The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About07-07-1998 City Council packet6. Election Resolutions: 19 16( GENDA 9. Agency Assignment Reports SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL TIME: Tuesday, July 7, 1998 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Adult Care Center, 19655 Allendale Avenue TYPE: Adjourned Regular Meeting 1. Roll Call 7:00 p.m. P 4( 4j u _6,t/ 2. Report of City Clerk on Posting of Agenda Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on July 2. The notice of adjournment from the July 1 Council meeting was properly posted on July 2. 3. Oral Communications from the Public 4. Measure G Implementation Policr 5. Mayor's Proposal for Blue Ribbon Panel on Future Assoc. of Bay Area Governments Chamber of Commerce Board County Cities Assn. Leg. Task Force County HCD Policy Committee Emergency Planning Council Hakone Foundation Liaison Joint Venture Silicon Valley KSAR Community Access TV Board Library Joint Powers Agency N. Cent. Flood Cont. Zone Adv. Bd. Penin. Div., League of Cal. Cities Santa Clara Valley Water Commission Santa Clara County Cities Assn./ City Selection Committee SASCC Liaison Saratoga Business Dev. Council School Liaison Sister City Liaison A. Resolu io calling Election on November 3, 1998 B. Resol tion confirming Decisions on Candidates Statements 7. Discuss of Possible Dates for City Attorney Evaluation ll 30 Vr 8. Self- Evaluation of Previous Meetin Moran P�� 6Yv°- Wolfe Bogosian r Jacobs Moran Shaw Wolfe Shaw Bogosian Bogosian Wolfe Jacobs Wolfe /Moran Shaw Wolfe Jacobs Shaw on- Agendised Items s "Pu7 ity's Financial piAk (0-1 City Council Agenda 2 July 7, 1998 10. Other 11. Adjournment el(U Solid Waste JPA Moran Valley Transportation Authority Wolfe Valley Transportation Authority PAC Shaw West Valley Sanitation District Moran In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact Peter Gonda at 408/868 -1221. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. [28 CFR 35.102- 35.104 ADA Title II] JUL -02 -98 THU 10 :45 f1EYERS,NAVE,RIBACK &SILV, FAX NO. 510 351 4481 P.02/09 MICHAEL R. NAVE STEVEN R. MEVERS ELIZABETH H. SILVER MICHAEL S, RIBACK KI:NNLTH A. WILSON DAVID W. SKINNER STEVEN T. MATTAS MICHAEL F. RODRIOUEZ CUFFORD F. CAMPBELL KATI ILCCN FAUOION, AICP RICK W JARVIS DEBBIE F. LATHAM ARNE B. SANDBERG BENJAMIN P. FAT DANIEL A. MULLER LIANE M RANDOLPH PATRICK WHITNELL KATHARINE G. WELLMAN JOHN W. TRUXAW GARY A. WATT JULIE L. HARRYMAN ADAM V. LINUG'KtN OF COUNSEL ANDREA J. SALTZMAN CERTIFIED APPELLATE SPECIALIST MEYERS, NAVE, RIBACK, SILVER WILSON A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION GA I SWAY PLAZA 777 DAVIS STREET, SUITE 300 SAN LEANDRO, CALIFORNIA 94577 TELEPHONE: 1510) 361 -4300 FACSIMILE: (510) 351 -4481 MEMORANDUM TO: City Council City Manager Community Development Director City of Saratoga FROM: Michael S. Riback City Attorney RE: Measure G Implementation Procedure I. Background Lf. NORTH BAY OFFICE 555 FIFTH STREET, SUITE 230 SANTA ROSA, CA 95401 TELEPHONE: (707) 545.8009 cACSIMIL6: (707) 546.6517 CENTRAL VALLEY OFFICE, 6.250 CLAREMONT AVENUE STOCKTON. CA 95207 TELEPHONE: (2091 961.4080 FACSIMILE: 12031 931-3003 DATE: July 2, 1998 Measure G was passed by the electorate on March 26, 1996 and became effective on May 3, 1996. Measure G generally requires a vote of the people in order to change the General Plan designation of any residential property in Saratoga in the direction of increased density or more intense use. On June 5, 1996, the City Council adopted a resolution entitled "Resolution of The City Council of The City of Saratoga 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 Implementation] Among other things, -the resolution established that the applicant had the option of proceeding with a "Measure G Project" either directly to election or to review by the City staff, Planning Commission (and City Council on appeal) pursuant to current City procedures. Earlier this year, the City Council determined to set aside the previously adopted Measure G implementation procedure, and to consider adoption of an alternative JUL UL 9 IHU 1U:45 I1EYERS,NAVE,K1BACK &S1LV. FAX NO. 510 351 4481 r usiva TO: City Council, City Manager, Community Development Director FROM: Michael S. Riback, City Attorney RT Measure G Implementation Procedure DATE: July 2, 1998" PAGE: 2 procedure. II. Legal issue An issue that arose at the time the Council determined to set aside the adopted implementation procedure was whether the City Council, without first approving a General Plan Amendment, and not having received an initiative petition from the citizenry, had the legal authority to place before the voters a General Plan Land Use Designation amendment measure at the request of an applicant, without the measure first undergoing environmental review in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act "CEQA A. Conclusion: The City Council may, without first approving a General Plan Amendment and without receiving an initiative petition from the citizenry, place before the voters a General Plan Land Use Designation amendment measure without first undergoing environmental review pursuant to CEQA. E. Discussion: CEQA mandates environmental review for all "discretionary projects proposed to be carried out or approved by public agencies. The key terms are "project" and "approved If the amendment does not constitute a "project or if the city does not "approve" the project, compliance with CEQA is not necessary. Under §].5378(b)(4) of the CEQA Guidelines, the "submittal of proposals to a vote of the Public Resources Code §21080 (italics added). 2 "Project" indudes "any activity directly undertaken by any public agency" or "any activity that involves the issuance to a person of a lease, permit, license, certificate, or other entitlement for use by one or more public agencies." Pub.Res.Code §21065(a) and (c). "Approval" means "the decision by a public agency which commits the agency to a definite course of action in regard to a project intended to be carried out by any person (CEQA. Guidelines §15352(a)). "With regard to private projects, approval occurs upon the earliest commitment to issue or the issuance by the public agency of a discretionary contract, grant, subsidy, loan, or other form of financial assistance, lease, permit, license, certificate, or other entitlement for use of the project." §15352(b)). JUL -02 -98 THU 10:45 MEYERS,NAVE,RIBACK &S1LV, FAX NO, 510 351 4481 P.04/09 TO: City Council, City Manager, Community Development Director FROM: Michael S. Rihaek, City Attorney RE: Mcasurc G Implcmcntation Proccdun. DATE: July 2, 1998 PAGE: 3 people" is exempt from the definition of a "project." Therefore, general plan amendments enacted pursuant to initiative are exempted from environmental review.' The CEQA Guidelines do not differentiate between submittal of ballot measures by a city under its "voluntary referendum authority and by citizen- sponsored petitions.' If a city council merely places a proposal on the ballot, environmental review is not required. The fact that the city uses discretion in placing a measure on the ballot does not constitute "approval" under CEQA.‘ This scenario should be distinguished from the "dual approval" situation provided by Measure G where general plan amendments approved first by the city are required to be ratified by the voters. Specifically, CEQA review is not required for the Council to place the matter on the ballot, or for the voters to approve the matter. CEQA review is required for the City to approve the matter, even though that approval still requires 3 See Stein v. City of Santa Monica (1980) 168 Cal.Rptr. 39, 40, 110 CaLApp.3d 458 (Holding that city placement of a measure on the ballot pursuant to a citizen's petition that followed established procedures did not require environmental review under CEQA). 4 Elections Code §9222 (formerly §4017) states: "The legislative body of the city may submit to the voters, without a petition therefore, a proposition for the repeal, amendment, or enactment of any ordinance, to be voted upon at any succeeding regular or special city election, and if the proposition submitted receives a majority of the votes cast on it at the election, the ordinance shall be repealed, amended, or enacted accordingly. A proposition may be submitted, or a special election may be called for the purpose of voting on a proposition, by ordinance or resolution." S Lee v. City of Lompoc (1993) 18 Ca1.Rptr.2d 389, 393, 14 Ca1.App.4th 1515 ("Guidelines section 15378 subdivision (b)(4) does not distinguish between submittal of ballot measures by a public agency from those submitted by voter initiative petitions 6 Lompoc at 393 "Although the Council exercised discretion in placing the matter on the ballot, it did not approve the project). JUL -02 -98 THU 10:46 MEYERS,NAVE,RIBACK &SILV. FAX NO. 510 351 4481 TO: City Council, City Manager, Community Development. Director FROM: Michael S. Riback, City Attorney RE: Measure G Implementation Procedure DATE: July 2, 1998 PACE: 4 ratification by the voters. However, as the following three case descriptions show, the definition of "approval" is not always clear. In Stein, the court determined that the act of placing an initiative on the ballot in response to a citizen's petition was a nondiscretionary ministerial act and not approval of a project under CEQA. The court focused on the fact that statutes required the city to place a measure on the ballot once the applicants obtained the required number of signatures and made an appropriate re.quest to the city. In such cases, a city would have no discretion to keep the measure off the ballot. In I.ompoc, appellants argued that a city- sponsored ballot measure constituted approval of a project and thus triggered CEQA. In Lompoc, the city council was deadlocked on a vote for general plan and zoning ordinance amendments that would allow commercial development. The city council decided to put the matter before the electorate at a special election. Voters approved the amendments, and plaintiffs sued for noncompliance with CEQA. The Lompoc court held that, although the city used discretion to decide whether to place thc measure on the ballot, it did not approve the project.' The court noted that, under CEQA, approval "means the decision by a public agency which commits the agency to a definite course of action regarding a project. The City Council's resolution to place the matter on the ballot did not constitute an "approval" under CEQA because it did not commit the Council to a definite course of action. The city's course of action was instead contingent on approval of the project by the voters. Stein at 40. Lompoc at 393 "To hold that whenever a public agency or governing body utilizes the `voluntary