Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-07-1990 City Council Minutes MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL TIME: Tuesday, August 7, 1990 PLACE: Community Center Senior Wing, 19655 Allendale Avenue TYPE: Regular Adjourned Meeting 1. ROLL CALL Councilmembers Present: Anderson, Kohler, Monia, Clevenger, and Mayor Stutzman. Staff Present: Acting City Manager Perlin, Planning Director Emslie, City Attorney Toppel, Reporting Secretary, Karon Shaban. Mayor StutZ~tan called the meeting'to order at 7:30 p.m. 2. CEREMONIAL ITEMS - None. 3. ROUTINE MATTERS A. Approval of Minutes of July 24, 1990 and July 31, 1990 Councilmember Anderson raised a question regarding page 18, paragraph. City Attorney Toppel stated that the sentence should be corrected to read: "There is no estoppel theory that could be applied to this case that is applicable." ON MOTION OF COUNCILMEMBER.ANDERSON, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MONIA IT. WAS UNANIMOUSLY ORDERED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF JULY 24 1990, BE APPROVED AS AMENDED. ON MOTION OF COUNCILMEMBER MONIA, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ANDERSON IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY ORDERED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF JULY 31, 1990, BE APPROVED AS SUBMITTED. B. Approval of the Warrant List ON MOTION OF COUNCILMEMBER ANDERSON, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MONIA, .IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY ORDERED THAT THE WAItSANT LIST BE APPROVED. C. Report of the City Clerk on Posting of Agenda Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, Acting City Manager Perlin noted that the agenda was properly posted for this meeting on August 3, 1990. The notice of adjournment from the August 1 meeting was properly posted on August 2. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Stutzman asked if anyo~e would like to remove any item from the Consent Calendar. Councilmember Anderson removed Item 4B, Councilmember Kohler removed Item 4A, and a member of the public removed Item 4C. ON MOTION OF COUNCILMEMBER MONIA, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ANDERSON IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY ORDERED THAT THE REMAINING PORTION OF THE CONSENT CALENDAR BE APPROVED. A. Resolution 2674 upholding a decision or ~he Planning Commission in Askew appeal of Brookslde Swim Club use permit Councilmember Anderson initiated discussion regarding the Resolution relating to fence repair adjacent to the parking lot and noted that the City Council's intention was that alcohol consumption be allowed. Councilmember Monia stated that the action relating to the fence was only intended for the fence adjacent to the parking lot due to light from cars accessing the lot. Councilmember Kohler noted that relative to a complaint he received from a resident near Brookside Swim Club, he had recommended that the basketball stand be relocated. City Council Minutes 2 August 7, 1990 ON MOTION 0F COUNCILMEMBER MONIA, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ANDERSON, IT WAS ORDERED ON A VOTE OF 4-0-1, COUNCILMEMBER CLEVENGER ABSTAINING~ THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION BE UPHELD. B. ResolUtion MV-192 authorizing placement of stop signs at Chester Avenue and Ten Acres Road. Councilmember Kohler asked if one stop sign would be an adequate safety measure. Mr. Perlin stated !that staff feels that the conditions ·relating to visibility at the intersection warrant an addit~ional stop sign. Further, he stated. that since a stop sign has existed at Chester and Ten Acres for some ttime, citizens have become used to it, and removing it would cause confusion. ON MOTION OF COUNCILMEMBER MONIA, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ANDERSON IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY~ ORDERED THAT RESOLUTION MV-192 BE ADOPTED. C. Res01ution 2575.21 amending budget and increasing appropriations for Big Basin Way Reconstruction - Capital Project No. 957~ acceptance Of project as complete~ authorization to file Notice of COmpleti,on Mayor ~tut~man polstponed this item for 15 minutes so the person I requestingI its removal could review the staff report. D. Acceptance of Projects as complete~ authorization to file Notice . of CompletiOn 1) 1989 Street Maintenance Program 2) Community Center Re-Roofing E. ResolUtions 2675 and 2676 accepting offers of dedication at All~ndale and Via Alto I F. Ordinance 71.80 prohibiting certain offensive conduct (second . reading and] adoption) G. Ordinance 7i.81 providing passenger loading zone on De Sanka in front of Blue Hills School (second reading and adoption) H. Ordinance 71.81 making technical amendments to Early Warning -Fire Alarm System (second reading and adoption) 5. