HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-19-1991 City Council Minutes MINUTES O''~
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
TIME: Wednesday, June 19, 1991 - 7:30 p.m.
PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Ave.
TYPE: ?egular Meeting
1. ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Mayor Stutzman.
Councilmembers Present: Anderson, Kohler, Monia and Mayor Stutzman.
Councilmember Clevenger was on an excused absence.
2. CEREMONIAL ITEMS
A. Resolution No. 91-44 Commending Joe Long, Jr. for service
on Public Safety Commission.
MONIA/KOHLER MOVED APPROVAL. PASSED 4-0.
B. Resolution No. 91-45 appointing Favero to Planning
Commission, Dowdy to Public Safety Commission, and Anna
Wang, Andtea Martin, Jason Morimoto, Neetu Gupta, Janet
Chu, Dan Soderman, and Steve Adams to Youth Commission.
MONIA/ANDERSON MOVED APPROVAL. PASSED 4-0.
C. Administration of Oath of Office to new Commissioners.
City Manager/City Clerk Harry Peacock administered the Oath of Office
to Planning Commissioner Favero, Public Safety Commissioner Dowdy and
five of the seven Youth Commissioners.
3. ROUTINE MATTERS
A. Approval of Minutes - 5/30; 6/5; 6/8; 6/11
Referring to item 4 on page 1, Councilmember Monia requested that the
Minutes of 5/30/91 reflect that when the Council discussed the Civic
Center improvements, it also discussed reviewing the possibility of
installing bike racks.
In reference to the Civic Center improvements, Councilmember Anderson
requested that the Minutes reflect that the Council also discussed the
possibility of meeting or conference room space when considering the
Library expansion.
KOHLER/MONIA MOVED APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF 5/30/91 AS CORRECTED.
PASSED 4-0.
ANDERSON/KOHLER MOVED APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF 6/5/91 AS CORRECTED
BELOW. PASSED 4-0.
Councilmember Monia, referring to page, item 6, stated that the motion
was to modify the turret located in the front of the house as the
original plan dealt with the turret on the roof lines.
Councilmember Anderson asked for'correction to the spelling of Ms.
Carolyn King's name on paragraph 6 of item 7 on page 4.
ANDERSON/KOHLER MOVED APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF 6/8/91. PASSED 4-0.
MONIA/ANDERSON MOVED APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF 6/11/91. PASSED 4-0.
B. Approval of Warrant List
MONIA/ANDERSON MOVED APPROVAL. PASSED 4-0.
C. Report of City Clerk on Posting of Agenda
Mr. Peacock announced that pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the
agenda for this meeting was properly posted on June 14.
4. CONSENT CALENDAR
City Council Minutes 2 June 19, 1991
KOHLER/MONIA MOVED APPROVAL OFCONSENTCALENDARWITH EXCEPTION OF ITEM8
4-A AND 4-K WHICH WERE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR. PASSED 4-
'A. Planning Commission Actions, 6/12 - Noted and filed.
Item was removed by Councilmember Anderson. Planning Director Stephen
Emslie responded to Councilmember Anderson's question regarding two-
story homes on the same street under items 6 and 7 on page 2.
B. Parks and Recreation Minutes, 4/8 - Noted and filed.
C. Youth Commission Minutes, 5/13 - Noted and filed.
D. Library Commission Minutes - 5/22 - Noted and filed.
E. Public Safety Commission Minutes, 6/10 - Noted and filed.
F. Authorization of Use of Sheriff,s Patrol'to restrict access
to Bohlman Road on July 4 from 6:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.
G. Final Building Site Approval for SD90-00S, 13741-55
Saratoga Avenue (Developer, Ebner).
H. Authorization for purchase of gasoline powered cab and
chassis truck unit with dump body and emulsion spray
system.
I. Authorization to advertise for bids for 1991 Street
Maintenance Program.
J. Award of annual street sweeping contract for FY 1991-92 to
Celtic Sweepers.
K. Extension of City Hall Janltorial Services Annual Contract
for Additional Year - FY 1991-92.
Item.was removed by Councilmember Monia. He questioned why the project
did not go out for public bid. After discussion, Councilmember Monia
noted he would vote in favor of the contract, but in the future, he
prefers an open competitive bid process, especially from a public
agency.
L. Hakone Foundation Fund Raising and Disbursement Reports.
M. Amendment to Hakone Foundation Maintenance Agreement.
N. city Financial Reports for May
1) Treasurerts Report
2) Investment Report
3) Financial Report
MONIA/ANDERSON MOVED TO APPROVE ITEMS 4-A AND 4-K. PASSED 4-0.
5. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS AND THE PUBLIC
A. OffAL COMMUNICATIONS
1) Mr. Jeffrey Kalb, 14617 Carnelian Glen Court, appeared before the
Council as Chairman of the Saratoga Citizens Investigative Committee.
Mr. Kalb presented a brief overview of the Committee~s charge and
submitted the Committee~s report to the Council.
Mr. Michael Riback, City Attorney, said he received a call from the
San Jose Mercury News (SJMN) requesting a copy of the report.
Council agreed Mr. Riback would review the report and make it available
to the SJMN on the following Monday. Subsequently, the Council agreed
to meet with the Committee on July 18.
City Council Minutes 3 June 19, 1991
2) Mr. Donald Macrae, 20679 Reid Lane, addressed the Council regarding
the Nelson Gardens property. Mr. Peacock replied that the draft of the
Parks and Trails Plans has identified the Nelson property as a
candidate property for acquisition by the City and that the City has
not abandoned the issue in its entirety.
Mayor Stutzman commented that the Nelson property will remain in the
Williamson Act for the next 10 years.
B. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
1) Joanne Cornhie.t, regarding construction along ROdeo
Creek by CalTrans and Santa Clara Valley Water
District.
City Engineer Larry Perlin presented a summary of the Staff Report
dated 6/19/91.
Ms. Joanne Combleer, 12105 Saraglen Drive, explained the concerns
expressed in her letter dated 5/21/91 to the Council.
Following discussion, KOHLER/ANDERSON MOVED TO DIRECT STAFF TO WORK
WITH THE SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT TO NOT RAVE A FENCE
INSTALLED ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE CREEK, MONITOR THE AGREEMENT WITH
CALTRANS TO MODIFY THE GRADE OF THE ROADWAY AND TO ATTEMPT TO PLANT
MORE THAN THE NINE TREES SPECIFIED BY THE PLANNING DIRECTOR· PASSED
4-0.
6. OLD BUSINESS
A. Ex Parte Communication Disclosure Policy (continued from
e/5 )
Mr. Peacock reported on the proposed policy.
Following discussion, MONIA/ANDERSON MOVED TO ADOPT THE POLICY. PASSED
4-0.
B. Report from City Manager on Football at West Valley College
The Council noted the Staff Report in the packet which was presented
by Mr. Peacock.
7. MEW BUSINESS
A. Request by CalTrans to work Saturdays on freeway project
Mr. Peacock summarized the request to the City Council.
Following discussion, MONIA/ANDERSON MOVED TO APPROVE REQUEST FOR THE
HOURS OF 8:30 A.M. TO 4:30 P.M., CONTINGENT UPON THE CITY RECRUITING
AND HIRING AN INSPECTOR (TO BE PAID BY CALTRANS.) FURTHER, APPROVAL
IS STRICTLY ON A TRIAL BASIS AND IS SUBJECT TO REVOCATION. PASSED 4-
B. Conceptual Approval of 1991-92 Solid Waste Management
Program
Ms. Isabel Gloege, Environmental Programs Manager~ presented an
overview of the City ' s Solid Waste Management Program. Using an
overhead projector, she summarized the current cost of the program and
the rates necessary to cover all the programs proposed for FY 1991-
92.
Ms. Gloege responded to Council members ' questions throughout her
presentation.