referendum" of Elections Code section [92221, a prerequisite is [sic] a review under CEQA could interfere with thc electorate's ability to vote on the matter.") td. At394. P. 05/09 JUL -02 -98 THU 10:46 MEYERS,NAVE,RIBACK &SILV. FAX NO. 510 351 4481 R 06/09 To: City Council, City Manager, Community Development Director FROM: Michael S. Riback, City Attorney RE: Measure Implementation Procedure DATE: )uly 2, 1998 PAGE: 5 A contrary result was reached in the third case, Citizens for Responsible Government v. Albany. In that case, the city submitted a proposed zoning ordinance and a development agreement to the electorate. The development agreement resulted from extensive negotiation between thc city and thc developer. Once the voters authorized the city's actions, the city had the authority to immediately implement the development agreement. The court held that the zoning ordinance alone did not present any problems, but that the development agreement. committed the city to a specific course of action and gave the developer "entitlements for use" and vested rights such that placement of the measure on the ballot constituted "approval" of the project." The city council's submittal of the development agreement to the electorate constituted approval of a project, thus triggering CEQA requirements.'' To sunuitarize, a project is subject to environmental review under CEQA when the public agency approves the project. Approval can come before or after submittal of a proposal to the voters. For example, if an initiative amends the general plan to change the land use designation for a particular parcel, the amendment itself is not subject to CEQA review. However, the project that is made possible by that change is still subject to CEQA at such time when the developer seeks the city's approval." Similarly, for General Plan 10 66 Cal.Rptr.2d 102 (CalApp. 1 Dist. 1997). Id. at 113. 12 Two cases cited by both Albany and Lompoc held that the submittal of proposed amendments to voters constituted approval of a project. See People ex rel. Younger v. Local Agency Formation Com. (1978) 81 CalApp.3d 464, 146 Cal.Rptr 400 (a deannexation proposal by LA.FCO put before the voters required voter approval only after an initial decision and approval by LAFCO), and f ullertoit Joint Union High School Dist. V. State Bd. Of Education (1982) 32 Cal.3d 779, 187 Cal.Rptr. 398 (State Board of Education approval of a secession plan of a school district was an "essential step leading to ultimate environmental impact, i.e., the construction of a new school 13 Lompoc at 394 "The trial court correctly held that CEQA compliance would be required when a precise development plan for the shopping center was presented to the city JUL -U2 -9b THU 10:4b MEYERS,NAVE,RIBACK &S1LV. FAX NO. 510 351 4481 P.07/09 TO: City Council, City Manager, Community Development Director FROM: Michael S. Riback, City Attorney RE: Measure G implementation Procedure t)ATF.: July 2, 1998 PAGE; 6 amendments subject to Measure G in Saratoga, CEQA review is required for the City's approval of the amendment, though not for the citizens' approval. III. Procedures Followed By Other Public Agencies Measures similar to Measure G have been adopted prior to and since Measure G's adoption. The implementation procedures followed in those jurisdictions are the following: A. County of Napa Measure J, adopted by the electorate in March, 1990 provides that a vote of the electorate on a General Plan amendment only takes place once the Board of Supervisors has voted to approve the amendment. The Board's approval has no effect until a vote of the electorate in which a majority of the voters vote in favor of the amendment. B. City of Ventura A measure was approved by the electorate on November 7, 1995, which adopted an ordinance providing that. an affirmative vote of a majority of the electorate on a General Plan Amendment must occur in order for the amendment to be approved. The ordinance further states that "Whenever the City Council adopts an amendment requiring approval by a vote of the people pursuant to the provisions of this subsection, the City Council's action shall have no effect until after such a vote is held and a majority of the voters vote in favor of it." The Ventura City Attorney's office has indicated that the City has not had to interpret this section until very recently and that the City believes the section does ncZi allow an applicant the option of demanding that the City place a General Plan Amendment question on the ballot. The City is currently has no adopted implementation procedure, and like Saratoga, is considering various alternatives. The City Attorney's office believes (as 1 do) that clear guidelines should be adopted so that an applicant will be able to discern by reviewing them, which process the applicant must pursue. C. County of San Benito The Board of Supervisors adopted an ordinance in April, 1998, which requires that any development application which would result in an increase in residential housing beyond that. allowed by the. JUL -02 -98 THU 10:47 MEYERS, NAVE, R I BACK &S 1 LV, FAX NO. 510 351 4481 P. 08/09 TO: City Council, City Manager, Community Development Director FROM: Michael S. Riback, City Attorney ItE: Measure G Implementation Procedure DATE: July 2, 1998 PAGE: 7 General Plan must be directly placed by thc Board as a referendum before thc voters at either a special election called for that purpose or at the next general election, at the option of the applicant. The new designation for the property, if the application is approved by the voters, would include the phrase "Potential Residential Growth Increase Any subsequently proposed project would still require approval through the normal County review process. IV. Alternatives Available To City Council The City Council may adopt one of several alternative procedures in processing an application subject to Measure G: The applicant may be required in all instances to proceed through the customary city review process, and if approved by the city, the approval would not be effective until affirmed by a majority vote of the electorate. (The Community Development Director has stated in the past that this procedure is preferred as a good land use practice.) The applicant may be required in all instances to proceed directly to a vote of the electorate on the proposed change in land use designation. If approved by the voters, a subsequent proposed project would be processed through the city's customary review process. The applicant may be given the option of choosing between proceeding through the customary city review process, or going directly to a vote of the electorate. This is essentially the process that was previously adopted by the City Council. The City Council may reserve to itself the determination on a case -by -case basis of which projects will be required to go directly to the voters and which will he required to proceed through the customary review process. Without clear guidelines for the City Council to follow in making this determination, the City is left open to charges of violation of the applicant's due process and equal protection rights. JUL-lid-98 I'HU 10:41 MEYERS,NAVE,RIBACK &SILV, FAX NO 510 351 4481 P 09/09 TO: City Council, City Manager, Community Development Director FROM: Michael S. Riback, City Attorney RE: Measure G Implementation Procedure DATE: July 2, 1998 PAGE: 8 MSR:dsp 1: \WPD\MN I .S W\ 273 \01 \MEMO\JUL9R\MEASUREG.J02 Michael 5. Riback City Attorney We recommend that the City Council consider the above alternatives and advise staff and the City Attorney accordingly. AUG 2 8 1995 August 24, 1S TO THE HONORABLE CLERK OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA We, the undersigned, registered and qualified voters of the City of Saratoga, hereby propose an ordinance to amend the City of Saratoga General PLn. We petition you to submit the same to t City Coup of the City of Saratoga for its adoption without change, or for rejection and submission of the same to the voters of the Cray of Saratoga at a special election. In the event that the initiative petition is not signed by the number of voters required by Elea ions Code section 9214 and the City Couacu7 of the City of Saratoga does not adopt the ordinance without change, we petition you to submit the ordnance to amend the City of Saratoga General Plan to the voters of the CSty of Saratoga at the neat regular municipal election. AMENDMENT TO THE CITY SAL PLAN REQUIRING VOTE OF THE PEOPLE II' ORDER TO INTENSIFY EXISTING LAND USE DESIGNATIONS FOR ALL LANDS DESIGNATED' RESIDENTIAL OR 'OUTDOOR RECREATION' The people of the City of Saratoga do herby ordain as follows: Sectioal_ A. The protection of the exacter of existing low density residential neighborhoods and outdoor recranional open space areas in the City of Saratoga is of critical importance to Saratoga residents. The City was founded as a semi -rural residential conmwnity and most residents moved here because of this distinctive feature. Saratoga remains unique among South Bay cammumtiea because of its country atmosphere and open space areas, its majestic trees, an unusually low crime rate, and quiet neighborhoods free of or only minimally affected by retarl, commercial and office development. Page 1 en i, B. In recent years, however, the very names that make Saratoga so desirable ha. become threatened. The City Council is under strong and unceasing pressure from developers t convert residential and open space lands to retail commercial or high density residential developments. Proposals for more intensive development in residential neighborhoods are now regularly before the City, almost certainly some of these will be granted. C. The opening of the Route 85 freeway through Saratoga-may also dramatically increase development pressure in Saratoga Newly opened freeway corridors typically undergo t intensification of commercial, industrial and high density residential development. D. The unique character and quality of life of City residents depend on the protectio: of Saratoga's residential neighborhoods and recreational open space areas. This initiative, if approved by the voters, will provide this assurance by giving greater stability to the City's Geier. Plan, specifying that general plan provisions essential to the protection of the residential and recreational open space areas in the City can be amended or repealed only by the voters oftbe City of Saratoga. In particular, the initiative requires, with certain occ options, a vote of the people to permit: (1) the redesignation of residential lands to commercial, industrial or other laic use designations, (2) an increase of densities or intensities of residential land use, or (3) the redesigmtion of recreational open space lands to