Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-07-1986 City Council Minutes MINUTES SARA~0GA CITY OOUNCIL TIME: Tuesday, January 7, 1986 - 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue TYPE: Regular "Adjourned M~,ting I. ORGANIZATION A. ROLL CALL - Councilmembers Fanelli, Hlava, Moyles and Mayor Clevenger present at 7:06 p.m.; Callon present at 7:15 p.m. B. MINUTES - 12/18 MDYLES/FAN~.I~I 'MOVe]3 TO APPROVE MINUTES AS ~Ti~D. Passed 4-0~ ,I ~ ~ II. ORAL COb~jNICATIONS Jared Myers of Safety Specialists requested payment for clean-up of hazardous materials on Tripp property. Consensus to agendize when staff report on the subject is ready. III. CONS~qT ~AR A. CONSIDERATION OF CLAIM - Salas HLAVA/FANRI.LI MDVED TO DENY CLAIM. Passed 3-0-1 (Moyles abstaining because he is enployed by firm of lawyer representing claimant). B. OTHER ITEMS 1. Resolution cutmending Edward Panelli RESOLUEION 2293 2. Resolution reappointing Lewis .and Swanson to Public Safety Conmission RESOLLrEICN 2294 3. Resolution ea~uending Firefighter of the Year RESOLUTION 2295 4. Resolution Reversing Planning Cc~mission .Denial of SUP-13 L(McKenzie Appeal heard 12/18/85) RESOLUTION 2296 5. City I~vestment Reports - October, November 6. City Treasurer's Report - October 7. Approval of Warrant List HIAVA/FANRLLi MDVED TO APPROVE CONSENT CAT.RNDAR B. Passed 4-0. A. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS 1. Reconsideration of Haydon Appeal (originally heard 12/4/85) Consensus= to discuss after Item IV. C. 1. 2. Request for Waiver of Annexation Rights for Site at 21601 Prospect Road (APN 366-32-009) FAN~LI.I/HLAVA MOVED TO WAIVE ANNEXATION RIGHTS BECAUSE SITE AND ENTIRE AREA ALONG PROSPECT ROAD WHICH IS IN THE COUNTY DOES NOT MEET CITY STANDARDS AND IS CURRENTLy UEVELOPED TO SUB-CITY STANDARDS., Passed 4-0. 3. Request Concerning 1986 City Managersi Department of Ieague of California Cities Annual Meeting FANRLLI/HLAVA APPROVED CITY MANAGER' S A'i'i'klN]D~NCE AT MEETING WITH REASONABLE ESES, AS WELl, AS ABE 2/12-2/17. Passed 4-0. 2-1/7/86, 4. Review of Revised Draft Letter re Reimbursement of Costs for Uncontrolled Parties Councilmembers disc~issed letter. There was consensus to approve the letter, to be signed by the City ~mlager, with "directly" in the seccnd paragraph changed ~D "additionally" and with the cOsts of' providing Sheriff' s services to be included. B. REPORTS FROM CD~vffSSIONS" AND,CO~41Ti'EES - None. Co ORDINANCES ~ RESOLUTIONS 1. Ordinance Adopting New City Code (second reading) CounciLmembers discussed how Zoning Ordinance provisions concerning fences might be altered to resolve situations such as that of ,Mac. ~aydon,, who wished to build a high fence as a sound wall. Councilmember Fanelli suggested that the base height for fences at the property line for rear and side yards and 10 feet frcfn the property line for front irards be set at 6 feet rather than 8 feet. She felt it was to the City' s interest to have the base ',heightlower and raise it in connection with setting back the fence frcm the property line, if appropriate. For front yards, in particular, she believed an 8-fcot base fence height would reduce the feeling of openness which she felt should be ,preserved in Saratoga. After discussion., a majority of the Council believed that the appearance of the fences would be satis- factory if landscaping were required. A majority also felt that the paragraFh on ambient noise 'standards.'~las~,unnecessary because there is a prima facie ease that the streets involved are too noisy. Councilmember Moyles agreed with Councilmember Fanelli t_hat high walls might proliferate if the base ware set too high and noise standards ware not s~-t. Councilmenber Fanelli pointed out that in sate sections of Saratoga the pro~_~rty line was not necessarily the apparent frontage line; she felt this might caus.~ problems with interpretation of the ordinace and ought to be addressed. Mayor Clevenger felt that this question would be reviewed when the individuals involved applied for a fence permit frcm the Planning Department; she believed they would not be penalized if their property line were in the middle of Saratoga Avenue. HLAVA/CLEVE~]GER MDVED TO D~.ETE SUBSECTiON (C) (1) OF SECTION 15-12.120 DEAL]~G Wi'~'H AMBIENT NOISE LEVEL STANDARDS AND TO RE%DRD SUBSECTICN (C) (5) TO I~DICA~ THAT LANDSCAPING IS TO BE PROVIDED FOR AN AREA NOT LESS THAN 5 FEhT WIDE, OR THE BETWEEN THE EDGE OF ~{E SIDEWALK AND THE PRDPERTY LINE, BUT NOT LESS THAN 2 FEE IN ANY CASE. Passed 3-2 (Fanelli, M~les opposed). Councilmember Nbyles expressed disegret with the amendment, feeling the Council should have given it more thought. 