Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-20-2007 SUPPLEMENTAL COUNCIL AGENDA6. RENEWAL OF USE AGREEMENT WITH CITY OF SARATOGA AREA SENIOR COORDINATING COUNCIL STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report and adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute the Agreement for Cooperative Program Planning and Use of Facilities with the Saratoga Area Senior Coordinating Council. Councilmember King removed this item for discussion. She asked Recreation Department Director Michael Taylor why the contract didn't reflect Council's direction to staff was to have the Recreation Department take over scheduling of Senior Center classes as opposed to the Senior Center scheduling classes. Director Taylor noted the Recreation Department is providing a number of fee -based activities and SASCC continues to do no /low cost and no -cost recovery activities. There was lengthy discussion on this item and Councilmember King stated she was not comfortable with this 5 -year agreement with SASCC. WALTONSMITH /HUNTER MOVED TO ACCEPT REPORT AND ADOPT A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT FOR COOPERATIVE PROGRAM PLANNING AND USE OF FACILITIES WITH THE SARATOGA AREA SENIOR COORDINANTING COUNCIL. MOTION PASSED 4— 1 WITH KING OPPOSING. PUBLIC HEARINGS 7. APPEAL OF VARIANCE AND DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION NO. 07- 233: 20640 THIRD STREET, WHICH WAS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION ALLOWING CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 3,798 SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL BUILDING STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Deny the appeal, thus affirming the Planning Commission Variance and Design Review Approval issued on September 26, 2007. City Attorney Richard Taylor explained the hearing process. Taylor noted that staff had received a letter from the Appellant earlier in the day withdrawing the Appeal. Mr. Taylor noted that because the appeal had been filed that started a process that only the City Council can end. He noted that the City Code requires the Council to hear the matter; and after hearing the matter Council has four options — 1) uphold the Planning Commission's decision in its entirety; 2) Council can modify the Planning Commission's decision; 3) Council can reverse it completely; 4) or Council can send the matter back to the Planning Commission. Mr. Taylor recommended Council receive the staff report, open the Public Hearing, receive testimony from the Applicant if the Applicant wishes to provide testimony, and then receive public comments. Mr. Taylor noted the Appellant was not present; t W. To: Mayor and City Council From: Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk Date: November 20, 2007 Re: Agenda Item 8 — 20640 Third Street Appeal Staff received the attached fax from Mr. Le withdrawing his appeal in regards to the property located at 20640 Third Street. 1�2a /a7 In O/a ca, s,c& * = 408 741 0981- N c, 20 -07 0 HL -AT ayor d Iv44qnInbers of the City Council, 4, Zia "(1 Ing al G64° -I-- i Strept a t Cloud Barn LIP. � enii en .e , 'Q t hi 6 1 t y iD L) u n c i 1 retie Pemf NOn It for the abovf,- re, h a o� fu p st i o P. may have caused n-jernbers of Sincer ER K van propri NOV 21 0 2007 F'A t project- City tr,�,a Lee I The I t SZ a a to C- A. C," ahF Synopsis of City Council Meeting November 20, 2007 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Madronia Cemetery issue • Jenny Young Taylor -14672 Oak Street • Another person (for Brown family) - 14755 Oak Street • Shaw (Boyd family & Teeter family) • Nickie Teeter • John Teeter - 14670 Oak Street ? ` Council Direction to Staff: Waltonsmith asked R. Taylor about rights /obligations of City Council re: this issue. R. Taylor: Council's influence is political; can take a position regarding development proposal Eby Santa Clara County within City boundaries. Have right to make sure procedures of District \r are followed. Waltonsmith: Do we have any plans in the Builiding Department before us regarding the Cemetery? (No) Page: Would like to ask for a joint meeting with the Cemetery District. King: Would like to suggest asking neighbors to attend as it appears CC would be taking a mediation role. Hunter: How can you mediate a situation in which the homeowners aren't willing to sell? R. Taylor: Would recommend Council take an information gathering role -- provide same information to all parties. Would be difficult to engage in a formal mediation process at this piont, but Council can facilitate information sharing. Hunter: Can this be done by putting the item on the agenda rather than having a joint meeting with the Cemetery District? Waltonsmith: Would like to have some sort of a meeting -- not sure if would like a joint meeting nor a mediation. At some time the Council may need to take a stand. Taylor: Need to have an