other land use designations. This initiative does not affect the City's existing regulations that authorize the creation of second dwedhng units. No does the initiative interfere with the City's obligation under state law to revise this Housing Element of the General Plan every five years. E. The Land Use Element of the City of Saratoga General Plan, adopted May 4,198 as amended through August 7, 1995 (hereinafter, "City's Land Use Element"), sets forth policies that protect the character of Saratoga's residential neighborhoods, including the following: Page 2ati6 "LU.8.0 Affirm that the City shall contimie to be predominantly a commcmiti of single- family detached residences. Fasting non -developed sites tuned single-family detached residential should remain so wed." This initiative serves to further the purpose underlying the foregoing policies. F. The City's Land Use Element establishes development standards for residential land use in sic subcategories (using the term 'DU" to refer to dwelling units), as follows: "A. Hillside Conservation Single Family Maximum density of .5 DU/ et acre or 1.55 people/acre. Maximum intensity of budding and impervious surfac coverage: 15, 000 square feet or 25% of site area, whichever is las. B. Very Low Density Single Family Maximum density of 1.09 DU/net acre or 3.38 peoplefacre. Maximum intensity of building and impervious surface coverage: 35% of site area. C. Low Density Single Family Maximum density of 2.18 DU/net acre or 6.76 peopklacae. Maximum um intensity of balding and impervious surface coverage: 45% of site area D. Medium Density Single Family 1. M-10 maximum density of4.35 DU/net acre or 13.5 people/acre 2. M-12,5 maximum density of 3.48 DU/net acre or 10.8 people acre. 3. M-15 maw density of 2.90 DU/net acre or 9.0 people/acre. In all cases abo the maximum intensity of building and impervious surface coverage is: 50%- 60% of site area. E. Multi -manly Maximum density of 14.5 DU/net acre or 27-45 people /acn Miamum intensity of bculding coverage: 40'/• of site area. F. P-D 1 (Planned Development) Residential 4.35 to 12.45 DU/net acre or 13.5 to 38.6 people /acre. Maxinerm intensity of bnlding coverage: 25% 35% of site area. All projects proposed on situ with this designation shat require use permit approval as provide for in Article 16 of the zoning ordinance. Page 3d to It should be noted that any discussion of the number of people per acne is nat meant to act asa limit to family size or maximum member of people that would be permitted to live on a site. The population densities given are meant only to act a guide to the average member of people likely to occupy a given area." G. The Open Space Element of the Saratoga General Plan declares that the City should, where pOsuble, improve the existing inventory of local public park and recreation facilities. In the face of increasing development pressures within the City, it is essential that the City, at a miniinum, affirm its won to maintain its existing recreational open space resources The City's Open Space Element sets forth policies that call for the protection of Saratoga's outdoor recreation open space lands, including the following "Preserve, through a variety of methods, u march as possible of the open space areas described in the Open Space Banat for visual greenbelts, ovation and managemea of envirOnmental resources, public health and safety protection and for recreational use." Further, the City's Land Use Bement establishes development standards for the outdoor recreation open space dory of open space lands as follvwa: "Outdoor recreation This dory consists of City or County parks or lands designated for those uses. Only recreational facilities (i.e. playground equipment, recreational courts, etc.), structures necessary to support the parks or structures of particular historic value are permitted in these areas. These sites are considered to be of particular value for recreational purposes. Some parks preserve significant vegetation features such as Hako ne Gardens and Villa Montalvo County Park." This initiative serves to finther the purpose underlying the foregoing polices. H. The purpose of this initiative is to ensure that residential lands are not unnecessarily converted to higher density residential, commercial or industrial land use designations and to protect the City's existing recreational open space resources. Accordingly, the initiative ensures that until December 31, 2025, the foregoing provisions of the City's Land Use Element governing building densities and intensities on residential lands may not be duanged Page 4dill except by vote of the people to increase the maximum densities and intensities stated. In additic the initiative provides that any lands designated as ode Conservation Single Family," "Very Low Density Single Family,' 'Low Density Single Family,' "Medium Density Single Family," "Muhl- Family," "P -D (Planned Development)," or 'Outdoor Recreation" by the City's General Plan and amendments thereto through August 7,1995 will remain so designated until Decembe 31, 2025 unless the land is redesignated by the City.Coutcal pursuant to_the procedures set font in this initiative or redesignated to another land use category by vote of the people. Sectioa.2. DetanaLEknatmendumst A. This Initiative hereby reaffirms and readopts, until December 31, 2025, the provisions of the Land Use Element of the City of Saratoga General Plan adopted in 1983 as amended through August 7,1995 specifying maximum densities and intensities of uses pamittec in the City's real subcategories, which provisions are set forth in their entirety in finding F of Section 1 of the initiative. In addition, the initiative hereby reams and readopts, until December 31, 2025, the "Dude Conservation Single Family," 'Very Low Density Single Family,''Low Density Single Family,' "Mediimm Density Single Family," "Multi Family," and 'T D (Planned Development)" designations ofthe City of Saratoga General Plan and amendments thereto through August 7,1995. Further, the following tact is added as the last paragraph of the "Residential" section of the City of Saratoga General Plan Land Use Element adopted in 1983 at amended through August 7,1995, at page 3-2: "Limitations on General Plat Amendments Relating to 'Residential' Lands. 1. Until December 31,2025, the foregoing provisions governing mix inn n building density and intensity for lands designated "Hillside Conservation Single Family," 'Very Low Density Single Family," "Low Density Single Page 5d10 Family, ""Medium Density Single Family," "Mud- Family," and "P -D (Planned Development)" shall not be amended to increase such densities c intensities unless such amendment is approved by vote of the people. 2. All lands designated "Hillside Conservation Single Family," "Very Low Density Single Family,' "Low Density Single Family," Medium Density Single Family," Multi- Family," or "P -D (Planned Development)" by the City of Saratoga General Plan and amendments thereto through August 7, 1995 shall remain so designated until December 31, 2025, unless said land is redesignated to another general plan land use category by vote of the people, or redesignated by the City Council pursuant to the procedures set forth in subsections 3 and 4 below. 3. Except as provided in subsection 4 below, land designated by the City of Saratoga General Phm as "Hillside Conservation Single Family," "Vary Low Density Single Family," 'Low Density Single Family," "Medium Density Single Family," 'Multi- Family," or P D (Planned Development)" may be redesignated to a more intensive residential land use by the City Carnal pursuant to its usual procedures only if the City Council makes each of the following findings: a. The proposed redesignation is essential for the Housing Element to be is substantial compliance with state law, and no other feasible redesignation CAB, but not limited to, redesignation of lands designated for non residential uses) or measures other than the proposed redesignation are available to achieve such compliance that would involve less intensive use of the land to be redesignated; and Pare f.f10 b. The Housing Element of the Qty's General Plan is in substantial compliance with state law, and the stn Department ofHousing and Commrmity Development has found such compliance. 4. Lad designated by the City of Saratoga General Plan as "Hillside Conservation Single Family," "Very Low Density Single Family, "Low Density Single Family," *Medium Density Single.Famlyr' "Multi- Family," or 'P -D (Planned Development)" may be redesignated to another land use category by the City Carnal if each of the following conditions are satisfied: a. The City Council manes a finding that the application of anbaectior 2 of this policy on 'Limitations on General Plan Amendments Relating to dial' Lads' would constitute an unconstitutional taking of the landowner's property, and b. In permitting redesignstion, the City Council allows additional land uses only to the minimum extent necessary to avoid said =constitutional taking of the landowner's property, and protects tc the maximum extent possible the character of immediately surrormdimg residential neighborhoods." B. This Initiative hereby roams and readopts, until December 31, 2025, the "Outdoor Ramon" designations of the City of Saratoga General Plan and amendments thereto through August. 7,1995. Further, the mowing tact is added as paragraph G of the "Open Space" section of the City of Saratoga General Plan Land Use Franco adopted in 1983 as amended through August 7, 1995, at page 3-4: "Limitations on General Plan Amendments Relating to 'Outdoor Recreation' Lands. I. All lands designated "Outdoor Recreation" by the City of Saratoga Gene: Plan and amendments thereto through August 7, 1995 shall remain so designated until December 31, 2025, unless said land is redesignated to another general plan land use category by vote of the people, or redesignated by the City Cotmcil pursuant to the procedures set forth in subsections 2 and 3 below. 