voters has to be helpful. Councilmember Burger said that it was creatively stated that it was the duty of the applicant; but if the planning process is used as part of the justification, tax dollars are being used to help the applicant convince that he is entitled to a change in the General Plan. Mr. Shaw stated that it was being done on all the Measure G applications in that resources are extended to evaluate the projects in other areas. Councilmember Burger stated that the one vital difference is the essence of Measure G and that final approval may depend on the voters of the community. Ms. Marcia Ferris, 18953 Saratoga Glen Place, made the following comments regarding the adjourned meeting. "It seemed to me that the majority of the Council members heard the public input, but didn't seem to listen to what they were saying. What the public hearing was declared for, the meeting attendees were virtually ignored and the Council members discussed it amongst themselves is fine, but it is obvious that other public input was needed. In psychological terms it was like the classic example of what we call parallel play which is described as one child being next to another child, neither acknowledging nor interacting with that person at all. It also appears that the majority of Council member statements and the actions so far indicate you are out of touch with the majority of Saratoga voters." She listed five ways which she felt was true: "(1) The voters passed a measure which supported the current city review process regarding development and assumed that they would stay in place. (2) Measure G merely added a layer of protection after the Planning Department, Planning Commission and City Council studies had been completed. (3) The voters expressed their support for the review process. It was often the final decision that people found unsatisfactorX. The voters passed a measure that applied to the large development on vacant land, not room, patio or pool addition. (4)The voters passed measure G based on analysis of the initiative; authored intent in certain aspects was not specified. (5) The voters did not approve the Council attempting to bypass the current procedures by requiring applicants to go directly to the ballot box. The reality is that the Councilis elected and duty bound to carry out the wishes of the majority of the voters, that is democracy, and you the Council are supposed to represent the voters. The voters approved Measure G because they were dissatisfied with some past, some present land use decisions and were worried about future land use decisions. They approved Measure G as advertised; they trusted you and still trust you to apply Measure G as it was meant to be applied; not the way you are currently choosing to interpret it. After speaking with numerous Saratogans from several different areas, I can assure the Council that there is considerable and growing dissatisfaction with the Council's fear to form published interpretations of Measure G. If you have not yet performed a reality check, you will be well advised to do so right now tonight, even voters who initially opposed Measure G have come up to me and said they feel City Council Minutes 12 May 15, 1996 the Council is acting inappropriately ~d childishly when they don't have to. It would be unjust and a vi tation of the voters' express preferences if this Council vote is 5 eschew current application processes. Last week's public comment= ~seem to affect you like pesky mosquitoes. They couldn't be ignored, ~t they could be swatted aside or squashed. What was needed last week hd now is dialog not diatribe. Not us versus them attitude; not an a }ersarial confrontation but a commitment to an exchange of v] ~le solutions from proper implementation of Measure G. It's abo~ doing what is right." Mayor Jacobs opened the discussion for ouncil's comments. Mayor Jacobs said as he understood it, ~e applicant cannot be legally compelled to go to either conceptual c design review process. That y a fi ihing in the document that set forth a procedure that was to be followa ~in terms of when the election is to take place or how much work was !o be done by the City on the application. He asked staff or lega counsel to comment on use specifics. City Attorney Riback responded that tk initiative measure is silent on that procedural question. Councilmember Tucker said that it was ~ase of creating bad laws with ugly results, and what is here toni at is not clear. There is confusion about the intent of the ~llot measure, the verbiage exclusively stating intent was not on t ballot measure and therefore people did not vote one way or anoth . She said she felt people wanted to have a say in the General Pla amendment that intensifies or creates a greater benefit and what is ~ing discussed is not whether or not this should happen; she said sb felt it should; and therefore would vote in favor of the staff recom] ndation. Councilmember