2. Resolution Concerning Fees !and Village Map MDYT.F.q/FANRr.~,I MOVED 'IO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2297 RETAINING FEES FOR FILING OR PRiEESSING OF APPLICATIONS AND/~PPRDVING VTLLAGE BOUNDARY MAP. Passed 5-0. Councilmember Fanelli noted, and City Attorney confirmed, that the Village Boundary Map was not intended as a final dete~fion/rbUt.was being passed for present purposes only, because a definition of '"jillage" is necessary to interpret the Code. 1. Reconsideration of Haydon Appeal (originally heard 12/4) Mayor Clevenger poin~.~] out that Mr. ~H~_ydon's fence along Saratoga Avenue had been settled by t~e change:] in the Zoning O~dinance, but it was still necessary to make a determination on the other sections ~f the fence. There was consensus to c~sider the matter after the public hearings. [ D. BIDS AND CONTPJ~TS 1. Approval of Stipulation for ~] Settlement of Irany vs. City of Saratoga MOYLES/HIAVA MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTI6N 2298 ADOPTING SeIPULATION FOR S~i'i'LEF~gT. Passed 5-0. 2. City Attorney Contract MOYLES/HLAVA MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION ,2299 APPROVING CITY ATTORNEY ~ONTRAC2. Passed ~5-0. 3-1/7/86 Mayor 'Clevenger' than. ~Dok.. up 'an item which had been sutm~tted to the Council late. 3. Award of Ccntract for Conversion of Fireside Lounge Area of Cum~nity Center to Senior Center Office Space (added to agende) HIAVA/FANFLT.I MDVED TO A~IARD THE CONTRACT TO IVAN A. MTT,T.IC~{ IN ~ ~MOU~VE OF $12,350 AND APPROVE EXECLTION OF AGRk~NT. Passed 5-0. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Deliberations on Saratoga' s Preferred Alternative for Route 85 (including interchanges, elevations, configuration and transit options) The public hearing was opened at 8:03 p.m. Bill Delaney, 14633 Quito Road, stated that the location of interchanges should be the second priority in decision-making because it would require Saratoga funding. He felt there ware errors in the traffic projection data which resulted in the understating of traffic volumes. Reads would have to be widened, he said, and it was not known at what and whose cost. He opposed the freeway and felt it should not be built, but if it had to be built there should be no interchanges in Saratoga; if the funds were not available, he opposed any approval of the freeway. Councilmember Moyles requested C~Y~unity bevelo[~nant Director to determine whether numbers in'fthe traffic figures had been transposed. He believed there was a disclaimer in the San Jose model which indicated that they did not purport to be precise traffic counts. Councilmember Callon requested the staff provide a sLm~k~ry .Of effects on traffic under various alternatives. Betty Rowe Maas, 20360 Saratoga-los Gatos Rd., spoke in favor of a 6-lane freeway with high-occupancy vehicle lanes. William Neubauer, 19703 Vineyard Lane, submitted a petition on behalf of 1,000 concerned citizens opposing interchanges in Saratoga. He said their concern regarded traffic congestion, ramp monitoring, hazards to childran, truck traffic on residential streets, and the financial burden of Widening Saratoga streets. Jack Markle, 12589 Wardell Ct., spoke as a long-time resident favoring the freeway. He felt Route 85 was a necessity, and that Saratoga needed to lock beyond its own borders. He favored an 8-lane, on-grade freeway with three intersections in Saratoga. He believed Saratogans would benefit because the freeway would take traffic off streets. He favored two HOV lanes and stated that the freeway would not increase crime or traffic by trucks or other vehicles. Ray Frcess, 20225 Ljepava Dr., stated that the freeway would increase pollution and noise and would induce growth. He felt we should develop balanced growth, and that the no-build alternative would be best until further planning had been accomplished. Shelley Williams, 11951 Brock Ridge Dr., spoke as Chairman of Saratx)gans for Route 85. He favored an 8-lane freeway with sound walls. He felt that Saratogans contribute to the problems of traffic and ought to