Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-16-1996 City Council Minutes MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL TIME: Wednesday, October 16, 1996 6:30 p.m. PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Ave. TYPE: Regular Meeting 6:30 Interviews with Planning Commission Applicants Bernald, Schare, Patrick, Siegfried - Administration Conference Room Councilmembers Present: Burger, Tucker, Moran, Wolfe and Mayor Jacobs. Staff Present: City Manager Peacock The interviews were conducted as follows: 6:40 - Patrick; 6:50 - Share; 7:00 - Bernald; 7:10 - Siegfried. WOLFE/MORAN TO APPOINT PATRICK, SIEGFRIED AND BERNALD TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. Passed 5-0. The Council stated that they were very impressed with Mr. Schare and would like his application to be kept active. The Mayor will speak to Mr. Schare about this. The Council then discussed changing Planning Commission terms to coincide with the changes in Council elections. They asked for the staff to prepare a report to present after the first of the year. The Council then convened in regular session at7:30 p.m. in the Civic Theater. 7:30 - Pledge of Allegiance - Led by Mr. Thorpe 1. ROLL CALL Councilmembers Present: Burger, Tucker, Moran, Wolfe and Mayor Jacobs. Staff Present: City Manager Peacock, City Attorney Riback, Public W~e Director Perlin, Associate Planner White. 2. CEREMONIAL ITEMS - None 3. REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENUA City Manager Peacock reported that pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on October 11. 4. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS AND THE PUBLIC A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Marvin Becker, 12120 Mellowcod Drive, said that after reading Measure L and the City Attorney's analysis of the measure, he would decide to vote for the measure. Me clarified two points of the measure: (1) It extends the tax six months from July 1, 2000 to January 1, 2001. (2) It requires the vote of the people to continue to beyond January 1, 2001. He said if he voted against the measure and it is defeated, the tax would end July 1, 2000, and it could be continued again by the City Council. He said unless the measure is passed, the City Council can add another sunset clause; there is nothing in the measure or analysis for him to think otherwise. Mr. Thorpe said that at the last meeting, Mayor Jacobs said that if the measure is defeated, that the tax ends; that he does not agree with the impartial analysis is understandable as the impartial analysis could be in question. He said that he would like to know if his conclusion was correct, that regardless of the election, the tax would continue until July 1, 2000. Me said he felt the majority of the voters reached the same conclusion that he had. Ed Vincent, Westover Drive, spoke about Measure L. Me said he was surprised when he read his copy of the Saratoga News recently with a letter credited to him. Although he did write it, he apologized to Council for the article appearing in the newspaper. It was intended to be published in the paper two weeks ago and for some reason it was not printed at that time. Me called later and asked that it not be printed City Council Hinutes 2 Octobe:16, 1996 because City Council had changed their mind or made clear what their mind was in the first place. He said he had no reason to not believe the members of the City Council. He said the Council made it clear that the tax would end as soon as possible after the election, should it fail. He commented that he would not question their integrity but would question a clear and concise statement of what people will vote on, and urged the Council to take steps to inform the voters so that they were certain what they were voting on. Lou Thorpe, 19550 Farwell Avenue, referred to the recent headlines of the Saratoga News 'Saratoga City Council Clarifies Interpretation of Measure L'. He said that in his opinion the statement read by Mayor Jacobs at the October 2 Council meeting did not clarify the interpretation as he contended. He quoted Mayor Jacobs as saying, "The interpretation that the only thing we are asking the voters is whether or not they agree to continue the tax from June 1, 2000 to January 1, 2001 may be a technically correct interpretation, but it is one that was never contemplated by the Council, the City Manager, or the City Attorney and should not be alleged to be the Council's intent or interpretation.' Mr. Thorpe asked if this was the same Mayor Jacobs who had stated on numerous occasions in Council meetings with regard to Measure G that the Council would implement Measure G to the letter of the law regardless of what the originators of the measure had in mind. Mr. Thorpe said furthermore, with regard to the subject, Mr. Riback' s analysis which appears on the same page as the ballot statement read as follows: "This measure would amend the existing sunset clause