Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-05-1996 City Council Minutes MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL TIME: Wednesday, June 5, 1996 - 6:30 p.m. PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Ave. TYPE: Regular Meeting Closed Sessi'on - 6:30 p.m. in Administration Conference Room, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6: CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR Agency negotiator: Lori Pegg Employee organization: Saratoga Management Organization and Saratoga Employees Association 7:35 Pledge of Allegiance - Led by Barbara Van derveer 1. ROLL CALL Councilmembers Present: Councilmembers Burger, Moran and Wolfe. Councilmembers Absent: Councilmember Tucker, Mayor Jacobs (arrived at 7:50 p.m.) Staff Present: City Manager Peacock, City Attorney Riback, Community Development Director Curtis, Public Works Director Perlin, Finance Director Fil 2. CEREMONIAL ITEMS A. Administration of Oath of Office to New Members of KSAR Public Access Foundation Board (Francins Bion, Barbara Van derveer) Vice Mayor Moran administered the Oath of Office to Francine Bion and Barbara Van derveer. B. Resolution appointing New Members to Hakone Foundation Board (Lynn Wallace, Richard'Brooding) WOLFE/BURGER TO APPROVE THE RESOLUTION 96-27 APPOINTING LYNN WALLACE AND RICHARD BROODING TO THE HAKONE FOUNDATION BOARD. PASSED 3-0. 3. REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA City Manager Peacock reported that pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on May 31. 4. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS AND THE PUBLIC A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Winifred B. Simpson, 14757 Vickery Avenue, read from a letter she had mailed to each member of the City Council. She said she had lived there for 34 years. The tract, No. 2399, was developed in 1959 by George Day with careful attention to placement of homes for maximum privacy, space and views. Deed restrictions which are still in effect were formulated to maintain these objectives. Recently her immediate neighbors at 14751 Vickery Avenue started a large addition. They applied to the City for permits and received permission to build. However, in violation of the deed restrictions, they did not contact any member of the architectural committee. Immediate neighbors were not notified before the City granted the permit. She had been informed that the Planning Department was not responsible for enforcing deed restrictions. She said that while she appreciated the right~ of individuals to build on their property, she believed that she had the right to light, privacy, views and protection from possible property devaluation. She said the purpose of the deed restrictions and the city's permit process is to help protect her rights. She said that while a person can obtain a building permit without a hearing and begin building before others in the tract are aware thata permit exists, it is the responsibility of the tract members to enforce the deed restrictions after the fact and' at great expense. She made the following requests of Council: 1. The Planning Department review their decision to grant this permit which included allowing a roofline City councll Minutes 2 June 5, 1996 of 17.5 feet. 2. Member of the City Council visit her home to see for themselves how this construction impacts it. 3. Council modify the permit process so that neighbors must be notified before such a substantial building permit can be issued. 4. Applicant be required by Planning Department to sign a legal document stating that they have read and complied with deed restrictions before a building permit is issued. Ms. Simpson submitted pictures taken from her home. Vice Mayor Moran asked staff to respond back to the City Council as to Ms. Simpson's requests in a timely manner. B. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS - None. C. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS 1) Robert D. James, 12315 Obrad Dr., requesting change of time when trash cans can be placed at curbside. - REMOVED FROM AGENDA. 5. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Previously-Discussed Items 1) Ordinance 71-162 establlshing a Uniform Procedure for the Submittal and Processing of Claims for Money, Damages or Refunds of Money (second reading and adoption) 2) Ordinance 71-163 partially rescinding Ordinance 3E-27 and amending Chapter 15 of the Saratoga Municipal code (zoning Ordinance) to require Use Permit review and approval for Cellular and Wireless Communication Antenna Facilities in all Zoning Districts (second reading and adoption) 3) Resolutlon establishing Policies determining and processing Projects Requiring a Vote of the People under the Provisions of the Land Use Element of the General Plan (Measure G) 4) Resolutions 96-29 and 96-30 denying Nagpal Appeal on Tentative Map and Variance heard 5/1 Councilmember Burger requested that item 3 be removed from the Consent Calendar WOLFE/BURGER TO APPROVE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS 5.A.1, 2 AND 4. PASSED 3-0. 