help solve them. He believed that interchanges at Quito and Saratoga Avanue were necessary, and that one at Prospect would be helpful. His group did not support a depressed readbed because they felt the funds which would be used for that could be better used for other purposes to improve traffic. Light rail, he said, is not feasible. Walter Loewenstern, 21359 Tollgate, spoke as co-founder of the Rolm Corporation. He felt they had helped create the problem and wanted to help solve it. In spite of efforts to ancourage carpooling and other means of reducing congestion, he believed that Route 85 was still. necessary. Bob Flora, 19560 Ardmore Ct., spoke in favor of an 8-lane freeway to help cu~u~ters. Charles Robbins spoke as President of the Good Government Group. He reported the results of their member survey, saying that a depressed freeway was favozed 2-1. As to interchanges, the first choice was .Rainbow; second choice; Saratoga Avenue; third choice, Quito/Pollard; fourth choice, none in Saratoga; fifth choice, Prospect. : TOm Reddick, 12389 Larchmont Avenue, stated that Norm Mineta would not be using the freeway in Saratoga and w6uld not be representing the people of Saratsga. He felt that, as to the Rolm Corporation, only their executives lived in Saratoga, end they did not need a freeway. He agreed with Mr. Delaney. He felt that Saratogans for Sound Government end ~e Good Government Group wore influential people who wished to control Saratogans according to their own wishes and not according to the wishes of Saratogans.! He felt the Chamber of Conmeree's position would not be useful ~D Saratoga busine'sses. He then stated that the City had blacktopped Titus Avenue to Miller at .14¢ a square foot and slurried it to larchmont at 4¢ a square foot. He felt this was unequal street coverage. He wished the freeway issue to be pot to a vote. He then asked whether the Good Government Group had backed any menbers of the CoUncil politically. Sheldon Jacobs, 19800 Via Escuela, spoke as a long-time resident who felt an= 8-lane freeway was ne_~ded to reduce ccmTute time. He favored depressing it and believed that one interchange, at Saratoga Avenue, would be sufficient. Joan Hershokowitz sut~nitted a copy of a Notice of Intent to Circulate Petition which had been publiCled in the Saratoga News on December 25, 1985. She felt the freeway issue should be placed on the ballot. In answer to Councilmember Fenelli, she stated t/~t the same petition would be circulated in Los Gatos, but not other cities. Councilmember Fanelli c~mxrented that if the group wished to have a real impact, the'petition ought perhaps to be circulated in more cities on the corridor. Ms. Hershkowitz believed the petition ought to be circulated in Saratoga in Los Gat3Ds because they Qould suffer the most frcm a freeway. In answer to Cotlncilmember Moyles, she' stated that the petition was not yet available. In answer to Coancilmember~ Callon, City Manager stated that nothing had yet been filed with the City. Ms. Hershkewitz stated they had been told that the Notice Of Intent needed to be! published 21 days before circulation was begun; she said she would provide Mr. Moyles with a copy of the petition before that. She added that Saratoga and Los Gatos were the most appropriate cities to vote on it l~cause there had, been more public discussion in those cities. Bob Ginn, 20354 Glen Brae, favored an 8-lane freeway with two HOV lanes and the potential for light rail. He felt~ the. no-build alternative was unsatisfac~Dr and would result in a poorer quality of life over the long te~m. He felt there was not yet good data for reduction of~ traffic on City streets because of the freeway, but he balieyed the reduction'would be significant. Rather than focusing on secondary issues, ke encouraged the!Council to concentrate on deciding to build the freeway. He felt there would be ~ later to decide on issues such as interchanges, but ke did believe that Saratoga did not need three interchanges. Peter M. Jcechim, 142[:70kanogan Dr., spoke as a long-time resident of Saratoga. He favored an 8-1ene freeway. He felt'neighboring cities would soon approve the freeway, end SaratDga would be ill+advise~d to allow no freeway,. because traffic frcm those cities would be "d~,ed" in Saratoga, creating intolerable traffic congestion in Sara_~Oga. Howard Morse, 20878 Barrymore