Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-03-1986 City Council Minutes MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL TIME: December 3, 1986 PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga CA TYPE: Regular Meeting 1. ROLL CALL: Mayor Hiava, Councilmembers Clevenger, Anderson, Moyles, Peterson present at 7:05 P.M. 2. CEREMONIAL ITEMS: None. 3. ROUTINE MATTERS: A. M~nutes of City Council Meetings of November 12, and November 19, 1986, approved as submitted. B. Approval of Warrant List as submitted. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: A. Resolution 36-B-220, Final Acceptance, Tr. 6732, G. Butler, Montalvo Hts. B. First Quarter (September 30, 1986) Financial Results C. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes, November 19, 1986, - Noted and filed. D. Resolution 2390 denying Pool Appeal heard November 19, 1986. MOYLES/PETERSON MOVED TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR. Passed 5-0. 5. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS AND THE PUBLIC: A. Oral Commissions from the Public and Commissions - None. B. Written Communications from the Public 1) From officials at three schools with requests concerning Route 85. Mayor Hiava called attention to a letter received from officials at St. Andrew's, Redwood Jr. High and Sacred Heart School and acknowledged the letter received from Campbell Union High School District. 6. OLD BUSINESS A. Disposition of City Property at Cox Avenu~ and Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. The City Manager noted the Report to the Mayor and City Council of November 21, 1986. The City Attomey added that this Item is on the agenda for the Planning Commission Meeting of December 10, 1986, and will report to the City Council by the December 17, 1986, Meeting of the City Council. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 2 DECEMBER 3, 1986 OLD BUSINESS Continued In response to Councilmember Peterson's question, the City Manager stated that the Council could entertain any proposal consistent with zoning of the property; however, as a matter of policy, the Council had already decided that the property is to be developed either residential use or mixed, reesktential/commereial use. In preparation for the acceptance of bids or proposals, the legal process has been initiated; he reviewed the actions required for disposal of the property as noted in the written report. PETERSON/ANDERSON MOVED TO DIRECT THE PLANNINGCOMMISSION TO REPORT TO TH2E CITY COUNCIL BY JANUARY 21, 1987, ON CONSISTENCY OF INTENTION OF CITY COUNCIL TO DECLARE AS SURPLUS THE CITY OWNED PROPERTY AT COX AVENUE AND SARATOGA-SUNNYVALE RD. WITH THE ADOPTED PLAN OF THE CITY. Passed 5-0. 7. NEW BUSINESS A. 1987 Policy Development Calendar Mayor H~ava requested a change of the February 10, 1987, activities to February 9, 1987, and a change of the Februaxy 17, 1987, activity to February 12, 1987. The City Manager noted the arrangements being made for the Policy Development Session and called attention to the Memorandum presented to the Council for consideration. PETERSON/CLEVENGER MOVED TO ADOPT THE 1987 POLICY DEVELOPMENT CALENDAR AS fidVtENDED AND TO DIRECT THE CITY MANAGER TO MAKE ALL NECESSARY ARRANGEMENTS. Passed 5-0. B. Final Map Approval, Tr. 7888, B. Morrow, Bohlman Rd. (includes Hakone Gardens). The City Engineer stated that due to the fact that this tract of land includes the Hakone Gardens _. property, the City must be a party to the execution of Final Map Approval and any agreements required; he reviewed the four Motions required to complete action on this project. In response to Councilmember Peterson's question, Mr. Shook stated that the Mutual Heights Water Association is a private water company serving the Bohlman Rd./On Orbit Drive area. The property in question is not within this district; however, it is the intention of the developer to annex to the district and utilize their facilities. He noted that domestic water would not be provided to Hakone Gardens by either Mutual Heights Water Association nor the developer in the event that he builds a 110,000 gallon water tank; however, a hydrant and rue flow would be provided. In response to Councilmember Moyles' questions, Mr. Shook confirmed that an irreversible easement was not being granted to the Mutual Heights Water Association nor to Mr. Morrow. The City Attorney clarified the contingent nature of the grant and stated that at the time the easement document is recorded, a separate document will be recorded, cancelling grant easement In the event of annexation to the water dislrict. Councilmember Moyles stated that the City should have access to domestic water flow; Mr. Shook stated that if such were the case, the City would be party to maintenance of the water tank, just as other users are. Councilmember Moyles suggested that since the City owned the desired site for the water tank, an exchange of free access in return for domestic water without a maintenance commitment be made. Mayor Hlava noted agreements already reached with the developer and questioned the addition of new conditions. The City Attomey responded to concerns of Mayor Hlava and Councilmember Cl~i, enger regarding geological safety and possible site liability to the City. Councilmember Moyles requested a Condition be added, allowing the City access for domestic use of water, Councilmember Clevenger concurred with this suggestion. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 3 DECEMBER 3, 1986 NEW BUSINESS Continued Mr. Bill Heiss, Engineer for the project, stated that the developer did not object to City access of domestic water flow but asked that the City be a participant in the shared agreement. Mr. Heiss noted that them would not be an equitable way for the City to use the water for domestic use and not share in the maintenance. He reviewed negotiations and stated that the request under consideration was above and beyond the original agreement; the other three parties involved may also request that the City participate in the maintenance. In response to Councilmember Moyles' question, he stated that City domestic use would probably exceed all other use due to irrigation of the gardens. Councilmember Moyles suggested that this Item be continued to allow further investigation of the original discussions; if the issue at hand was never addressed, he suggested that it be addressed late rather than not at all. City Attorney Toppel reviewed the Tentative Map Approval and noted that he did