thereby continuing the tax at the same tax rate of 3-1/2% until January 1, 2000, at which time the tax would expire unless it was continued beyond that date by the vote of the people." He said since the current sunset clause is in effect until July l, 2000, and on the basis of the city's own legal analysis, it has precisely stated that the measure will extend the tax six months to January 1, 2001. He said they were not alone in this interpretation of the statements. He said the Council. was in receipt of a letter on October 10, 1996, from the Pacific Legal Foundation which stated "Measure L which only extends the sunset provision of the tax measure, is insufficient to determine whether or not the voters will approve the tax. The impartial'analysis by the City Attorney says the effect of the measure is that if approved the tax will be extended for 6 months. According to the language of Measure L in the analysis, if the measure fails, the tax still continues in effect until July 1, 2000". He said in his opinion, the Council has avoided giving the voters a clear cut opportunity to vote on this issue. Furthermore, the confusion generated will definitely alter the outcome of the results and Mr. Becker's testimony is proof of that. He said in view of Council's failure to honor their stated commitment with the tax on the ballot, it is incumbent that the Council provide a mailing to the citizens of the city explaining its stated intent and position on the measure. Mayor Jacobs responded to the remarks made to the Council. He asked the City Attorney for his interpretation if the tax fails will the City Council be unable to carry out the promise they made of terminating the tax after the election? City Attorney Riback stated that the ballot analysis was correctly quoted by Mr. Thorpe, that the measure would amend the existing sunset clause continuing the tax at the same rate until January 1, 2001, at which time the tax would expire, unless continued beyond that date by another vote of the people. He said if the measure fails in November, it absolutely does not preclude the City Council from taking the position that the Council has gone on record as indicating it would take action to repeal the tax. Mayor Jacobs said as far as what people have said about whether they are voting on a six month extension of tax and not any more, he felt it was clear at the last meeting that the position of the Council is very simple and straight forward: a vote for the tax means the tax continues to January 1, 2001; a vote against the tax means that the City Council would repeal the tax immediately. He said he personally felt that anyone reading this material would not be confused unless City Council Minutes 3 October16, 1996 people tell them to the contrary, and he said there was no reason why Mr. Thorpe would want to tell people something to the contrary if it is Mr. Thorpe's desire that a no vote would terminate the tax this November. The appropriate thing would be to tell the people exactly what the City Council has said; if you vote no, the tax will end. In addition, he said he could not imagine why someone who is opposed to the utility users tax would vote for a six month's extension, whether six months four years from now or six months forty years from now; if you are opposed to the tax, you would vote against it whether you are voting against it for six years or for six months. If one was in favor of the tax, you would vote for it whether you are voting for a six month extension or six year extension; there is nothing confusing about it; unless people go out and sow confusion. People reading the ballot material can see from the argument that the City is making that if you vote no on this, the City is going to lose all this revenue. Why would the City say that if the tax was going to continue? The City Council has said clearly, if the tax fails in November, it will be repealed. So it does no service to anyone in the community for people to go out and say something to the contrary. If you are opposed to the tax, you want to tell people the same thing the Council told them which is, if the tax fails in November, you are free, you don' t have to pay the tax again. Mayor Jacobs said that proponents and opponents of the tax should focus on the merits or demerits of the tax. Everyone should take a look at what the tax provides for the community; everyone should look at what the tax costs personally and decide are they getting value for their money or not, and quit arguing about semantics and quit trying to confuse the voters over semantics. He said the Council is not trying to confuse the voters with semantics; they have stated clearly what will happen if the tax fails. Mayor Jacobs asked the opponents to focus their time on those issues instead of spending time arguing about the meaning of the English language. He said that he hoped his explanation would put an end to this llne of discussion which he said does not serve the public at all. He said that the Council could live with the consequences of the election, and that both the opponents and proponents have the responsibility to try to focus the public on the real issue, which is what kind of value are you getting for your money? What is the tax providing? B. COMMUNICATION8 FROM COMMISSIONS - None. C. WRITTEN COMMUNICATION8 - None. 5. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Previously-Discussed Items 1) Resolution denying Vidanage Appeal heard 9/18 MORAN/BURGER TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 96-56 DENYING VIDANAGE APPEAL HEARD 9/18. PASSED 5-0. B. New Items 1) Planning Commission Actions, 10/9 - Note and file. 2) Parks and Recreation Commission Minutes, 9/9 - Note and file. 3) Award of Contract to Valley Concrete as low Bidder for Minor Concrete Repairs in the amount of $7,186. 4) Declaration as Surplus of Vehicles 58 and 79 and authorization of Disposition by City Manager 5) Authorization to purchase Replacement Air Compressor in the amount of $12,149.89 from Ingersoll-Rand Co. 6) Approval of Community Development Block Grant City Council Minutes 4 Octshell6, 1996 County/City Contract for FY 1996/97 and Authorization for City Manager to execute 7) Resolution 96-57 authorizing City Manager to Execute Agreement with West Valley Cities for Solid Waste Management Services City Financial Reports for September: a) Treasurer,s Report - Receive and file. b) Investment Report - Receive and file. c) Financial Report - Receive and file. 9)Quarterly Quarry Creek Trust Report 10)Approval of Check Register BURGER/MORANTO APPROVE ITEMS 5B1 THROUGH 5B10 OF THE CONSENTCALENDAR. PASSED 5-0. C. CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY - None. 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS - None. Mayor Jacobs moved the agenda to Item 8A. 8.' NEW BUSINESS a. Hillslde Preservation Strategy Final Report City Manager Peacock noted receipt of a letter from the Loma Prieta Chapter of the Sierra Club with a recommendation that the City Council adopt the report as presented. Associate Planner White reviewed the background of the item as outlined in the attached staff report. He explained that over the last 18 months, staff representatives from the cities of Monte Serene, Cupertino, Saratoga and the Town of Los Gates worked together to formulate a strategy for minimizing future development impacts in the unincorporated hillside areas. Mr. White reviewed the six recommendations of the report, as listed in the attached staff report. Mr. White reported that the Planning Commission reviewed the final report and are forwarding a unanimous recommendation to the City Council in support of the plan. Councilmembers Moran and Wolfe commended staff for the excellent work on the report. In response to Councilmembers' questions, Mr. White stated that currently there was no conflict with the plan and Measure G. He said that the next stage was the implementation stage and the County has allocated resources through the end of the year. The General Plan amendments, the zoning ordinance amendments, the new guidelines and referral process will be in place by the end of this year. He said that the City is somewhat limited and will be considering the General Plan amendment, adopting the planning principles for the unincorporated hillsides, but will have to wait until January as the four General Plan amendments allowed by law have been utilized for 1996. TUCKER/MORANMOVED TO APPROVE THE HILLSIDE PRESERVATION STRATEGY FINAL REPORT AS SUBMITTED. PASSED B. Leases for Wireless CommunicationAntenna sites - Congress Springs Park and City Maintenance Yard City Attorney Riback reviewed the leases for wireless communication antenna sites for Congress Springs Park and the City maintenance yard, as outlined in the attached staff report. He noted that the lease agreements were similar to those previously approved with Pac Bell. City Council Minutes 5 October l6# 1996 In response to a question from Councilmember Moran, Mr. Riback stated that it was a condition of the lease that once the specific use terminates that the property is placed back in the original condition at the time the lease agreement was entered into. BURGER/WOLFE MOVED TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO LEASE AGREEMENTS WITH SPRINT SPECTRUM LP. PASSED 5-0. C. Ordinance replacing existing Floodplain Management Ordinance (first reading and introduction) Public Works Director Perlin reviewed the ordinance for floodplain management. He said that the new ordinance incorporates the latest changes that have been made in the FEMA regulations for floodplain management, flood loss and flood damage reduction and prevention. The regulations must be in place before the flood map modifications along Calabazas, Prospect, and Saratoga Creeks recently approved by FEMA can become effective. WOLFE/BURGER MOVED TO INTRODUCE THE ORDINANCE BY TITLE ONLY# WAIVING READING IN FULL. PASSED 