Ct., spoke as a long-time resident favoring an 8-lane freeway with t~ [DV lanes. He stated that his company' s ability to attract good personnel was hindered by lthe long cc~m~ute, so the fl~eway was necessary. He favored. depressing , if !possible, but if it were not possible he did not wish that issue to beccme a .stumbling block. Fred Dotzler, 19686 Via Grande, spoke against the freeway, saying it would not . decrease oa~l~ute time. He felt Saratoga should remain the way it is and stated that Cambridge, Massachusetts, had stopped a highway, and Saratoga should do the same. Bill Drake, 13610 Saratoga Vista, spok~ as a long-t/me resident favoring an 8-lane freeway. He felt it necessary becuse secondary roads wore congested. Saratoga is in the middle of a transportation corridor now, he said, but it is "hooked up wrong." He expressed the feeling that the traffic models might not be accurate. 'Roy McC1osky, 12563 Ca. mbridge Dr., stated that Saratoga did not owe more to the surrounding ccmxmlnities than they owe us. He felt the freeway would cause an increase in crime and traffic. and believed that the argunents in favor of the freeway were myths. He favored a referend~n on the question of a freeway. 5-1/7/86 Stanley L. Karp, 20136 Glen Brae Dr., spoke as a long-time resident in favor of an 8-lane freeway. He feared that traffic would worsen if the freeway were not builtL He believed hav, ing the freeway would be safer and would lessen pollution because cars moving faster create less pollution. He felt the freeway would also enhance peace of residential areas by removing traffic from residential streets. He favored provisions for .light rail and cornmater lanes end, perhaps, one interchange in Saratoga. He also opposed focusing so much on sound walls and depression that a large amount of money ended up being spent on those issues rather than on other means of handling traffic problems in the future. Marion Sellers, 12493 Woodside Dr., spoke as a long-time resident in favor of a 6-lane freeway with two }DV lanes. He believed the problems of a freeway could be solved or mitigated, and that environmentally a freeway was a useful alternative. He urged a decision for the freeway soon, as he feared oosts would rise if it wore delayed. Howard Burnett, 12481 Jolene Ct., spoke as a resident in favor of an 8-lane freeway, probably with HOV lanes. He felt it to be necessary for the growth of the econc~my and culture of the Valley. He was unable to ju~qe between a depressed or surface level freeway but favored at least one interchange so that residents would not be isolated. No residents who had not yet spoken indicated a desire to speak, so Mayor Clevenger invited non-residents of Saratoga to speak. David Gaines representing the Committee for Rational Transportation spoke next. He stated that the. intersection of Highway 9 and Santa Cruz Avenue is at capacity, and it could not handle cc~mute traffic. He noted that the groups circulating petitions in Saratoga was different frcm the group doing so in Los Gatos. He believed that the Town of Los Gatos would place the ordinance on the ballot without the need for signatures. He encouraged the Saratoga City Council to do the same. He c~Y~lented that they were not responsible for circulating petitions in other cities because they did not live there. He also said that freeways could move. only a relatively shall number of people per hour. In response to Councilmember Callon, he said that he felt no freeway would be built if Los Gates or Saratoga refused to have it built- inlthe Route 85~corridor. He favored light rail transit. Charles Ne~nan then spoke representing the Route 85 Task Force, noting that 11 of their members lived in Saratoga. They favored an 8-lane freeway. Overall, he said, 79% favored a freeway alternative. Job~ Mallory, 12258 Kirkdale, spoke against the freeway, stating that he felt a number of people had attended the meeting because they had been urged to do so by various groups. He opposed an 8-1ene freeway. The Good Government Group survey meant, in his opinion, that Saratogans wished scme improved transportation, possibly a four-lane freeway which was depressed with landscaping and no interchanges in Saratoga. He endorsed that viewpoint. Jeannie Daney, 19567 Dorchester, favored no freeway. She felt it would simply aid non-Saratogans to cc~mute more easily. The