Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-07-1999 City Council Minutes MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL TIME: Wednesday, July 7, 1999 - 6:30 p.m. PLACE: Closed Session - Administration Conference Room, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue; Regular Meeting - Council Chambers/Civic Theatre, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue TYPE: Regular Meeting OPEN SESSION - 6:30 p.m. in the Administration Conference Room, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION 1. CLOSED SESSION A. Public Employee Appointment pursuant to Government Code Section 54957 Title: Contract City Attorney Services MAYOR'S REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION - Mayor Shaw reported that a contract for legal services has been approved with Shute, Mihaly and Weinberger effective August 1, 1999 by a vote of the Council of 4-1, Councilmember Streit dissenting. Mayor Shaw expressed commendation to Attorney Mike Riback and his associate Liane Randolph of Meyers, Nave, Riback, et al for legal services to the City of Saratoga for the past nine years. Councilmember Streit commented that although he dissented with the vote to award the contract to Shute, Mihaly and Weinberger, he respected the opinions of his colleagues and would do everything he can to support the new legal counsel. REGULAR MEETING - Mayor Shaw called the regular meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. in the Civic Theater/Council Chambers located at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Led by Vice Mayor Bogosian ROLL CALL - All Councilmembers were present. Staff present: City Manager Perlin, City Attomey Randolph, City Clerk Ramos, Community Development Director Walgren, Acting Public Works Director Cherbone. 2. CEREMONIAL ITEMS A. Resolutions of Commendation to outgoing Youth Commissioners (Chang, Goodman and Kendall) BOGOSIAN/STREIT MOVED TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION OF COMMENDATION TO THE OUTGOING YOUTH COMMISSIONERS. MOTION PASSED 5-0. Mayor Shaw presented the resolution to Ms. Chang, who was present and directed the City Clerk to forward the resolutions by mail to Mr. Kendall and Ms. Goodman. REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA - City Clerk Ramos reported that pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on July 2, 1999. 3. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS AND THE PUBLIC Page lof 10 Minutes for City Council Regular Meeting July 7, 1999 A. Oral Communications on Non-Agendized Items - Any member of the public will be allowed to address the City Council for up to three (3) minutes on matters not on this agenda. The law generally prohibits the Council fi.om discussing or taking action on any such matters. However, the Council may instruct staff accordingly regarding Oral Communications under Agenda Item No. 8. Marvin Becker, 12120 Mellwood Drive, Saratoga, spoke on behalf of BrOokview residents regarding motorists speeding, street potholes and no parks. He also commented about the City noticing a resident about leaving cut wood on thc sidewalk. He submitted photos of the potholes. Chris Hawks, 20390 Blauer Road, Saratoga, commented that he has not heard anything fi:om the City following up on the concerns expressed about the Argonaut Center at the meeting of June 16, 1999 and requested that if meetings and discussions are taking place with the owner of the Center, that the affected property owners should be informed. B. Communications from Boards and Commissions - None C. Written Communications 1. Letter fi.om Bert Mattel, 14420 Fruitvale Avenue regarding new sewage disposal ordinance. There was a consensus of Council that staff should seriously consider Mr. Martel's suggestions in his letter. 2. Letter fi.om Marguerite Fischer requesting City sponsorship of a Rotary Grant application to fund a bronze sculpture. Marguerite Fischer, 14520 Fmitvale Avenue #B11, Saratoga, presented her request to the Council and distributed some photos of the sculpture. Mayor Shaw commented the Council will take her request under review. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Previously Discussed Items 1. Resolution Denying an Appeal from the decision of the Planning Commission regarding Starbucks application; Appellant Hawks Recommendation: Adopt resolution. BOGOSIAN/STREIT MOVED TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION. MOTION PASSED 5-0. B. New Items 1. Planning Commission Actions, June 23, 1999 Recommendation: Note and file. 2. Approval of Check Register Recommendation: Note and file. 3. Memo authorizing publicity of Public Heating items - None 4. Acceptance of contract work: 1998 Pavement Management Program; and Annual Concrete Repairs. Recommendation: Accept work as comPlete and authorize recordation of Notices of Completion. 