2. Except as provided in subsection 3 below, land designated "Outdoor Rec scion" by the City of Saratoga General Plan and amendments thereto through August 7, 1995 may be redesignated to residential land use by the (Sty Council pursuant to its usual procedures only if the City makes each the following findings: a. The proposed amendment is essential for the Housing Element to be in substantial compliance with State law, and no other feasible designation (moludmg, but not limited to, redesignatiion of lands designated for non -re sidentiat uses) or measures other than the proposed redesignation are available to achieve such compliance that would involve a less intensive land use of the land to be redesignated; and b. The Housing Element of the City s General Plan is in substantial compliance with state law, and the state Department of Housing and Comity Development has found such substantial compliance. Page ssf10 3. Lad designated by the City of Saratoga General Plan as "Outdoor Recreation" may be redesignated to another land use category by the City Council if each of the following conditions are satisfied: a The City Council makes a fording that the application of subsectior 1 of this policy on limitations on General Plan Amendments Relating to 'Outdoor Recreation' bands" would constitute an tmc>oasditutional talong of the laadownatproperty, and b. In permitting i naation, the City Council allows additional land uses only to the minimum assent necessary to avoid said u nconaiwtiooal taking of the landowner's property, and protects It the maximum stmt possible the character of the immediately =munches residual neighborhoods." S- A. Upon the effective date of this initiative, the provisions of Section 2 of the initiative are inserted into the Land Use Element of the City of Saratoga General Plan as an amendmeat thereof; except that if the four amendments of the mandatory dements of the general plan permitted by state law for any given calendar year have already been utilized in 1996 prior to the effective date of this initiative, this general plan amendment shall be the fast amendment inserted in the City's General Plan on Jemmy 1,1997. At such time as this general plan amendment is inserted in the (Sty General Plan, any provisions of the City Zoning Ordinance, as reflected in the ordnance itself or the City of Saratoga Zoning Map, inconsistent with that amendment shall not be enforced to the anent of the inconsistency. B. The provisions of this initiative and the terms it adds to the City's General Plan shall supersede any conflicting provisions of the General PLn and Zoning Ordinance that may be enacted by the city Council between the date this initiative is filed with the City and the effective 4 s Pie! GM date of the initiative. Upon the effective date of the initiative, all general plan amendments, TOnings, specific plans, tentative or final subdivision maps, conditional use permits, building permits and other ministerial and discretionary tid rents for use not yet approved or issued shall be approved or issued only if consistent with the policies and provisions of this initiative. Sertinn 4 Rxrmptinns for Certain Projects This initiative shall not apply to any development project which has obtained as of the effective date of the initiative a vested right pursuant to state law. Section 5- Seversb�lity_ If any portion of this 'initiative is declared invalid by a court, the remaining portions are to be considered valid. 8• aS/. 95 Section 6_ Amendment nrRepe$L This initiative may be amended or repealed only by the voters of the City of Saratoga at a City election. 3 S /(osich fir. a/t /GP i 09me° It F�,� v.io i Set raZOft, C4 W070 /0 shave& 2kJ Jay t th. t Lw E.It s Sho.wn (Sa u?b C� 96o v 4 SY9 as ER- grsx B- 2_4 79s RESOLUTION NO. 96 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA 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 IMPLEMENTATION) WHEREAS, on March 26, 1996, the voters approved a measure (Measure G) to change the text of the Land Use Element of the General Plan to require that certain amendments to said Land Use Element may only be made by a vote of the people, and WHEREAS, on April 23, 1996, the City Council did certify the results of the March 26, 1996, election and adopted a resolution incorporating the Measure G amendments into the Land Use Element, and WHEREAS, as a result of the adoption of said resolution the amendments to the Land Use Element became effective on May 3, 1996, and WHEREAS, in order to establish policies to effectively implement the change to the Land Use Element, the City Council did at a regular adjourned meeting held on May 7, 1996, and at a regular meeting held May 15, 1996, consider various proposals and recommendations for the implementation of Measure G, and WHEREAS, at the conclusion of its deliberations the City Council did on May 15, 1996, by a series of votes adopt policies relating to the implementation of Measure G. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Saratoga, as follows: 1. Staff is to use a two part test to determine if a project is subject to Measure G. The first part of the test is to determine if the proposed project property is currently located in one of the General Plan Land Use Designations contained in that portion of the Land Use Element of the General Plan covered by Measure G. If the property is located in one of the affected General Plan Land Use Designations then the staff will apply the second part of the test to determine if the project proposes to 1) change a General Plan Land Use Designation so that it would be subject to Measure G or, 2) increase specified densities or intensities which exceed the limits set forth in the Land Use Element of the General Plan or, 3) in the case of the Outdoor Recreation General Plan Land Use Designation, involves no recreation facilities, or involves no structures which are necessary to support the parks, or involves no structures of particular historic value. If the project proposes to either 1) change a General Plan Land Use Designation of the property so that it would be subject to Measure G, or 2) increases development density or intensity limits, except in the Outdoor Recreation General Plan Land Use Designation, Measure G would apply. If the project is in the Outdoor Recreation General Plan Land Use Designation and proposes to create facilities which are not recreational in nature, or which do not support the purposes of the park, and involves no structures of particular historic value then the project would be subject to Measure G. 2. If the staff determines a project is subject to Measure G it is to prepare a report to the applicant, at the applicant's cost, outlining the submittals required to complete applications for' project review, the applicant's right to have a project considered or to have a General Plan amendment placed before the voters for consideration, the costs for such requests, and the effect approval of the amendment would have on future development of the property. 3. Applications for development which are determined to be subject to the election requirements of the General Plan, as set forth in Measure G shall, at the option of the applicant, either proceed to election without further review, become subject to review by the Planning Commission and City Council under current procedures, or be withdrawn. 4. Administrative determinations as to a project's status under Measure G may be appealed as currently set forth in Article 15 -90 of the Municipal Code. 5. The timing of elections required by Measure G shall be determined by and the cost of the election 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 Director of Finance in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. 6. The provisions of Measure G allowing the City Council, under limited circumstances, to approve a redesignation of Measure G protected land use designations, (e.g., by exception) are to be considered only subsequent to the voters failing to approve an amendment to the General Plan which would remove the condition requiring an application for exception. Requests for exception shall be submitted by separate application. The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the Saratoga City Council at a regular meeting held on the 5th day of June, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers Burger, Moran and Wolfe NOES: None ABSENT: Councilmember Tucker and Mayor Jacobs ATTEST: Deputy City C F: \memo \measureg.res EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 270, MEETING DATE: May 7, 1996 ORIGINATING DEPT. City Manager Recommended Motion(s): Report Summary: SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Measure G Implementation AGENDA ITEM CITY MGR. 1. Accept the staff report. 2. Move to adopt a po }icy that applications for development which are determined to be subject to the election requirements of the General Plan, as set forth in Measure G, shall proceed directly to an election without further review unless withdrawn at the request of the applicant. 3. Move to confirm that administrative determinations as to a project's status under Measure G may be appealed as currently set forth in Article 15 -90 of the Municipal Code. 4. Move to adopt a policy that the timing of elections requested under Measure 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. 5. Move to adopt a policy that exceptions to Measure G are to be considered only subsequent to the voters failing to approve an amendment to the General Plan which would remove the condition requiring an application for exception. Requests for exception shall be submitted by separate application. The report states that a simple test can determine whether a project is subject to the Measure G standard, thus requiring an election. The staff would initially conduct this test with its determination subject to appeal under Title 15 -90 of the Code. Applications which are determined to be subject to Measure G should not be processed until the voters have approved an amendment to the General Plan. Decisions related to the timing of elections for projects subject to Measure G should be made by the applicant so the applicant can present what the applicant feels is the best presentation to the voters. The applicant should pay for the cost of any election. Exceptions for housing element compliance and regulatory taking should only be considered by the City Council if the voters have rejected a proposal. A separate application for exception consideration should be required. Fiscal Impacts None provided full cost recovery is approved by the City Council. The cost of an election can vary from about_ $4,000 to more than $60,000 depending on the election date chosen. Advertising. Noticing and Public Contact: This subject was discussed extensively at the Town Hall meeting on April 20th. SONIC has been sent.a copy of the staff report and a notice of this meeting. Agenda for the meeting posted according to the law. Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: Staff will have no guidance in the administration of projects under Measure G and will have to handle applications as it deems appropriate. Follow Up Actions: The fee resolution will need to be amended to reflect charging for the cost of elections and the cost for filing a request for exception. Community Development Department staff will need to be briefed on the decisions made by the City Council. Attachments: Memorandum dated May 7, 1996 Recommended Actions: 1. Accept the staff report. Background: MEMORANDUM DATE: May 7, 1996 TO: City Council FROM: Harry Peacock, City Manager SUBJECT: Measure G implementation 2. Move to adopt a policy that applications for development which are determined to be subject to the election requirements of the General Plan, as set forth in Measure G, shall proceed directly._ to an election without further review unless withdrawn at the request of the applicant. 