real problem, she believed, is that the Valley has not dealt with a proper mix of business and residential areas. She felt the highways wore badly planned and, with proper planning, would not be needed in the future. No one further appearing to speak, the public hearing was closed at 9:30 p.m. Mayor Clevenger then recessed the meeting frc~n 9: 30 to 9: 52 p.m. Cc~munity DeveloF~P_nt Dire~ter'explained apparent discrepancies in scme of the projected traffic counts. He said that the CalTrans model was more concerned with the impact on the corridor as opposed to local streets; the San Jose model is more reliable concerning impact on streets. The numbers- were generated frc~n percentages, he said, rather than the other way around. His main concern was that the data showed a decrease, with interchanges, on Quito RDad between Route 85 and the lawrence Expressway; he felt there would be an increase. He also noted that the CalTrans model is a.m. and the San Jose Model is p.m. Mayor Clevenger noted that the data showed that on Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road between Prospect end Herriman a 6-lane freeway with all the interchanges would decrease traffic about 10%; with no interchanges, she said, the decrease was 8%. 6-1/7/86 Councilmember Callon noted that the data showed less traffic in certain areas in the year 2000 th~n exists now. Cc~munlty Development Director explained that the San JoSe m~el asstnned that ~11 Measure A improvements had been made, as well as other improvenents, and that carpooling was more prevalent. Councilmenher ~Dyles felt it might not be responsible to make a decision base] On the available data because- it was most reliable near the proposed intarc~mges, and there would be ir~Dact throughout ~he cc~munity. CtllllLO~qity Development Director stated he would check with San Jose to see whether the concerns about their modeling, particularJoy with respect to Quito Read and certain other areas, were unfounded. He agreed to report to th.e Council on the subject. Mayor Clevenger pointed out another ~estionable section which showed that on Pierce Road be~en Congress Springs and Mt. Eden a 6-1an~ freeway would decrease traffic 78%. Councilmembers then discussed document showing potential Reute 85 decision is.~mes in order of priority. There was consensus to add a reference to permanence of landscaping and sound walls (maybe 'a visual aid) and the qeustion of trucks or no trucks. Under Phasing of work, !there was consensus to add that the work should not begin until full funding was secured and right of way purchased; in the same-section, there !~ras censensus to add the need for a contingency plan which would clarify w~ich improvements were most important in case there ,was not sufficient funding to make all improvements. Councilmember MDyles requested a quick report on the reliability of the San Jose Model in time for the Los Gatos meeting; the report would indicate whether the model could be used and how it cu~ared with the CalTrans model. Councilmember Callon requested frc~ staff or TJKM a list of the assumptions en which the numbers are based. Mayor Clevenger noted that the narro~st median suggested has been 22 feet; she felt 10 feet might be adequate as 'a practical matter. In response to Counciflmember Callon, Cu~lEnity Develolm~_nt Director stated that we do not have current counts on existling traffic, but we have old ones. She requested those counts. City Manager stated that staff would prepare a new map showing the existing data. Mayor Clevenger than ]proceeded to the hext item on the agenda. B. Request to Amend General Plan fren Multi-Family Residenf/al to Retail Cc~mercial,,20661 5th and 14644.0ak (D. Morrison) (GPA 85-1-B) Counci~ Fanelli announced that she would abstain frcm any discussion or action on this item because Mr. Morrison was her landlord. '- In answer to Councilmem~oer Callon, Cit~ Attorney stated that it could be argu6~ that the request for (bneral Plan ~nendment was not a develoFm~nt project; if the matter were pressed he would probably consider the Council' s action legislative 'rather than adjudicatory. He stated lthat if Council denied the request without prejudice, granting the fee waiver, the~'applicant could re-apply without paying the fees again. Th~ publiC_:~ea~ing was'opened ~t'10:45 :p.m. .'Mr. MDrrison made his presentation.. No'one