5. Resolution authorizing the destruction of certain records in the City Manager's Department in accordance with the City's retention schedule. Recommendation: Adopt the resolution. BOGOSIAN/STREIT MOVED TO APPROVE AND ADOPT CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS B1, B2, B3 AND B5 AS PRESENTED. MOTION PASSED 5-0. Vice Mayor Bogosian and Councilmember Baker reqUested to pull item B4 for discussion. Page 2 of 10 Minutes for City Council Regular Meeting July 7, 1999 Discussion ensued regarding contract ovemms and the various types of contracts. BAKER/MEHAFFEY MOVED TO ACCEPT WORK AS COMPLETE AND AUTHORIZE RECORDATION OF NOTICES OF COMPLETION. MOTION PASSED 5-0. In the interest of time, Mayor Shaw moved to the public hearing portion of the agenda. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS - 7:30 p.m. A. Appeal of a condition placed on the approval of Tentative Parcel Map SD 99- 001 at 20520 Verde Vista Lane; Roger and Annie Wang and TS Civil Engineering, Appellants (CONTINUED FROM JUNE 2 PUBLIC HEARING) Recommendation: Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's approval as conditioned. City Manager Perlin presented the staff report and deferred additional comments to James Walgren, Director of Community Development, who provided a comprehensive report including background and discussions at the Planning Commission meeting. Mayor Shaw noted that Planning Commission Chair Bemald is in the audience for any questions of Council. There being no questions from Council for staff at this time, Mayor Shaw opened the public heating at 7:36 p.m. Eric Morley, 1285 Sierra Avenue, San Jose, representative of the property owners, provided background and comments about the project, stressing that the property owners are appealing only condition of approval no. 1 placed by the Planning Commission relating to the lot configuration. He requested the Council overturn the Planning Commission's decision related to the lot line, approve the L-shaped lot line and add the landscape plan as a condition of approval. Other highlights of his report included: · Preservation of redwood trees; he distributed a report prepared by an arborist regarding same. · consistent with the General Plan and the Area B Plan · compatibility with the R-1 zone neighborhood from a frontage lot size and lot configuration (referred to Exhibit A in the staff report) · specific interface with the rear property (Bob and Rebecca McMahon). A specific landscape plan addressing privacy, depth of view, setbacks and screening interface between the two properties, placement of trees has been discussed with the rear property owners and is being finalized. The appellants are proposing to include this specific landscape plan as a condition of approval. Cris Carrigan, legal counsel of the property_ owners and appellants, commented that the proposed project complies with the Subdivision Map Act, the General Plan and specific plan designations. He asked that the Council reverse condition of approval #1 so as to allow the property owners to build a tennis court on their property. Of the six neighbors behind the property, two have expressed opposition and one of them, the McMahons have met with the appellant's representative to resolve their concerns. He also reiterated tree concerns expressed by Mr. Morley. Marian Lee, 20675 Verde Vista Lane, neighbor to the east of the subject property, expressed opposition based on concems such as obstruction of existing view, infringement of privacy, preservation of trees, inconsistencies with the characteristics of the neighborhood particularly the low frontage size and the L-shaped lot configuration. She requested Council leave the lot as it is or split it equally in the middle. Rebecca McMahon, 13654 Verde Vista Court, neighbor directly behind the subject property, expressed concerns for preserving the trees in the existing wooded area in the rear which provides a nice view and privacy, and the fence for the tennis court that would mn across the back of their property. She commented that Mr. Morley has talked to them in three occasions to address the issues of screening, tree preservation, and view from their property. If the lot will be reconfigured to an L-shaped lot, she would like to be informed to provide input on the proposed tennis court and any landscaping around that area. Robert McMahon, 13654 Verde Vista Court, expressed concern that the setback requirements for a tennis court which could put the structure about 15' from his property line. He felt the appeal is premature because a resolution for the concerns has not be finalized with Mr. Morley and therefore he cannot support the proposal at this time. He recommended it would be ideal to flip the lot and Page 3 of 10 Minutes for City Council Regular Meeting ,, July 7, 1999 consider a 25' setback for the tennis court. In response to Mayor Shaw, City Attorney R~dolph replied that it would appropriate to address questions to Planning Commission Chair Bemald before closing the public heating. There being no questions of Ms. Bemald, Mayor Shaw asked the appellant for any response to the comments made. Mr. Morley responded to the following comments: · Frontages: Part of the compatibility