3. Move to confirm that administrative determinations as to a projects status under Measure G may be appealed as currently set forth in Article 15 -90 of the Municipal Code. 4. Move to adopt a policy that the timing of elections required by Measure 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 Director of Finance in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. 5. Move to adopt a policy that exceptions to Measure G are to be considered only subsequent to the voters failing to approve an amendment to the General Plan which would remove the condition requiring an application for exception. Requests for exception shall be submitted by separate application. On March 26, 1996, the voters of Saratoga passed Measure G, an initiative measure, which requires that certain changes to the land use element of the general plan may be made only by the voters. On April 20, 1996, a Town Hall meeting was held at which the implementation of Measure G was discussed by the staff, the City Council, and the public. At that meeting the City Manager outlined Measure G Implementation Page 2 for those present the processes which he, the Community Development Director and the City Attorney concluded are appropriate for implementing Measure G. On April 23, 1996, the City Council acted to certify the results of the election and to enact a resolution placing the language of Measure G into the Land Use Element of the General Plan. As a result Measure G became effective on May 3, 1996. Discussion: Determining Application of the Measure G Standard In administering Measure G the first step is to determine whether or not an application is subject to the Measure G requirement. A two part test applies. Only certain General Plan land use categories are subject to Measure G. These are: 1. Outdoor Recreation 2. Hillside Conservation Single Family 3. Very Low Density Single Family 4. Low Density Single Family 5. Medium Density Single Family and Its Associated Subcategories of M -10, M -12.5, and M -15 6. Multi family 7. P -D (Planned Development) Residential The first part of the test is whether the property involved is located in one of these General Plan land use designations, if it is then it is subject to the Measure G requirement. Measure G says only the voters may amend the Land Use Element of General Plan to increase specified densities or intensities for the designated land uses, or to change the land use designation from a lower to a higher designation in terms of density or intensity, except for the Outdoor Recreation land use designation. The specific densities are: 1. Hillside Conservation Single Family -no more than 0.5 dwelling units per net acre. 2. Very Low Density Single Family -no more than 1.09 dwelling units per net acre. 3. Low Density Single Family -no more than 2.18 dwelling units per net acre. 4. Medium Density Single Family M -10 -no more than 4.35 dwelling units per net acre. M- 12.5 -no more than 3.48 dwelling units per net acre. M -15 -no more than 2.90 dwelling units per net acre.' Measure G Implementation Page 3 5. Multi- family -no more than 14.5 dwelling units per net acre. 6. P -D (Planned Development) Residential -no more than 4.35 to 12.45 dwelling units per net acre. An exception is made for "granny flats" which, under our zoning ordinance, applies to some, but not all properties, depending on their size. The specific intensities are: 1. Hillside Conservation Single Family Maximum intensity of buildings and impervious surface coverage 15,000 square feet or 25% of site area, whichever is less. 2. Very Low Density Single Family Maximum intensity of buildings and impervious surface coverage: 35% of site area. 3. Low Density Single Family Maximum intensity of buildings and impervious surface coverage: 45% of site area. 4. Medium Density Single Family and Its Associated Subcategories Maximum intensity of buildings and impervious surface coverage. is: 50 -60% of site area. 5. Multi family- Maximum intensity of building coverage: 40% of site area. 6. P -D (Planned Development) Residential Maximum intensity of building coverage: 25 -35% of site area. (Note that in the last two land use designation categories the intensity standard changes from impervious surface coverage to building coverage). The second part of the test is whether the project would result in an increase in density or intensity of General Plan land use (e.g., density of dwelling units per acre or placement of impervious surfaces or buildings beyond the coverage limits set forth in the various General Plan land use categories) if it does then it is subject to the Measure G requirement. For property under the Outdoor Recreation designation, the test to apply is whether the development being proposed, 1) changes the land use designation or 2) is consistent with the standard set forth in the Open Space Element. This standard is recited on page 4 of Measure G: "This subcategory consists of City or County parks or lands designated for those uses. Only recreational facilities (i.e. playground equipment, recreational courts, etc,), structures necessary to support the parks or structures of particular historic value are permitted in these areas. These sites are considered to be of particular value for recreational purposes. Some parks preserve significant vegetation features such as Hakone Gardens and Villa Montalvo County Park." Measure G Implementation Page 4 If it is consistent with the standard, the project is not subject to Measure G. Administration of Measure G Standard Processing Applications for Projects Upon receipt of an application the staff will determine whether the project is subject to the Measure G standard. If it is not then the application would proceed through the process. Staff currently reviews all applications for consistency with the Zoning Ordinance and the General Plan. If the application is inconsistent then it is not processed until it is consistent. This requires either a change in the plans or the securing of a change to the Zoning Ordinance and /or General Plan, or securing a variance or a conditional use permit. Under Measure G, variances or conditional use permits (which would have the effect of allowing a different standard to apply as relates to either use, density or intensity, i.e., coverage) would no longer be available. The sole remedy would be to change the General Plan through the election process. Very few applications will be subject to the Measure G standard. Currently no special notice is given that an application meets all Code and General Plan requirements, this would not change. We have considered the issue of how things are done now when someone is requesting a change to the General Plan versus how things would be done in the future. Currently, it is typical that someone seeking a change to the General Plan will also file associated applications related to the project. The reason, the applicant expects the City will grant a General Plan amendment if it likes the project. However, the City can not compel an applicant to apply for anything more than a General Plan Amendment. Applications now travel together. This would no longer occur under Measure G unless the basic Measure G question was delayed in terms of ballot placement until the entire application process was completed. If done any other way it is possible that applications could be in mid process when an election is held on the basic question of changing the land use designation. What Measure G says is that density and intensity standards, "shall not be amended to increase such densities or intensities unless such amendment is approved by a vote of the people." (emphasis added). Measure G goes on to state that land, "may be designated Measure G Implementation Page 5 to a more intensive residential land use by the City Council pursuant to its usual procedures only if the City Council makes each of the following findings:" (emphasis added), and then discusses findings relating to housing element compliance and unconstitutional taking of property. Measure G recognizes that it no longer makes a difference (in terms of Planning Commission and City Council decision making) whether a project is approved or denied. Neither body can approve a General Plan change which would affect the status of a Measure G impacted property, that can only be done by another initiative or by the project being placed before the electorate by the City Council. Staff recommends no public hearings be conducted on a project until the issue of Measure G applicability is determined. Review would consist of a determination as to applicability only. Should the staff determine an application is subject to the Measure G standard, the applicant would be notified and given an opportunity to appeal the staff determination to the Planning Commission. The administrative appeal process is set forth in Article 15 -90 of the Code. Should the Planning Commission determine the application is subject to Measure G the applicant can either, 1) appeal to the Council, 2) request an election or 3) withdraw the application. Should a question arise at the Planning Commission public hearing as to the determination by staff that a project is not subject to Measure G, the Commission would listen to the reasoning of the staff and the reasoning of the person making the claim. Should the Commission determine that the application is subject to Measure G, then the applicant may either 1) appeal to the Council, 2) request an election or 3) withdraw the application. What happens to the application once a decision has been made that the Measure G standard applies? The City Council should determine whether to continue to have the application processed (at the discretion of the applicant) or whether to suspend proceedings on the application until the matter has been settled by the voters. If the process was allowed to continue any decision made on the merits of the project would have no effect on whether a project goes to the ballot. If proceedings are suspended and the voters approve the change in the land use element the proceedings would continue, if they do not the project must be withdrawn. If the proceedings continue during the time scheduled for the election it is possible that the election could take place before the proceedings have concluded either in favor or in opposition to the project, as has been noted above. It would appear that there is no advantage to either the