Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-04-1989 City Council Minutes MINUTES ' SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL DATE: Wednesday, October 4, 1.989 - 7:30 P.M. PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting 1. Roll Call: Mayor Anderson, Councilmembers Clevenger, Moyles, Peterson, .Stutzman present at 7:35 P.M. 2. CEREMONIAL ITEMS: A. Resolution 2597 commending Valetie Young for Service on Planning Department Staff PETERSON/MOYLES MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2597 COMMENDING VALERIE YOUNG FOR SERVICE ON PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFE Passed 5-0. 3. ROUTINE MATTERS: A. Approvalof Minutes: Meetingof September 20, 1989 MOYLES/PETERSON MOVED APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 20, 1989, AS PRESENTED. Passed 5-0. B. ApprovalofWarrantList: MOYLES/PETERSON MOVED APPROVAL OF THE WARRANT LIST. Passed 5-0. C. Report of City Clerk on Posting of Agenda Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted .on September 29, 1989. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: A. Planning Commission Actions, September 27, 1989 - Noted and filed. B. Heritage Preservation Commission Minutes, September 6, 1989, - Noted and filed. C. Conditional Approval of Special Event Permit for Annual Costume Walk on October 28 and 10K Run on October 29 when sponsors have complied with all requirements of Special Event Permit Ordinance D. Final Acceptance and Notice of Completion, Bohlman Road Landslide Repair - Granite Construction E. Anthorization to go to bid for re-roofing of Community Center F. Final Acceptance and Release of Bond, 13095 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd. (SD 86-009) (Developer, Woolworth Construction) G. Proclamation concerning Paratransit Services Month H. Proclamation concerning Children's Day I. Resolution 2598 on Steinbeck House J. Res- 2599 revers.ing Planning Commission Denial of Velinsky Project (appeal hear d September 20) K. Upgrading of Telephone System - Acceptance of Mastercom Proposal to install PBS System Console at a net cost of $12,800 plus tax L. Informational Report on Draft County Solid Waste Management Plan MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 2 OCTOBER 4, 1989 CONSENT CALENDAR Continued Mayor Clevenger requested removal of Consent Calendar Item J. MOYLES/PETERSON MOVED APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT CALENDAR WITH RE- MOVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM J. Passed 5-0. Mayor Clevenger cited the Resolution reversing Planning Commission Denial of Velinsky Project and questioned the proposed wording; the Council was very specific in its recommendation. The City Attorney commented that he had tried to convey the intent of the Council; the concern expressed by Councilmembers was the size of the proposed structure and its perceived bulk; he was unsure whether the Council wished to absolutely preclude any possibility of a second story. The City 'Manager suggested the amended wording adopted by consensus. Planning Director Emslie responding to the Council's inquiry, confirmed that the 22 ft. single story height limitation would in all likelihood be allowed on-site, considering the size of the lot. Councilmember Anderson wished to make clear that a garage placed below the first floor consti- tuted a second story element; while she would not object to placing a garage in the natural slope that occurred on-Site, she would definitely oppose a second story elevation facing the ravine. Mayor Clevenger responded that the Council wished to see a single story house on this site; she was reluctant to make a change regarding this point at this time. Councilmember Moyles asked that the dissenting votes be noted in the Resolution. Consensus reached by the Council that the Resolution would be amended as follows: 3_. The appeal from the Planning Commission was upheld and the decision of the Planning Com- mission was reversed and remanded to the Planning Commission for further action, with Councilmembers Moyles and Peterson dissenting, as set forth below. 3. (a) Relocation of the structure away from the ravine, to ~ within the area of the 660' contour line. (b) Modification of the design to single story, o~ and other appropriate change, to reduce the mass an bulk of the structure. ANDERSON/STUTZMAN MOVED APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 2599 REVERSING THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF VELINSKY PROJECT,, AS AMENDED. Passed 5-0. 5. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS AND THE PUBLIC: A. Oral Communications from the Public and Commissions - None. B. Written Communications from the Public 1) Dolores and Kenneth Rohner, 12471 Woodside Dr., objecting to citation for car parked for sale. Consensus reached to adopt Staff Recommendation to note, acknowledge the letter, offering a brief explanation of City policy and file. 2) Bert Martel, 14420 Fruitvale Ave., requesting information from City files. Consensus reached to adopt Staff Recommendation to direct Staff to reply that the City had complied with his request, return his check and consider the matter closed. 