Councilmember Anderson addressed the multi-family program as she has
been contacted by citizens residing in multiple family complexes who
are not part of the program. she stated it is necessary to also review
the policy regarding unlimited can service. Mr. Peacock responded
that although not all of the City is on unlimited can service the Task
City Council Minutes 4 June 19, 1991
Force is working on such a proposal.
Councilmember Anderson proposed that a consideration in rates be given
to residents who have a TOTER (rolling cart.)
Ms. G16ege noted that to recover the costs of certain programs requires
an increase of the present unlimited service program to $21.54 per
month.
Councilmember Monia commented that comparison rates should be
available. One of the elements to be considered is increased recycling
and a reward policy should be in place for those who recycle.
It was the consensus of the Council to refer the item back to Staff to
recalculate the rates and set a hearing for the July 3, 1991 Council
meeting.
Mayor Stutzman moved the agenda to item 8.
8. PUBLIC HEARINGS 8:30 p.m.
A. Actions in connection with Landscaping and Lighting
District LLA-1
City Engineer Larry Perlin reported that the three Landscaping and
Lighting Assessment Districts (LLAD) items on tonight's agenda are the
culmination of previous Council actions to re-authorize an existing
LLAD and annex to two other LLADs for FY 1991-92.
Mr. Perlin noted that the procedure which the Council needs to follow
this evening is to hold a Public Hearing (also known as a Protest
Hearing) on each of the actions to allow the persons who own property
within the areas affected an opportunity to file protests with the City
to determine whether or not a majority protest exists. If so, the
hearing would come to a halt, unless the Council overrules the protest
by a four-fifths majority vote this evening.
Maps showing the areas proposed for each LLAD were on display on the
wall behind the Council members' seating.
1) Resolution No. 91-39.4 in connection with Existing
District.
Mr. Perlin described the area in LLA-1 as having 21 existing zones.
As of the close of business today, the City had received no protests
from any property owners within the existing 21 zones to not have the
District continue for the next fiscal year.
Responding to Councilmember Anderson's question, Mr. Perlin replied
that the hearing was noticed as required by law in a Public Notice in
the newspapers and by posting a notice at city Hall.
Mr. Perlin noted that this LLAD does not include Zones 22, 23, and 24.
The Public Hearing was opened at 9:02 p.m.
Mr. Jim Baylor, 18637 Bucknall Road, asked for a brief overview of the
subject. Mr. Perlin described the LLAD and its process.
There was no one else who wished to speak, and the Public Hearing was
closed at 9:05 p.m.
ANDERSON/MONIA MOVED APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 91-39.4, RESOLUTION
OVERRULING PROTESTS AND ORDERING THE IMPROVEMENTS AND CONFIRMING THE
DIAGRAM AND ASSESSMENT, FISCAL YEAR 1991-92, CITY OF SARATOGA
LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ASSESSMENT LLA-1. PASSED 4-0.
2) Resolution No. 91-36.4 in connection with Annexation
1991-1.
Mr. Perlin reported that this annexation #1 includes Brookwood, Pride's
Crossing, Westbrook, and Brookview areas. The Brookwood area contains
336 parcels; the Westbrook area north of Prospect has 92 parcels. For
City Council Minutes 5 June 19, 1991
the entire annexation area, the City has received 345 written protests
out of 1309 parcels, representing a 26% protest rate, which is not a
majority protest. In the Brookwood area of 336 parcels, the City
received 249 written protests, or a protest rate of a little more than
74%.
In the Westbrook area of 92 parcels, the City has received 52 protests,
or 56.5% protest rate.
Mr. Perlin noted that the Council has the option of altering the
boundaries of the annexation territoryup to and after the close of the
Public Hearing.
Mr. Peacock explained the process to protest as required by law. A
person may address the Council, but the protest only counts when
submitted in writing before the Mayor announces the close of the
Hearing. If a person has submitted a written protest, that person may
withdraw the protest up to the time the Mayor announced the closing of
the Hearing. The person does not have to withdraw a protest in
writing, but may simply address the Council and so state.
A discussion ensued between the Council members and Mr. Riback
regarding procedure. It was noted that a petition does not constitute
a written protest.
Mayor Stutzman opened the Public Hearing at 9:13 p.m.
Ms. Karin Dowdy, 19101 Brook Lane, addressed the Council as President
of the Westbrook Homeowners Association. She said the Association has
reached a majority protest and they have all submitted a protest in
writing. She requested that the 92 parcels be excluded from the
District.
Mr. Marvin Becker, 12120 Mellowood Drive, appeared before the Council
as President of the Brookview Homeowners Association. Their
calculations indicate there are 914 homes in the entire District and
their protest rate is 81.5%. Mr. Becker said that the homeowners do
not want to pay the extra tax and they would prefer to maintain their
own area as they have in the past. He asked the Council to exclude
Brookview from the District.
Mr. Richard Hanna, 12222 WoodSide Drive, spoke against the annexation.
Mr. Leonard Siemek, a resident of Mellowood Drive, protested the
annexation.
With no further testimony, Mayor Stutzman closed the Public Hearing at
9:22 p.m.
NOTE: AT THE COUNCILwS DIRECTION, A VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT OF THE
DISCUSSION FOLLOWING THE CLOSE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING FOLLOWS.
Anderson: I would like to start this procedure by saying that I am in
favor of excluding these two neighborhoods that have the very strong
protest vote, even though the total number of votes for the entire
district (inaudible), not just (inaudible), but because they have
demonstrated (inaudible) the abilfty to take care of the property that
we are concerned with, whereas, (inaudible) willingness to care for the
property along Cox. So I would move that we (inaudible) Brookview and
Westbrook (inaudible).
Stutzman: Any comments? All in favor?
Monia: Yes. I do have one comment. What we are basically looking at
is by breaking out those two groups we end up with 44 protests out of
954 in the remaining districts. So the majority, the vast majority of
the protests, 85% of the protests, are coming from those two groups.
And it is clear that they are willing to maintain their common property
area by themselves as they have been, and I think that's really what
we should be supportive of--more community participation.
Stutzman: Any other comments? Ready for the question? All in favor?
Opposed?
City Council Minutes 6 June 19, 1991
NOTE: THIS ACTION TOOK PLACE AS FOLLOWS: ANDERSON/KOHLER MOVED TO
REMOVE THE BROOKVIEW AND WESTBROOK WEIGHBORHOOD8 FROM THE ANNEXATION.
PASSED 4-0.
Peacock: Mr. Mayor, if I could suggest a procedural thing, rather than
having'the City Council adopt the resolution on the annexation this
evening, we will revise the resolution and change the boundaries of the
annexation and bring it back to you under Old Business on the third of
July for adoption. And so those of you who live in those two
neighborhoods, the annexation boundaries will be changed to exclude
those two neighborhoods, and the resolution the Council will adopt in
two weeks will only apply to the remaining area of Zone 23.
Stutzman: Okay. Let's see, that takes care of number two? Number
three, then.
NOTE: AT THE COUNCIL'S DIRECTION, A VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT OF ITEM 8.A.3.
FOLLOWS.
3) Resolutions in connection with Annexation 1991-2
Perlin: Number three is Annexation (inaudible) seventy (inaudible)
close of business today (inaudible) continue with this today
(inaudible) there is a 4/5 majority (inaudible). You can open the
hearing, receive additional (inaudible)
NOTE: THE ABOVE TOOK PLACE AS FOLLOWS: Mr. Perlin reported that
annexation #2 consists of 76 parcels east of Quito Road in the
Montpere-Ravenwood neighborhood. The City received 41 protests, just
under a 54% rate, constituting a majority protest.
Anderson: But as Harry said, someone could change their minds, so
(inaudible) open the public hearing anyway.
Stutzman: Yes, that's correct.
Anderson: What was the number of parcels again?
Several voices: Seventy-six.
Anderson: Seventy-six? Yes, okay.-Thank you.
Stutzman: Any questions?