further appearing-to speak, it was closed at 10:49 p.m. HLAVA/CLEVENG~R MOVED TO DENY REQUEST WI'I~OUT PREJUDICE AND WITH A bEE ~qAIVER. Passed 4-0-1 (Fanelli abstaining). Councilmember Callon stated that issues having to de with the Village Plan and the Council 's desire to increase foot traffic in the Village would more properly be considered at a later level in the process. C. Review of Annual Lir~Lt On Numbe~ of Use Permits for New SeCond Units The public hearing was opened at 10:59 p.m. No one appearing to speak, it was closed at 11:00 p.m. HLAVA/FANRT.T,i MOVED TO ~ THE CURRENT, LIMIT ON NEW SECOND UNITS, REQUEST ST, P~F FOR AN ~NNUAL REPORT ON THE NUMBER OF NEW SECOND. UNIT USE PERMIT APPLICATIONS, ,~ND DELETE THE REQUIREM~qT FOR AN ANNUAL PUBLIC HEAR]]qG. Passed 5-0. Mayor Clevenger then returned to Mr. Haydon's Appeal. 1. Reconsideration of Haydon Appeal ~ (originally heard 12/4) Mayor Clevenger supported granting a v~iance'for the 8-foot wall because Mz~ Faydon's 7-1/7/86 prcperty is higher than the surrounding area, and the sound ccmes to him unob- structed. City Manager stated that the grade differential was probably due simply to the grading that was done to provide drainage frcm the building pad. Councilmember Callon felt Mr. Haydon should build only a 6-foot wall. If the nearby" property is developed, she said, that my solve the noise problem. Councilmember Hlava agreed. Councilmember Fanelli alsO agreed, noting that it was difficult to make the findings required for a v~riance without then making those findings for others asking for a variance. HLAVA/MDYLES MDVED ~0 DENY APPEAL. Passed 4-1 (Clevenger Opposed). VY o FEW]BUSINESS A. Discussion of Oral Cut~lnications City Attorney explained the sequence of events with respect to clean-up of the hazardous materials on the Tripp property, noting that the County is responsible. B. Written Cc~m~nications frcm the Public Mayor Clevenger noted that all written cc~munications concerned Route 85. C. New Business frc~ Staff, Administrative Reports not Scheduled City Manager reported on progress in obtaining proposals for Village Plan consultant. D..New Business frc~ Council Ca-lion - inquired as to Paul Masson prcgress; Culmunity Develotm~nt Director reported ~hat PLanning Cu~l,~ssion would discuss that TUesday. Callon rueqsted any staff reports which Cu'm~ssion receives. Director also stated that staff was reviewing yield sign Callon had brought up previously, end he explained-removal of pine trees on Cox in connection with recent property development. Fenelli - inquired as to tree on Saratoga Glen median; ~&L~iLOniDy Develo~nent Director stated he was working with residents onthat matter. She then inquired as to Brozda parking variance request to be considered by Planning C~mmission and requested that C~ssion be told of need for parking requirements to be met in sc~e way. She then requiested mere information on action referral log items; City Manager reported that Michaels Dr. house had been demolished. Moyles - inquired as to Los Gatos .joint meeting; City Manager reported that Los Gatos had invited Council to their Council Chambers at 7:30 p.m. on January 14; it was not set up as a dinner meeting, but City Manager Will consult with Los Gatos to attempt to provide dinner. - reported that Traffic Authority found Measure A revenues to be 20% less than'expected so far. Hlava - reported that she had received call frc~ a citizen who lived near corner of Miller end Prospect who was concerned that intersection was dangerous; she requested a staff member talk to the citizen. Clevenger - reported that City would receive stone lantern as a gift frcm Japanese Sister City. She also reported that she had received a letter frcm PG&E akout funds available for u~dergrounding utilities. She wished to include it in the City budget. Hlava - reported on Transportation Ccmmission discussion of bicycle path funds. Clevenger - reported on League of California Cities dues increase. She also reported that Marilyn White said her neighborhood was upset about the 5-legged intersection on Canyon View. Staff directed to inform Mrs. White what is being done. Council and staff discussed schedulibg for retreat March 8-9. VII. ADJOURNMENT At 12:04 a.m. the meeting was adjourned to 7:30 p.m. on January 14 in the Los Gatos Town Council Chambers. Respectfully s3hnitted, Co Deputy Ci~ er