analysis that was prepared reflected the following frontages throughout the adjacent lots: Comer lots - 166' maximum and 52' minimum; interior lots - 208' maximum, 43' minimum; flag lOts - 20' maximum and minimum. · Amenities: There are a number of lots adjacent to the subject property which are substandard lots that have pools and other structure. · Trees: He clarified that a straight line and the L-shaped lot subdivision do not have an effect on the retention of trees. · Privacy: There is also a privacy issue for the subject property because of the two story house behind it and an L-shaped configuration would create a privacy buffer for the subject property. · Tennis court: This is an administrative permit and the property owners have agreed to the condition of approval that makes the adjacent neighbors be actively involved in that process. Mr. Morley added that letters were sent to 18 property owners and met with four of those property owners; heard from two of the adjacent six property owners; didn't hear back fi'om property owners to the west. He reiterated that discussions are underway with the McMahons to address their concerns, and lastly the appellants would be open to mirroring of the lot which would place a larger lot configuration adjacent to the Lee's property and the other lot adjacent to the other substandard lots, if that is the desire of the Council. Discussion ensued regarding the trees. In response to Councilmember Streit, Mr. and Mrs. Lee, neighbors of subject property, replied that reversing the lot does not solve the problem of the smaller parcel having no room for amenities which would be uncharacteristic of surrounding area. In response to Councilmember Baker, Mr. Morley replied that the City of Saratoga has a restrictive guideline for tennis courts. The applicants and appellants are not currently proposing a fence for the tennis court, it would be subject to further discussions with Mr. & Mrs. McMahon to see what their interest is. If the neighbors prefer a fence, it would be as minimally intrusive as possible and approved by staff. He noted for the record, that he contacted the two neighbors to the west regarding the mirroring of the lots and they were in favor of it. There being no more public testimony, Mayor Shaw closed the public hearing at 8:12'p.m. In response to Councilmember Mehaffey, Mr. Walgren replied that there are existing City regulations that make it restrictive to have a tennis court on the property such as the hillside and tree protection regulations and front, side and rear yard setbacks. In addition, a tennis court couldn't be proposed for a property if the building footprint, drivewaY, patio, rear yard, accumulative hard surface for that property exceeded 60 percent of the size of the lot. There is no reason why a 30,000 square foot parcel couldn't accommodate a tennis court and a home. Councilmember Streit expressed his concern about the project based on the concerns addressed by the two neighbors regarding noise, trees and privacy. He would have liked to see more work done on this project such as the layout and landscape plans. At this point, he would have to deny the appeal. Councilmember Baker commented to deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Planning Commission. Councilmember Mehaffey commented that based on certain rights of the property owners to build their dream home, a secondary home for their parents and a tenms court on their property that's big enough to build these structures coupled with their efforts to work with the neighbors to resolve their concerns, he would support the appeal. Vice Mayor Bogosian stated for the record that he spoke to Mr. Morley on the telephone regarding the project. He commented that this is a discretionary action on the part of the City and as such, it is important that all of the concerns surrounding the project are met, such as noise, privacy, amenities, possible use of the property and so on. Split of the lots as proposed by the appellant does not satisfy those requirements, the configuration of the house will impact the trees, noise from the potential tennis court use would be difficult to mitigate, the specific plan of this area is a single Page 4 of 10 Minutes for City Council Regular Meeting July 7, 1999 family home neighborhood and not for the uses that is being proposed. Therefore, he would have to deny the appeal. Mayor Shaw commented to deny the appeal noting that the noise from the tennis court use would be difficult to mitigate. BAKER/STREIT MOVED TO DENY THE APPEAL AND UPHOLD THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL AS CONDITIONED. MOTION PASSED 4-1, COUNCILMEMBER MEHAFFEY DISSENTED. B. Appeal of a denial of Tentative Parcel Map SD 98-008 and Design Review DR 98-052 at 19101 Via Tesoro Court; Amit Nagpal and Subashree Vedantham, Appellants Recommendation: Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's approval as conditioned. Director of Community Development Walgren presented the staff report. He noted that since the denial of