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS AND THE PUBLIC A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ".1) · Michael Dennis, 14613 Oak Street, with proposal to resolve · ongoing compatibility problems between Village residences and commercial activities Mr. Dennis..was n6t in attendance, so no oral communication was received. · B. WRITTEN COMMUNICATION8 1 ) Gai 1 !wooley, Intergovernmental council, requesting councilmembers to fill vacancy in Solid waste Committee Councilmember· Cle enger noted that there was no need to-take any action V on this item since~ the position had already been filled. · 6. ' OLD BUSINESS A. Route 85 Sound Wall Heights and Locations through Saratoga Mr. Per. lin p~esentad the staff report, noting that the Council, at its previous'meeting, requested that staff prepare an estimate of costs of additional s6und wall heights which residents had requested along Route City Council Minutes 3 August 7, 1990 85. He stated that the subtotal provided on page three of the table in the staff report would change since adequate information was not yet received relative to wall segment B38, and accurate estimates could not be calculated for walls B34B and B35B on the Saratoga Avenue overcrossing. Discussion ensued between Councilmember Anderson and Mr. Perlin relating to wall segment B 30. Councilmember Anderson suggested that the Traffic Authority had agreed to the requested 12 foot wall heights along this area and Mr. Perlin suggested that the Traffic Authority was providing only 10 foot heights. Mr. Will Kempton, executive Director of the Traffic Authority, clarified the discussion, stating that the Traffic Authority was providing 12 foot wall heights on both sides of the freeway. In response to Councilmember Anderson'~ question as to whether the estimated cost would change, Mr. Perlin noted that there would be a decrease of approximately $51,000 in the subtotal. Councilmember Anderson stated that she would appreciate hearing from residents south of the Plumas Drive Neighborhood. Mr. Glen Sharp, Morilla Drive, addressed the Council and read a letter signed by several residents, proposing an agreement between Cal Trans and the homeowners for them to purchase property directly behind their homes based upon. the premise that Cal Trans would not build an interchange at Prospect Road. He stated that the home owners proposed the following: - Cal Trans move the sound wall back 12-15 feet or more so property owners could extend their fences back to the sound wall and maintain and cover all liabilities on the property along the sound wall - requested a meeting between homeowners, Cal Trans and the Traffic Authority that the request was signed by 13 homeowners that would include this segment in their homeowners insurance Mr. Kempton stated that this is a CalTrans policy matter and that every delay would have a cost factor relating to it. He stated that he would relate this request to Cal Trans and the Traffic Authority. Mayor Stutzman requested that Mr. Kempton bring an answer back and Mr. Kempton stated that he would. Councilmember Anderson suggested that another sound study be conducted · since she felt that citizens are not getting adequate facts. councilmember clevenger disagreed, noting that the City Council conducted community meetings where various requested heights were discussed. Further, she stated that the Traffic Authority stated that ;they would honor the residents' requests; that further studies would 'Tbe a waste of time; and that the public's requests should be honored. Councilmember Monia stated that he requested the cost estimate in order to investigate whether the City would be able to provide the additional wall heights since there is a sizable reserve. He stated that, in order to expedite matters, he would suggest using City reserve funds to ensure the residents' health and safety, and that that would demonstrate a good faith effort by the City to honor the citizens' requests. Mayor Stutzman suggested referring this back to staff; the other Councilmembers objected due to the delay. Councilmember Anderson noted that using $600,000' of City funds made her nervous; that there would have to be trade offs; and, that she is not supportive of using City funds. Councilmember