not immediately note specific reference to provision of water through a private system based upon a tank installed on City property; he stated that the issue of how water was to be provided was a matter to be worked out between Tentative and Final Map Approval. He stated that unless there was another contract or agreement on the part of the City, if the developer is asking for City property to be used, the Council could ask, quid pro quo, for use of the site, that the City be able to access that system. Mr. Heiss pointed out a notation on the Tentative Map, showing two water tanks located on the Hakone property. Councilmember Moyles suggested that a motion approving this action be made, subject to the drafting of an amendment reflecting the above condition; with the approval of all parties concerned, Final Map Approval would be enacted. Mayor Hlava favored continuance of this Item for further review by the parties concerned. Mr. Heiss requested that Councilmember Moyles suggestion be adopted in the interest of time; City Attorney Toppel confumed that a conditional final approval could be granted, conditioned upon an agreement reached by all parties, to facilitate execution of the Final Map. MOYLES/CLEVENGER MOVED ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION 1619-02 SUBJECT TO AN AMENDMENT STATING THAT THE CITY BE ALLOWED TO ACCESS THE TANK FOR DOMESTIC WATER SUPPLY FOR HAKONE GARDENS AND NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE MAINTENANCE COSTS OF THE TANK IN CONSIDERATION FOR GRANTING AN EASEMENT FOR CONTINUED USE OF THE PROPERTY. THE CITY WILL MAINTAIN THE SERVICE LINE FROM THE HYDRANT TO HAKONE GARDEN. Passed 5-0. MOYLES/CLEVENGER MOVED TO AUTHORITY. THE EXECUTION OF AN IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT. Passed 5-0. MOYLES/CLEVENGER MOVED TO AUTHORIZE EXECUTION OF WATER FACILITY AND GRANT OF EASEMENT AGREEMENT AS AMENDED BY THE CONDITION. Passed 5_-0. MOYLES/CLEVENGER MOVED TO AUTHORIZE. THE EXECUTION OF AN INSURANCE LIABILITY AGREEMENT. Passed 5-0. City Engineer Shook stated that the short access service line within Hakone Gardens will be used; City Auomey Toppel will place this in any agreement drawn up. 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Discussion of Santa Clara County Traffic Authority Draft Strategic Plan which was formulated to address means of achieving the improvement of Routes 85, 101, and 237 in spite of possible shortfall of funds generated by County Measure A. The City Manager stated that he and the City Engineer both reviewed the Strategic Plan; the Report of November 26, 1986, addresses issues that impact the City of Saratoga, or the Traffic Authority Draft Strategic Plan in general. He noted written communications received. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 4 DECEMBER 3, 1986 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued In response to Councilmember Anderson's question, the City Manager stated that substantive discussion with CalTrans regarding use of streets in Saratoga has not been initiated. Councilmember Anderson noted concern regarding safety of school children. The City Manager replied that he believed the City had control of its streets in terms of designating haul routes for construction projects. !'- The PubLic Hearing was opened at 7:55 P.M. Mr. Fred Waite, Encina Ct., Saratoga, presented results of the Good Government Survey of its members on Route 85, November 1985, which asked which of the foLiowing interchanges were necessary. haterchanges deemed necessaxy were: 33% Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd. 23% Saratoga Ave. 17% Quito-F'ollard 14% No interchanges in Saratoga 13% Prospect Rd. He concurred with former Councilmember FanneLli's statement that "there is no logic in the position that this corridor should be built through the City while denying our citizens access to it." Mr. Waite believes that Saratoga Ave. is the logical location for an interchange in the City. Ms. Carol Machol, Ronnie Way, Saratoga, urged the Council to maintain depression of the freeway with no interchanges in the City; she reminded the Council of its promise to the voters of the City. Petitions showing citizen disapproval of an interchange on Saratoga Ave. were cited and a rationM was presented for not allowing the interchange; traffic paRems and statistics from the California League of Cities were presented. She urged the Council to inform the public of any changes in funding of local street improvements necessary for an interchange. Ms. Margaret Russell, Saratoga Glen Ct., Saratoga, stated her concern regarding possible insufficient funds to compete Route 85; she cited an example in San Jose which suggested that CalTrans had not made complete disclosure to residents adjacent to a freeway. Mr. Gerd Ferraiuolo, Principal, Blue Hills School, asked that uninterrupted access be maintained during: construction of Route 85 to enable students to continue to walk and bkke to class. He supported the proposed pedestrian overcross at this location. Ms. Carol Joyal, Site Council Chairperson, Blue Hills School, concurred with the above and expressed concern regarding safety and noise impacts on students. Mr. Fred Aldrich, Vineyards of Saratoga, presented a letter to the City Council, written by Elizabeth E. Replogle, President, reiterating their position on Route 85. Mr. Jack Christimp, Vice President Route 85 Task Force, reminded two Councilmembers of promises during the election regarding Route 85; one of whom was opposed to Route 85. He noted concern that people have made compromises with the Policy Advisory Board, which have not been endorsed by the Council. It is imperative that the Council sign a freeway agreement as soon as possible. Ms. Joan HershkoWitz, Chairperson, Protect Our Environment, stated that the Snrategic Plan is unacceptable; the possibility of grading the road, then running out of money, leaving the City with a trench is totally unacceptable. She stated that citizens do not want a trench dug through the City and noted potential health and safety hazard; the e_xistence of an unfinished trench may ,: ... be a tatfie to force residents into an additional Measure A sales taxes. Mr. Fred Ryalls, Wildcat Creek Homeowners Association, presented a written statement to the Council expressing concerns about the Draft Strategic Plan. Ms. Elsie Ward, l~esident of the PTA, Redwood Jr. High, presented a written petition containing 64 signatures stating concems of the signers for school children in the area. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 5 DECEMBER 3, 1986 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Ms. Joan Graham, Goleta Ave., Saratoga, suggested that if time and energy were spent putting transportation where people needed it, when they needed it, taking them to places needed, this discussion would not be taking place. Mr. Richard Tyrrell, past Chairman of the Transportation Committee, Penninsula Industrial Business Association, stated that to his knowledge, the Association, from its rounding in 1923 had never endorsed a ballot initiative increasing taxes until endorsement of Measure A. The endorsement was given because the Association felt that sufficient funding through Measure A to complete 237, 101 and 85 would be available. Proceeding on a major project without firm commitments is foolish. Priorities dictate that fn'm commitments be obtained, if only from the County of Santa Clara; Highways 237 and 101 will be finished before Route 85 is even begun. He urged Saratoga to un~with surrounding cities, potentially, Saratoga will have to work in unison with all the other cities to extend Measure A taxes. Mr. Tyrrell believed that this would happen. In response to Councilmembers Clevenger and Anderson's questions, Mr. Tyrrell confirmed that he felt the money would run out before Route 85 is completed. He stated that a strong commitment from Santa Clara County is necessary before any construction is initiated; potentially all the short fall will fall on Route 85. PETERSON/HLAVA MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:29 P.M. Passed 5-0. Mayor Hiava stated that the action of the Council was to comment to the Traffic Authority on the Measure A Strategic Plan. 1. Blue Hills School Pedes~an Overcrossing: Mayor Hiava had raised this issue when Mr. Kempton of the County Traffic Authority was present. Since this item was discussed in the Report, she asked whether further comment was necessary, other than to note the idea brought up by school groups of construction mitigation and uninterrupted access. Councilmember Moyles commented on the letter of November 21, 1986, from educators stating that traffic studies submitted to CalTrans indicated a substantial increase in traffic on Saratoga Ave. will be felt because of the interchange. The Council anticipating this comment requested additional modeling be done on the impact of no interchange verses an interchange. His recollection was that the Council was waiting for a response from the City of San Jos6. He stated that the concern of these people is the concern of the Council; the Council needs additional data. He noted that the TJKM study stated there would be substantial increases while other studies have said there would be decreases in traffic on Saratoga Ave., Fruitvale Ave., Allendale Ave. The Council needs to know which is the right data. In response to Councilmember Moyles' request for an update, the City Engineer stated that Saratoga made a request for San Jose to assist the City by making runs of various combinations of interchanges and the lack thereof. It was to be available last October; however, the Traffic Authority prevailed upon them to assist in the preparation of the Strategic Plan. Thus, the request of Saratoga was delayed considerably; he did not know when the City could expect results of the modeling requested. He will pursue this with the City of San Jose and report back to the Council at the next Council Meeting. Councilmember Moyles asked that this information be supplied to the writers of the November 21, 1986, letter, Mayor Hlava added the letter from individuals of the Campbell High School District. Councilmember Anderson commented that there were several traffic studies done which assumed three interchanges; one of the studies was published in spring of 1986, another included the Coyote development. She thought that since it showed increased traffic on Saratoga Ave. with three interchanges, it would be safe to assume that traffic would be at least as great, if not greater, if two interchanges were eliminated. She has not seen anything indicafmg there would be less traffic on Saratoga Ave. as a result of an interchange. She called attention to a Map on 6-10; Saratoga Ave. is shown as having increased traffic. All three interchanges were shown on the Map, which was the most up to date traffic study on the San Jose Model. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 6 DECEMBER 3, 1986 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Councilmember Moyles questioned the interpretation presented above and stated for the record that he disagreed. He commented that the Map showed Saratoga Ave. traffic decreases at certain locations, increasing as one approached the interchange. Fruitvale Ave. showed a decrease for its entire length which, should be of interest to those who speculated that Fruitvale Ave. would have to be widened; Allendale Ave. also showed a decrease in traffic for its entire length. Councilmember Anderson noted that the Map assumed an interchange at Quito. Councilmember Moyles suggested them was room for healthy scepticism; the numbers needed refmement and further extrapolation than the Map allowed. It is necessary to know not only Saratoga Ave., but perhaps Heniman Ave. because then the Council can ask how the children get to the school. If the data includes community information, the Council can be more informed in determining the impact He did not want the impression to be made that there was any certainty abont the effects of an interchange; he requested additional study. Mayor Hlava askext that mitigation during construction permit uninterrupted access. The Strategic Plan doesn't seem to indicate that uninterrupted access has been planned; it may, however, be already included in the cost figures. If uninterrupted access has not been figured in the cost, she asked that it be included and stated that the City expects the Traffic Authority to provide uninterrupted access. Councilmember Clevenger noted that consauction is expected to last for three or four years. Councilmember Peterson concurred that these concerns should be included in any reply to the Traffic Authority; overcrossings should be the first construction built. Councilmember Anderson suggested that this be expanded to other schools that may be impacted; Mayor Hlava ciarified her comments, stating that she was referring to all schools impacted. Councilmember Anderson added that impact on schools would be considerably lessened if the colasauction period were shorter. This is one of the objections of the Councilmember to the plan being considered, namely, that consauction extends over such a long period of time. Schools would be less impacted if the project were begun and finished in Saratoga at one tinae. 