3) Delaine Eastin, Assemblywoman, Eighteenth District, requesting support for AB 4. ConsenSus reached to adopt Staff Recommendation, refer to Staff for analysis of local ordinances. 4) Tom McEnery, Mayor, City of San Jose, requesting participation in Global Cities Project of Earth Day 1990. Consensus reached not to join the program at this time. 5) J.A. Narveson, Community Players of Los Gatos, requesting deferral of rental fee for Civic Theater. Mr. J.A. Narveson, Community Players of Los Gatos, reviewed their request. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 3 OCTOBER 4, 1989 COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC AND THE COMMISSIONS Continued Councilmember Peterson noted the limited contribution the City made to the arts and suggested the request be granted. Mayor Clevenger agreed that the request should be granted. Councilmember Moyles suggested the matter be referred to the City Manager for negotiation of terms for the repayment of the deferred amount, with a report being brought back to the Council. Mr. Narveson responded that they had to have assurances of a deferred payment agreement in order to proceed. PETERSON/STUTZMAN MOVED TO DEFER PAYMENT OF THE RENTAL FEES OF THE SARATOGA CMC THEATER TOTALING $2760. UNTIL JANUARY 15, 1990. The City Manager stated he was confident the Community Players of Los Gatos would attempt to raise the necessary funds; Staffs concern was that the holding of the fund raising events them- selves would increase the debt to the City of Saratoga. Mr. Natveson assured the Council that the City would not see any greater deficit than the current amount owed; he offered a personal check in the amount of $500. Councilmember Anderson stated that she would accept Mr. Narveson's offer which would assure that the City would not incur any greater loss than presently existed. ANDERSON/STUTZMAN MOVED TO AMEND THE ABOVE MOTION, TO ACCEPT THE PERSONAL CHECK OF MR. NARVESON IN THE AMOUNT OF $500 AS A GUARANTEE FOR THE JANUARY 1, 1990, ENGAGEMENT. Passed 5-0. The Chair called for a vote on the original Motion. Passed 5-0. 6. OLD BUSINESS: A. Report on Hazardous Materials Cleanup at Recycle Center The City Manager reviewed the Report Re: Cleanup of Recycle Center Contamination. MOYLES/PETERSON MOVED TO APPROVE THE CLEANUP OF AREA CONTAMINATED AT THE RECYCLE CENTER. Passed 5-0. B. Review of Summary of Draft Environmental Impact Report for El Paseo Redevelopmerit prepared by City of San Jose. Planning Director Eroslie updated the City Council on the status of the Response to the Draft EIR. Councilmember Moyles stated that he endorsed the Response prepared; however, he recommended that the Chair of the Planning Commission, along with other Commissioners and Staff personnel represent the City at the San Jose Planning Commission Meeting, not the Council. Consensus reached to accept the recommendation of the Planning Commission; the Chair of the Planning Commission would be representing the City at the City of San Jose Meeting. The Council proceeded to Public Hearings. 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Appeal of denial of administrative review application that would allow construction of an amateur radio antenna at 15430 Bohlman Road in the HC-RD zone district (Applicant/ appellant, Sawyer) (AR 89-019) Planning Director Emslie reviewed the Report Re: Appeal of AR-89-019. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:05 P.M. Mr. Sawyer, Applicant/appellant, commented as follows: Noted for the record the following minor corrections to the Staff Report: the retracted antenna would be 31 1/2 ft., not 23 ft. as stated in the Report; there was no motor to position the antenna proposed, a hand crank would be used; the Thomas residence was 46 ft. above his home Emphasized that the hillside topography bad nothing to do with the antenna system proposed MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 4 OCTOBER 4, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Sawyer, Applicant/appellant, continued his comments as follows: The Planning Department had communicated with experts in the field and found that an antenna height of 65 ft. was necessary in order to obtain maximum, reasonable communications Cited the technical information provided for the Planning Commission which could be made available to the City Council Cited Staff Report Findings "The purpose of the proposed antenna is to extend communication tc southern hemisphere countries not accessible with present equipment"; such was absolutely false None of the alternative antennas available without a permit proved even remotely adequate; them was no substitute for height above the ground Agreed that under perfect conditions, he had been able to obtain long distance communications - The issue was what was reasonable; he maintained that the infrequent capability he had at pre- sent was not what was intended by the phrase in the Federal ruling, "reasonably accommodate" Court Cases were cited which consistently upheld the right to erect antennas at a height of 65 ft.; in addition, the 65 ft. height was also