Clevenger concurred with her comments. ON MOTION OF COUNCILMEMBER CLEVENGER, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MONIA, IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY ORDERED THAT STAFF NOTIFY THE TRAFFIC AUTHORITY THAT THE CITY COUNCIL EXPECTS THE TRAFFIC AUTHORITY TO HONOR THEIR COMMITMENT AND PROVIDE 8OUND WALL HEIGHT8 AS REQUESTED BY THE City Council Minutes 4 August 7,1990 RESIDENTS. Mr. KemptoN stated that there was no indication at the City conducted community meetings that the Traffic Authority would respond to the City's vote to provide whatever wall heights were requested. He further stated that he regretted the misunder-standing and noted that noise standards have to be adhered to and that an equitable application must be applied th.roughout the County. Further, Mr. Kempto~ stated that he is not prepared to recommend to the Traffic Authority~that these requests be honored by using Measure A funds. He continued that he would be glad to work with the City to investigate available 'funding such as those proposed by an environmental program sponsored by the resource agency; and would also help the City'investigate the use of City funds. Councilmember Anderson suggested a special study session with the Traffic Authority representative for Saratoga, Michael Kotowsky, to investigate' alternatives. Further, she stated that she is not interested in ~orking with Mr. Kempton to spend the City's money. Councilmember Monia stated that he cannot think of a better reason on which to spend the[ City's reserves. 1 Mayor Stutzman concurred with Councilmember Anderson's remarks relating. to the expenditUre]of City funds. COUNCILMEMBER MONIA MOVED THAT THE STAFF BE INSTRUCTED OF THE COUNCIL'S DESIRE TO SPEND UPiTO $550,000 TO HONOR REQUESTS OF THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY AND TO WORK WITH THE TRAFFIC AUTHORITY TO ENSURE THAT THEY PROVIDE AS MUCH OF~THAT MONEY AS POSSIBLE. (Clerk's note: The motion was not vo~ed uponi in this form.) Councilmember 'CleVenger indicated that she would second the motion .a~though she wants to make it clear to the staff that this is only a =~means of ensuring eo the residents that they will get,what was promised to them and that ~the Traffic Authority will provide all necessary funding. Councilmember Kohler stated that he would support such a motion. MayOr Stutzman repeated the motion and noted that negotiations would take place between staff and the Traffic Authority relative to who would provide the! funding. He stated that the City would have no leverage insuch a~motion since the Traffic Authority would depend on the City tolprovid~ any extra funds. Couhcilmember Monia pointed out that the sound walls requested will be provided and that staff will see to it that the Traffic Authority fund a major portion of~these requests. Councilmember Anderson agreed with Mayor Stutzman regarding thee suggested type of 'negotiation, and that she has not seen recommended?~'~ budget expenditures for the reserve funds. Councilmember Monia stated that the City does not have to sign off on -any plans that doinot provide the City with what it wants regarding Highway 85, but that if the position were taken that the residents will get ~hat they want., then plans can be approved. Mr. Perlin stated ~that the City does have the ability not to approve the final plans af~ter they are submitted. He th~n drew attention to a letter from a M~. George Koerber on Lemont Way east of Quito Road, and he requested if anyone was in attendance who could indicate what ,sound wall heights!are requested in that area, that they come forward. · · CoUncilmember Kohler stated that the Council should take a stand since he does not~want t6 provide the Traffic Authority wfth an excuse that delayed action increased the funding needs. Meg.Caldwell, 13906 Ravenwood Drive, stated that neighbors abutting that section of the freeway are on vacation and that it is her understanding that since the Traffic Authority is currently assessing that portion of the highway, a response would be more appropriate after City Council Minutes 5 August 7, 1990 a proposal is made. ON MOTION OF COUNCILMEMBER MONIA, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER CLEVENGER, IT WAS APPROVED THAT STAFF BE ADVISED OF THE COUNCIL'S INTENTION TO PROVIDE SUFFICIENT FUNDS TO ENSURE THAT RESIDENTIAL REQUESTS FOR SOUND WALL HEIGHTS BE HONORED; AND, FURTHER, THAT STAFF WORK WITH THE TRAFFIC AUTHORITY TO ACQUIRE NECESSARY FUNDING FOR THESE REQUESTS. 