2. Timing Cx~mnletion of Segments: Mayor Hlava, noting the size and scope of the project, felt that it is a relatively compact time frame. Her concern is that construction may not be completed in that short of time. 3. Adeo_uacy of Funding: Councilmember Anderson noted the distinct possibility that the project could be 90 million dollars short of funds. It has already been suggested by a member of the public that perhaps the money would be spent in the north fast and Saratoga would be at the end. She noted concern at the prospect of an open trench in Saratoga which the Traffic Authority may not have the funds to fill, thus, posing a health hazard. She asked for assurance that the: project be finished once graded. A worst case scenario should be requested. Councilmember Peterson stated for the record that he would not vote for the proposed freeway unless the funds were present. He could not imagine the City signing a freeway agreement with the possibility that it would be only two-thirds finished, even if that means CalTrans has to ask the state to obtain matching funds. He did not agree that the only ultemative is to go back to the voters of the County; the voters have already spoken asI cr~of the few Counties in the state's history to build state freeways to relieve traffic problems. He stated that this discussion was academic; the County is not going to build a trench and leave it there. Councilmember Clevenger concurred and stated that the voters cannot be counted on to come up with the money to finish the freeway. Before there is a contract to build through Saratoga, the City needs to know that the funds are there. The City does not want to initiate consauction of the freeway uniess it can be finished; this addressed the basic concern the Councilmember had after reading the Strategic Plan; namely, that she is very concerned that the Traffic Authority will run 9ut of money. The Traffic Authority only projected 488 million dollars for 1985; it seems that there were much higher figures quoted in the past. Councilmember Clevenger is not sure that the mitigations asked for were there; she was concerned that the adequacy of funding be addressed and the fact that there already exists a 90 million dollar shortage. If the state doesn't have the money for this project, and other counties are also asking for fund'rot; of projects, then there is no guarantee that this County will receive additional funding;. She suggested proceeding with the knowledge that the project may run out of money and plmaning accordingly. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 7 DECEMBER 3, 1986 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued CounciLmember Anderson pointed out the construction schedule for Route 85 on page 7-15. Project development will be started in 1987 and completed in 1990; actual construction starting in 1990 with a completion date in 1993. If the 90 million dollars fails around 199041, the project could be in the development stage. She understood Mr. Kempton to indicate at the Transportation Commission Meeting that the freeway would all be constructed at one trine, i.e., the grading would be done through the entire corridor. The City Manager stated that may be accurate but he would not characterize it as the project development phase. A review of the plans show that the freeway is going to be built from Guadeloupe to Stevens Creek Blvd. at one time, taking three and a half years. Councilmember Anderson stated that she prefers no grading be done until it's certain that the fleeway can be finished and asked that the freeway be 'finished in as timely a fashion as possible. She viewed this project with the distinct possibility that they will have to go back to the ballot box. Incomplete projects throughout the county will cause equal dissatisfaction and a vote for an extension of the tax will be required. She stated that this may be a trick on the part of the people who conceived the idea of a minimum plan to obtain a vote that otherwise would not be called for. The City Manager pointed out that there are five project segments scheduled to take place after Route 85 is finished; he reviewed the projects to be completed after 1993. Councilmember Peterson stated that this related back to the letter which stated that 237 and 101 were being short changed in favor of Route 85. In response to Councilmember Clevenger's question, the City Manager stated suggestions that Route 85 was to be completed last was not what the plan stated. Mayor Hlava reiterated that the concern of the Council, namely, that there be an ability to complete the entire fleeway, had not changed; this is the point the Council wished to make. This concern has been made before and will be made again. In addition, she concurred with the City Manager's suggestion that the Traffic Authority be asked for a Worst case scenario. If the 90 million dollars in facilities have to be cut from the "initial plan," these facilities should be identified for the information of the Council. This request will be included in communications with the Traffic Authority. Councilmember Moyles concurred and noted that it should be an easy request for the Traffic Authority to satisfy. The Authority has already considered the 5% inflationary factor "no growth" forecast. The numbers am there; the priority philosophies are in place and have been applied to the Strategic Plan; it should be a simple task to generate a "no growth" scenario using numbers already in place and the philosophy of priorities. If the same assumptions are made with the exception of growth in revenue, what happens to these projects? What gets deleted? He seconded comments that the Council must have a commitment of completion of this project and pointed out that that is exac~y what is being done. The Strategic Plan is intended to provide a commitment by the Authority to everyone who signs the fleeway agreement; what will be done is what the Strategic Plan calls for. He disagreed with comments made suggesting that a trick was involved; he has seen nor heard nothing that warrants this accusation. This is a good faith effort by every city participating to come up with the way to do what was promised to the voters and to complete the project on time and within budget. Mayor Hlava stated that if there was consensus on Item 3, discussion on Item 4 would begin. 