Tucker said that the mes ~ge to the community is there is an applicant who wants to change oF zone to another and in doing so that applicant will change the Uuidelines relative to the development of that property. The app cant will develop commercial property, residential property and e~ ~ with the residential zones there has to be setbacks, and height li tations. Therefore all these are in place and the question to the cc hunity is do you or do you not want to change the zoning. She said ~he felt it was unfair to an applicant to have him come forward and ~o through the entire process and then have to go up the vote of the 5eople. She said if she was the applicant she would want to go dir, tly to the vote of the people initially to find out whether or nc to proceed. She said she supported Measure G wholeheartedly; the staff's recommendation is the best way to support it. Councilmember Wolfe questioned the appl ~ant's due process rights. He said that the voters in the City shoul have a maximum comfort level when something is presented to them; if t has gone through the process initially and Council approves it, it ~ M confirmed by the people. He said Councilmember Moran's suggested t. m of 'option" creates greater freedom of the applicant that might b~a ~nsidered as well. t i ~r for purposes of causing a General Plan amendment subject to MeaB ~e G is the people; the City council can only make the primary dec~ ion, whether that decision is es y or no. He compared this to the sit~ ~ion where the City Council is the appellate body for decisions maii] ~by the Planning Commission, e ~o City Council in the normal process. If the City Council is in tha~ ~ame situation as the Planning Commission and the City council says 4 , then the applicant has the right to a final decision from the fine decision maker, which is the public -- the voters. He said that t{ deprive an applicant of that right to have a final decision made is ~ 91ating the due process rights of the applicant. He said that Measur G is a step between Superior Court, an added step in the process. City Council Minutes 13 May 15, 1996 Councilmember Burger said she was persuaded by Councilmember Tucker's argument. She said it was important to remember that the passage of Measure G had brought the voter into the process at the ballot box and the voter is the final arbiter, at the ballot box, of whether or not the General Plan change will take place. She said that counsel has advised that City Council cannot require an applicant to go through the planning process, that decision of whether or not to go through the planning process or to go directly to the vote, ultimately rests with the applicant. She commented that she couldn't imagine why an applicant would invest the cost not knowing what the end result would be and still have to go to the ballot box. Councilmember Burger responded to comments made by a speaker earlier in the meeting who suggested that the current process is okay but that the decisions reached by the Council are sometimes not okay. She suggested that the same solution be used that has been used for over 200 years, and that is the ballot box - to replace certain elected officials with others who you believe will come to beneficial conclusions and decisions. All that has to be done is to convince the majority of the voters that it is the path they want to take. Councilmember Burger said she was disturbed about comments regarding last Tuesday's meeting which was not televised in the community although it was publicly noticed. She said the Council was told that all the people wanted was a dialog from the Council, and she reminded the community at large that it was at that meeting the Council was told if it didn't do it Sonics' way the Council would face a recall. She said that was not dialog, it was a threat. She said she felt she needed to make those two statements so the community at large would understand and at this point she was persuaded that going directly to the ballot box is the proper way to go. Councilmember Wolfe said he was glad to hear Mrs. Farris' position this evening that she would rather the Council engage in parallel play and enjoy a dialog on this matter, that they all be heard and listened to at the same time. He said it was a much better approach than the attack mode, and threats that came before the Council in the beginning, which is "no way to start a ball game." He presented a scenario of an applican~ coming to the Council one day in late November with a full two year wait for a regular election, unless he wants a special election. Why can't applicant choose while he is waiting for the election period, to learn something through the planning process; would it be a full planning process or would it be something like they have in Los Gatos which is a conceptual development committee that discusses the project and arrives with some recommendations. Part of the scenario