NOTE: AT THIS POINT MR. STANLEY THOMPSON INQUIRED ABOUT THE PREVIOUS
PUBLIC HEARING. MOST OF THIS PORTION OF THE MEETING IS NOT TRANSCRIBED
VERBATIM.
The meeting was interrupted when a Mr. Stanley Thompson, 12061 Saraglen
Drive, inquired about the Blue Hills area. Mr. Perlin responded that
the area was covered under item 8A-2, Resolution 91-36.4, and the
Council just made a decision to exclude the Brookview and Westbrook
areas from the District.
Following discussion, MONIA/KOHLER MOVED TO RE-OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING
ON ITEM 8A-2. PASSED 4-0.
Mayor Stutzman moved the agenda back to item 8A-2 and re-opened the
Public Hearing at 9:30 p.m.
(Voices from the audience expressed dissatisfaction.)
Monia: For the benefit of those people, even like some of us up here
who are going through this process for the very first time--you are
correct. The only problem is, it's the only legal process we have to
go by. We get our laws from the State. This is the way the process
has to go forward. But you're absolutely correct. The negative vote
is a terrible way to run your business. Or it puts all the incumbent
protests, really, on the individual, and it's not fair. But we don't
have any other way of handling it because the State law doesn't give
us any other mechanism. So I think most of us agree with you on that
issue. It doesn't do us any good to yell and scream at us because we
don't make that law. We only inherited it from the State. And it is
City council Minutes 7 June 19, 1991
a terrible process.
Mr. Thompson addressed the Council and asked for the boundaries of the
proposed annexation. Mr. Perlin described the boundaries as the entire
area east of the freeway corridor, west of Saratoga Creek, south of
ProspeCt and north of where the freeway and the creek intersect.
Mr. Thompson indicated he has filed a written protest with the City.
Mr. Andy Andarmani, 19616 Ladera Court, requested the protest numbers
for the Pride's Crossing area. Mr. Perlin responded that of 884
parcels, 44 protests were received. Mr. Andarmani stated he has filed
a written protest and stated his area should not be assessed for
landscaping and lighting.
Anderson: Well, you used to have a homeowners association in Pride's
Crossing that cared for the entrances to the subdivision, and it has
disappeared probably--what--eight, nine years ago. And ever since then
the shrubbery and the condition along Cox and Prospect has
deteriorated, and no one in your subdivision has gotten organized to
maintain it the way they have in Westbrook and Brookview. And that's
why you have been slated to be in this Landscaping and Lighting
District to pay $36 a family per year to maintain the entrances to your
subdivision. You have to admit that Cox looks pretty lousy.
Mayor Stutzman reclosed the Public Hearing at 9:40 p.m.
Following discussion, MONIA/KOHLER MOVED TO TABLE ITEM 8A-2 TO THE JUNE
25 COUNCIL MEETING. PASSED 4-0.
Mayor Stutzman moved the agenda back to item 8A-3.
NOTE: VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT RESUMES AT THIS POINT.
Perlin: (Inaudible) Quito Road south of the freeway (inaudible) 54%
of the property owners. (Inaudible)
Stutzman: Any questions from the Council?. Okay, we"ll open the public
hearing then at 18 minutes to ten. Roberta Corson?
Corson: (Inaudible) appropriate to speak in support of this. I know
we are dealing with this, but I...
Anderson: Maybe you'll change someone's mind.
Corson: A lot of energy has gone into working with this property in
the last year and a half in the neighborhood. It's been good energy,
and many of us have gotten to know and care about each other in ways
that we might not have otherwise. I've been very concerned in the last
several weeks, though, about some of the material that has gone out
that has involved name-calling, racist comments, and expressed fear of
subversion and a plot. I had a higher sense of the spirit of our
neighborhood, and I am concerned about this--the divisions that are
coming between us and the spirit of those divisions. I'd like to share
just a personal incident. Fifteen years ago our family moved to San
Francisco when our children were two and three years old. It seemed
an inhospitable place to take little children, but soon we discovered
throughout the city small neighborhood parks to which we could walk
from almost anyplace we were in the city. Those parks turned out to
be places of haven and safety and joy for my small children in San
Francisco. It made it a good place to live, and we stayed there ten
years, partly because there was that beauty and there was that
opportunity to break up the hardness and the concrete of the city.
When we arrived in San Francisco, we also learned that the city could
not build anywhere. There could be no building unless buildings were
torn down first. The parks were there. They were there because of the
foresight of people who had planned that city long before many of those
buildings were built. Saratoga is very different from San Francisco.
On the other hand, we are getting to the point of needing to tear down
in order to build. A case in point on our own neighborhood. Saratoga
is a much more pleasant place to raise young children than San
Francisco, but it has fewer parks per area. The foresight to have
these parks needs to happen now, as the last of the land is being
City Counoil Minutes 8 June 19, 1991
developed. Finally, I would like to thank the City Council, the City
staff, and the developer for the ways in which you have worked with us
as a neighborhood. And I would like to thank you all for the work
which has been going on on the trees yesterday and today, which has
been one of my major concerns and will continue to be that. I thank
you fo~ your listening.
Stutzman: Thank you. Finn Wilhelmsen?
Wilhelmsen: Yes. I~ll be brief. I~d just like to say I object to
building a park, number one, which I will never use, which seems to me
will be for the exclusive use of maybe ten families in the neighborhood
with small children. Thirdly, we are talking about neighborhood parks
in San Francisco, and Saratoga is vastly different. In San Francisco
people live in apartments. Here they have big back yards the kids can
play in. Also, it seems to me that $330,000 can be used much better
to pay for the school. We just voted down $1,000,000, I believe, which
was needed. And I think the $330,000 can be used much better for that.
Thatis all IId like to say. Thank you.
Stutzman: Ken Hirschberg?
Hirschberg: My name is Ken Hirschberg. I live at 13866 Espada Court.
In view of the number of protests I will truncate my remarks, except
I would like to say that the City might consider, and I will volunteer
to help on this if you can use me in any way, improving the
dissemination of information. I will just briefly state my personal
experience with this. I was approached by a personable young fellow
that I didnit know--part of the neighborhood association, I believe,
offered me a chance to sign a petition, and I said gee, it sounds like
a good idea. At that time I thought he was talking about the whole 1.3
acre parcel--make a beautiful little park--but I really can't justify
it. I don~t have the extra cash, so I~ll decline. And that was the
last I heard of this until the official notice from the City. There
might be some way to improve the dissemination of information without
having to get into flyers flying back and forth, one of which was mine,
to dig this out. Maybe some better way to have a discovery period.
Thank you.
Stutzman: Thank you. H. 0 Nickelsen?
Anderson: Am I to understand that you signed the petition in favor of
the park and now you have filed a protest?
Nirschberg: No, madam. I declined to sign it, and I think that...
Anderson: You declined to sign the petition. Okay.
Nirschberg: Either on purpose or perhaps by oversight. As a result
of me not being part of the group working on this, I received no
further information until the official notice from the City.
Anderson: Okay. Thank you.
Stutzman: Mr. Nickelsen?
Nickelsen: My name is Olaf Nickelsen, and I am living here on Espada
Court for twentV-three years. I might say the message that seems to
be prevailing here in acquiring the property for park service, for
building a park, it~s about that, but I believe Mrs. Dow, who was a
candidate beforehand, expresses negative voting, or something of that
sort. But our district has voted more than 54% now against the
originally-contended idea that 70% of the property owners really
approved of all this. If they did, I wonder where our 54% comes from.
We are not an organized organization with a president and all that.