contained in the City Zoning Ordinance - Reviewed his Appeal Application, Grounds for the Appeal and the Ruling of the Federal Com- munications Commission in the Matter of PRB 1, 24. - Concluded that he was willing to compromise, but believed he had a right to utilize the air waves; he wished to seek some accommodation from the City in applying the Zoning Ordinance in an equitable and even-handed fashion; it was unreasonable to say that the impacts could not be mitigated and thus, he could not have an antenna of 65 ft. in height. In response to Councilmember Moyles' question whether he was willing to consider any reduction in the 65 ft. height, Mr. Sawyer stated that if he were willing to spend the time and money, he would probably prevail in court; however, he would much rather have something he could use now. Yes, he wished to compromise to whatever would be necessary to have a radio antenna that he could use. Councilmember Moyles further questioned what was, in his opinion, "effective access"? Mr. Sawyer responded no one in amateur radio communications expected to have reliable commu- nications all over the world; however, over time a reasonably consistent definition had evolved, which was contained in the Saratoga Zoning Ordinance and related to a maximum power limit of 1500 watts and a maximum height in metropolitan areas of 65-70 ft. height. Such allowed use of the radio most days of the week. Councilmember Stutzman asked about the lot elevation and its visibility from the valley floor. Planning Director Emslie responded that the mature landscaping on the site shielded the house. Mr. Sawyer stated that there were several 65 ft. radio antennas in the City; however, all but one of them had been grandfathemd in when the new Ordinance regulations were adopted. In response to Councilmember Stutzman's question, the City Attorney stated that as the Appellant himself had indicated, Federal Regulations had a limited pre-emption and did allow for some local regulations; the question was, what was masonable? The position taken by Staff and the Planning Commission was that a unique circumstance existed by reason of the topography of the site; the .hillside itself impaired the capability in radio communications. If there was to be a balancing of the interests of all parties involved, there was some responsibility on the part of the radio operator with respect to the selection of his own home site. This was the essence of the Commission's decision. Mr. Alan B. Grebene, 15479 Belnap Way, Saratoga, reviewed his letter Re: Objection to appeal of application AF-89-019. regarding radio antenna tower at 15430 Bohlman Rd.. Saratoga. September 27, 1989; he presented pictures showing the impact of the proposed 65 ft. radio antennae. Mr. Phil Sims, Attorney for Mr. Grebene, reviewed the Council Exhibit 2. Legal Opinions. Mr. Louis de Give, Emergency Coordinator for the City of Saratoga and amateur radio operator, stated that he understood the Appellant's request and favored granting it. Mr. SaWyer reiterated reiterated his testimony cited above. The Public Hearing was closed at 8:47 P.M. Mayor Clevenger cited the statement in the Staff Report, Findings. "Therefore, the Planning Com- mission concluded that the requirement of Section 15-80.080 (g) which requires visual mitigation, could not be met"; such was critical. Mr. Sawyer cannot mitigate the visual impact of the antenna which was required by the Ordinance. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page OCTOBER 4, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Councilmember Anderson noted that the Planning Commission had considered only a 65 ft. height; Mr. Sawyer said that he would now consider a reduciion in the antenna height. In addition, there was a fairly tall tree adjacent to Alternate L~cation 2, which might screen the antenna; she suggested that the appropriate action might be to refer this Item hack to the Planning Commission for consideration of a compromise. Councilmember Peterson commented that during the previous Public Hearings and a Study Ses- sion, the Appellant had not been interested in reaching a compromise regarding the 65 ft. height; it was his feeling that the Appellant continued to feel very strongly that he had a right to erect a 65 ft. antennae and implied that he would take the City to court if such were not granted. It did not appear that Mr. Sawyer felt that a compromise was in order; this was of concern. Councilmember Peterson added that he was absolutely convinced that the 65 ft. height would have a visual impact on the neighbors. He agreed with Mr. Sawyer's Appeal that local governments had to accommodate reasonable amateur communications; however, one could argue as to what "rea- sonable" meant. Clearly, a review of the discussions on amateur radio antennas, the restrictions placed on satellite dishes and the fact that Saratoga was a residential community, demonstrated the City's concerns with mass, size, bulk, and impacts. A 65 ft. height was simply too high; how- ever, he would reluctantly refer this Item back to the Planning Commission if the Council agreed and the Appellant wished to