'Passed 3- 2 (Anderson, Stutzman opposed). ON MOTION OF COUNCILMEMBER MONIA, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER CLEVENGER, IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED THAT SEGMENTS 35B AND 34B RELATING TO THE SARATOGA AVENUE OVERCROSSING BE DELETED FROM THE CITY~S REQUESTS SINCE THERE IS NO REALISTIC COST ESTIMATE THAT COULD BE ACCOMMODATED AT THIS TIME. Mayor Stutzman returned to Item 4C. C. Resolution 2575.21amendlng budget and increasing appropriations for Big Basin Way Reconstruction Capital Project No. 957; acceptance of project as complete; authorization of file Notice of Completion. Mayor Stutzman noted that there are no members of the public to address this item at this time. ON MOTION OF COUNCILMEMBER ANDERSON, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MONIA, IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY ORDERED THAT RESOLUTION NO. 2575.21 AMENDING BUDGET AND INCREASING APPROPRIATIONS FOR BIG BASIN WAY RECONSTRUCTION - CAPITAL PROJECT NO. 957; ACCEPTANCE OF PROJECT AS COMPLETE; AND AUTHORIZATION TO FILE NOTICE OF COMPLETION BE ADOPTED. Mayor Stutzman proceeded to public hearings. 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Modification of design review and adoption of Negative Declaration for the construction of a 4,824 square foot one- story single-family residence at 15839 Hidden Hill Drive on a site with an average slope of 23.60 percent measuring 1.29 acres in the HC-ND zoning district (Applicant I. Velinsky) (DRS9-013) (Continued from July 24, 1990) Mr. Perlin stated that the issues surrounding this application were due to design review concerns and matters relating to the ridge line. Planning Director Emslie noted that the General Plan does not define a ridge line, but the NHR zoning district does; he reviewed the definition of a ridge line and displayed overhead slides to illustrate the definition. Further, he noted that the highest point on the Velinsky prqperty does not exceed 50 feet; that the greatest distance is between 34 and 36 feet and not the suggested 150 feet. Discussion ensued between Councilmember Kohler and Mr. Emslie relating to minor and major ridges. Councilmember Monia discussed calculations relating to the total foot print of the proposed home and Mr. Emslie stated that no notable differences exist between staff calculations and the developer's calculations and that the proposal is for an allowable amount in an HC- RD zone. Mayor Stutzman opened the Public Hearing at 8:30 p.m. Mr. Velinsky addressed the Council stating that he purchased the property three years ago and.has presented several designs to the Planning Commission; that he was told his proposed square footage was below the allowable limit and rejected; the second proposal for a two- story home was rejected and he was instructed to relocate the home to another site on the lot; that another attempt was made to perfect his proposal; that after relocating the home an additional three times, his proposal was finally approved by the Planning Commission; that after an appeal, the City Council required him to move the home two more City council Minutes 6 AuguSt 7, 1990 times and provide another des,ign requesting he not have a swimming pool on the westerly side of his property and that this three-car garage be reduced to a two-car garage. He stated that he has been very flexible in mitigating the concerns of the Planning Commission and the Council relating to.what he can do with his property and that due to the civil suit filed against him, he is before the City Council again with a 5th design. He requested approval of the current proposal. Mr. William Macute, Attorney for Mr. Velinsky, addressed the Council relating to several issues raised by the Coalition for Hillside Protection.. He pointed out inconsistencies in their concerns relating to twisting the language contained within the ordinance and suggested findings'to allow the construction of a home. He stated that allowing comparison of this lot to the Hwang lot and denying the applicant's request would constitute a taking of property, since the Coalition's argument relates to subdivisions, and Mr. Velinsky ]is not requesting a lot split. Dr. Ganetti, 1590~1 Ravine Road, spoke in support for the proposal noting surrounding residences and their conditions. He stated the proposed home woul~d enhance the neighborhood. Mr. Henry Haglin,~15835 Gypsy Hill Road, Los Gatos, pointed out that there is a petition with many signatures in support of the proposal. -He noted that some of the signatures are from Hidden Hill Subdivision and suggested that the Council approve that proposal. Mr. Jim 'Fit'sler, ~representing Dick Sherman due to his inability to attend tonight's meeting, read a letter from Mr. Sherman indicating support for Mr. Velinsky's proposal. 