agenda item in order to determine what direction the Council wishes to - proceed with. Hunter: After Christmas? Anderson: Second meeting in January would perhaps be appropriate. Page: Seems like a lot of time for people to wait. Anderson: Discussed how furlough will affect preparation of staff reports, etc. Taylor: Will be at the second meeting in January, but not the December meetings. Anderson: Proposed first agendizing the item in order to scope out the issue. Waltonsmith: Discuss process first. Anderson: Can place process discussion on an earlier (December) agenda. Hunter: Would like to know what the Teeters would like to see. Wait until end of January? Kao: We don't yet know who the Board members of the Cemetery District are. Taylor: Have separate agenda item in order to determine whether CC wants a joint meeting with the Cemetery District. Kao: Agenda item for next meeting to define the scope of the discussion. Taylor: For next meeting: City options for development at Cemetery. Direction to staff. Meetings, information gathering, etc. King: Inquired whether we can get the two groups(Cemetery District and homeowners) together before the item is placed on the agenda? Have two CC members meet with stakeholders. She is willing to be one person. Taylor: Can't appoint the Ad Hoc tonight as it's not agendized. Hunter: Clarification for her since her property abuts one of the properties in question. Taylor: Likely you may need to recuse yourself at some point. Waltonsmith: DIRECTION TO STAFF: Agendize for next meeting to discuss process, including the possibility of an Ad Hoc being formed. ANNOUNCEMENTS Waltonsmith: West Valley Greenleaf www.westvalleygreenleaf.com Encouraging people to participate in a Holiday lighting contest -- change to LED lights Library & P &R Commissions are looking for applicants Museum & McWilliams House, Book Go Round, Firehouse Open Houses Hunter: Wreaths & banners have been hung in the Village Friday, November 23rd, Tree Lighting Ceremony; 5:30 -9:00 Village Open House CEREMONIAL ITEMS 1. Commendation -- Chuck & Peggy Schoppe 2. Proclamation -- National Family Week CONSENT CALENDAR Pulled:' 4, 6 A Approved: 3,5 ll'" 4. Approved after Hunter thanked staff for their assistance on the item. 6. Renewal of Use Agreement with SASCC King: One of items CC asked for is for Recreation Department to take over scheduling of Senior Center classes. Taylor: Recreation Department is providing a number of fee -based activities. SASCC continues to do no /low cost and no -cost recovery activities. King: Why is there an advantage to SASCC in doing this? Taylor: SASCC has only one room available. A lot of classes that are now Senior activities are handled on the Recreation side. King: Should the City do the Recreation classes for efficiency /expertise reasons? Why is this not in the Agreement? Taylor: Have developed a relationship /partnership. Seniors primarily sign up for low cost/free classes, so this eliminated the ability of Recreation Department to take over more fee -based classes. Some activities formerly offered for free are now fee -based (albeit low cost). King: Why was it decided not to report back to Council on feasibility before bringing back the Use Agreement? Taylor: Did comply with direction although it may not be reflected in the Use Agreement or current staff report before the Council. We now have a lot of senior activities in the RecTrac system. King: SASCC wanted a 5 -year Agreement. Ad Hoc recommended a 1 -year Agreement. Why are we back to 5 -year Agreement? Taylor: With 2 City representatives on SASCC Board, new transparency and accountability, Ad Hoc is comfortable with a 5 -year Agreement. We now receive monthly reports. SASCC has made significant progress in staffing issues. Determined there was substantial improvement. King: Of objectives, which ones are measurable? Have to meet the number in order to meet the contract requirement? Some have targets, but couldn't find any measurable results required by the Agreement. Taylor: There are goals included. King: Goals are different than measurable objectives. Before I don't think we had a commitment of actual $$$ each year. In previous years, the monetary allocation was CDBG funded. This contract has a commitment for $21,000 whether we get CDBG or not. Anderson: Clarified monetary contributions provided in previous years. CDBG funds primarily supported the Adult Care program. There has been a gradual evolution over the years for the City to provide program support for SASCC. Taylor: There is an open amount in the Use Agreement that is negotiated. Page: Noted in services offered there is listed a "minimum of one public service event ". They used to do several. Why one? Waltonsmith: The flu shot event in the Fall is what they build their events around. Waltonsmith: SASCC has made great progress. Goal: to move forward. Low fee services due to