reach a compromise. Councilmember Stutzman commented that a review of the photographs submitted showed a vast segment of the valley floor; he noted the efforts of the City to preserve the view of the hillsides. The construction of a 65 ft. antennae in the hillside could set a precedent; the antennas were not inconspicuous and could be visible to the greater pan of Saratoga. He would uphold the decision of the Planning Commission. Councilmember Moyles stated he agreed with the above comments. He could not subscribe to the essence of the Appeal, that the City was denying him effective access to the airwaves' while it was not optimum access, it was more than adequate and achieved a reasonable balance with the concern that the City not allow the hills/des to be cluttered with these sorts of things. A review of the record of the adoption of the Ordinance, demonstrated his reluctance to yield as much to the Federal Government as they had; such was prompted by the City Attorney's advice His preference would have been to limit the 65 ft. height adopted; however, the fact that 65 ft. was allowed did not give every individual a vested right to erect~antenna ofthatheight. Mayor Clevenger stated that ff the Appellant could mitigate the 65 ft., such could be reconsidered; however, the impact of the 65 ft. antenna presented for consideration had not been mitigated. MOYLES/PETERSON MOVED TO DENY THE APPEAL OF AR-89-019 AND UPHOLD THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. Passed 5-0. Break: 8:55 - 9:10 P.M. B. Appeal of approval of design review approval to construct a two-story, 5,993 sq. ft. single family dwelling at 20440 Montalvo Heights in the R-i-40,000 zone district (Appli- cant, Butler; Appellant, Magnuson) (DR 89-062) Planning Director Eroslie presented the Memorandum Re: Appeal of DR-89-062. The Public Hearing was opened at 9:13 P.M. Ms. Magnuson, Appellant, commented as follows: - Reviewed the Application and noted that the windows and doors of her U shaped home centered on the Butler site, which if developed at the height approved, would cut off her view - Disputed the statement in the Minutes of the August 23, 1989, Planning Commission Meeting; her home was a d/stance of 70 ft., not an elevation of 70 ft.; secondly, her home did not have a minimum setback as stated in Mr. Butler's testimony - Cited the Planning Commission's decision which provided for mitigations for her home; however, upon consideration, she realized how important this issue was to her and she appealed - As the Planning Director noted, limiting the proposed house to a one-story structure would significantly increase the footprint; while true, such would not matter at all to her - If the house were limited to a 20 ft. height, all she would see would be the rear of the house; she was not high enough in elevation to see the entire roof line MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 6 OCTOBER 4, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Ms. Magnuson, Appellant, continued her comments as follows: Felt that no one could deny that the visual impact to her home would be tremendous; she wished to retain her view of the hillsides and a near-by vineyard - Asked that a site visit be made to her home with direction given to Mr. Butler to stake the house Noted the City's efforts to protect the view of the hills and urged that the Council consider the tremendous impact to her home and view from the proposed development In response to Commissioner Moyles' question, Ms. Magnuson stated that there was approxi- mately a 120 ft. distance between her home and the proposed structure; in response to Council- member Peterson's inquiry, she estimated that there was a 20 ft. difference in the pad elevations. ff the proposed house were lower in height, she would be able to see the top of an adjacent hill. Councilmember Stutzman stated that he was very familiar with the this site; he was surprised by the Appellant's statement that a second story elevation on the proposed house would block her view of the hills' as situated the Magnuson home must see the hills over the Marino property; in addition, the Apbellant's site'appeared to be elevated more than 10 or 15 ft. above the Applicant's. Ms. Magnuson agreed that it appeared that her site was higher than the actual elevation; this was the reason a site visit was so important. With respect to a view of the hills, the Councilmember was referring to a view to the west, but she did not have windows facing in this direction. Mr. Butler, Applicant, commented as follows: - Noted the lengthy design process which had taken into consideration the neighbors - Limiting the house to a one-story elevation would greatly increase the footprint; suih would have ramifications on the amount of impervious coverage of the site - A one-story house on this site would be designed at the maximum allowed, i.e., 22 ft.; the proposed two-story structure was designed at 26 ft.