3) Resolution establishing Policies determining and processing Projects Requiring a Vote of the People under the Provisions .of the Land Use Element of the General Plan (Measure G). Councilmember Burger said her question was procedural. The resolution does not record that one of the three votes taken was not unanimous~ That vote was in regard to whether or not an item would go through a planning process before it went to a vote of the community at large. City Attorney Riback said it is not a legal requirement and is usually not done unless it is in response to an appeal of a Planning Commission decision. Otherwise, the vote is memorialized in the minutes. BURGER/WOLFE TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 96-28 (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5.A.3)'. PASSED 3-0. B. New Items 1) Planning Commission Actions, 5/22 - Note and file. 2) Library Commission Minutes, 3/20 - Note and file. 3) Resolution accepting Cable Restitution Fund Percentage City council Minutes 3 June 5, 1996 and establishing Use of Restitution Fund Monies - REMOVED FROM AGENDA. 4) Approval of Check Register 5) Direction to Staff to Review Conflict of Interest Codes per Government Code Section 87306.5 6) Emergency Repair to Civic Theater Air Conditioning and Budget Resolution 95-30.15 to provide Funds 7) Authorization of Contract for Utility Billing Audit 8) Renewal of Agency Agreement for a Countywide Implementation Fee, Solid Waste Management 9) Acceptance of Gift from Rotary Club 10) Resolution 96-31 authorizing City to apply for AB 434 Funds (60%) Item 3 had been previously removed by staff. Councilmember Wolfe requested removal of Item 7. BURGER/WOLFE TO APPROVE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS 5.B.1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9 AND 10. PASSED 3-0. 7) Authorization of Contract for Utility Billing Audit Councilmember Wolfe asked if this had been done before and if so, with what results. He said there seemed to be a cost benefit and he would be interested in seeing the final report. City Manager Peacock said it had not been done before. Action had been taken to reduce costs but the City has never had a complete audit. There are many meters that the City pays for and the audit will determine whether they are being properly charged at the kind of rate that utilities are allowed to charge. The City's utility bills are approximately $250,000 a year. Councilmember Wolfe complimented staff for having discovered this service as it could mean a substantial saving. WOLFE/BURGER TO APPROVE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5.B.7. PASSED 3-0. C. CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY - None. Vice Mayor Moran moved the agenda to I~em 7. 7. OLD BUSINESS - None. 8. NEW BUSINESS A. Oral Communications (continued) and instructions to staff regarding actions on current oral communications - None. B. Memo Authorizing Publicity for Upcoming Hearings - Costa Appeal City Manager Peacock presented the staff report. BURGER/WOLFE TO APPROVE THE PUBLICITY AS RECOMMENDED. PASSED 3-0. 9. ROUTINE MATTERS A. Approval of Minutes - 5/7; 5/15; 5/17; 5/21 Councilmember Burger said she thought there should be a question mark after the last sentence of the second paragraph of Item 4.A on page 1 of the May 15 minutes. On page 8, she asked that the word uconcern" in the first line of the paragraph beginning, "Councilmember Burger expressed "be deleted. She requested that the second and third 'City Counoll Minutes 4 June 5, 1996 sentences of paragraph 2 on page 13 be repl'aced with the following: "A speaker 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." Councilmember Burger said that on page 3 of the May 21 minutes, Item 12, second paragraph, should read, uCouncilmember Burger indicates , " instead of Councilmember Tucker. WOLFE/BURGER TO APPROVE THE MINUTES WITH THE AMENDMENTS AS NOTED. PASSED 3-0. 10. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS A. Agenda items for Council meeting June 25 - None; no meeting planned for that date. Mayor Jacobs arrived at 7:50 p.m. Mayor Jacobs moved the agenda to Item 6. 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS Item 6.D was considered out of order. D. Appeal of Denlal of Request for Tentative Subdivision Map approval to subdivide two parcels of land totaling 6.94 acres into fifteen single-family lots. The existing residence and improvements would be removed and a new cul-de-sac would access the development off Saratoga Sunnyvale Rd. opposite Herriman Ave. - there is no vehicular access proposed through the adjoining neighborhoods. The proposed lots range in size from 15,000 to 21,600 sq. ft. and would permit 4,000 to 4,500 sq. ft. homes (including garages). The property is located in an R-1-12,500 zoning district at 15041 & 15072 saratoga- Sunnyvale Rd. (SD,95-010; APN 503-21-009 & 012) - (Applicant: NAVICO INC./BYRON NAVID) 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. Byron Navid, applicant, requested that the hearing be continued to June 19. BURGER/MORAN TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO JUNE 19. PASSED 4-0 A. City of Saratoga 1996-97 and 1997-98 Budget Finance Director Thomas Fil presented an outline including the four major components of the budget: · Budget process followed by the City · Brief guide to Governmental accounting and budgeting · Highlights of the budget Overview