the project, th6 applicants/appellants have submitted a notable piece of information which is a reconfiguration of the proposed home, and the existing rear yard of the historic home would be completely reconfigured by removing the swimming pool from the back yard and moving it to the north side of the existing historic home and redeveloping that side of the property where there is currently a private driveway as the rear yard area and basically abandoning the rear yard. This submittal has not been reviewed by the Planning Commission and is identified as Exhibit C in the Council's agenda packet. In response to Councilmember Streit, Mr. Walgren replied that the proposal meets staff's concerns about the proximity of the garage to the adjacent property owner's home to the south, the proposal meets the concern of preserving the live oak tree next to the garage. After meeting with the arborist to review these preliminary exhibits, he feels it can be done as proposed without damaging that tree. If the project moves forward, conditions will be placed to assure the preservation of that tree. In response to Vice Mayor Bogosian, past precedent has been that if a new alternative is proposed, it would be sent to the Planning Commission for consideration. In this case, that may not necessarily be productive in that the Planning Commission did consider a modified alternative as part of their deliberations at the May 122 hearing. The Planning Commission did not have the preliminary plans that have been submitted however the concept was articulated. Following discussion, Mayor Shaw asked Chair Bernald to comment on the proposed reconfiguration. Chair Bemald noted that after reviewing the designs, they are an improvement of what was submitted and reviewed at the hearing. However, she believes that there is an established process for plan reviews and would recommend that the Council overturn the Planning Commission's denial with prejudice and bring it back for Planning Commission review. Councilmember Baker commented that it would be proper that at every appeal presented to the City Council that the Chair of the Commission be at the Council meeting to address the City Council. He also supported Ms. Bernald's recommendation. Mayor Shaw opened the public hearing at 8:35 p.m. Virginia Fannelli, representing the applicants/appellants Mr. & Mrs. Nagpal, who are also present this evening along with Andy Faver, Attorney, Tom Cook, Planning Consultant, Seran Nagpal, Architect and Glenn Rock, Landscape Architect. The appeal was based on the appellant's opinion that the Planning Commission's findings were not supported by substantial evidence. Ms. Fanelli provided background on the proposed project and noted that the vision of the project was not properly expressed at the Planning Commission's hearing and would like the oppommity to do so this evening. The vision was expressed orally and illustrated with drawings of the proposed plan. The appellant's believe that either Plan A or Plan B would meet all of the City's requirements. In addition, she noted that the appellants and their representatives have met with the neighbors to work with them to address their concerns. The appellants are asking that Council approve the subdivision and the design review applications this evening. Amit Nagpal, 19101 Via Tesoro Court, thanked the Council and staff for their time and assistance. He provided additional pertinent information and noted that their intention is to retain both properties, addiflg that they have demonstrated considerable efforts to make this plan a positive enhancement to the neighborhood as well as the community. Plan A and B meet the City's General Plan and Subdivision zoning requirements and no variances have been required. Plan B was Page 5 of 10 Minutes for City Council Regular Meeting July 7, 1999 developed to address and meet comments received during the Planning Commission heating and from the neighbors. They are willing to abide with either plan, additionally!it is their goal to landscape the property as reflected in the landscape plans and we are willing to accept this as a condition to our approval. Walter Weideman, 14233 Chester Avenue, expressed support of the proposed plans. Gene Zierdt, 14345 Maclay Court, expressed support of the proposed plans. Alfi'ed Rinaldo, 18909 Ten Acres Road, expressed support of the proposed Plans. Harry_ Ratner, 19103 Via Tesoro Court, expressed opposition of the proposed plans. In meetings with the appellants, he requested the house be moved further north and mm it so it would face Via Tesoro like all the other houses in the area. He commented about the validity of the historic home on the property and questioned the intention of the appellants with regard to their 'use of that house. Mayor Shaw asked the appellants if they want to respond to the comments made. Virginia Fanelli, responded to Mr. Ratner's comments. 