--only a 4 ft. difference in height - The Architectural Board for this subdivision approved the proposed design while the Board rejected the design and square footage requested on what was now the Magnuson property - Cited apparent violations on the Magnuson site namely importing at least 1,000 cu. yds. of fill to raise the rear yard elevation 4-8 ft.; in additi~i, a fence on site was in reality a retaining wall - Finally, the Appellant as well as other property owners in the area, had two-story homes; the difference in elevation between his site and the Magnuson home was pro~bably about 27 fL - Noted the drainage problems that existed on his site - Added that due to illness, he had left the Planning Commission Hearing before a decision was reached; his architect was in error in allowing the elimination of several second story windows which would result in a large expanse of blank wall, as well violating Fire Codes Mr. Dick Madden, 20460 Montalvo Heights Dr., Saratoga, stated he was very much in favor of this Applicant's proposal; this was a neighborhood of two story homes. Conversely a one-story home would be out of place in this area. Mr. Greg Benton, Project Architect, added that a one-story house would bring the structure much closer to Ms. Magnuson's property; the pie shaped configuration of the lot would cause the house to be spread out to the rear of the property. At Ms. Magnuson's invitation he had made a site visit and disagreed with her that her view of the hills would be cut off by a second story elevation. Ms. Magnuson concluded her comments that she was angry at some of Mr. Butler's remarks; she disputed some of the testimony given. The Public Hearing was closed a 9:54 P.M. Councilmember Anderson agreed with 2Ms. Magnuson that some issues raised did not relate to the situation; the items under consideration included the land, view shed and the height of the proposed house. She noted that only a 4 ft. differential in the height was at stake; she wished to defer judgment on this Appeal until after a site visit with the Butler property staked. Councilmember Peterson assured the Appellant that there were only two issues, i.e., the height of the proposed structure and the three windows on the second story elevation that were eliminated by the Planning Commission in their decision; other topics brought up were irrelevant. However, remanding the Application back to the Planning Commission for Design Review of a single story house, eliminating 4 ft. in height, would not accomplish what Ms. Magnuson felt it would; he would uphold the decision of the Planning Commission. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 7 OCTOBER 4, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Councilmember Moyles also agreed that extraneous material had been presented; he was persuaded by the Staff Report and the analysis of the Planning Commission that the Applicant's proposal was compatible with the existing neighborhood and would not have the impact the Appellant feared. His only disagreement with the Planning Commission was the requirement to eliminate three second story windows; at the distances in question, there would not be a serious loss of privacy. He wished to see all three windows restored. Councilmember Stutzman agreed with other members of the Council that the past problems with the Magnuson home had no thing to clo with the issue at hand. He felt a two-story home would be compatible with the neighborhood; a one-story home would be very usual in this particular location where homes were architecturally outstanding. Realistically, the Magnuson home could be considered a three story house, with considerable elevation; of greater concern to the Magnusons should be the landscaping installed on the subject site. A row of Redwood trees, for example, in a matter of six to seven years, could be thirty to forty feet in height and would not only block the Magnuson's view of the proposed house but their view beyond. He did not see that eliminating the three second story windows accomplished anything; privacy would not be impacted from the distance in question and from an architectural point of view, the preservation of these windows would be more acceptable. Mayor Clevenger confirmed that the only issue under consideration was the height of the proposed house and the three second story windows; she would accept the two story house which she felt would have less impact. She noted that there appeared to be a majority of votes in favor of restor- ing the three second story windows; although she had some reservations on this point, she would accept the preference of the other Councilmembers. PETERSON/MOYLES MOVED TO DENY THE APPEAL OF DR-89-062 AND UPHOLD THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION WITH THE MODIFICATION THAT THE THREE WINDOWS ELIMINATED BE RESTORED. Passed 4-0-1, Councilmember Anderson abstaining. C. Formation of Utility Underground District #7 on Oak St. between Saratoga-Los Gatos Rd. and Komina Ave. and Saratoga-Los Gatos Rd. between Oak Pl. and Big Basin Way/ Saratoga Ave. The City Manager presented the Report Re: Underground Utility District No. 7. The Public Hearing was opened at 10:16 EM. Mr. Bob Storm, P.G. & E., provided information on the allocation of funds, anticipated time table, the range of modifications required for the service panels (meter panel, etc.) and the estimated replacement cost of these facilities, if necessary. He reviewed the discussions at a recent community meeting held to provide information to and hear concerns of the residents. Councilmember Anderson cited a letter she had received which stated that, "I have also heard that some underground utility districts have more problems that never get fixed, than the overhead." Mr. Storm stated that he could not address the item since he did not know what the problems were; he did not know of anyone that was negatively impacted by the undergrounding. The intent was to mitigate any visual impact as well as being an opportunity for P.G.