We are just grass-roots developer. Therefore, I would like to say
this. This meeting concerns the Resolution 91-41.4, which is the
official resolution that informs us, informed us, that the taxpayers
in District LLA-1 want to pay $110 or want to be assessed $110,
possibly for x number of years, which we found out later on to be
thirty years. Number two of the resolution clearly and officially
states the costs and expenses of said improvements are to be made
chargeable upon the areas proposed to be annexed to the existing
City council Minutes 9 June 19, 1991
assessment district LLA-1. Also included in the otherwise non-speCific
notice was a page to express an objection that should be mailed or
brought to the City office. This, then, by implication means you vote
for the assessment if you do not protest. Very simple. That is the
negative procedure. We launched a flyer on June 8, and then this
result~d--a reply by a small group headed by two Planning Commissioners
and one Park Commissioner and, I believe, the lady who just spoke of
such things as hatred and separation--partition of the citizens--is
practically nonsense. We have a right to express our opinions, just
as they have the right to do that. However, the (unintelligible)
assurance is verbal, not in writing, not in print from the City--that
the City will handle this property and pay outright $330,000 with
municipal funds, which in itself surprised me and some of our
neighbors. For development and maintenance the City has already
budgeted $25,000 next year. It seems that a developer originally
proposed three or four single houses which would generate taxes--real
estate taxes. But this was turned down because we wanted open space
and we didn't want to Create undue traffic. Instead, the City and the
proponents for the park probably had to approve two single houses and
a half-acre park.
Stutzman: Are you almost through, sir?
Nickelsen: Pardon me?
.Stutzman: Your three minutes are up. Are you almost through?
Nickelsen: All right, I go to the heart of these things. The City
has to sell two lots, for which they may get $150,000. There is a
balance of $180,000 left, and I don't know where the City puts that.
This concerns all Saratogans, not only us in LLA-1, for whom the new
park is created. Well, there are very few very small children, and the
ones that are teenagers or pre-teenagers, they would rather play in one
of the parks of the neighboring schools or they go to the mall. I
believe that Resolution 91-41.4 should be relegated to oblivion.
Stutzman: All right. Ken Colson?
Colson: (Inaudible) Property at 13851 Raven Court. My name is
Kenneth M. Colson (inaudible) before I came here, frankly, I didn't
know what the procedure was, so I'm just one of the majority. I think
the idea of putting a mini-park in this area is inappropriate and
unwise. I don't think it's inappropriate and unwise for citizens to
want open space. I think the Council has some opportunities, perhaps
in reallocation of the Nelson property having fallen through
apparently, I would hope that all of us in our particular part of the
City could work with you and develop plans overall for open space.
I think it's a noble effort, but I think a mini-park is not within the
scope of the grander scale of open space.
Stutzman: Do I...pardon me.
Colson: (Inaudible) so I was in Contact with them.
Stutzman: Okay, thank you. Dwight Mitchell?
Mitchell: I'm Dwight Mitchell, I live at 13894 Quito Road.
(Inaudible) protest this park. Why would the City of Saratoga deem it
fitting to spend $330,000 for a few families. I'm sure the money
could be better spent in a more fortuitous manner, such as schools,
etc. We also didn't get this thing until like (inaudible), so we
didn't know. And I'm opposed to this negative voting.
Stutzman: Andrew Ruotola? Then the next speaker will be Joel Sharon?
If you could come forward, and that will speed it up a little bit.
Ruotola: My name is Andrew Ruotola, I live at 13936 Quito Road. I am
probably the first or the second, I would say, owner of a home in that
project that we're talking about. I bought the house in 1955, and I've
been here ever since. Probably here in Saratoga more than most people
in this hall. I've seen many, many changes go on and off. I've seen
traffic increase tremendously, but I'm still there because I love this
area. But when the City Council comes out and gives me a notice that
City Council Minutes 10 June 19, 1991
I owe' $110 for the assessment a year for thirty years, without even
mentioning the time period of thirty years on their letter, which I
received only three weeks ago--never heard one incident about the place
of the park to be built. Not one iota of a word. I bring this out
because I get flyers, and they say--well, we~ve noticed, talking about
this a'year ago or so. You've been notified by the City. Never have
I received one letter, one telephone call, or one interviewer to come
out and say to me, would you look at this and read it? Now I am like
the gentleman here from Blue Hills. He never got a notice. I never
got no notices until just recently from the City Hall. I beg your
pardon?
Perlin: There was only one (inaudible).
Ruotola: But I get flyers from different people who are on the
committee or whatever it is for the yes vote on this park. They say
it's been in order for over a year; We've been talking about it. Now
who~s lying? Do we have to lie every time we say something? Or like
that person who spoke first, that woman. She wants her children to see
a park. Has she ever visited Wildwood Park here? Tell me that. And
one other thing I'd like to bring up. If you bear with me, I'll bring
out some things that might be of interest to everyone. I didn't know
the City of Saratoga was in the real estate business by buying
property.
Monia: We have for years. Are you familiar with the Heritage Orchard
by the Library? All of that property was bought by the City. There
have been, from time to time--the City has bought property.
Ruotola: Why was it bought? Why was it bought, then?
Monia: It's a park. Itws a heritage park.
Anderson: The Library is sitting on it.
Monia: And it's worth today a hundred times what we paid for it.
Ruotola: We're talking about a private park here.
Monia: No, we're talking about a City park, sir. We're talking about
a City-owned park developed by the City, maintained by the City,
policed by the City. It is part of our general parks system.
Ruotola: You mean the Hagerson park thing, we call a park, the
Hagerson site?
Monia: No. I~m sorry. There's a difference between whether one
thinks this is the appropriate place for a park versus the City~s
policy about parks. There has always been a policy about trying to
develop parks.
(Inaudible voice from audience)
Monia: Monla. Monia. The City has always done this. It has done
this all the way back to incorporation. One of the fine parks that we
have is Hakone Gardens. And Hakone Gardens today is probably one of
the best that we have in the South Bay. And I am sure, based on...
Ruotola: How many times have you walked...
(NOTE: HERE THERE IS APPARENTLY A SLIGHT GAP BETWEEN TAPES.)
Monia: It varies. From one to two all the way up to Wildwood, where
I~ve seen hundreds.
Anderson: I don't think this is...
Monia: But we're just trying to give you some background information.
There is a public policy that has been performed over and over
again--the City procuring land for the purpose of parks. It's nothing
new. I was just trying to let you know that there has been a policy
since 1954. Or 56.
City council. Minutes 11 June 19, 1991
Ruotola: The City of Saratoga was in the financial business of loaning
money to the citizens.
Monia: We have also sold open space for the purpose of raising funds.
We have bought land in the past, not this Council, but previous
CounciIs, and other Councils have sold that property for the purpose
of raising funds to do other things for the City.
Ruotola: I see.
Monia: It's not an unusual course for cities to do so.
Ruotola: Maybe not for Saratoga, but other cities don't seem to...
Stutzman: All other cities do that. How do you think they acquire
open space? Would you be willing to give some of your land to
Saratoga?
(Inaudible)
Stutzman: Did you give it to us?
Voice from the audience: We own it through the tax rolls. My taxes
are going up every year.
Stutzman: Okay, your time's up. Sorry. Your three minutes are up.
Six minutes, actually.
Ruotola: You didn't say that at the start of the meeting.
Stutzman: I did. I announced this at the beginning of the meeting.
We have a lot of business to conduct yet, and everyone wants to be
heard.
Ruotola: I thought you said there was only one more after me.
Stutzman: There are more. That's just to keep people moving in
sequence so you don't just stand there and waste time. So if you would
kindly step aside for the next individual, we can keep this going. We
know that you're against it. We know you're opposed, and we respect
that.
Ruotola: Oh, you like that then, don't you. Very good, I'm glad you
know that I'm opposed to it.
Stutzman: I didn't say I liked it, I just said I know it. Joel
Sharon, and the next speaker will be Charles Shaw.
Sharon: Good evening, thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight.
Anderson: You have to speak loud, there is no mike.