would include Measure G as well. Councilmember Tucker responded that they could probably go to the initiative process to hurry it up. She said she thought that the Council was losing sight; everyone is talking about a specific application and the Council is talking about an initiative. She said she felt the Council was trying to do too much and should take it easy and go one step at a time, and decide whether or not the community wants to have a zoning change and let them vote on it. Councilmember Tucker said she expressed a view last Tuesday that did not fall squarely where everyone else on the Council was. She said she felt the Council wholeheartedly supported Measure G in terms of trying out and implementing it in a way that it was best for the community and to act as a Council in a way that is squarely within intent of Measure G. She said the Council recognizes it is an important issue in the community, people want to know how the Council will handle it and how it affects their property. She said she was pleased that the town hall meeting was held on the subject of Measure G, and that last week's meeting on the subject of Measure G was held. Despite some incendiary dialog it was a fairly open and useful discussion where people were actually speaking to one another. She said she was also happy to have the matter continued from the adjourned meeting and be televised to allow people more understanding on how the Council intends to act. Councilmember Tucker said she was in general agreement with the City. Manager's suggestions on how to implement Measure G, with an exception City Council Minutes 14 May 15, 1996 that the Council devise a process fo] reviewing Measure G projects before they go to the voter. She sai~l did not know any voters that said they did not want the Council invo fed in planning decisions that are affected by Measure G. If a voter ~s trying to inform herself of the merits of Measure G process, the .'oposal that would be on the e that it should be part of the process. Councilmember Tucker said she would lit to see some sort of planning process in which the City would pr~ ide some information to an applicant. She said .she would prefer~ review process, but complete that it may not fly in terms of the ~ hncil view of what they feel comfortable with. She said she was w! !ling to take an application, find out whether it was Measure G or vast ma3orlty are not Measure G) take the applications and ~ t m immediately to staff for an overview and analysis. An overv ;w providing the owner an idea of what the project is and what kind c review would be necessary to evaluate the project, and it would als ' ' ' cost estimate. provide the applicant with a e s d a system where the voters Councilmember Tucker said she also pro[ receive information about a project; whl [ its general appearance would ; o ' j t rely on the applica ~ or owner description. The be we d n t us applicant could make the decision to llo directly to the voters or through the process. She said that she Duld like a staff report after a year to conduct an evaluation of the uccess of the process because we will probably have to make amendment Councilmember Burger discussed a scena] o of an applicant approaching the City and wanting to identify a piece 5f property to be changed from la residential to commercial without a p ~ [but the concept being a small shopping center; and ~tating the com~ nity was willing to allow a change in zoning. She said the end r~ ~ult would be a denial. The applicant would decide to proceed no fu] ~her. The City Council cannot suggest going to the planning process fil ~t before going to an election if the applicant chooses not to provid~ ' ' ' information to do that. ~ the City Council with enough a [latn amendment application and send it directly to the Planning Commi~ ~ion and they will vote on it and send it to the Council and the Coun ~1 will vote on it. 1 s f p atl but on zoning changes : O~ . , If that application moves forward and is ~ ged, they are not bound by han it. The community must realize that th~ are voting on a zone change. ~y that was going to decide 1 c . different group of people. Councilmember Burger asked where was ~ ~ assurance of the community that after they approve the General Pla~ ~ that is all they have done. They still have no assurance that the~ ~inal product is going to be r Tucker explained that th submit their input and go through the~ ~sign process. She said she understood Councilmember Moran ' s conce~ ~ that the voters won ' t know what they are voting on. The City Att~ [ney will put the verbiage the ballot explaining the meaning to ~ ~e people. The 'co~unity on is welcome to call City Hall if they have ~y ~estions. Ma or Jacobs said that le all the C il could 'not require them to Y ' g y ou~ and sell to the public the do that; potentially they can go ou~ package they plan to build. In the elect ~n they have the right to tell the