applicant or the City to have project review continue pending an election. Indeed, the applicant might be disadvantaged by having his or her application prejudged by the City before the voters have had their say. Measure Q Implementation Page 6 Placing a Project on the Ballot Placing a project on the ballot is a decision which is made by the City Council. Options available are to either, 1) determine when a project is to go on the ballot or 2) determine to let the applicant pick when the project is to go on the ballot. In both cases it is recommended that the applicant pay the full cost of placing the project before the voters). As noted at the Town Hall meeting, the City is limited in the number of times it can amend its general plan to four times a year. This is a factor to consider when deciding whether to give the applicant the choice to choose when a project would go on the ballot. Allowing the applicant to choose could delay other general plan changes being considered by the City which have no relationship to the Land Use Element or Measure G. However, as pointed out at the Town Hall meeting, it is possible to group general plan amendments so as to avoid this problem. In weighing which option to recommend to the City Council, it is my view that the likelihood of this problem occurring is extremely rare. Therefore, it would be better for the applicant to be free to chose his or her election date, as best suits the applicant's purposes, including the consideration of cost. Should the City Council determine it wishes reserve the decision for itself it has the following options: 1) determine that the measure must wait until the next general City election. These occur only in November of even numbered years. 2) determine that the measure can proceed as a special election. This could mean that the election is either a stand alone election or one which can be combined with another election being held which covers all voters in Saratoga. This is similar to the way Measure G was placed on the ballot. Remember, the applicant can always attempt to get the measure placed on the ballot through the initiative process, bypassing the application process and the determination process entirely. In this case the City would bear the cost of the election should the City Council decide not to enact the ordinance as presented by the petitioners, but rather require the matter to be determined by the voters. Dealing with Exceptions The final issue to consider is the question of when to deal with the housing element or regulatory taking exceptions. As stated in Measure G Implementation Page 7 Measure G, the City Council can make exceptions if it makes certain findings regarding either the need to fulfill the objectives of the housing element, should the City have an approved one, or to prevent a regulatory taking of the property. In my view this decision needs to be made by the Council if, and only if, the voters reject the proposed change to the land use designation, density or intensity. If the voters approve the change then the decisions and findings do not have to be made because the outcome of the election have cured the condition. Should the voters fail to approve the proposed change to the General Plan, the applicant could then, and only then, apply for an exception, as provided in Measure G. Conclusions and Recommendations A simple test can determine whether a project is subject to the Measure G standard, thus requiring an election. Staff would initially conduct this test with its determination subject to appeal under Title 15 -90 of the Municipal Code. Applications which are determined to be subject to Measure G should not be processed until the voters have approved an amendment to the General Plan. Decisions related to the timing of elections for projects subject to Measure G should be made by the applicant so the applicant can present what the applicant feels is the best presentation to the voters. The applicant should pay for the cost of any election, including staff, indirect, administrative and overhead costs as determined by the Finance Director in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. Exceptions for housing element compliance and regulatory taking should only be considered by the City Council if the voters have rejected a proposal. A separate application for seeking an exception should be required. City Council Minutes May 15, 1996 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 conservation single family, very low density single family, low density single family, medium density single family, multiple family and planned development residential. City Manager Peacock explained that a two part test applies to determine whether or not an application is subject to the Measure G requirement. The first test is to determine whether the property involved is located in one of the 7 General Plan land use categories listed above. If the property falls within one of the categories, it is subject to the Measure G requirement. The second part of the test is that if the property is located in one of the 7 designated areas, staff will look at what Measure G says relative to the density or intensity of development of those particular pieces of land, and if there appears there would be a density or intensity change, the application would be subject to Measure G requirements. City Manager Peacock outlined the process for administration of Measure G, which included processing applications for projects, placing a project on the ballot, dealing with exceptions, and conclusion and recommendations, as outlined in the attached staff report. Mayor Jacobs opened the meeting for public input. Mr. Jim Shaw, 18735 Kosich Drive, Saratoga Woods, said that following last week's meeting the City Council would adopt the implementation policy created by staff. He presented the following views: Going directly to the ballot is not prescribed or even encouraged by Measure G. If adopted, this policy is your product and responsibility and not associated with or supported by Measure G, drafters or supporters. Measure G was drafted with the assumption that current policies and procedures would remain in place. Perhaps the flaw is that it relies on common sense. It defies my sense of fair play that the staff, Planning Commission, City Council would consider abdicating its duties to evaluate development projects and to record their collective decisions under projects that fall under Measure G. The drafters in support of Measure G do not want the functions of the staff, Planning Commission and City Council abdicated. You were hired and elected to do a job, that includes evaluating all applications to develop property, including those that fall under Measure G, and to render decisions which you believe to be in the best interest of the City. As Measure G supporters maintained throughout the campaign, the voters want an opportunity to affirm all those rules that current decision making process and results, but only if the decision is to increase density or intensity. Mayor Jacobs, last week you were concerned that City Council Minutes May 15, 1996 if applications are processed before going to the ballot, the City will be perceived as selling the project. You are correct; that's exactly what you should be doing. And that is what I believe Measure G supporters want and expect. Against the background of Measure G being in place, is that the evaluation and decision making process should proceed with great care, thus if a project which increases density or intensity, makes it through the process with G in the background against your evaluation decision making process, I think the electorate can assume that you have given great care to that particular project and as such would give it great consideration because we all agree that the best interests of Saratoga is what everybody wants. It is another hoop to go through for you and your decision making process. Measure G was intended to help the Council, not hinder or take away anything that you should be concerned with. Mayor Jacobs stated that in regard to Mr. Shaw's concern about going to the ballot or not, he read Measure G in an attempt to find something that gives direction as to the procedure to follow and was unable to find anything indicating whether or not it should go on the ballot any particular time or that the City should or should not in terms of administrative policies go one direction or another. He asked Mr. Shaw if he could cite specifics. Mr. Shaw said it was neutral, and he felt in drafting the Measure G initiative, it was a basic assumption that they are not changing any of the processes. He said he would not want to evaluate the fate of a project without having the benefit of staff's evaluation, Planning Commission and City Council. 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. City Council Minutes May 15, 1996 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 unsatisfactory. 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 Council is 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 the Council is acting inappropriately and childishly when they don t have to. It would be unjust and a violation of the voters' express preferences if this Council vote is to eschew current application processes. Last week's public comments seem to affect you like pesky mosquitoes. They couldn t be ignored, but they could be swatted aside or squashed. What was needed last week and now is dialog not diatribe. Not us versus them attitude; not an adversarial confrontation but a City Council Minutes commitment to an exchange of implementation of Measure G. It's Mayor Jacobs opened the discussion viable solutions from proper about doing what is right." for Council's comments. May 15 1996 Mayor Jacobs said as he understood it, the applicant cannot be legally compelled to go to either conceptual or design review process. That is not part of the General Plan. They presently do it voluntarily. Mayor Jacobs said that he could find nothing in the document that set forth a procedure that was to be followed in terms of when the election is to take place or how much work was to be done by the City on the application. He asked staff or legal counsel to comment on use specifics. City Attorney Riback responded that the initiative measure is silent on that procedural question. Councilmember Tucker said that it was a case of creating bad laws with ugly results, and what is here tonight is not clear. There is confusion about the intent of the ballot measure, the verbiage exclusively stating intent was not on the ballot measure and therefore people did not vote one way or another. She said she felt people wanted to have a say in the General Plan amendment that intensifies or creates a greater benefit and what is being discussed