4.. Limitation on Tracks: Mayor Hlava noted the comment made in letters received from schools regarding this Item. She stated that despite numerous discussions of this Item at County meetings, she received the response that this Item is not a problem. She fn'rnly believes that the Council as a body, resolve this issue by writing to Ms. Becky Morgan with copies to every Legislator in Santa Clara County, to inform them that a Limitation on Tmcks is being required by the cities. She suggested that Resolutions be passed and forwarded to the Legislature. Councilmember Moyles asked that Staff prepare a letter to this effect for signature by the Mayor. Councilmember Clevenger noted that this Item was a unanimous decision on the part of the Policy Advisory Board; however, this limitation on tracks may be heavily opposed by the tracking industry. Councilmember Moyles stated he would bring this Item to the attention of the Traffic Authority. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 8 DECEMBER 3, 1986 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued 5. Reservin~ lvledian in Route 85 for Transit: Mayor Hlava noted that the City Manager tightly stated that although the City abstained on this Item, the design of the project is moving ahead with the 46 ft. median and the fact that there is very littie reference to transit, even though there is no provision for use of this money for transit. She asked whether the Council wished to comment on re,,~rving the median. Councilmember Clevenger noted that the Council had a number of pertinent comments to make; since the City has not supported this issue before it was unnecessary ~r Saratoga to comment on it at this time. She urged that the Council rexjew the position of the City as it related to the document under discussion; since this issue has not been supported, it was a waste of time to address the issue now. Consensus reached that the Council would not speak to the issue of reserving median in Route 85 for transit. 6. Noise Limitations: Mayor Hlava noted that the City Engineer had written to CalTrans noting concems of the City; no response had yet been received. Councilmember Peterson suggested that the Council reiterate, in the comments made at this Meeting, concems and /equest a reply. The City Engineer stated that as a result of a meeting with a member of the CaiTrans Team which is preparing Environmental Impact Report, mitigation measures are being revise& They have indicated in fact, that the proposed mitigation at some locations will be such that the noise level, 20 ft. from the sound wall, would be at 62 dBA level. This will be noted in the final EIR document which is being prepared now. In response to Councilmember Clevenger's question, the City Manager stated the Strategic Plan suggests that ira 62 dBA is obtainable with the mitigation measur{;s for residential areas that's what will be achieved; however, there is a specific obligation to arrive at a 62 dBA level in the vicinity of schools and parks. This is a. Section 4F requirement of the Environmental Protection Act~ The City Manager and the City Engineer were concerned regarding the initial information sent which failed to indicate where the noise level would be held to 62 dBA. In response to Mayor Hlava's question regarding whether a letter addressed to the Traffic Authority would protect the interests of the City, the City Engineer agreed. In response to Councilmember Peterson's question, Councilmember Moyles stated that a 62 dBA was being sought. Councilmember Anderson favored addressing the issue; she noted comments made at a Traffic Authority Meeting which suggested that less commitment was required to mitigation measures due to the cost of such measures. She stated that it was particularly important for Saratoga to address the issue. Councilmember Peterson noted that the freeway will be being built through a residential area and he favored strong measures on this Item. Mayor Hlava noted agreement. 7. Freeway Imnacts on Local Streets: Mayor Hlava reviewed the issue raised by one of the speakers, namely, whether the level of participation was adequate when the standard is proportionate shar~; of direct cost; she questioned this assumption. Councilmember Peterson noted that the Item becomes academic if there am no interchanges; Mayor Hlava concurred. He stated that there is no impact on local streets relative to the interchanges. Consensus reached that Item 7 and Item 8 be discussed jointly. 8. Saratoga Avenue InterChange; Mayor Hlava suggested that Items 7 and 8 be listed as inconsistent with the position of Saratoga, namely that the Council is not supporting interchanges in Smratoga. Councilmember Anderson stated that since there were no traffic studies from San Jose to depend on, some individuais discussed the proposed interchange at Saratoga Ave. and whether or not the City should accept an interchange. Los Gatos is very concerned about the traffic to and from IBM that will be coming through Los Gatos from Saintogre An informal traffic study was done; a map was presented which showed that the bulk of Saratoga residents are going to Sunnyvale and Santa Clara and probably will not be using the freeway. Hardly anyone goes through Los Gatos to IBM; this was uue in all eight studies. She concluded that the Saratoga .- interchange would not be significantly used by Samtogans going east and will only marginally help individuals going to Paio Alto since they can access the freeway on Saratoga ~sunnyvale rathe than on Saratoga .~venue... '~::. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 9 DECEMBER 3, 1986 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Therefore, Councilmember Anderson continued, residents of Saratoga will not be using this interchange all that much; however, residents will be severely impacted by traffic coming from Coyote and Almaden and exiting on Saratoga Ave. heading north toward Lawrence Expressway, Wolfe Rd. and possibly even Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd. There are a number of residents working in the Lockheed-Mathilda area, all the way over m Moffet Industrial Park; she expressed a concern regarding how these residents will get to work from Saratoga if traffic is coming off Route 85 at Saratoga Ave. interchange. Councilmember Peterson concurred with Councilmember Moyles' statements and stated that the Council needed to review the modeling. He stated that he has been informed that the San Jose model is very sophisticated and probably the most accurate of the models done. He questioned not having an interchange at Saratoga Ave. or perhaps Prospect Ave. and noted that traffic exiting on Rainbow Dr. will be using Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd. or Saratoga-Los Gatos Rd. Mayor Hlava suggested further study, but noted that most of the Council favored the position of no interchanges in Saratoga. In addition, she questioned the Council's response to the statement regarding the impact of the freeway on local streets. If Saratoga takes the position of no interchanges in the City, then this Item does not apply; however, if required to accept an interchange, then this Item is significant and perhaps it should be commented upon. The City Manager cautioned regarding the assumption that local street impact was only attached to interchanges. It is possible that there may be significant impact on local streets attached to interchanges adjacent to the City. Under this scenario, he expressed concern regarding the concept of proportionate share of direct cost. It was the understanding that if a freeway was built and significantly impacted local streets, these individual cities cannot simply reduce the impact by reducing the width of local streets and applying unused money to other street improvements. He viewed this as a critical issue, not only for Saratoga but for other cities as well. If there is known primary or secondary impact as a result of final design, Measure A funds have a responsibility to address the issue and not relegate it to local jurisdictions. There will not be equal impact either in traffic or financial areas for all cities from freeway construction; examples of Monte Sereno, Gilroy, Morgan Hill were cited as cities that had a vote but will not have the impact. Councilmember Clevenger concurred and noted that Saratoga is the most negatively impacted by the freeway as far as increasing traffic. The City Manager concurred. Councilmember Clevenger suggested that impact not be tied to interchanges but linked to increased mad use due to the freeway which should not be borne solely by the cities in question. The City Manager stated that ff a marginal increase in traffic is such that an upgrading of local streets is required, then Measure A funds should address the issue. In response to Councilmember Petersons' question, the City Manager reviewed the measurements used in current traffic engineering which are more sophisticated and accurate in dealing with traffic impacts. Staff was asked to further study the issue and present a draft for review by the Council. In response to Councilmember Anderson's questions, consensus stated that a long term policy establish adequate funding at the beginning of the project. 9. SPRR Spur to Paul MaSS0n; Consensus that this Item be removed from consideration. 10. Overcrossing: Statement already notes that this Item is contrary to the position of the City of Saratoga; this position will be reiterated. 11. SPRR Bridge Over Saratog~ Avenue; Councilmember Clevenger asked that the importance of depression of the freeway be commented upon and noted a concern that a short fall of funds is already being talked about. It does not appear to the Council that the Traffic Authority has planned for the expense of depressing the freeway. She felt that this statement was important so that the cost of depression can be factored in before the freeway agreements are signed. The City needs to communicate that they have a concems about this issue. Councilmember Moyles concurred and stated that he had reiterated the position in private conversations with Traffic Authority staff and Traffic Authority members, namely, that a depressed profile is essential and is the essence of the City's concept of the freeway. The preliminary Strategic Plan numbers and the draft Strategic Plan present financial figures which will accommodate the position of Saratoga; these figures need some refinement, however. MEETING OF 'HIE CITY COUNCIL Page 10 DECEMBER 3, 1986 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Councilmember IV[oyles noted that feedback he has received has been vexy encouraging. Efforts are being made to find ways to afford the depression asked for by Saratoga. 12. Aca_uisition of Right-of-Way: Mayor Hlava noted that this Item is in conflict with the position of Saratoga. She stated it is of great concern to her that them appears to be an intent to proceed with the freeway before ~tcqu. isifion of right-of-way has been completed. In response to Councilmember Clevenger's quesnon, Councilmember Moyles commented on procedures of the Traffic Authority in acquiring right-of-way; if Saratoga presses this policy position the Traffic Authority can accommodate such a position quite easily. The only consequence of such a decision is resepzing money for lifigated claims and adjusting cash flow requirements. The City Attorney further clarified the legal requirements of this process. The City Manager added further information on the definition of acquiring the right of way. 13. Prospect and Ouito Interchange Ramps: Mayor Hlava noted that both these interchanges are included in the "completion plan" for which there are no current budgeted funds in the Strategic Plan. The City is not interested in funding an interchange. Councilmember Ivloyles suggested that the proper action would be to have the City Manager relate that the Council would like these interchanges deleted from the "completion plan." Councilmember Anderson noted that there is talk that a partial interchange at Prospect Ave. may be helpful to the City; she questioned whether the Council wished to state that the City does not want any pun of proposed interchanges. She suggested that the Council disagree with the policy of local funding of interchanges. Mayor Hlava disagreed, stating that the policy of the City opposes all interchanges in Saratoga; she urged that the Council continue to oppose interchanges in the City. However, the Mayor did not oppose asking for information regarding local funding issues. Councilmember Clevenger noted that this would be consistent with policies stated ak~ve. 14. Priorities between Routes 85. 