competition with other City's Senior Centers. Those services are volunteer, so they're not paying their instructors. For any service for which they need to pay their instructors, they are trying to meet cost recovery. Advertising and outreach has improved. Taylor: Has noticed a shift with City representation on the Board. SASCC is much more open to City oversight, transparency is better. King: SASCC doesn't have an Executive Director yet. The Council gave specific direction and there is no report back on the direction given. Desires measurable objectives in Agreement. Waltonsmith: Feels comfortable with proposed Agreement. SASCC is working to collect data correctly, has transparency, has procedures in place. Page: What opportunities are there to reopen the contract? An effort was made to utilize the City's resources for class scheduling. As contract goes on and SASCC starts to meet the goals, is there a possibility to reset the goals? Taylor: Built into Use Agreement is a quarterly review of facility use with Recreation Department. The City has provided some resources for SASCC such as standardized contract documents (infrastructure improvements). Will annually review Attachment "E" to assess the measurable objectives. If the Council desires to make the objectives more firm and have consequences for not meeting them, staff can discuss this approach with the SASCC Board. King: Still concerned whether the data SASCC is providing is valid. SASCC should be able to state measurable objectives, not just targets. Not comfortable with a 5 -year agreement. Waltonsmith: Moved adoption; Hunter second Taylor: Asked whether there was public comment desired. Kao: Asked for public comment. Page: Kathleen makes a good point about the length of the Agreement. Would you consider a 2 -year Agreement? The future might bring consolidation (with another organization). A long Agreement might give SASCC a false sense of security; there is a sense of urgency to progress. Waltonsmith: A 5 -year Agreement will help the new Director coming on board to be effective. Additionally, SASCC is undertaking a significant fundraising. There are provisions for ending the Agreement included. Kao: (Serves on Ad Hoc) In the beginning the Ad Hoc was talking about a 1 -year Agreement. Due to the length of time in negotiations, the one -year term had almost already lapsed. There are a number of hooks built into the Agreement. Kao: Believes the measurable objectives are the assurance SASCC is providing City -- it is in that spirit. Approved 4 -1 (King opposed) PUBLIC HEARINGS 7. Appeal of Variance and Design Review Application N. 07 -233: 20640 Report by Heather reviewing the project scope, reviews, approval by Planning Commission and appeal by Mr. Le. Mr. Le has withdrawn his appeal. Recommend upholding the decision of the Planning Commission. King: Site visit: Applicant brought up there was going to be a staircase but PC said couldn't go all the way to the 4th Floor. Heather: There previously was a propsed elevator shaft designed to go above the 3rd floor, requiring some clearance above floor level, constituting a 4th story, which is not allowed on Big Basin. This resulted in an exterior staircase. King: This ended up reducing the floor plan /square footage? Heather: Yes, reduced by about 1000 sq. ft. Hunter: Approval of variances appear to be more commonplace now than when she served on the PC? JL: Absolutely not. Variances are very difficult; dealing with State findings for variance. One thing staff has seen is that remaining development proposals are coming in for vacant lots in town that are difficult to build on. In this particular case the lot slope exceeds what is allowed. However, the Code allows for a variance in order to avoid a taking on a lot that has already been established /sub- divided. These types of lots are triggering variances. Hunter: Village allows 35 feet height? With removal of elevator height now down to about 30 feet? JL: Elevator shaft was triggering 4th story, not just height. This is not allowed. Kao: Invited Applicant to speak (10 minutes) Craig Awbrey (? ) , representing the a pp licant. Believes Council has the ability to modify the approval. During 3 study sessions, wasn't informed that elevator constituted a 4th story -- only found this out 5 days before formal hearing. Would like to go back and work with staff in order to restore lost square footage (to arrive at another option). Kao: Opened public hearing. Linda Rodgers, Planning Commissioner spoke. PC spent 3 study sessions because it is an important project -- all elements considered carefully, sensitively. Ended up with building as described as Exhibit "A ", (not as a future modified building). Not sure what CC would be approving if asked to give some latitude to the applicant. Page: How much discussion was there about the square footage? Rodgers: Were several discussions about