'Ms. Wanda Alexander, Ravine Road, representing Coalition for Hillside .Protection, spoke in opposition of the application due to the following .concerns: - definition~of natural ridge lines - misrepresentation of facts presented - hart of the property is an old orchard property - compatibility with surrounding neighbors - comparison~ between square feet and density --over use of the land - Council set]ting a precedent regarding construction on hillsides Ms. Alexander sugg'ested that the square footage of the home be reduced and that the hom~ be reduced in height. . Further she presented .a document of a survey and an engineering map indicating differences in the map displayed!by staff. After discussion between Councilmember Kohler ahd Mayor Stutzman regarding the incgnsistency pointed out by. Ms. Alexander, the Mayor asked Mr. Emslie to respond. Mr. Emslie stated8 that his information was provided to him by the Survey Engineer of the Hwang property and from an aerial survey. He stated that he fe~ls his information is adequate. Mr. Bill Heiss, Civil Engineer, informed the Counc'il that Mr. Roger Dodge, a licensed .land surveyor, provided!the topogr~phical survey and .the survey o~ Hidd'~n Hill; that the topographic survey was prepared by a surveyor. h-!red ~y ~ city. Councilmember Anderson stated that the survey was verified by the City staff. Mrj Kurt Anderson~ Architect for Mr. Velinsky, addressed the Council ..infOrming them that the survey done for the applicant was verified by a surveyor iselected by the City at the expense of the applicant. Councilmember Cle~enger stated that she feels that the staff's survey is accurate.'-- Councilmember Kohler asked where the map came from'that was provided by Ms.= Alexander, and Ms. Alexander stated that she got it from the City Council Minutes ? August 7, 1990 City. Councilmember Monia suggested a five minute break to review the maps to determine the more accurate one. There being no objection, Mayor Stutzman called for a five minute recess at 9:00 p.m., and the meeting reconvened at 9:05 p.m., with all members present. A citizen, Redding Road, stated that he is disturbed by the mathematical errors that make surrounding properties appear larger than they really are and he noted that he is concerned about the drawings. He presented a redlined drawing depicting closed-in porches that actually increase the square footage of the house and the overall appearance. He requested that accurate data be provided. Mr. Kurt Anderson, Architect, noted that the house is only 135 feet long; that no ceiling structure is above 15 feet; that no attics extend above 5 feet; and, that the only structure 26 feet in height is the pulpit. Discussion ensued relating to the length of the house including the garages and the extended roof areas. In response to a question from Mayor Stutzman, Mr. Anderson stated that the decks are covered but open on all sides. Mr. Erick Simmons, 1857 Ridge Berry Drive, stated that many of the decks are partially enclosed and that the columns make the house appear large. He read letters from other neighboring residents; one from Richard Sod, Hidden Hill Road, noting his opposition to the proposed 4800 square foot home; the second letter from Mr. and Mrs. James Jefferson, members of the Coalition for Hillside Protection, noting opposition to proposed square footage and height; the third letter from Kender Sean, noting opposition to the size and height of the window looking out over the property and expressed concern that their view would be impacted by the proposed height. Mrs. Dryer, member of the Green Belt Coalition, addressed the Council speaking in support of hillside protection. Mr. Bruce Tichinin, Attorney for the Coalition for Hillside Protection, submitted a copy of his brief to the City Clerk. He raised the following concerns: - a brief filed in Superior Court requested that the City of Saratoga pay the fees incurred by his firm to represent the Coalition for Hillside Protection - discussed maximum number of units per lot allowed along specified slope percentages - that according to his calculations with respect to the City ordinance, no house can be placed on that lot - to avoid an unlawful taking of property, he suggested the use of a variance - discussed granting of special privileges - that the Hwang