237 and 100: Mayor Hlava commented that passage of the Measure A pn~gram insured that all phases of the fleeway would be constructed in an acceptable manner in all residential areas. Councilmember Clevenger favored a strong statement endorsing the comments of the Mayor; this has been the feeling of the Council all along. Measure A was passed before fiscal demands were known; the fact that there is insufficient funds does not mean that it shouldn't be built according to proper specifications. The City Manager confamed that the Council supported the Strategic Plan verses the Policy Advisory Board position on the priorities. Councilmember Moyles noted the point could not be stated too strongly; the draft Strategic Plan allowed Route 85 nearly half of every Measure A dollar collected. This ratio was very good; he is not convinced that this ratio will survive due to opposition by some parties. He asked citizens to communicate to the Traffic Authority their support for this proposal and the ratios called for. He stated that those who do not support this ratio are collecting letters and petitions; when voted upon, broad based support must be demonstrated for this proposal. He asked that a letter to this effect be sent on behalf of the Council. The Mayor recessed the Meeting from 9:31 to 9:45 P.M. B. Appeal of appmvalof site and design review approvals and lot line adjustment to allow consauction of a two-story single family home at 14458 Oak Place in the R-l-10,000 zoning district (SDR 1629, DR 86-004, LL 86-001) (Appellant, H. Davies; Applicant, L. Protiva) Continued from November 5, 1986. Planning Director Hsia presented Report to the Mayor and City Council, October 24,. 1986. The Public Hearing was opened at 9:47 P.M. Ms. Holly Davies, Appellant, noted that Planning Staff did not recommend approval Of this Application in its initial Report. She concurred with concems listed in the Staff Report and stated that the lot is substandard, having less than half the frontage required. She noted the double driveway proposed which would remove over 1,000 sq.ft. of mature landscaping; such removal of landscaping will excerbate the appearance of an already substandard situauon. Primary landscaping will be to the rear of the property and will not be visible from Oak Place. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 11 DECEMBER 3, 1986 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued The burden of landscaping to create privacy between Lots 12 and 13 will fall on Lot 12; she noted the discrepancy in information regarding the location of the old Pohle house; verification was impossible due to the Protiva's refusal to allow measurements to be taken. In addition, the proposed design of the house is incompatible with the existing neighborhood. Ms. Davies urged that an overall development plan be done for the remaining lots. Mr. Matteoni, Attorney representing the Applicant, noted that the original Staff Report was · found to be inconsistent with the views of the Planning Commission; he called attention to the revised Staff Report. Mr. Mattuoni questioned the term "rural" and suggested that a more appropriate term would be "village atmosphere." He noted that the property is legal lot of record, is 10,000 sq.ft. in size and conforms to zoning ordinances. Ms. Linda Protiva, Applicant, presented packets of information to members of the Council and a petition with sixty additional signatures in favor of this application. She stated that a legal investigation done before purchase of the property confumed that Lots 10, 11 and 13 were legal lots of record and were buildable lots. She noted three years of extensive work to restore the house and lot to it's present condition; in 1985 the house on Lot 10 was built. She restated information presented at the Planning Commission Heating of September 24, 1986, reviewed information presented to Councilmembers and cited statements from the original Staff Report, September 10, 1986. She noted that they have met all requirements. In summary, she is not asking for special privileges or variances and has meet all requirements; she asked that her legal right to develop her property within guidelines laid down by the City. Mr. Tom Tish, 14735 Aloha Ave., Saratoga, stated that the Protivas have been involved in community activities and vouched for their integrity and good judgment. Ms. Billie Coughiin, 14474 Oak Place, Saratoga, stated her objections to statements made on behalf of the project. She had no objection to individuals developing their property; however, consideration for neighbors should be exercised. She stated that they have suffered inordinately from lack of privacy, light and sun. She noted that this house will be the fourth two-story house in a row. Ms. Betty Rowe, 20360 Saratoga-Los Gatos Rd., Saratoga, pointed out historical preservation done in the neighborhood. Although she likes the Protivas personally, she is not in favor of their proposal to develop the property in manner requested. Ms. Lisa Saunders Donahue, 14441 Oak Place, Saratoga, stated that her main objection to the development of this area is approval of individual situs to the determine the impact of the development of the area. She proposed that the plan for the area as a whole be reviewed. Of the two-Story homes, three are nearly identical in design creating the appearance of a condominium complex. Five final negative results were outlined. Mr. Greg Grodhaus, 20379 Saratoga-Los Gatos Rd., Saratoga, stated that he was informed by the Protivas that they intended to develop all of their lots and suggested a plan of development be applied to all of the lots. When he approached the City regarding the property he later purchased, he was told the City had strict policies regulating homes. He asked that if the City has a such a policy, it be applied equally. Thus, prospective homeowners could rely on information received. Privacy of his home is severely affected despite 20 ft. high screening. Mr. RIchard Tyrrell, Obrad Dr., Saratoga, questioned whether the cottage referred to was a historical structure. Ms. Delores Smith, 14560 Westcolt Dr., Saratoga, noted that assurance had been given that development of the property in question would be given careful consideration. Her main concern is the status of the unrecorded lot. The application under consideration would have a very harsh impact on her, she asked that the Council maintain the status of parcel 3 as an unrecorded lot and not combine this parcel with any other property. She asked for information on the ramifications of a Lot Line adjustment. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 12 DECEMBER 3, 1986 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Bill Craft, 22000 Dorsey Way, Saratoga, stated that members of the City Council should support members of the Planning Commission. This appeal is a waste of the Councils time and taxpayers mouey; the proposal meets all City requirements and there are no issues. He asked that the Profiva Application be approved. Mrs. William Craft, 22000 Dorsey Way, Saratoga, pointed out that the only neighbors affe, cted by the proposed house were not present at the hearing. She emphasized the fact that the Protivas have complied with the law in every aspect; Planning Staff have verified that all conditions have been met and the Planning Commission approved the design plan. She asked that the Council ignore this appeal, which, she said, contained false and misleading information; some individuals who signed the petition were under a false impression. She presented a petition with over 100 signatures in favor of the application. The Appellant indicated that she did not have any closing remarks. CLEVENGER/ANDERSON MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:44 P.M. Passed 5-0. In response to questions, the City Attorney commented on the design review application and ways in which the Council could proceed on the application regarding placement of driveways and reciprocal access easements. Councilmember Peterson noted that the proposed house is virtually a mirror image of the house already built by the Protiva; distinctions pointed out by the Applicant were minor. This was a significant disappointment to him. In response to Councilmember Anderson's question, the City Manager stated that the 1981 map of the property was accurate regarding the location of the old house. Councilmember Moyles noted the animosity that had crept into the Appeal; this was reminiscent of problems the Council encountered previously in dealing with this property. He noted for the record that neither the animosity nor the petitions were of significance in making a decision. Any citizen of Saratoga is entitled to share an opinion with the City Council. Councilmember Moyles had concluded that the proposal submitted is not the right development; he noted that the Planning Commission may have missed the issue in question. He subscribed to the original Staff Report and his own assessmeht of the lot in question. Elimination of landscaping was at the front of a lot with substandard frontage; landscaping is needed where there is exposure to the community. In addition, he noted the height and bulk of the proposed house. The fact that other two-story homes in the neighborhood exist is not justification for adding one more; in fact, it argues to the opposite. This proposal ignores the problems of privacy between the existing home of the Protivas and the proposed house. Proximity and lot iine adjustment will compound a problem of privacy that cannot be dealt with adequately. It seems reasonable to consider all of lots owned by the Protivas, not just the one under consideration. He would be favorable to development of Lot 13 with a one-story house and with an assurmace that Lot 11 will not be developed with a two-story home. He referenced the proposal made in the July 3, 1985, City Council Meeting. He would vote to grant the appeal. Councilmember Clevenger concurred and stated that if the proposed development occm'red, the effect of four two-~,;tory homes would overwhelm the neighborhood. She was favorable to a merging of Lots 11 and 12; Lot 13 could then accommodate a house. Councilmember Anderson concurred with Councilmembers Moyles and Clevenger. While she was not opposed to Lot 13 being developed with a two-story house, she wished to see a design change different from the previous house. Merging Lot 11 and 12 would allow placement of a ,..., driveway on Lot 1 I. Mayor Hlava shared concern regarding the cumulative impact. She noted that the existing residence is already partly on Lot 13 and the driveway covers three lots; this is an indication that a space problem exists. She was not favorable to a lot line adjustment which would increase the densit), of the neighborhood. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 13 DECEMBER 3, 1986 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Councilmember Peterson differed with the above comments. The issue is whether two-story houses have a privacy impact; this one does not. The requested lot line adjustment makes sense and is logical. MOYLES/CLEVENGER MOVED TO UPHOLD THE APPEAL, DENYING SDR 1629, LL 86-001 AND DR 86-004. Passed 4-1, Councilmember Peterson opposed. 9. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS: A. Discussion of Oral Communications not referred to Staff - None. B. Reports from Individual Councilmembers 1. Extra Holiday for Employees Mayor Hlava suggested that Employees be granted a holiday on December 26, 1986. Councilmember Anderson asked that January 2, 1987, be granted as an Employee holiday. ANDERSON/CLEVENGER MOVED TO DECLARE DECEMBER 26, 1986, AND JANUARY 2, 1987, EMPLOYEE HOLIDAYS. Passed 5-0. 2. Broadcasting Council and Planning Commission Agenda on Cable Channel 8 Councilwoman Anderson proposed that the Agenda of Meetings of the Council and Planning Commission be broadcast on Cable Channel 8. Councilmember Moyles had no objection to the Agenda being broadcast in whole. Consensus reached to pursue broadcasting the Agenda. 3. Broadcasting City Council Meetings on Cable Channel 8 Councilwoman Anderson stated that certain public hearings may be of interest to the entire community. Mayor Hlava favored a live broadcast, noting that other City Councils broadcast meetings. Councilmember Moyles suggested this item be reviewed further. 4. Discussion of Resolution Limiting Commission Terms Mayor Hlava stated that upon examination, there is no City Cede regulating number of terms of Commissioners; it is regulated by policy formed by tradition. Consensus reached to continue tradition rather than enact a City Code requirement. Councilmember Clevenger reported on Sanitation District 4. She reported on a Meeting held with Senior Citizens regarding the Seagram Property. She discussed the possibility of asking the Seagram Co. to donate a small portion of the property to the City of Saratoga. Councilmember Peterson reported on Inter City Council meeting. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting of the City Council was adjourned at 11:29 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Carol A. Probst-Caughey Recording Secretary