5-0. D. Policy on taking Positions on Ballot Measures City Manager Peacock discussed the proposed policy on legislative advocacy. He summarized the policy stating that the City Council would consider taking positions on ballot propositions either statewide or countywide to support a proposed ballot measure only when it had a direct effect on the City of Saratoga, but only after voting to do so. He said the Council as individuals have always had the ability to individually support or oppose candidates or ballot measures but not as seated members of the Council. Mayor Jacobs commented that in light of the fact that the last Council action on the issue was in 1961 and the City of Saratoga has managed. with the present policy for over 35 years, it did not seem necessaryto act on the proposed policy at this time. There was consensus from the councilmembers that no action be taken on the proposed policy at this time. 7. OLD BUSINESS A. Proposition 218Analysis (continued from 10/2) (also see Item 8.D.) A discussion ensued regarding whether or not the councilmembers should take a position on Proposition 218 and what, if any, benefit would it have for the City of Saratoga. City Manager Peacock pointed out that there were many ballot measures that have some impact on Saratoga but not nearly as much as Proposition 218 from the standpoint of processes currently in place. Mayor Jacobs stated that if Proposition 218 passes, it would have substantial impact on the City of Saratoga. There was consensus that it was not appropriate for the City Council to take a position on Proposition 218 at this time. E. Oral Communications (continued) and instructions to staff regarding actions on current oral communications In response to an earlier request from Mr. Thorpe regarding providing information to the public in the form of a mailing on Proposition 218 and the Council's intent, Mayor Jacobs expressed concern that sending out information on a particular ballot measure to the public would set a precedent that would violate propriety, if not state law. Councilmember Wolfe said he appreciated Mr. Thorpe' s input, but that Mr. Thorpe gave the Council far too much credit for having the capacity for convoluted deception of the people regarding Measure L. He said he felt it was campaigning on Mr. Thorpe's part for the measure as is his right, but he questioned who was trying to incite who. He said that he felt Mayor Jacobs' statement at the last session stated the measure adequately. City Council Minutes 6 October IS, 1996 Councilmember Moran said she felt the legal issue was not foremost, but that it was unnecessary action. The Council has explained several times, individually as well as a Council, that a yes vote means yes and a no vote means no, and the tax will be ended. She said the question was~ there was a utility users' tax; do the citizens want to continue it for the services that it provides? If they do, they vote yes; if they don't, they vote no. City Attorney Riback explained that there was a fine line between spending public funds to provide information as discussed in the past, and spending public funds to campaign or promote a proposition or ballot measure. He said it may be perceived that the City is attempting to promote the measure. Mayor Jacobs concluded that the City would refrain from sending out mailings because it may or may not violate the Fair Political Practices Act. 9. ROUTINE MATTERS A. Approval of Minutes - 10/2~ 10/5 MORAN/TUCKER MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 2NU NEETIN3. MORAN/BURGER MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 5TH MEETING. BOTH MOTIONS PASSED 5-0. 10. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS A. Agenda items for adjourned regular meeting 11/12 City Manager Peacock reported that the Business Development Council would like to meet with City Council in joint session to provide a status report. B. Other In response to a question from Councilmember Tucker about conditional use permitS, City Attorney Riback explained that the timeframe for use permits could be limited and review periods could be established for use permits. Mayor Jacobs reminded those present of the Youth Commission's golf tournament on October 25 to raise funds for the operation of the Warher Hutton House. Further information is available through the recreation department. City Manager Peacock reported that the City of Saratoga had a new phone system with new telephone numbers. The main City Hall number is now 868-1200. Councilmember Burger requested that callers who left voice mail messages the previous week should call again as the transition to the new phone system wiped out the voice mail messages. 11. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:55 p.m. to the next regular meeting at 6:30 p.m. on Tuesday, October 22, at Administration Meeting Room, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue. Respectfully submitted, E Minutes Clerk