Sharon: My name is Joel Sharon. I'm the owner of 13890 Ravenwood
Drive, and I'm one of the 41 members who filed the protest or a no vote
on this annexation. In order to limit my remarks, I would not wish to
repeat what some of the other protesters have indicated, but just
briefly--I think the park is too costly, both to residents and to the
City. And I was at a meeting several weeks ago or several months ago
at which I expressed some of my concerns then, and they are still my
concerns, and I think they are the concerns of many of the neighboring
residents as to the park. We really do not know the park's full
configurat{on, the improvements, the equipment, what kind of fences are
being placed up, and we don't know any of the rules, such as rules as
to safety, rules as to security, policing of the park, problems as to
noise, congestion, parking, the hours of use, potential pollution, any
kind of insurance and other matters. Specifically some of those
concerns are very important because I've been there in the neighborhood
for years, and my side lots are not fenced. And if you have people
from other neighborhoods coming into the park, they cannot be
questioned as such. They belong there. And my lot is very close by,
and they might end up right in my back window, for all I know. And
what is the City going to do with regard to securing me, or do I have
to then put up a fence and put up extra deadbolts and locks, or put in
City Council Minutes 12 June 19, 1991
an alarm system or something, which I may not need to do otherwise.
So those kind of concerns have not been treated by the City or in
connection with any notice provisions, and I think that's why many of
the neighbors are feeling very concerned about this, and I hope you
will not annex the property..
Kohler: Mr. Mayor, please. (Inaudible)
Sharon: It is possible because the Concerns are the ones that I'm
giving you. I am very concerned about security. I'm not concerned
about neighbors on my block coming there with little children to the
park. I think that would be great. But on the other hand I would be
concerned about people from other neighborhoods that I don't know, that
I'm not familiar with, parking their cars in front, creating mess and
paper mess and possibly walking over on other parcels, and I can't even
go up and question them. Whereas right now you have all the neighbors
in a sense being linked together to secure their own property. Here
now you have a public park which is going to bring an influx of traffic
and other people, which gives me some severe concerns. Thank you.
Stutzman: I thank you. Mr. Shaw?
Shaw: I was wondering if I could speak from here so that my back is
not entirely to the audience?
Stutzman: Okay. Sure, that would be fine.
Shaw: Am I limited?
Stutzman: Yes, please.
Shaw: I will start at the back and work to the front. Mr. ~ayor
(inaudible) First point is just a (inaudible)very similar problem to
what is going on right now. Not a congruent problem, but very similar,
which I recommend that you check with them. The Marin I.J. had
articles yesterday and today. Essentially what it had to do
(inaudible) Proposition 13, City money coming from (inaudible)
investment funds, everybody's getting very excited about it, the
lawyers are just sort of licking their chops waiting to get at it
(inaudible). There has been an awful lot of activity in the last
fifteen days in the LLA-1 area. Much of that I attribute to
information. Lack of information (inaudible) many examples I could
give you, but just one or two. There was a flyer put out on June 15.
It went over the names of three commissioners of the City and a member
of the City Council, and it states in the first paragraph, no formal
Ravenwood Drive association exists, and no plans to create one, etc.
Going on further in the same article, the same flyer, it states that
the proposal on the park (audible) very well and (inaudible) San Jose
Mercury News. Yet, in two articles in the San Jose Mercury News, April
24 and May 8, Michael Cronk, the Ravenwood Drive Neighborhood
Association is mentioned three times, it is capitalized, and even in
one case a gentlemen is quoted as being of the Ravenwood Drive
Homeowners Association. Confusion, misinformation,
disinformation--some of the problems. The other flyer that went out
on June 15--one of the questions was does this have anything to do with
street lights. The answer is no. Very good. The fourth paragraph,
fourth sentence of that very same'paragraph states park lighting will
be decided upon later. Now there might be a difference between street
lighting and park lighting. (Inaudible) someone be aware of that--more
confusion, more information, lack (inaudible) disinformation. Flyer,
June 8, signed--went out over the name of three City commissioners.
Paragraph 5. Pre-approval of 70 per cent of the neighbors. That might
be true. Depends upon how you want to define the universe and
percentage thing. With only ten neighbors you would only need seven
(inaudible). Is this statement correct? Very possibly so. Does it
describe the entire picture? I don't think so. Again, (inaudible)
information, lack of information, misinformation, disinformation.
Stutzman: Are you almost through, sir?
Shaw: One more point, if I may, and that is the announcement that came
out from the City that stated that it is $110 assessment. Nowhere does
it say it is a $110 assessment every year for thirty years. I know
City Council Minutes 13 June 19, 1991
that if I were to make statements like this--like the percentages, like
not completing the amount of assessment--in the private sector, my own
business, I dread the litany of (inaudible) that would descend upon me.
Again, I'm talking only in the private sector, I could never get by
with it--those kind of statements, that kind of operation. I really
don't think the City of Saratoga should put itself in a position of
being criticized for the same thing. My three minutes are up. I'm
finished.
Stutzman: Monique Drumm?
Anderson: You have to speak really loud.
Drumm: I live at (inaudible) facilities for bathrooms (inaudible) and
open space (inaudible) in the immediate area (inaudible) every single
person I spoke to (inaudible) that nice people. I think the fears of
the people who opposed Ravenwood-Park are unfounded and hysterical.
Therefore I would like these people to reconsider their opposition.
I would also like to thank the City Council, especially Vic Monia, and
everyone who supported Ravenwood Park, for their efforts and unfailing
support. Thank you.
Stutzman: Thank you.
Anderson: That park, by the way, was purchased from George Day about
25 years ago. Purchased.
Stutzman: Anyone else wish to speak to this? This is the last of the
slips that were handed in.
Williams: My name is Robert Williams. Ilive at 13906 Ravenwood
Drive, and I guess I would like to say that I'm glad to see the
democratic process does work. And what's unfortunate is to see the
degree to which--what I really heard was not mean-spiritedness, but
more fear that existed (inaudible) on fixed incomes (inaudible) worried
about fences, about drugs, about things that were notably not covered
in the 'City's (inaudible). However, it is true that in all the
leafletting that was done, some of it very negative, some of it trying
to be helpful and positive, was oriented to try and answer these
questions, and that is the purpose of this forum. I do not know if
tonight we will have a positive outcome, but I think it's been a
positive construct for the neighborhood. I would like to offer one
alternative. If people do wish.to reconsider, I noted that in the
earlier proceeding tonight a decision was made to re-annex. And yes,
it was true there were 70 (inaudible) percent pre-approval from people
who signed petitions, including some (inaudible) who changed their mind
and decided to protest, but that 70% who originally signed came from
the Ravenwood-Montpere area, and it was decided based on financing
concerns from the City (inaudible) Court and Quito Oaks. And I would
like to propose to the City that a consideration be made to withdraw
those strongly objecting neighborhoods from that annexation (inaudible)
will unfortunately include individuals such as Mr. Shaw who may not
ever be in favor, I think there would be again that clear majority, but
it would require some reconsideration by the City with respect to the
financing concerns which are still very real to those fixed income
members. It would also allow personally, perhaps, time to address
safety, landscaping, drawing, andto air some of the views issued by
Miss Drumm, who indicated that most of the neighbors of Wildwood Park,
for example, find it to be a joyous asset to their neighborhood. And
I think that's what we're here for. We're not here to create ill will,
and we're not here to put one over on you. You know, and if the City
can still see a way to work this through, I would rather see the
possibility of looking at the reconfiguration of drawing and
consideration by the City Council of the all-important financing.
Because I think the safety issues, I think the liability issues, all
of those can be addressed. And I think it comes down to the issue of
those who really want it--and the benefit is more than just the people
with families--it's the property values in our neighborhood to the
people that will buy when the elderly families move out, and all of
that has to be taken into consideration in looking at who benefits.
We think it does benefit the entire neighborhood. So thank you, and
please consider my proposal for a potential redistricting as per the
prior item today on tonight's agenda. And what that implication might
.City Council Minutes 14 June 19, 1991
be for possible approval and financing. Thank you.
Anderson: I'd like to answer a question before...
Stutzman: Okay.
Anderson: If we were to split off a section here and go back. I
mean, this is a fairly substantial financial consideration, I think.