the square footage and reducing the height. King: What size is the building? Rodgers: Doesn't know. Was all in the notice tonite, but doesn't have it with her. Hunter: If were to change it now, would change the decision made by the PC. Kao: Invited the applicant to speak. Awbrey: Wanted to stress they went through an additional hearing with the HPC and 3 study sessions with PC and the issue was not brought up until 5 days before the formal public hearing when City staff informed the Applicant the change would need to be made. Applicant would rather have the CC deny the appeal and uphold the PC than go back to another PC meeting. Would rather submit another set of plans. Would like to get matter settled tonight. King: Asked R. Taylor -- If CC were to say it should go back to PC and they were able to get it on their next meeting is there another chance it could be appealed again? Taylor: Yes. Only the CC decisions can't be appealed. Kao: Closed public hearing. Hunter: Commended Craig for the Sam Cloud barn, recycling much of the wood. The additional building is in a very difficult place on a steep slope. Knows PC spent a great deal of time on it. Urged the CC to uphold the PC decision. Page: Agrees. Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission decision. Waltonsmith: Pulling things forward and jumping over the PC isn't easy to do -- CC is loath to do unless there are egregious issues. If Applicant doesn't want it to go back to the PC then CC should approve as is. King: Would like to encourage Applicant if it could be worked out with a quick reschedule with PC, pursue that. Unanimous decision from PC is a strong decision. Deny appeal; uphold decision of PC. Waltonsmith moved to deny appeal and accept PC decision; Page second. Approved: Vote 5 -0 OLD BUSINESS 8. Establishing a Timeline for the North Campus Child Development Center & Gymnasium Project Taylor presented staff report. Proposers are requesting a Memorandum of Understanding from City prior to further investment. Page: What would MOU provide? Mr. Beck: This marks 1 -year anniversary of submittal of proposal. Cannot afford the type of required expenditure ($30,000) without some kind of commitment from the City. Desires a commitment from the City to work with the LLC (Proposers) on the project. King: (To Mr. Beck) Would you be comfortable if we put the project out to bid before you have to expend additional fund? Beck: We would leave at that point. This is our idea. We have put in a year's worth of work and would not be amenable to the City putting their project idea out to bid. Taylor: An MOU would enable both parties to negotiate the terms that are agreeable. The CC can't commit to this project proposal in the next several months because there is a need to do some sort of environmental review under CEQA first. What we typically do for City- sponsored projects is the CC doesn't commit to them. First, develop conceptual designs, then do environmental review, but don't yet agree to do the project until you review the environmental document (DeAnza Trail is an example). (Traffic, aesthetic impacts). If you have a conceptual design, you can do the environmental review from that level. Hunter: If you have an MOU, what are the consequences if it doesn't work out? Taylor: Depending upon the direction from the Council, specific provisions would be included in the MOU. Could negotiate the design as part of the agreement process. Waltonsmith: You are describing a process that the City does not customarily do. Sounds as if we would need an MOU because it's an unusual circumstance for Saratoga (private development on public land). Taylor: Yes, the type of project you are describing is typical of a private developer who has several project concepts going on at once. We can't make commitments in the absence of environmental review. Sometimes the jurisdiction will kick in the money for the environmental review and /or the planning. Page: Did some semblance of a traffic study. Direction from last meeting -- do some semblance of an environmental review. What level was done? Anderson: The traffic and parking study was more than conceptual because they took into account the uses and included a trip study. This would feed into an environmental study. Some facts that have been gathered could contribute to an environmental study, but we're not there yet. King: If we felt we couldn't make a commitment to the Becks, we could undertake some of the studies ourselves. Taylor: Could cost between $75- 100,000 for the environmental study; would need to issue an RFP to determine. Anderson: One of the reasons we are doing this is because we don't have the money to develop the property. If the Proposer also doesn't have the funds to undertake the project, are we ultimately going to be back at the question about who will pay the site development costs even before we get into the