62' is more than sufficient for setbacks between homes and it is the most distance between any of the homes in Via Tesoro; the appellants do not intend to destroy the historic home and this is evidenced by the restorations done on that home and the landscaping in the rear. Ms. Fanelli expressed a concern about returning this to the Planning Commission based on process, because she believes that coming before the City Council, reviewing the plans and listening to the presentations and comments made is a de Novo hearing which is also a part of the process. With regards to the new backyard landscape and activity center, the two neighbors who are directly adjacent to the rear of this property have expressed their support tonight. She asked Council reverse the Planning Commission decision and not remm it back to Planning Commission. In response to Councilmember Streit, Mr. Walgren replied that if this were to go back to the Planning Commission, staffwould recommend Plan B. Discussion ensued regarding a pedestrian/equestrian path. Mayor Shaw closed the public hearing at 9:10 p.m. Councilmember Streit expressed support for the lot split and the house layout and remm the plans for the swimming pool back to staff for review to ensure all conditions are met. Councilmember Baker commented he would support upholding the appeal and overturn the Planning Commission denial with prejudice; 'or, overturning the Planning Commission's denial with prejudice and returning it to the Planning Commission for their final consideration. In addition, if Council were to overmm the decision of the Planning Commission and approve Plan B, it should be conditioned to require the retention of the Adobe house. Councilmember Mehaffey recommending sending it back to the Planning Commission as a whole package. He also would like it noted that he has a concern with regards to moving the house further back in order to satisfy a neighbor's concem to the detriment of the historic property and its back yard; there needs to be some balance for all people concerned. Vice Mayor Bogosian expressed concern about process, however it is his opinion that this is an exceptional case. Issues have been articulated, concepts have been exposed, neighbors have been involved in the process, very little will be accomplished other than delay this project if it went to Planning Commission and is recommending approval of the appeal. Mayor Shaw concurred with Vice Mayor Bogosian. Director of Community Development Walgren clarified that staff has worked extensively with the appellants to assist them in arriving at this particular subdivision configuration. There really is no more room to modify or move or alter the particular lot configurations without requiring a variance to the City's subdivision code. In response to Councilmember Streit, Mr. Walgren replied that staff has not reviewed the pool location. However, the idea of reorienting the yard to that side of the property would work, the pool regulations are straightforward, it appears that it .could work. In response to Councilmember Mehaffey, Ms. Fanelli noted they would be willing to review the pool plans in more detail with staff as part of Council's approval. Page 6 of 10 Minutes for City Council Regular Meeting July 7, 1999 STREIT/BOGOSIAN (SECONDED FOR PURPOSES OF DISCUSSION) MOVED TO UPHOLD THE APPEAL AND APPROVE THE TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP AND DESIGN REVIEW AND SEND IT BACK TO STAFF TO DO A THOROUGH REVIEW OF PLAN B AND THE LOCATION OF THE POOL AND MAKE IT SUBJECT TO THE LANDSCAPE PLANS AND THE ARBORIST APPROVAL. MOTION PASSED 5-0. To clarify, Atty. Randolph reiterated that the Council would like to add a condition to apply the landscape plans to the approval and that staff would review the location of the pool. Discussion ensued. In response to Vice Mayor Bogosian, Mr. Walgren replied that if the concern is the pool location, a condition could be added that the pool require its own Site Modification approval which is not unusual. This site modification approval process requires Planning Commission review and noticing to the neighbors. Vice Mayor Bogosian commented he would like to see an opportunity for the neighbors to comment on the pool and recommended amending the motion to propose that a Site Modification application for the pool be placed as a condition to the approval. STREIT/BOGOSIAN MOVED TO AMEND THE PREVIOUS MOTION TO UPHOLD THE APPEAL AND APPROVE THE TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP AND DESIGN REVIEW AND SEND IT BACK TO STAFF TO DO A THOROUGH REVIEW OF PLAN B TO ENSURE IT MEETS ALL CODES, SUBJECT TO THE LANDSCAPE PLANS AND A SITE MODIFICATION APPLICATION FOR THE POOL AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. MOTION PASSED 5-0. To clarify, Atty. Randolph reiterated that the two conditions of approval are the landscape plans and the Site Modification application for the pool. Council concurred. Mayor Shaw declared a recess at 9:28 p.m. and convened the meeting at 9:36 p.m. C. Resolution ordering abatement of a public nuisance by removal of hazardous weeds and brush. Recommendation: Open public hearing; close public hearing, adopt resolution. City Manager Perlin presented the staff report. In response to Vice Mayor Bogosian, Marty Hicks, representative of the Hazardous Vegetation Program of the County Fire Marshal's office, provided a brief description of the hazardous weed and brush abatement program. Mayor Shaw opened the public hearing at 9:41 p.m. and there being no public testimony, closed the public hearing at 9:42 p.m. BAKER/MEHAFFEY MOVED TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION ORDERING ABATEMENT OF A PUBLIC NUISANCE BY REMOVAL OF HAZARDOUS WEEDS AND BRUSH. MOTION PASSED 5-0. C. Claims Against the City 1. Claimant: Kevin Cummings, Claim #98-005 Recommendation: Reject the claim. 