public whatever they want and they ~n't be forced to go through the entire process as far as the design City Council Minutes 15 May 15, 1996 Councilmember Moran said that General Plan amendment applications should be permitted if the applicant chooses. Mayor Jacobs said that the message from last week's meeting was that the public was concerned that it would not get enough information on what they were voting on. He said he was in favor of having a staff report completed to give the public .information; but was not in favor of the Council making the decision, because if the Council gives its stamp of approval, it is influencing the electorate, and in an election campaign the City is not supposed to influence the electorate to approve a change in the General Plan. The only way the City Council can live up to the actual intent of measure G is to make a no-decision; the concept is to encourage no zoning changes. He said he was willing to consider Councilmember Moran°s proposal. Mayor Jacobs reviewed Councilmember Moran's proposal. He said she proposed that the applicant should b given the right to go through the process if they choose to. Councilmember Moran explained that the question is whether it is going to go to the voter before they go through the process or after they go through the process. Following a lengthy discussion, Mayor Jacobs reiterated he was willing to try Councilmember Moran's and Sonic's proposal namely that the applicant is given the opportunity to go through the process and proceed as far as desired. Councilmember Wolfe said that the people don't want the Council to be involved. The project will be on the ballot during the reelection and people will demand to know the Council#s position, as they did with the Oddfellows' property. He reviewed Councilmember Moran's earlier comments. Councilmember Moran reviewed her proposed process. After the Measure G determination is made, the applicant would make the decision to do one of two things; go first to the voters and then through the process; or go first to the process and then to the voters. She defined the process as summary overview of Planning Commission/City Council/voters or voters/Planning Commission/City Council. The overview is basically a staff report, a statement of what the project is, to provide information to the applicant so that they can decide which way to go, how long it is going to take, what kind of review, what kind of arborist review, soil report, information to the voter, etc. so that if the applicant decides to go the voters, the voters will be impartial and unbiased. She said that it is an alternate way for the Council to allow the landowners to make the call. It is an overview by staff that goes to the applicant; it does not go to the Planning Commission. Discussion continued wherein staff answered Council's questions. TUCKER/WOLFE TO APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION8 TO CONFIRM THAT ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATIONS AS TO A PROJECT'S STATUS UNDER MEASURE G HAY BE APPEALED AS CURRENTLY SET FORTH IN ARTICLE 15-90 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE. PASSED 5-0. WOLFE/MORAN TO ADOPT A POLICY THAT THE TIMING OF ELECTIONS REQUESTED UNDERMEASURE G BE DETERMINED BY AND PAID FOR BY THE PROJECT APPLICANT, SUCH COSTS TO BE DETERMINED BY THE FINANCE DIRECTOR AND INCLUDE ALL ACTUAL DIRECT COSTS OF THE ELECTION AND SUCH INDIRECT, GENERAL AND OVERHEAD COSTS AS MAY BE DETERMINED APPROPRIATE BY THE FINANCE DIRECTOR IN ACCORDANCE WITH GENERALLY ACCEPTED ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLES. PASSED 5- . TUCKER/BURGER TO ACCEPT THE STAFF REPORT AS ANENDED. MOTION FAILED 2-3 (Jacobs, Moran and Wolfe voting no). Councilmember Tucker commented that it was the best way to go because it gives the people the choice as to whether or not they want a zoning change and it helps avoid misleading the public. Councilmember Moran requested that a staff report be presented to City Council Minutes 16 May 15, 1996 evaluate the success of the implemenl Lion process after the first process is complete. Councilmember Moran proposed amendmem to No. 2 to move to adopt a policy that applications for developm, which are determined to be subject to the election requirements ot ~he General Plan, as set forth in Measure G, shall at the request oz the applicant either proceed directly to an election, or shall beco~ subject to review by Planning Commission, City Council prior to eled ion, or shall be withdrawn at the request of the applicant. nt s options wherein staff Discussion continued regarding appli answered Commissioners' questions. Cit" Manager Peacock suggested that if applicant wanted to appeal the admj ~strative decision subject to Measure G, staff would transmit that re ~rt to the Planning Commission as part of their determination. The sa ~ would apply if they received an adverse decision by the Planning Co~ [ssion and