construction costs? King: Understands why the Becks would not want to incur such costs with no commitment from the City. Anderson: Yes, we need to take a different approach when working with a family /small developer rather than a large developer. Waltonsmith: Is willing to continue to explore this as we have one option on the table and we need to determine if it's feasible. Kao: Is an MOU legally binding? Taylor: Yes, it is a legally binding agreement as to what is says. Kao: Opened to public comment. Beck: Clarified that the proposed building is a pre- engineered steel frame building (the only thing that is pre- fabricated is the steel beams) with stucco exterior (or whatever the PC approves as the exterior). Hunter: However, you would be somewhat limited by the cost? Beck: Yes. Patty Woolcock ( ?): 19861 Viewridge Drive ( ?) spoke about why the neighbors haven't known very much about the project. A lot of attention is being paid to what Sports Leagues' interests are and not about what residents' interests are. If this requires taking a step back then you should do that. Not necessarily in opposition to the project, just thinks there should be more input from residents. (Does surveys as her profession) Norma Ford: 19905 Viewridge Drive spoke in opposition to the proposed Gymnasium project. Asked CC whether it is possible to establish a Task Force to look into possible options. William Ford: 19905 Viewridge Drive -- side yard borders the SW corner of North Campus. Echoed Norma Ford's comments. Also spoke about anticipated site, traffic and noise impacts. Feels a full environmental impact report should be done. Cited statistics from previous resident survey that was conducted (regarding desire for gymnasium /sports facilities). Gordon Ko ( ?), North Campus borders the back of his lot. Stated his concerns about the proposed project due to the size of the available acreage. Advocated lower activity project that would not impact the residential neighborhood. Peggy Kimball, advocated a cultural /art/music center at the North Campus. John Kimball, has contacted 2 foundations, has talked with Silicon Valley Arts Council, in relation to a cultural /art/education center to enhance quality of life. Advocates a Foundation that would take the property for a 10 -year lease. Restore sanctuary building and remove the education building. Is requesting 90 days to bring back a proposal. King: Requested that Mr. Kimball go to the Sanctuary with a structural professional to understand the problems inherent in the building as it exists. Kimball: Feels from his experience and input he has received that it can be restored. King: Have you found any foundations that are willing to fund the project? Kimball: Not yet. Needs more time to speak with specific foundations. Dave Wyatt ( ?) 19827 Colby Court (send CC an e-mail related to the Daycare Center) lives on the east side of North Campus. Biggest concern -- proximity of their property to the fence. Noise, traffic, etc. Not in favor of project as proposed. Jack Mallory, 12285 Kirkdale -- hopes that whatever CC arrives at is a comprehensive plan for the site and not just separate buildings. For the 2 buildings /space in front needs to be integrated as a site, not just 4 separate buildings. Well designed, attractive from the street. If you are hesitant, see significant problems, don't go ahead with it. Land is scarce, there are a lot of needs and we can come up with something that works. Think of it as a community center that brings people together. Waltonsmith: All of the issues are fears about a design we don't have yet. We have a number of young families with young children -- we need preschool space. We are unlike other cities that have a main city hall campus and satellite service centers. North Campus is our first attempt to create a service center with indoor /outdoor space. Taken the issue that we need a gymnasium (through many public meetings) together with decision to save the North Campus (not sell it). Thinks we are at the place in which we need an MOU with the project proposer in order to move forward. We need more plans, more information in order to determine required mitigations. Hunter: Thinks we are taking a huge risk; could turn out to be a big boondoggle for the City. Understands how the neighbors feel due to proximity to the North Campus. Doesn't think we have clear input from the community. Concerned about the viability of the Daycare Center if not enough children enroll. Feels we need to do more investigation /get more input from residents. Need to take our time and do it right. Would like to have a citizens' committee or undertake a survey. Bring people into the process. Waltonsmith: Do you want to turn down the project and mothball the 2 front buildings? Hunter: Turn down the project and convene a citizens' committee. King: If we call the 3rd building a Multi- purpose Center with