& E. to upgrade their facilities. Mr. Ted McKibben, 14463 Oak St., Saratoga, requested information on the deferred improvement agreement; it was his understanding that such affected only homes built after 1979. The City Man- ager provided information on the agreements and the pro rata share of the cost of undergrounding. In response to Councilmember Moyles' inquiry, Mr. McKibben confirmed that he had purchased a property subject to the deferred improvement agreement, which he did not know existed at the time of the purchase. A title search had not turned up any information; in addition, he had spoken to three ~other property owners where the agreement had not shown up in the title search. The City Attorney confirmed that the deferred improvement agreements had been recorded. Mr. McKibben noted that the condominiums were occupied by young families who could ill afford the costs involved and contended that the reason for these improvements was primarily aesthetic, not health or safety. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 8 OCTOBER 4, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Tom Hawkins, Saratoga Homeowners Association, felt that the undergrounding sounded like a completed deal; he asked that the specific cost to each property owner be made available. The City Manager reviewed the estimated cost to property owners. Ms. Diana Parham, Twin Oaks Homeowners Association, commented that there was a great deal of confusion surrounding the issue; she recommended the City act with fiduciary responsibility and give property owners a precise figure. She urged additional consideration of this item. Mr. Mike Tobin, 14460 Oak St. Saratoga, noted the large financial burden placed on the property owners by the deferred improvement agreement; no one seemed to be able to turn up the document. He did not feel they should be held responsible for this agreement; forcing him and others to pay for this massive project when others were exempted, was discriminatory, immoral and heartless. Ms. Virginia Fanelli, Representing Three Oaks Village Townhomes, stated that they did not protest undergrounding the utilities in this area; this project had installed the necessary improvements. She suggested that properties that had illegal units on them and then make application for something, and new developments be asked to reimburse the City for their fair share. Mr. Bob Busage, 14461 Oak Street, Saratoga, agreed with other resident s'comments; he felt the deferred improvement agreements were discriminatory since they were not all written the same way. Secondly, he contended that the agreement for the Oak Street Condominiums appeared to be a covert agreement since no one could find a copy of it during their title searches. Ms lZ)ena Hersch~eld, 14524 Oak St., Saratoga, objected to tearing up the streets in this area; she noted the lengthy improvements previously made in the Village and stated that she did not wish to endure this inconvenience again. In addition, she was very concerned about the preservation of the Oak trees. Ms. Faye Mortgrove 14591 Oak St. Saratoga, stated that she had lived with undergrounded utilities in the City of'Santa Teresa and'experienced many problems with phone and cable service. In addition, the $6,000 - $8,000 cost would be difficult to absorb since she was on a fixed income. The Public Hearing remained open. Councilmember Andemon stated she was concerned regarding the lack of accurate cost estimates; she wished to see this Item continued for further information. In response to Councilmember Moyles' question, the City Manager responded that the deferred improvement costs could be estimated with some degree of certainty; however, the cost of the conversion would be dependent upon an assessment of the individual properties. In response to Councilmember Anderson's inquiry, the City Manager confn'med that the figures provided were as good an estimate as could be obtained, failing a complete design of the system. In response to Councilmember Stutzman's request, the City Manager assured the Council that the deferred improvement agreements had been recorded and were on file with the County and City. Mr. Storm reviewed the cost of an engineered cost estimate per Mayor Clevenger's question. Councilmember Peterson stated that he wished the Council had been more prepared to answer the questions raised; he did not have an answer for the complaint that some property owners were unaware of the