2. Claimant: Sandra Peterson, Claim #98-007 Recommendation: Reject the claim. City Manager Perlin provided background about the claims. In response to Councilmember Mehaffey, Mr. Perlin replied that the Cummings claim was pulled from a previous agenda upon receipt of an amended claim from the claimant. BOGOSIAN/STREIT MOVED TO REJECT THE CUMMINGS CLAIM. MOTION PASSED 5-0. MEHAFFEY/STREIT MOVED TO REJECT THE PETERSON CLAIM. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 6. OLD BUSINESS Page 7 of 10 Minutes for City Council Regular Meeting I July 7, 1999 A. Status report on implementation of Saratoga Creek litigation Settlement Agreement including review Of proposed warning signs Recommendation Receive report. Approve proposed design and locations for warning signs. City Manager Perlin presented the staff report. Discussion ensued and comments were received from Don Whetstone and Lisa Kurasch about the design and color of the signs. : BAKER/MEHAFFEY MOVD TO. ACCEPT THE REPORT AND DIRECT STAFF TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE SIGNS AS MODIFIED THIS EVENING. MOTION PASSED 5-0. THERE WAS CONSENSUS TO MOVE I~ORWARD WITH THE SIGNS MODIFIED AS FOLLOWS: USE THE WORD "DANGER" INSTEAD OF "WARNING; RETAIN OTHER LANGUAGE AS SHOWN IN THE SAMPLE DRAWINGS, USE LOGO DEPICTED IN ATTACHMENT B FOR ATTACHMENT C; AND, ADD CITY OF SARATOGA IN SMALL PRINT AT THE BOTTOM OF THE SIGN. Vice Mayor Bogosian suggested to include a timeline in the next report for identifying properties on septic systems and the necessary steps staff will take to implement the agreement from the present time to October 1999. Discussion ensued regarding process. City Manager Peflin commented that staff will be meeting with representatives from the West Valley Sanitation District, Cupertino Sanitary District and the Santa Clara County Environmental office to discuss process and implementation on Friday, July 9, 1999 at City Hall. 7. NEW BUSINESS A. An Ordinance by the City of Saratoga amending Article 16-05 of the Saratoga Municipal Code relating to General Building provisions and adopting by reference the following Building Standards Codes comprising part of the California Building Standards Code: The 1997 Editions of the Uniform Building Code as amended, the Uniform Fire Code as amended, the Uniform Plumbing Code, the Uniform Mechanical Code as amended, the 1996 edition of the National Electrical Code and the 1997 editions of the Uniform Housing Code as amended and the abatement of Hazardous Building Code, as amended, and declaring this ordinance to be an urgency ordinance effective upon its adoption on July 21, 1999 and applicable to all permits issued on or after July 1, 1999 pursuant to City of Saratoga Municipal Code provisions affected by this ordinance; A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Saratoga including findings regarding the need for amendments to provisions in the California Building Standards Code to be adopted by reference in the Saratoga Municipal Code; A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Saratoga amending the adoPted fee schedule to correspond to the 1997 Uniform Building Code. Recommendation: 1. Waive full reading of the ordinance and direct the City Clerk to read by title only; introduce the ordinance; 2. Adopt the two resolutions. City Manager Perlin presented the staff report and deferred additional comments to Director 0f Community Development Walgren. Discussion ensued regarding the proposed fee increase. THERE WAS CONSENSUS OF COUNCIL TO TABLE THE RESOLUTION AMENDING THE FEE SCHEDULE TO JULY 21, 1999 AND REQUEST STAFF TO PREPARE A REPORT JUSTIFYING THE PROPOSED FEES. BOGOSIAN/BAKER MOVED TO WAIVE FULL READING OF THE ORDINANCE AND DIRECT THE CITY CLERK TO READ BY TITLE ONLY AND MOVED TO INTRODUCE THE ORDINANCE AS PRESENTED. MOTION PASSED 5-0. Page8 of 10 Minutes for City Council Regular Meeting July 7, 1999 City Clerk Ramos read the title of the ordinance. MEHAFFEY/BAKER MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION INCLUDING FINDINGS REGARDING THE NEED FOR AMENDMENTS TO PROVISIONS IN THE CALIFORNIA BUILDING STANDARDS CODE TO BE ADOPTED BY REFERENCE IN THE SARATOGA MUNICIPAL CODE. MOTION PASSED 5-0. C. Resolution approving a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) covering wages, benefits and working conditions between the City and the Saratoga Employees Association (S.E.A.) for the period beginning July 1, 1999 and ending June 30, 2001. Recommendation: Adopt resolution. There was Council consensus to pull this item and table it to the adjourned meeting of July 13, 1999. D. Authorize purchase of the initial phase of a Document Imaging System through Delta MicroImaging in the amount of $7300.00 for software and services. Recommendation: Authorize the purchase of the initial phase of a document imaging system through Delta Microlmaging in the amount of $7300.00 City Clerk Ramos presented the staff report. BAKER/STREIT MOVED TO AUTHORIZE THE PURCHASE OF THE INITIAL PHASE OF A DOCUMENT IMAGING SYSTEM THROUGH DELTA MICROIMAGING IN THE AMOUNT OF $7300.00. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 8. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS (continued) and instructions to staff regarding actions on current oral communications. In response to Vice Mayor Bogosian and Chris Hawks, Councilmember Streit commented that due to a scheduling conflict, the committee has not met with the owner of the Argonaut Center, but assured Mr. Hawks that the affected property owners will be notified as soon as a meeting is scheduled. 9. APPROVAL OF MINUTES (Note: City Attorney will be excused at this point if no longer needed.) A. Adjourned and Special Meetings of June 8, 18, 19, and 21, 1999 B. Regular Meeting of June 16, 1999 MEHAFFEY/BAKER MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JUNE 8, 1999 AS PRESENTED. MOTION PASSED 5-0. MEHAFFEY/BOGOSIAN MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JUNE 16, 1999 AS PRESENTED. MOTION PASSED 5-0. MEHAFFEY/STREIT MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JUNE 18 AS PRESENTED. MOTION PASSED 5-0. MEHAFFEY/STREIT MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JUNE 19 WITH THE FOLLOWING CORRECTIONS BELOW: MOTION PASSED 5-0. UNDER SECTION F OF THE ATTACHED LIST, 3~ BULLETED ITEM TO READ, "EXTEND MEASURE G TO PROFESSIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE ZONING AND RESIDENTIAL OPEN SPACE ZONING; AND 4TM BULLETED ITEM TO READ, "START AN INVESTIGATION OF THE ANNEXATION PROCESS FOR MT. WINERY". MEHAFFEY/BAKER MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JUNE 21 AS PRESENTED. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 10. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS A. Agenda items for the next adjourned regular meeting (Note: The purpose of listing the items immediately following is not to discuss or take action on them, but simply to Page 9 of 10 Minutes for City Council Regular Meeting July 7, 1999 ' decide whether they are to be placed on the agenda for the adjourned regular meeting of July 13, 1999). 1. Joint meeting with Park andRecreation Commission 2. Joint meeting with Planning Commission There was consensus of Council to hold the adjourned joint meeting of July 13 in the Adult Care Center at 19655 Allendale Avenue. In response to Councilmember Streit, Mr. Perlin replied that the KSAR Board is currently reviewing adding a camera in the Adult Care C.~nter and this item should be coming back for action at a subsequent Board meeting. Following discussion, the following items were proposed for discussion at the upcoming joint meetings: · Park and Recreation joint meeting: inventory of properties, hub concept, process for the hub concept. · Planning Commission joint meeting: Council concurred to accept Vice Mayor Bogosian's proposed items to start the .discussion process and see where it leads. These items are as follows: implementation of Measure G, establish a process to handle unauthorized changes in plans and failure to apply for permits, second story additions, fencing in the hillside zoning districts. Vice Mayor Bogosian stated for the record that he received the letter from Mrs. Angie Fredrick dated June 29, 1999 regarding cable service in the Sunland Park area and asked for a response from staff on its current status. Discussion ensued. City Manager Perlin replied he will review the letter and try to obtain updated information on this matter for Ms. Fredrick. Councilmember Mehaffey commented about a tree obstruction on Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road at Thelma and requested staff to correct it. He also announced he will not be attending the August 4, 1999 regular Council meeting due to a personal scheduling conflict. Councilmember Baker reminded the Council he will not be attending the next Council meeting on July 21, 1999 since he will out of the area. 11. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT Mr. Perlin informed the Council that Dave Russell, an Administrative intern in the City Manager's department will take on the role of City Manager at the next Council meeting of,July 21, 1999 for training purposes. ADJOURNMENT - Mayor Shaw adjourned the regular meeting at 10:58 p.m. to the regularly adjourned meeting of July 13 at 7:00 p.m. in the Adult Care Center. an~~ A.~RA. Ram~s] CMC~Respectfully~bmitLed' City Clerk Page ~.0 of 10