a preschool it gives us a lot of flexibility for use. Residents of today may use it very differently than 25 -years from now. If we could find another preschool with 100 children, we could get an idea about the impact. Uncomfortable with an MOU that requires the Becks to invest money but enables the City to not go forward. Feels it is very difficult to obtain capital, while operations money is easier to obtain. Anticipates if we want to have a visioning meeting there will be lots of Sports Users representatives and not very many neighbors. Concerned this will become another Kevin Moran Park -like process. We've had the property 6 years already. Uncomfortable with a visioning meeting that will result in ideas that we don't have money to fund. Page: Was comfortable having a comprehensive plan for the property, but the decision was made to deal with the front of the property. Haven't heard from a lot of people who voted against selling the North Campus. (The Becks) have put forward an interesting project proposal. We need to hear from the residents. There are some restraints here. Would support an understanding that we've expressed some commitment to the Becks. Believes they need to go before the Planning Commission. Refuses to commit City funding at this point. Kao: Strongly advocated not selling North Campus. At this point, doesn't think we need to rush into an agreement that commits either the City or the proposer, particularly with resource constraints faced by both parties. Not able to support an MOU at this point. However, desires a timeline in order to make a decision about how to move forward. Hunter: The Saratogan was previously used as a vehicle for obtaining resident input. Proposed idea of having a Saratogan focused on the North Campus, then have visioning meetings, then develop a plan. King: If you make the 3 buildings multi - purpose then you can use them for any purpose over time. Surveys and visioning meetings only provide a sample of opinions. If we're not going to do an MOU then it's time to reject the Becks' proposal (in fairness to the Becks). Even if we're going to ask for donations we need to have a design. Page: Isn't the next logical step, design? Taylor: Traditional (on private property) applicants /propers would come up with a proposal, submit an application to Planning Department and discuss proposal with Planning staff. But here because it's City land they have to have the discussion with CC. It's sortof like we're joint applicants. Waltonsmith: I think we need to finish this to see if it will work. If it won't work, release the Becks from any obligation. King: Made a motion: In order to move forward place a survey on website that includes statement of financial situation of City, visioning meeting in late January (invite residents) and ask Mayor to form an Ad Hoc to prepare an MOU that could be brought back in early February. Kao: Friendly amendment -- ask Ad Hoc to review survey drafted by staff. Anderson: Staff would need input from Ad Hoc to determine that survey is fair and balanced. Hunter: Would like to have a facilitator for visioning meeting. King: Recommended that the City Manager serve as facilitator. Hunter: Include address /map of North Campus Vote: 5 -0 approved Hunter: How will this relate to the CC Retreat? Anderson: The Visioning meeting would fall after the CC retreat. Page: When will Ad Hoc be formed? Page & King volunteered to serve on the Ad Hoc. ADHOC /AGENCY ASSIGNMENT REPORTS Mayor Kao ABAG -- voted to approve the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (allocated 292 units) Vice Mayor Waltonsmith Comprehensive County Expressway Board -- will be meeting in January Councilmember Page Nothing to Report Agendize — Creation of Sustainability /Green Building Ordinance. Build It Green — Incentives. Councilmember King County Cities Association Legislative Task Force looked at "Going Green ". All 15 cities are going back to their cities to determine whether to adopt LEED standards. Ask Santa Clara to have presentation to City Council about ? (Valley Transportation Authority ?) Agenda Items: Bruce Davis, Art Council, to provide a presentation on Artsofolus (sp) Evaluation of Village Zoning for Use Permits Councilmember Hunter Nothing to report CITY MANAGERS REPORT Dave will be out of town from Wednesday, November 21st through Sunday, November 26`h Will be at meeting with Assembly member Beall on Monday in Sacramento. Status report on ordinances in newsletter — John Livingstone. CITY ATTORNEY REPORT E -mail concerning whether Council had adopted a noise ordinance prohibiting playing of the National Anthem at West Valley College. There is a prohibition on having amplified sound. There is no prohibition of singing the National Anthem. Will provide the Mayor information in order to respond to the e-mail. Dave will be informing the College about this. ADJOURNED: 10:55 p.m.