deferred improvement agreements when they purchased their homes. He was willing to Continue this Item for a limited period of time in order to develop 'more specific cost estimates for one or two selected sites. However, he would be reluctant to abandon this area just because some residents were opposed to the improvements; under~ounding utilities was being done all over the City and the funds to do so were now. Mayor Clevenger thought that the residents of Oak St. who had not come to the Hearing were possibly in favor of undergrounding the utilities. Mr. Storm stated that P.G. & E. had informed residents at the community meeting that they could provide an engineered cost estimate. Councilmember Moyles was agreeable to extending the time for consideration of this Item; how- ever, he disagreed with the argument that undergrounding the utilities on Oak Street was unfair. MEETING OF TI-[E CITY COUNCI~ Page 9 OCTOBER 4, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Councilmember Moyles continued his comments stating that similar improvements were imposed on new subdivisions all the time; the residents of the Oak St. area had been offered the benefit of deferred improvement agreements. The time had come to make the scheduled improvements. Secondly, if there was a gap in passing the information on the deferred improvement agreements, the City was not resFonsible for this situation. Finally, he was willing to entertain the notion that the Oak St. area should not have their utilities undergrounded; there may be reasons for doing these improvements in another area of town. The Representative 'from Pacific Bell Telephone commented that Rule 20 money could not be used to develop the cost estimates. Mayor Clevenger clarified that the Council and the Public would receive an estimate for under- grounding the electric lines at a per foot cost; she had reservations that this estimate would be notably different that the estimate of $150. per linear foot of property frontage already projected. Councilmembers Moyles and Peterson agreed that if such would provide assurances for the resi- dents they were willing to expend the time and money to provide such. Mr. Hawkins reiterated that homeowners did not want these improvements; he felt a meeting should not be held to discuss the issue if the Council intended to complete the work regardless. Councilmember Moyles responded that he had not made a decision on this issue yet. MOYLES/STt,qT.,MAN MOVED TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE FORMA- TION OF UTILITY UNDERGROUND DISTRICT NO. 7 IN ORDER TO DEVELOP COST ESTIMATES TO NOVEMBER 15, 1989; THE CITY TO ABSORB $1,000. OF THE COST OF THE ENGINEERED ESTIMATES. Passed 5-0. The Council then returned to Old Business. C. Ordinance amending Section 16:06.090 of the City Code defining the term "basement" and amending Section 15-45.060 concerning design review and approval of the Negative Declaration. The City Attorney reviewed the Memorandum Re: Design Review for Basement Additions. MOyLES/pETERSON.',DV~ '1'O APPROVE THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION. Passed 4-0-1, Councilmember Anderson absent. MOYLES/PETERSON MOVED TO INTRODUCE AN ORDINANCE BY TITLE ONLY, AMENDING SECTION 16-06.090 DEFINING THE TERM "BASEMENT" AND AMENDING SECTION 15-45.060 CONCERNING DESIGN REVIEW, WAIVING FURTHER READING. Passed 4-0-1, Councilmember Anderson absent. D. Amendment to Ordinance 71.61E repealing restrictions on hours allowed for exterior land- scape watering. MOYLES/PETERSON MOVED TO INTRODUCE BY TITLE ONLY, AMENDING ORDIN- ANCE NO 71.61E PERTAINING TO CONSERVATION OF WATER, WAIVING FURTHER READING. Passed 4-0-1, Councilmember Anderson absent. 7. NEW BUSINESS: A. Proposed Community Meeting on Soundwalis' MOYLES/PETERSON MOVED TO APPROVE THE SCHEDULE, PROCEDURES AND OB- JECTIVES AS RECOMM~r,I~u. Passed 4-0-1, Councilmcm0er 9. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS: A. Reports from Individual Councilmembers Mayor Clevenger requested information on the Pepon from the Traffic Authority regarding a half diamond interchart e at Pros t Rd.; Councilmember Moyles Lndieato:l he x~ould have the Mayor Clevenger reported on the West Valley Sanitation District 4, sewer improvement projects. She had r~ived a complaint from a resident of Oak St. on missed noticing of street improvements. She updated the Council on preparations and schedule for the upcoming Sister City Visit. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 10 OCTOBER 4, 1989 CITY COUNCIL ITEMS Continued Councilmember Moyles reported on recent negotiations in Route 85 Agreement with the City of San Jose and Town of Los Gatos. Councilmember Peterson .reported on the upcoming Celebrate! Saratoga event. He noted that he had received a copy of the bylaws for Santa Clara County Cities Association. Councilm~mber Ande~on re n o the League TranspDrtation Conmittee. She asked that the City ~nager ~a( ~etter t~ t~ne League of Cities staff on a~plying congestion managem~lt requ~ements to public schools, The Meeting of the City Council was adjourned at 12:20 A.M. Respectfully submitted, Carol A. Probst-Caughey ' ·