they asked the City Council to do it under Section 15-90. ~ ~e report would also accompany b's question ~garding who would author the ballot arguments, City Attorney Riba Ik explained that there are specific provisions in the elections co~ which allow the City Clerk to determine priority. MORAN/WOLFE TO ADOPT A POLICY THAT PLICATION FOR DEVELOPING OR DETERMINING THE SUBJECT OF THE ELECTIC REQUIREMENTS OF GENERAL PLAN AS SET FORTH IN MEASURE G SHALL, AT ~E REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT, PROCEED TO ELECTION WITHOUT FURTHER REV ~W, SHALL BE SUBJECT TO REVIEW BY PLANNING COMMISSION OR WITHDRAWN. Mayor Jacobs asked whether, if the appl :ant chooses to go through the process to the end, the Council at the ~d of the process will vote on the application. Staff responded that would. City Manager Peacock explained that Cit Council would either approve a resolution containing a condition th~ says this resolution becomes effective upon a vote of the people )r deny the resolution. The decision would then go to the voters. Councilmember Burger stated that she wou vote against the motion. She said she was still unsure of the ~ocess and would feel more comfortable seeing the motion in two we ~s. She said it was important to get a process on the books in order ~ deal with what was becoming law. Some adjustments might be needed. Mayor Jacobs stated he would vote for ~e motion although there were parts he was opposed to. He said he fe] ~it was as much as the Council could do in terms of what Sonic has rec ested. Councilmember Moran concurred, stating ~hat it satisfied some of her concerns. PASSED 3-2 (Burger, Tucker voting no). MORAN/WOLFE TO ADOPT A POLICY THAT EXC% [TIONS TO MEASURE G ARE TO BE CONSIDERED ONLY SUBSEQUENT TO THE ~ [ERS FAILING TO APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN WMIC~ WOULD REMOVE THE CONDITION REQUIRING AN APPLICATION FOR EXCEPTION3 REQUESTS FOR EXCEPTION SHALL BE SUBMITTED BY SEPARATE APPLICATION. PASSED 5-0. Ma o p.m. The y r Jacobs declared a recess at 11:3~ meeting resumed at 11:40 p.m. with the same Councilmembers and staff present. 8. NEW BUSINESS C. Public meeting on levy of ~ssessments for 1996-97 for Landscaping and Lighting Asse sment District (LLA-1) Public Works Director Perlin reviewed !e attached staff report. He reported that the public meeting was no' technically necessary because none of the assessments are proposed be increased. He suggested City Council Minutes 17 May 15, 1996 that in future the public meeting be scheduled to provide the opportunity for property owners to learn about the assessment district. Public Works Director Perlin reported that he had met with Mrs. Heintz, President of the Fredericksburg Homeowners Assoc_iation, and Mr. Wilton, to review the assessment schedule relative to Zone 2. He said that possible ways to reduce the assessments were discussed. Mr. K. B. Wilton, 20405 Cox Avenue, reviewed the preliminary assessment schedule chart of proposed charges. He noted that almost all categories of charges increased this year at the rate of about 13%; however the net amount assessed has been reduced by 22 cents. Mr. Wilton reviewed areas of concern in the charges for administration and overhead, and discussed potential ways to reduce the assessment. He thanked the Council and Public Works Director Perlin for their cooperation. Mayor Jacobs thanked Mr. Wilton for his patience with the late evening agenda and for his positive feedback. A brief discussion followed wherein Public Works Director Perlin clarified the method used to balance out increases in the assessment. C. Other In response to Councilmember Burger's question, City Manager Peacock stated the Friday meeting was on the premises. Councilmember Moran asked for an update on the gas filling station. Public Works Director Perlin responded that the opening was scheduled for the end of the month. The delay has been caused by the supply of the trailer. He stated that staff at West Valley College was scheduling a grand opening ceremony. Public Works Director Perlin indicated that relative to the Pierce Road Bridge, the road was scheduled to be open Monday. Councilmember Moran requested a copy of the City's zoning map. Public Works Director Perlin indicated that the Planning Department had copies of the map available. Councilmember Tucker requested copies of the minutes that contained information on the evergreens on the freeway. 11. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 12:01 a.m. May 16, to Friday, May 17, at 7:30 a.m. (meeting with Legislator), then to 6:30 p.m. on Tuesday, May 21, then to Saturday, June 1, at 10:00 a.m. (Youth Commission Interviews) ~ all meetings to be held in the Administration Meeting Room, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, wit~-the exception of Youth Commission interviews, 'which will be held in the Warner Hutton House, =13777A [ruitvale Avenue. Respectfully submitted,