In the case of these other neighborhoods we were able to take sections
that we didn't have to maintain any more and remove them from the work
program as well. That kind of offset the financial impacts. In this
particular case the land costs the same, regardless of how many homes
are involved. And I'm wondering, is there any urgency to this. I
mean, if we were to redraw it and we were to change the financial and
up it say ten or whatever dollars, would we miss a window of
opportunity budget-wise, or in this particular case is there no problem
with just...
Monia: Coming back?
Anderson: Coming back July 3 with a little bit different program. Do
we miss it for a whole year, I guess is my question.
Peacock: Yes you do, because if you change the assessment, then you
have to notify everyone of what the new assessment is, the notice has
to be at least ten days before the hearing, and we have to have this
process completed by the first meeting in July in order to meet the
deadline set by the County to notify the County Assessor and the Tax
Collector of the parcels to be assessed and what the assessment is.
Anderson: How about the duration of time. 'Can that be changed? I
mean, if you made--instead of thirty years, you made it thirty-five...
Peacock: You can't go beyond thirty years.
Anderson: Thirty years it the maximum anyway?
Peacock: Thirty years is the maximum length under the law for an
assessment for acquisition purposes.
(Inaudible voice from the audience)
Voice from the audience: May I ask if this meeting is run by Robert's
Rules of Order, and if so I would like to remind you that you do have
a motion on the floor that must be acted upon before you take on other
motions.
Stutzman: We don't have a motion on the floor.
(Inaudible voice from the audience)
Stutzman: The next speaker is Jennifer Crotty.
Crotty: Jennifer Crotty, 13861 Raven Court.
Anderson: Louder, my dear.
Peacock: There is no microphone.
Crotty: Jennifer Crotty, 13861 Raven Court. I speak to you tonight
as an individual. And I wish to thank so much the City Council for all
your encouragement, your support, in our efforts to secure a small,
safe, beautiful green legacy for our neighborhood and future
generations. Your concerned, caring approach throughout this whole
thing throughout the past year has been greatly appreciated. You
recognized the value of seizing a golden opportunity to preserve a
small portion of diminishing open space for a neighborhood which I know
would have greatly benefited from a park. And though I am quite
saddened and very, very disheartened by the scare tactics that were
used by some of the. protesters; I am eternally grateful for all the
support that we did get, and I am just very sad about the seeming
outcome here. But thank you so much, and thank you to the City staff
and to all the neighbors who worked so hard with us to get this park.
City Council Minutes 15 June 19~ 1991
Stutzman: Thank you, Mrs. Crotty. Any other speakers? If not, we'll
close the public hearing at twenty minutes after ten.
Anderson: I have a further question of the City Engineer. There is
this o~e cul-de-sac that's directly off of Quito that does not have
direct access...
Perlin: Espada Court?
Anderson: Is that what it is?
Monia: No, I think she's talking about the court. Quito court. Quito
Oaks.
Anderson: Uh-oh, I didn't see the other one. Where is Espada?
Monia: Espada is this little one.
Voice from audience: What about Quito Road?
Anderson: How many protesters did you have from Quito Oaks out of how
many houses--I think it's about ten houses?
Perlin: In the Quito Oaks (inaudible) eight out of eight.
Anderson: Eight out of eight protested? How about Espada Court?
Perlin: Well, if you consider (inaudible) you have five of six.
Kohler: Mr. Mayor, I would like to make a comment. (Inaudible) facts
of this and (inaudible) first of all, when a neighbor who (inaudible)
and they talked about the pain level, and I (inaudible). There is a
limit for everybody. (Inaudible) were very confused and did not know
what this park was going to be, and I don't blame (inaudible) educating
and (inaudible) approach it in two ways. We have to see (inaudible).
Secondly (inaudible) how financially people want (inaudible) right now
obviously it's not be (inaudible) financially acceptable. Or, of
course, the cost will go up. So (inaudible) out and think (inaudible)
find out what the neighbors really want. And I, you know (inaudible).
If we want to buy this property-(inaudible).
Anderson: We don't have any time.
Stutzman: Mr. Monia?
Monia: Well, I'd like to just clear up a few issues because there was
some concerns about whether we should be spending our money for a park
or for schools. Those are different jurisdictions. We have nothing
to do with the school districts, and the school districts basically
have nothing to do with us as far as financial obligations. So it's
not a question of taking our money and spending it someplace else. I
think this Council, for the first time in many years, is concerned
about neighborhoods and trying to improve the quality of life. And
many of the people in this area are going to benefit from the Council's
decision to spend more money than we had to spend to mitigate the
impact of Highway 85 coming through that neighborhood. We have decided
to spend somewhere in the neighborhood of $250,000 to increase
soundwalls and berms and landscaping, etc. to help out the people.
And many of those folks didn't come here asking for that help. That's
what you electedus for. You elected us to review the needs of the
City, to be the guardians of your money, and trust us with the best
way to spend it. And we have to look at not only the needs of Saratoga
today, but what will Saratoga need and what should Saratoga have for
future generations. It is unbelievably troubling in the last couple
of weeks to see the response that Saratoga has to the future. And we
see it here tonight. The school tax did not pass, and we sent a clear
message to our children that we don't care. Think about that. We
don't care about our children. A park in a residential neighborhood
that needs a park for its children, and if we say no, we don't care.
My 19-year-old daughter, after the vote a couple of weeks ago, said she
won't live in this town because the adults in this town don't care
about us. And that's an unfortunate circumstance. We have an
City Council Minutes 16 June 19, 1991
obligation to try to maintain a quality of life in this community, and
that's why I supported this park. I support the purchase of Nelson
Gardens park if we can financially do it. Open space is a critical
element to the value of our property now, and more so in the future.
On the issue of crime, we have a number of parks in this community, and
we don't have crime. We have been able to manage those parks well.
(Unintelligible) when from time to time there has been an incident,
the City has reacted quickly and has put it to rest. I can't remember
the last time we had someone coming to us saying we have a problem with
a park in town. So that's not an issue in my mind--that we will create
a nuisance. It's to the contrary. I think the testimony that we got
about Gardiner Park, and my personal experience is, in talking with
people who use parks and live around parks--they are glad that they're
there. I happen to live next to one of the biggest parks we got. The
biggest park--West Valley College. And there's hundreds, probably
thousands of us, per week, that use that facility. And thank goodness
it's there. I support this park.- I have from the beginning because
I think it's an important asset to the City. And some day, and we
probably we won't behere to enjoy it, but some day they'll say to us,
or they'll say to the Council that made this decision, they had the
wisdom. The criticism was there for Hakone. The criticism was there
for a number of other purchases by the City, but now that we look back,
they were good decisions by those Councils. I .think we would be
missing an opportunity for three votes, the difference on this issue
is three votes. And I would support overriding this protest because
I think it's that important. I would like to mention one other thing.
I had several people call me. We'd heard about disinformation, and I
had four people call me. And four people who were either on the fence
or who were against it did not sign that petition. Because when they
got the right information, then they made good sense of it and they
decided not to file a protest. I think that's important. There was
so much disinformation. If you read those flyers, you know--if you
can't win it right, let's obscure it.
It's the whole negative campaign that you see in politics all the time.
And it's unfortunate circumstance, and I...
(Inaudible voices from the audience)
Monia: I'm just responding to the negative comments.
(Inaudible voice from the audience)-
Stutzman: Okay, you're out of order. Mrs. Anderson?
Anderson: I have not seen the flyers that went through the
neighborhood.
(Inaudible voice from the audience)
Anderson: At any rate, I've done some...
Stutzman: Please, you are out of order. Please be quiet. We are
trying to conduct our business. I've read the flyers. Mrs. Anderson,
did you wish to say something?
Anderson: Yes. I'm not sure it's necessary to read the flyers to make
a decision, but it is unfortunate that this neighborhood became
embroiled in this controversy because 70% of this neighborhood signed
a petition that they were interested in having the City Council
participate with them to purchase this park. And on that basis...