of budget components including personnel, fund balances, revenues, expenditures, indirect cost allocation plan and transfers. In answer to Councilmember Wolfe's question regarding the different purposes of contingencies and'reserves, Finance Director Fil said contingencies can only be spent by resolution. Reserves are designated or intended amounts maintained for a purpose and are not appropriated or allocated but are available. Contingencies have been allocated. They do not require an appropriation to spend but must be specifically allocated by resolution of the Council. For example, he said a major portion of the $200,000 appropriated for contingency was directed toward the street light project at Scotland and Saratoga. City Councll Minutes 5 June 5, 1996 Councilmember Wolfe referred to the fund balance graph. He said the reserves have come down since the beginning of the decade because of changes in assessments and reimbursements on the part of the State. Regarding transfers, he cited the example of the air conditioning repair in the Civic Theater building where Council meetings are held. Councilmember Moran asked what was the amount of the anticipated environmental funding shortfall and how much rates would have to be raised to cover it. Finance Director Fil said that in 1997-98 it would be about $23,000. It has a compounding effect over the years and would erode the fund as time goes on. City Manager Peacock said that part of the process staff is going through now is trying to examine what that future need is likely to be. The budget plan estimates that they should be zeroing that fund out by the summer of 1998. Whatever funding is required after that would have to be recovered by a surcharge on rubbish bills. He said he is currently doing an analysis of how that would affect future rates. There is money set aside ($180,000 a year) and they need about $400,000. It might have a minor effect on rates but they are working in other areas to keep rates down. In essence what they would be moving toward is no general fund subsidy of environmental programs. He said it is important to remember that the major cost component is not handled this way in all other cities. The sewer service charges in Saratoga are lower than in other West Valley cities while rubbish bills are no higher than in other cities. Councilmember Moran said she thought having the contingency fund had proven useful but she was not enthusiastic about it being lumped with the running of the City Council. Discussion followed regarding other options including creating a separate fund. In regard to the money received from Rotary, City Manager Peacock said' less tax money out of the General Fund will be spent for chairs and drapes. Councilmember Moran referred to a letter from Ed Vincent, a citizen. She said she appreciated his efforts and questions. City Manager Peacock said staff will respond to the letter. Councilmember Burger said she was pleased with the final statement in the letter, "If the utility tax does not pass don't be hesitant to cut services including those that I enjoy. Be reluctant to cut in those areas uniquely in the domain of government." Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing at 8:49 p.m. Jack Mallory, 12258 Kirkdale Drive, complimented the Finance Director and said that obviously a great deal of thought had gone into the preparation of the budget. He said he was more concerned about policy than detail. He said he knew Council had been forced to cut back the city government over the years and was concerned whether they have been cutting back more than reasonable. He asked if Council had more funds, where would they be. allocating them and what are the high priority needs that they are not funding. He asked if there are high priority needs, have they given thought to pursuing these funds through whatever means, taxes or otherwise. He expressed interest in the Parks and Recreation programs that are in short supply with a high need, the preventive maintenance programs that save money, and code enforcement that maintains city standards. He said this is a wealthy city but is run on a shoestring. MORAN/BURGER TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO JUNE 19. PASSED 4-0. Mayor Jacobs said Councilmembers could all list dreams they have for the city as well as for needs they are not funding. However, what some perceive as needs others perceive as luxuries. As far as what they are doing in terms of getting money to cover these needs, he said he thought Mr. Mallory was talking about raising taxes which means asking City Council Minutes 6 June 5, 1996 taxpayers for money. He said they are faced with the probability that they have to put the utility users tax on the November ballot and he did not think they could ask for other taxes at that time. Councilmember Burger said it is very important that everyone keep in mind as they go through the budget exercise that it is true that Saratoga is a very affluent community, but that is personal wealth. The government is not affluent. This is because of the nature of the community. It is primarily residential and that is the way they have chosen to structure this community. Councilmember Moran pointed out that regarding