is not whether or not this should happen; she said she felt it should; and therefore would vote in favor of the staff recommendation. Councilmember Tucker said that the message to the community is there is an applicant who wants to change one zone to another and in doing so that applicant will change the guidelines relative to the development of that property. The applicant will develop commercial property, residential property and even with the residential zones there has to be setbacks, and height limitations. Therefore all these are in place and the question to the community is do you or do you not want to change the zoning. She said she felt it was unfair to an applicant to have him come forward and go through the entire process and then have to go up the vote of the people. She said if she was the applicant she would want to go directly to the vote of the people initially to find out whether or not to proceed. She said she supported Measure G wholeheartedly; that staff's recommendation is the best way to support it. Councilmember Wolfe questioned the applicant's due process rights. He said that the voters in the City should have a maximum-comfort level when something is presented to them; if it has gone through the process initially and Council approves it, it is confirmed by the people. He said Councilmember Moran s suggested term of option creates greater freedom of the applicant that might be considered as well. City Attorney Riback stated that there is a very serious due process question. The only final decision maker for purposes of causing a General Plan amendment subject to Measure G is the people; the City Council can only make the primary decision, whether that decision is City Council Minutes May 15, 1996 yes or no. He compared this to the situation where the City Council is the appellate body for decisions made by the Planning Commission, therefore if the Planning Commission says no, the applicant becomes an appellant, and has the right to appeal to City Council in the normal process. If the City Council is in that same situation as the Planning Commission and the City council says no, then the applicant has the right to a final decision from the final decision maker, which is the public the voters. He said that to deprive an applicant of that right to have a final decision made is violating the due process rights of the applicant. He said that Measure G is a step between Superior Court, an added step in the process. 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 applicant 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 City Council Minutes May 15, 1996 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 that the Council devise a process for reviewing Measure G projects before they go to the voter. She said she did not know any voters that said they did not want the Council involved in planning decisions that are affected by Measure G. If a voter was trying to inform herself of the merits of Measure G process, the proposal that would be on the ballot would want to have at least an overview or analysis of what is being proposed. She proposed to Mr. Shaw that it should be part of the process. Councilmember Tucker said she would like to see some sort of planning process in which the City would provide some information to an applicant. She said she would prefer a complete review process, but that it may not fly in terms of the Council view of what they feel comfortable with. She said she was willing to take an application, find out whether it was Measure G or not (the vast maj -ority are not Measure G), take the applications and send them immediately to staff for an overview and analysis. An overview providing the owner an idea of what the project is and what kind of review would be necessary to evaluate the project, and it would also provide the applicant with a cost estimate. Councilmember Tucker said she also proposed a system where the voters receive information about a project; what its general appearance would be; we don't just rely on the applicant or owner description. The City Council Minutes May 15, 1996 applicant could make the decision to go directly to the voters or through the process. She said that she would like a staff report after a year to conduct an evaluation of the success of the process because we will probably have to make amendments. Councilmember Burger discussed a scenario of an applicant approaching the City and wanting to identify a piece of property to be changed from residential to commercial without a plan, but the concept being a small shopping center; and stating the community was willing to allow a change in zoning. She said the end result would be a denial. The applicant would decide to proceed no further. The City Council cannot suggest going to the planning process first before going to an election if the applicant chooses not to provide the City Council with enough information to do that. Councilmember Moran indicated that the City Council could do so. It could say it would accept the General Plan amendment application and send it directly to the Planning Commission and they will vote on it and send it to the Council and the Council will vote on it. Councilmember Tucker said that the voters would be responsible for making a decision not on a specific application, but on zoning changes. If that application moves forward and is changed, they are not bound by it. The community must realize that they are voting on a zone change. Mayor Jacobs said the circumstances in all those cases were that they knew that the Council was the same body that was going to decide everything and were the final arbiters. It wasn't going to go then go onto a ballot and be decided by a wholly different group of people. Councilmember Burger asked where was the assurance of the community that after they approve the General Plan, that is all they have done. They still have no assurance that the final product is going to be satisfactory. Councilmember Tucker explained that the public will vote for it and submit their input and go through the design process. She said she understood Councilmember Moran's concern that the voters wont know what they are voting on. The City Attorney will put the verbiage on the ballot explaining the meaning to the people. The community is welcome to call City Hall if they have any questions. Mayor Jacobs said that legally the Council could not require them to do that; potentially they can go out and sell to the public the package they plan to build. In the election they have the right to tell the public whatever they want and they can't be forced to go through the entire process as far as the design. 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 City Council Minutes May 15, 1996 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 -0. TUCKER /BURGER TO ACCEPT THE STAFF REPORT AS AMENDED. 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 evaluate the success of the implementation process after the first process is complete. Councilmember Moran proposed amendment to No. 2 to move to adopt a policy that applications for development which are determined to be subject to the election requirements of the General Plan, as set forth in Measure G, shall at the request of the applicant either proceed directly to an election, or shall become subject to review by Planning Commission, City Council prior to election, or shall be withdrawn at the request of the applicant. Discussion continued regarding applicant's options wherein staff answered Commissioners' questions. City Manager Peacock suggested that if applicant wanted to appeal the administrative decision subject to Measure G, staff would transmit that report to the Planning Commission as part of their determination. The same would apply if they received an adverse decision by the Planning Commission and they asked the City Council to do it under Section 15 -90. The report would also accompany the administrative appeal. In response to Mayor Jacob's question regarding who would author the ballot arguments, City Attorney Riback explained that there are specific provisions in the elections code which allow the City Clerk to determine priority. MORAN /WOLFE TO ADOPT A POLICY THAT APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPING OR DETERMINING THE SUBJECT OF THE ELECTION REQUIREMENTS OF GENERAL PLAN AS SET FORTH IN MEASURE G SHALL, AT THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT, PROCEED TO ELECTION WITHOUT FURTHER REVIEW, SHALL BE SUBJECT TO REVIEW BY PLANNING COMMISSION OR WITHDRAWN. Mayor Jacobs asked whether, if the applicant chooses to go through the process to the end, the Council at the end of the process will vote on the application. Staff responded that it would. City Manager Peacock explained that City Council would either approve a resolution containing a condition that says this resolution becomes effective upon a vote of the people or deny the resolution. The decision would then go to the voters. Councilmember Burger stated that she would vote against the motion. She City Council Minutes May 15, 1996 said she was still unsure of the process and would feel more comfortable seeing the motion in two weeks. She said it was important to get a process on the books in order to deal with what was becoming law. Some adjustments might be needed. Mayor Jacobs stated he would vote for the motion although there were parts he was opposed to. He said he felt it was as much as the Council could do in terms of what Sonic has requested. Councilmember Moran concurred, stating that it satisfied some of her concerns. PASSED 3 -2 (Burger, Tucker voting no). MORAN /WOLFE TO ADOPT A POLICY THAT EXCEPTIONS TO MEASURE G ARE TO BE CONSIDERED ONLY SUBSEQUENT TO THE VOTERS FAILING TO APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN WHICH WOULD REMOVE THE CONDITION REQUIRING AN APPLICATION FOR EXCEPTION. REQUESTS FOR EXCEPTION SHALL BE SUBMITTED BY SEPARATE APPLICATION. PASSED 5 -0. City Council Minutes Juno 5, 1996 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 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 To: Saratoga City Council From: Mayor Don Wolfe Panel for Saratogas Future June 17, 1998 It is imperative for us to focus on a clear vision and policy for the financial strength of Saratoga's future. The Fiscal budgets for years 98 -99, 99 -00 that we are presently considering appears to be in balance and provide for the immediate needs of our city. The hard work and dedicated study of staff and the Financial Advisory Commission are to be commended. The Tong -term stability and an adequate revenue stream, however, are in serious doubt and a forward looking plan that will guarantee the future services and safety of Saratoga is a matter of high priority. Experience has shown us that the state or