(Inaudible voices from the audience)
Anderson: It was 70% of the neighborhood. At any rate, it was on that
basis that we proceeded and we went through quite a long series of
hearings and discussions about how to make this happen in the best
possible way and how to make it affordable for the residents. Most of
the protesters that I've seen tonight look to me like they are either
long-time residents who are, well, they look, to me like they are
long-time residents who are already paying the minimum in taxes in that
neighborhood. The young families are the newcomers. They are paying
probably four times as much in taxes, and they are still willing to
City Council Minutes 17 June 19, 1991
take another $110 a year on their tax bill, and I share with Mr. Monia
his concern about this City's attitude about children, because I look
at the vote against the tax on schools, and I think it's a tragedy that
this community turned down children. And I think it's, when we look
at this situation with this little neighborhood park, it tells us what
may happen to us when we talk about open space in general in this city.
People want it, but they don't want to pay for it. And all sorts of
scare campaigns come out in order to sway people that it's a bad idea
to have a park in the neighborhood. And it is true that occasionally
we have problems, but these little parks generally are used by the
families that are nearby. And the configuration, the type of
equipment, would be decided upon with the neighborhood, as we do with
many of the other neighborhood parks. We are modifying Kevin Moran,
possibly, and that whole neighborhood was noticed, and all has input.
We are building a new park in Beauchamps, and that whole neighborhood
is involved in what goes into that park, and what kind of structures
will be in that park. This neighborhood would be participating also.
Then I went and did some numbers, and we have 76 parcels. That was
part of our debate also, when we structured this. We have 76 parcels.
If you take the fourteen I believe you said it was from these two
cul-de-sacs out, we still have 62 parcels left. And if 13 is taken
away from the 41 protests, you still have 28 protests, which is still
45% of the remaining neighborhood. So that if we bought the property
now, under the plan we're talking about, and we had to increase this
revenue up to at least $150 a year to make up for the fact that we've
lost fourteen parcels, I am afraid this 45, this 55% support would
probably disappear also, because that $100 seemed to be a threshold
when we discussed this issue in the first place. So the Council would
really basically be talking about whether or not we wanted to take on
the additional cost, and we don't have any figures tonight because we
didn't plan on excluding any areas from this particular lighting and
landscaping district as we had considered, because these other
neighborhoods had shown up and expressed a willingness to care for the
property around their neighborhood, the financial considerations
weren't something that we had to think about. In this particular case,
we do have to think about it, so it's--to me, the only decision we have
to make tonight is 9hether we're going to override or not.
Stutzman: Do you wish to say anything further, Mr. Kohler?
Kohler: Not now.
Stutzman: Okay. I share Mr. Monia's views on this. If you look at
the value of property, it's predicated in large part on whether or not
you have open space in your particular area. The individuals who
generated our General Plan many years ago specified that we were to
have small community parks. And one of the areas that was designated
is this particular area. There is not another park within a mile of
this area. They did have foresight. Unfortunately, they didn't go
ahead and purchase property ten years ago or fifteen years ago when
property values were very low, and acquisition of this would have cost
the City a minimal amount of money. But I can assure you that if you
have a small park in your area, it will increase your property value
much more than that $100 a year, which amounts to about 30 cents a day,
will give to your particular area. I can't think of an area in
Saratoga where there is not a park where property values have gone
down. One of the best examples is over there by Brookside Club. Tiny
little park--it's about a fourth or a third of an acre. And that is
much used because of the play equipment by the little children in the
area. There are not large numbers of cars. In one of these flyers I
saw the comment that we would have it overcrowded with cars by people
coming from Vasona. That is absolutely a ridiculous remark. Who would
want to go all the way from Vasona over to that little community park?
I mean, that's stupid. You know that. The main consideration of why
you are opposing that is because of that $100 a year. And I think
you're being very, very short-sighted in that, and I also think that
you are being very short-sighted in the fact that you have enjoyed that
open space for ten, fifteen or twenty years, and now because your
children have grown and moved away, you have no more interest in
leaving anything behind for future generations. Why don't you care a
little bit for the children that are growing up and need a place to
play. I should think that Saratoga would be so ashamed of what it's
been doing in turning down money for schools, in turning down
City Council Minutes 18 June 19, 1991
everything that will enhance the quality of this area we live in. I
would think you would have more consideration for the future
generations than you do. And I~m absolutely appalled at living in
Saratoga, one of the wealthlest areas in California, and finding this
very pecuniary attitude, where you are willing to pinch pennies and
depriv~ those who come after us of the ability to share in some of the
good that we have been fortunate enough to experience. For this reason
I, too, would be very willing to override this.
Monia: I would move Resolution 91-41.5, a resolution overruling the
protests and ordering the annexation of territory to the existing
assessment .district, ordering the improvements, and confirming the
diagram and assessments, the City of Saratoga Landscaping and Lighting
District, Assessment District LLA-1, Annexation Number 1991-2, Fiscal
Year 1991-92.
Anderson: I~ll second that.
Stutzman: Any discussion. Mr. Kohler.
Kohler: Yes. I am very concerned about drawing in people in the
assessment district and having them as (inaudible) however I am also
very concerned (inaudible) pamphlets that went (inaudible) I think
there is an (inaudible) from the beginning, and that~s very sad. I
also agree that (inaudible) I rather had seen a smaller neighborhood
standing behind this park, and have it for themselves. That~s not the
reality. Everyone else will also enjoy the park. I will vote for the
overriding.
Monia: Thank you, Willem.
Peacock: The motion, then, is to revise--amend the resolution to
declare that a majority protest has been received, but that the City
Council has, by four-fifths vote, overridden...
Monia: You have to put that caveat in the front.
Peacock: Yes. The resolution does need to be amended and then it can
be adopted.
Monia: I~ll move the amendment.
Voice from the audience: The democratic process--it~s wonderful. A
vote of the people? Wasted.
Monia: You're welcome. I~ll move to amend the motion.
Stutzman: Do we have a second?
Anderson: I~11 second it, including the amendment.
Stutzman: All in favor? Opposed?
NOTE: THE VOTE TOOK PLACE AS [OLLOWS: MONIA/ANDERSON MOVED TO AMEND
RESOLUTION 91-41.5 AND DECLARE THAT A MAJORITY PROTEST HAS BEEN
RECEIVED BUT THE CITY COUNCIL HAS, BY A FOUR-FIFTHS VOTE, OVERRIDDEN
THE PROTEST. Passed 4-0.
Monia: Do we need the original motion? Or do you want it?
Stutzman: Yes., We will declare a ten-minute recess.
NOTE: THE VERBATIM THANSCRIPT ENDS AT THIS POINT.
Upon reconvening, the same Council members were present.
B. City of Saratoga 1991-93 Budget, including consideration
of: 1) Adopting the budget~ 2) adopting the Capital
Improvements Plan~ 3) adopting Gann appropriations limit~
4) authorizing change to staff, including authorization of
permanent positions, establishment of pay schedule for
part-time temporafT positions, setting of management salary
ranges~ 5) continuing the hillside traffic impact fee~
city Council Minutes 19 June 19, 1991
establishing schedule of fees pursuant to Saratoga City
Code (continued from June 5)
Mr. Peacock presented a summary of the Resolutions. He noted that the
resolution establishing the fee schedule for facilities at Hakone
Garden~ should be amended to reflect a 10% reduction for residents
versus non-residents. He reported that the City Council held a budget
workshop on May 30, and a budget Public Hearing on June 5. This is the
second and final budget hearing.
The Public hearing was opened at 10:59 P.M. There was no one present
who wished to speak, and the Public Hearing was closed at 11:00 p.
1. ANDERSON/MONIA MOVED APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. 91-46.
PASSED 4-0.
2. ANDERSON/MONIA MOVED APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. 91-47.
PASSED 4-0.
Councilmember Monia questioned the funds for the SWNE Road Project.