the issue of where they would spend money if they had more money, there is an opportunity for people to talk about that issue in the area of parks and recreation this Saturday at a public workshop. She said they are trying to get citizen input about how they will spend $1.2 million which is in an earmarked fund for the development of park and recreation facilities. Mayor Jacobs pointed out that communities like Milpitas, Santa Clara and Sunnyvale are affluent in their own ways in that they have income from commercial and industrial sources. It is a common misconception that because people pay a lot of taxes the city benefits. The reality is that very little of it comes back to the city and that is one of the reasons the utility users tax is important--all of it comes back to the city. Councilmember Wolfe said the city is required by state and federal law to perform a lot of services that have questionable benefit. Mr. Mallory said he appreciated Councilmembers' points. However, when the utility tax was passed almost no one complained because they saw it go to a direct need. He said believed we sell people short when we say we'll never get something passed. It takes educating the public on what the need is and where the money is going. He thought wise people would spend the money wisely. He said don't assume that they will turn everything down. Mayor Jacobs continued the hearing to June 19. RECESS: 9:05-9:15 p.m. Item 6.E was considered out of order. E. Landscaping and Lighting District LLA-1 Public Works Director Perlin referred to a handout given to Councilmembers at this meeting and summarized changes that had occurred since the previous discussion. Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing at 9:27 p.m. Kenneth Wilton, 20405 Cox Avenue, said they had unparalleled success in dealing with the City Council and Mr. Perlin. He said even though their concerns were probably not well-formulated, they were listened to with consideration and courtesy and he thought they all deserved a vote of thanks. Mayor Jacobs and Councilmember Burger thanked Mr. Wilton for taking an active part in the process in a positive way. Councilmember Moran said she appreciated Mr. Wilton's positive approach to solving problems. At 9:29 p.m., Mayor Jacobs closed the public hearing. BURGER/MORANADOpT THE RESOLUTION 96-18.1 DETACHING TERRITORY FROM THE EXISTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT LLA-1. PASSED 4-0. BURGER/MORANTO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION 96-13.4 ORDERING THE IMPROVEMENTS AND CONFIRMING THE DIAGRAM AND ASSESSMENTS FOR THE EXISTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT LLA-1 FOR FY 96-97. PASSED 4-0. City Council Minutes 7 June 5, 1996 Councilmember Wolfe expressed appreciation to staff. B. Weed and Brush Abatement - Resolution ordering abatement of weeds and brush City Manager Peacock noted for the record that Councilmembers had a listing of the three properties that will be subject to the abatement order and it would be in order for them to take testimony and consider the resolution ordering the abatement of the public nuisance. Mayor Jacobs ~pened the public hearing at 9:31 p.m. No one wished to speak and the public hearing was closed at 9:32 p.m. BURGER/MORAN TO APPROVE THE RESOLUTION 96-32 ORDERING ABATEMENT OF THE PUBLIC NUISANCE BY THE REMOVAL OF HAZARDOUS WEEDS AND BRUSH. PASSED 4- C. Requests to realign existing General Plan designation and Zoning District boundaries to match the realigned 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 (Applicant, Binkley) (APN 503-14-022 & 044) (continued from May 15) 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. Community Development Director Curtis summarized staff's recommendations. He said essentially the proposed change was not a big one even though the size of the odd-shaped, non-conforming lot would be doubled. The Planning Commission had no objection to the lot line adjustment and ruled that the general plan amendment and zone change should be granted because of the consistency with the lines with the property boundaries. However, this application was caught in the middle of the Measure G election process. The Planning Commission was obligated to continue processing the application and forwarded their recommendation to Council. Their decision was to approve the lot line adjustment contingent upon the general plan amendment and zone change being adopted by Council. This project is subject to Measure G. He referred to Mr. Binkley's letter questioning the applicability of the measure to this project and to his responses which were contained in the executive summary. However, Measure G essentially said if you change one designation to another you have to have a vote of the people. In answer to Council questions and concerns, City Attorney Riback said that because this is such an unusual situation it is actually properly before the City Council to consider the recommendation of the Planning Commission. Mr. Binkley has now raised in effect an appeal of the staff determination that this is subject to Measure G. He said for Mr. Binkley's due process rights it is appropriate for the City Council to consider the appeal this evening rather than send this back to the Planning Commission. Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing at 9:45 p.m. Bob Binkley, 21055 Sarahills Drive presented a brief background. He said the nine acre'parcel is what is left of the family ranch which they are trying to keep in the family. They would sell the smaller parcel. He had received a call from Mr. Curtis informing him that the proposed changes fall under Measure G. To set the record straight, he said he had never rendered an opinion on the applicability of Measure G. Proponents of the measure have told him that they did not feel it was applicable. He said since they applied earlier in the year they should have been approved by the Planning Commission prior to adoption of Measure G. He said he hoped they would not be required to go to an election. Steve Sullivan, 21498 Sarahills Drive, said he lives across the street from Mr. Binkley. He urged Council to approve this. He said he City courtell Minutes 8 June 5, 1996 thought all the neighbors he talked to were in favor of the realignment. This is just a 1/2 acre piece of property under discussion. Mr. Binkley's father deeded 1/2 acre to the City to realign the Pierce Road bridge. He asked Council to look at whether Measure G really applies in this case. Mayor Jacobs closed the public hearing at 9:52 p.m. City Attorney Riback said when he first looked at this project and was asked his opinion he reviewed Measure G and it was clear to him that this project falls squarely within Measure G. Measure G does not distinguish between small, minor boundary adjustments and major projects where land use designations are being proposed for revision. It is clearly a proposal to redesignate the hillside conservation, single-family land use designation to another land use designation of a greater density. Community Development Director Curtis said they tried to figure out a way the proposal would not be subject to Measure G but it is very straightforward. He said the smaller parcel is a legal lot of record but he did not know if a 3,800 sq. ft. house would fit on the site. No project has been presented. The site is two small triangles joined by a five-foot wide strip of land. City Attorney Riback confirmed that the City Council cannot invoke the housing element exception or the condemnation provision of the measure because there is an economic use that can be made of the property. There is nothing in the measure that says if the Council does not find that the purposes of the act are served they can exempt one from it. Discussion followed regarding possible alternative solutions. City Manger Peacock stated they could combine the lots and change the designation on Lot B to Hillside Residential, thereby lowering the density. As Community Development Director Curtis had indicated, there has to be a two acre minimum size and lots have to meet the slope density formula. This may or may not be possible, but it is a way .to create two lots that could be built upon without going to an election. Following additional discussion of alternatives and whether a finding could be made that the measure does not apply in this case, Mayor Jacobs asked Mr. Binkley if he wanted Council to make a decision at this meeting or continue the matter so he could meet with his family and staff to consider amending the application. Community Development Director Curtis said Mr. Binkley' s engineer would have to do the calculations. Mayor Jacobs reopened the public hearing at 10:16 p.m. and by consensus, the matter was continued to June 19. Councilmember Burger said this was a good object lesson and indicates how poorly written the ordinance is. She said she thought this was only the beginning of the problems they will see. Council has no discretion when it comes to this kind of item and she hoped the applicant could find a better solution. Mayor Jacobs said he did not believe the creators of Measure G intended a proposal like this to fall within Measure G. He thought the measure was intentionally made with specific technical guidelines to set a very objective standard to be followed so neither the Planning Commission nor the City Council could find ways to avoid its provisions and could not exercise discretion. He said that if this went to a public vote he did not see how the voters could find fault and he hoped there was another solution that will work better than the proposal. In answer to Mr. Binkley's questions about whether the matter would be on the November ballot if it goes to an election, City Manager Peacock said the deadline is very early in August. From a procedural standpoint, Mr. Binkley should make his request on July 3 to allow time to get it on ballot. B. 'Other - None. City Council Minutes 9 June 5, 1996 11. At 10:25 p.m., Mayor Jacobs adjourned to closed session pursuant to Government Code Subdivision (a) of Section 54956.9: 12. At 11:12 p.m. council reconvened to open session to announce any actions taken. .13. At 11:13 p.m. the meeting was'adjourned to a meeting with State Senator Byron Sher at 8:00 a.m. on June 7, then to 6:30 p.m. on Tuesday, June 11, both meetings to be held in the Administration Meeting Room, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue. Respectfully submitted,