other sources of funding for our city are not dependable. Boom or bust economies causes an ephemeral reaction on the part of outside resources. This reality indicates that it is the best interest of Saratoga to provide for its own basic and long term financial stability. Therefore I propose the establishment a blue ribbon panel of Saratoga citizens to examine long -range solutions so as to avoid a financial crisis for our city and to provide for safety and services necessary to retain the quality of our city. In order to have adequate time to study and evaluate financial conditions and to solicit public recommendations, I recommend that the panel convene for the period to begin September 1,1998 until February 1, 1999. Should the panel recommend, and the Council concur, that creative solutions include a ballot measure for revenue enhancement, such a time frame will allow for application for the June 1999 primary election date. I recommend the selection of a well rounded panel representative of a broad range of community interests consisting of 13 distinguished citizens as follows: Panel for Saratoga's Future Page 2 2 persons from the Financial Advisory Commission 1 person from the Parks and Recreation Commission 1 person from the Public Safety Commission 1 person from the Planning Commission 1 person from the arts and theatre community 1 person representing civic associations 2 persons representing neighborhood groups 1 person representing the business community 2 city staff members The mayor to serve as chairperson As a process for selection of members of the panel I suggest that commissions, organizations and individuals submit names to the Deputy City Clerk by August 15, 1998 for appointment by the City Council. There are compelling reasons for establishing the Panel for Saratoga's Future. They have to do with the characteristics that we Saratogans identify as necessary to retain the quality of our city. In addition, are the matters of basic health and safety features and services for the residents of Saratoga. All indications are that future income streams will not be adequate to provide for proper maintenance of infrastructure such as roads, parks and city facilities. Parks could be in danger of closing due to inadequate maintenance funding. It has happened in other cities. Crumbling roads and city buildings that fall into disrepair will be the result if revenue does not keep apace with actual costs. Do we want less Sheriff Department services then we have today? Services to seniors and youth are in danger of disappearing. We presently fall far short of adequate reserves to meet emergency disasters in our hillsides or any natural phenomena that could befall our area. By putting our efforts together I am confident that we Saratogans can find the solutions to these vital matters. Those who serve on this recommend Panel for Saratoga's Future will fulfill an invaluable service to our beloved city and will have the gratitude of all of our citizens in the decades ahead. RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA ORDERING AND CALLING A GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD IN THE CITY OF SARATOGA ON NOVEMBER 3, 1998; REQUESTING THE SERVICES OF THE REGISTRAR OF VOTERS; REQUESTING CONSOLIDATION OF ELECTIONS AND SPECIFYING CERTAIN PROCEDURES FOR THE CONSOLIDATED ELECTION; AND PROVIDING FOR GIVING NOTICE OF ELECTION RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Saratoga, Clara, State of California, as follows: 1. A general municipal election is hereby called to for the City of Saratoga on Tuesday, November 3, 1998, Councilmembers, each for a full term of four years. County of Santa be held in and to elect three 2. Pursuant to Section 10002 of the Elections Code, the City Council hereby requests the Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Clara to make available the services of the Registrar of Voters for the purpose of performing the usual services necessary in the conduct of the consolidated municipal election, including the provision of election supplies and voter's pamphlets. 3. Pursuant to Elections Code Section 10400 the City Council hereby requests the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors to order the consolidation of the general municipal election hereby called with the statewide general election to be conducted within the boundaries of the City of Saratoga on November 3, 1998, with respect to which the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors has the power to order a consolidation. The City Council further consents to and orders the consolidation of the general municipal election hereby called with the statewide general election. Upon consolidation, the consolidated election shall be held and conducted, election officers appointed, voting precincts designated,ballots printed, polls opened at 7:00 a.m. and closed at 8:00 p.m.,ballots counted and returned, returns canvassed, and all other proceedings in connection with the election shall be regulated and done by the Registrar of Voters of Santa Clara County in accordance with the provisions of law regulating the elections so consolidated. 4. The City Clerk be and hereby is authorized and directed to publish a notice of the general municipal election within the time and in the manner specified in the Elections Code Section 12101. The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a regular adjourned meeting of the Saratoga City Council held on the 7th day of July, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: Deputy City Clerk Mayor AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: Deputy City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. Mayor RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA CONFIRMING DECISIONS ON CANDIDATE'S STATEMENTS FOR NOVEMBER 3, 1998, MUNICIPAL ELECTION WHEREAS, the City Council did, on July 1, 1998, deliberate on and make decisions concerning the issue of fees for the printing of candidate's statements and on the issue of permitted length of candidate's statements, and WHEREAS, it is now appropriate to confirm these decisions in the form of a resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Saratoga that, pursuant to Section 13307 of the Elections Code, the City Council hereby determines to levy against each candidate availing himself or herself of the service of including a candidate's statement in the voters pamphlet the fee of $520, payable at the time the nomination papers are issued, for a statement not to exceed four hundred words in length. If the actual costs are less than the fee, the excess will be refunded to the candidate within 30 days after the election. If the actual costs are greater than the fee, the candidate will be billed for the remainder. The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Saratoga City Council held on the 7th day of July, 1998, by the following vote: co Public hearings will start promptly at 8:00, when the Council_will move from whatever item it is considering at that time to public hearings. Note: Devices to assist the hearing impaired are now available in the lobby. AGENDA SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL TIME: Wednesday, July 1, 1998 6:30 p.m. PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Ave. TYPE: Regular Meeting Administration Conference Room 6:30 p.m. Special meeting for the purpose of: Planning Commission Interviews 6:30 Rusin; 6:40 Page; 6:50 Andres 7:10 p.m. Closed session pursuant to Government Code Section 54957: PUBLIC EMPLOYEE APPOINTMENT Title: Public Works Director Civic Theater Mayor's Report on Closed Session. 7:30 Pledge of Allegiance 1. ROLL CALL 2. CEREMONIAL ITEMS A. Budget Award Presentation B. Resolution commending Jack Grantham for Service on Library Commission C. Resolution appointing Members of Board of Trustees of Hakone Foundation D. Administration of Oath of Office to the Above 3. REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on June 26. 4. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS AND THE PUBLIC A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS B. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS None. C. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None. 5. CONSENT CALENDAR City Council Agenda 2 July 1, 1998 These items will be acted upon in one motion for each section unless they are removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion by Councilmembers or any interested party. However, items in Section A have already been considered by the Council at a previous meeting where the public was invited to comment, after which the hearing was closed. Those items are not subject to public discussion at this meeting because the vote taken at the previous meeting was final. Resolutions concerning decisions made at previous meetings are for the purpose of memorializing the decision to assure the accuracy of the findings, the prior vote, and any conditions imposed. A. Previously Discussed Items 1) Resolution denying Jensen Appeal B. New Items 1) Planning Commission Actions, 6/24 Note and file. 2) Memo Authorizing Publicity for Upcoming Hearings Neogy Appeal 3) Renewal of Household Hazardous Waste Agreement 4) Approval of Check Register C. CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY None. 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS 8:00 pm. A. Review of Village Valet Parking Program B. Landscaping and Lighting District LLA -1: Public Hearing on Proposed Assessments for FY 98 -99 (continued from 6/17) Recommended Action: Continue to July 15. C. City of Saratoga Budget, 1998 -2000, including consideration of Gann appropriations limit and resolution setting various fees for services, reorganization (continued from 6/1) 4. A. Oral Communications (continued) and instructions to staff regarding actions on current oral communications 7. OLD BIISINESS None. 8. NEW BIISINESS B. Election Issues to be Decided before Nomination Period 9. ROUTINE MATTERS (Note: City Attorney will be excused at this point if no longer needed.) A. Approval of Minutes 6/17 10. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS 4 City Council Agenda 3 July 1, 1998 A. Agenda items for 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 decide whether they are to be placed on the agenda for the meeting of July 7.) Measure G Implementation Policy Mayor's Proposal for Blue Ribbon Panel on City's Financial Future Election Resolution B. Other 11. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT 12. ADJOURNMENT to next meeting at 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, July 7, at Adult Care Center, 19655 Allendale Avenue. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact Peter Gonda at 408/868 -1221. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. [28 CFR 35.102- 35.104 ADA Title II]