Mr. Peacock responded that it is not proposed for funding within the
next five years. Councilmember Monia proposed agendizing this item
within the next three to four months for discussing sending it for
study to the Planning Commission.
3. ANDERSON/MONIA MOVED APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. 91-48.
PASSED 4-0.
4. ANDERSON/MONIA MOVED APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. 2663~1.
PASSED 4-0.
5. MONIA/ANDERSON MOVED APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 2664.1. PASSED
4-0.
6. ANDERSON/MONIA MOVED APPROVAL OP RESOLUTION NO. 85-9.87.
PASSED 4-0.
7. KOHLER/ANDERSON MOVED APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. 91-49.
PASSED 4-0.
8. ANDERSON/MONIA MOVED APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. 91-50,
AMENDINe IT TO INCLUDE WEEKEND RENTAL RATE8 FOR HAKONE
GARDENS AS APPROVED BY THE COUNCIL ON JUNE 5, 1991, AND
AMENDING RESIDENT AND NON-RESIDENT FEE SCHEDULE. PASSED
4-0.
C. Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance concerning noise
provisions with the associated Negative Declaration (first
reading and introduction) and recommendations regarding
Village noise issues.
Mr. Peacock noted that since the agenda packet was published and
distributed that the City has received letters from Saratoga residents
either favoring or opposing the proposed ban on back pack gasoline-
powered leaf blowers. The correspondence is from Cathy Gardner, 13202
Via Ranchero Drive; Henry and Carol Musal, 19865 Braemer Drive; Ruth
Richards, 19772 View Ridge Drive; Ann K. Bond, 15440 Via Colina;
Marjorie Dobbins, 13280 Via Ranchero Court; and Allan Abbott, 13209
Via Ranchero Drive.
Mr. Emslie summarized the Staff Report and presented a background on
the Zoning Ordinance.
The Public Hearing was opened at 11:18 p.m.
Mr. Andrew Abarbanel, 18591 Ravenwood, addressed the operations of
pumping systems already in place between houses. He proposed that no
pool filtration systems located between neighbors may be operated
between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m.
Mr. James Baylor addressed the Council as a Landscape Contractor and
as a resident of 18637 Bucknall Road, who serves residents in the City
City Council Minutes 20 June 19, 1991
of Saratoga. His discussion focused on the economic factors involved
with the proposed ban of gasoline-powered blower. He proposed other
options such as restricted hours, restricted days, controlled equipment
and working jointly with the manufacturers of the blowers. He asked
the Council not to ban the blowers.
Mr. Gregg Catanese, 20588 Komina Avenue, stated he is a Licensed
Landscape Contractor, current Board member and Education Chairman for
the San Jose Landscape Gardeners Association, and a former Secretary
to Professional Gardeners Federation of Northern California. He is
concerned about Noise Ordinance which would not only ban gas leaf
blowers but would also severely limit the use of other equipment
because of the related noise.
Mr. Dave Randall, a resident of a Sacramento suburb, appeared
before the Council as a representative of Gold Eagle Distributing
Corporation, distributors of Echo-power equipment. He said that most
manufacturers realize that there is a noise issue and they are making
great strides in manufacturing quieter equipment. Responsible use of
blowers includes limiting times of use and could be done through an
educational process. Mr. Randall stated that Echo will be Coming out
with a blower in July rated at under 70 db at 50 feet. A discussion
ensued.
Mr. Henry De La Rosa, 716 Cambrian Drive, Campbell, addressed the
Council as a Landscape Maintenance Contractor and Co-Chairman of the
Green Industry Council. He cited an ordinance written by the City of
Irvine which appears to be very progressive. Instead of banning leaf
blowers, the City of Irvine has regulated them with use limitations and
defined the use and noise levels. Education is a big part of the
ordinance. Each person operating a leaf blower is required to complete
not less than one hour training session. Mr. De La Rosa proposed that
the City of Saratoga consider the City of Irvine ordinance before
banning leaf blowers.
Ms. Luanne Niemann, 13217 Madero Court, stated it would be more
practical to limit noise level made by gardeners during professional
times as opposed to weekend hours when homeowners are doing their own
yard work.
Mr. Alan Halverson, 12390 Woodside Drive, urged the Council to pass
the Noise Ordinance and, in particular, banning the use of gas leaf
blowers.
Mr. Richard London, 18610 Perego Way, appeared before the Council as
a Parking Lot Sweeping Contractor. He asked the Council not to ban
leaf blowers, but instead set standards for their use.
Mr. John Campbell, 13759 Saratoga Vista Avenue, addressed the Council
as Chairman of the Board of the Saratoga Cemetery District. He has
researched the noise being created and agrees that if the back pack
blowers run at their highest speed, it is a pitch that is very
annoying. The District~s contract now stipulates that the blowers run
no more than two-thirds speed. He proposed not eliminating the blowers
but to control the decibels at the property lines.
Mr. Thomas Linders, 12604 Wardell Court, submitted a note to the Mayor
objecting to leaf blowers as they are dirty and noisy and objecting to
the beeping noise made by trucks at 6:00 a.m.
The Public Hearing was closed at 12 midnight.
Mr. Peacock suggested that the Council may want to consider having the
Ordinance introduced next week in amended form and revisit this portion
of the noise standard, revise the particular section and have another
hearing on the section alone after Staff has had an opportunity to
review the input.
Following discussion, MONIA/ANDERSON MOVED TO CONTINUE THE ITEM TO
ALLOW STAFF TO ANALYZE INPUT FROM TONIGHT~S PUBLIC HEARING. PASSED 4-
D. Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance adding a Residential Open
City Council Minutes 21 June 19, 1991
Space Zone District (R-OS}, which may be applied to
properties within the City,s Sphere of Influence upon
annexation to the City, with the associated Negative
Declaration (first reading and introduction)
MONIA/AI~DERSON MOVED TO CONTINUE ITEM 8-D. PASSED 4-0.
Mayor Stutzman moved the agenda to item 7-C.
7. C. Memo Authorizing PUblicity for Upcoming Hearings - De La
Cruz Appeal.
KOHLER/MONIA MOVED TO APPROVE. PASSED 4-0.
D. Acceptance of Jurisdiction over construction work on
property under county jurisdiction relating to single
family home project - Birenbaum
Mr. Riback presented the Staff Report.
ANDERSON/MONIA MOVED TO ACCEPT THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA AGREEMENT.
Ms. Meg Giberson, 15561 Glen Una Drive, asked whether the City would
take on the County's role in terms of Saratoga not having any Riparian
Protection Ordinances as the County does.
Ms. Giberson referred to a modification of building plans and
development conditions regarding plans which have been approved by the
City Council. She said two trees on the Giberson property have now
been approved for removal. Should the City accept the jurisdiction,
she asked that the Council refer the project back to the Planning
Commission for a review of the alleged changes.
Discussion ensued.
ANDERSON/MONIA MOVED TO CONSIDER ACCEPTANCE OF JURISDICTION OVER
CONSTRUCTION WORK ON PROPERTY UNDER COUNTY JURISDICTION RELATING TO
SINGLE FAMILY HOME PROJECT - BIRENBAUM. Passed 3-0-1 (Stutzman
abstaining).
E. Robert G. Wilson, 'Jr., 18709 Metlet Ct., regarding
resolution opposing MTC approval of Route 85 without proper
Air Quality analysis.
Deferred to the next Council meeting.
9. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS
A. Councilmembers' Schedules for Summer Months
Deferred to the next Council meeting.
B. Reports from Individual Councilmembers
Deferred to the next Council meeting.
10. CLOSED SESSION on pending litigation on illegal grading,
clearing and tree removal on Cocciardi/Chadwick development,
Tr. 7770.
11. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 12:32 a.m. to 7:30 p.m. on June 25 at the
Community Center, 19655 Allendale Avenue.
Respectfully submitted,
Lynda Ramirez
Minutes Clerk