property is larger therefore is allowed a larger structure - 'change to setbacks was not appropriate - slope density is violated - requested that the City Attorney fax him a response to. the brief and he did not receive one Councilmember Kohler cautioned the Council against taking action until the facts were straight. Mr. Tichinin continued that with respect to the General Plan there is no mention of minor or major ridges. However, he stated, the General Plan does suggest that historical landmarks be protected, and he compares the hillsides with historical landmarks. City Attorney Toppel indicated that he would not take on a major debate of this nature at this time; however, he noted his opposition to Mr. Tichinin's argument relative to his use of the subdivision rule city Council'Minutes 8 August 7, 1990 governing site density and that Mr. Velinsky is not applying for a lot split. Mr. William Macute, the Velinsky attorney, added that in his opinion Mr. Tichinin is misrepresenting the city ordinance; that the ridge is a minor one by definition; that size of the lots came from the assessors parcel maps; and, that staff has reviewed these issues again and again. He stated that there is no requirement for a variance and requested approval. Mr. Anderson concluded that the applicant has been flexible to provide whatever the City recommended time and time again and that it is Mr. Velinsky's desire that he and his family be allowed to become residents of Saratoga. Ms. Alexander reDutted the issues of the minor and major ridge definitions. Mayor Stutzman closed the public hearing at 9:26 p.m. City Attorney Top~el indicated that Mr. Tichinin has provided the 'Council with false information regarding a variance requirement; that information regarding surrounding zoning is not accurate; that his statements regardibg site density deal only with how many lots one can get if one subdivides. Further, if the Council' agreed with Mr. Tichinin it would] mean that every lot created prior to .the zoning ordinance would become non-conforming. Additionally, he stated that this type of Ordinance does not apply to this lot and does not apply to square footage iof a house; that the size of a house is determined 5y-design. He not'ed that the language contained in the NHR Ordinance is for the NHR district only and contains a definition of minor and major ridges; andathat using the ordinance could constitute a taking since One cannot ~ake a definition of one zoning ordinance and apply it to another. Mr. Tichinin requested permission to speak; after a brief discussion .between Councilmembers, the Mayor declared that the public hearing was closed and that further debate was not appropriate. At Councilmember Monia's request the Planning Director reviewed the mapsiindicating the difference between a major ridge and,a minor ridge. He noted that Ms. Alexander did not use Mr. Velinsky's property to determine the ridge line, but rather an adjoining property. Mayor Stutzman pointed out that the JCP Ecology report states that the point Mr. Emslie ~efers to is a ridge. Mr. Emslie stated that it is a ridge in its geological form, but it is not a ridge under the definition Of the NHR zone. Councilmember Monia noted that, although he feels the bulk and design of the house are not appropriate for the site, there are no violations of City ordinances~ or codes and the proposal meets all of the setback requirements imposed by the City at this time. However, he suggested that conditions b~ placed allowing construction of a home no higher than 20 feet and n0 longer than 125 feet due to the 10 foot overhand; that the house not: exceed 4500 square feet. ON MOTION OF-COUNCILMEMBER MONIA, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER CLEVENGER, IT IS SUGGESTED THAT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION BE ACCEPTED AND THAT THE APPLICANT BE ALLOWED TO BUTI.D A HOMR WITH CONDITIONS LIMITING THE ~HEIGHT T020 FEET,. THE LENGTH TO 125 FEET AND THE SQUARE FOOTAGE TO 4500 SQUARE FEET; ~AND, THAT IF THE APPLICANT RETUP~NS TO THE PLANNING STAFF MEETING THOSE CONDITIONS, HE BE ALLOWED TO CONSTRUCT HIS HOME. Councilmember Anderson stated that she was not comfortable limiting the square footage~of the home to 4500 square feet. · Councilmember Koh~er opposed the motion since the original proposal was for 3600 square feet and he is concerned that the applicant added more square footage without providing the Council with adequate time .for review. Further, he stated he could have supported the motion if the house were reduced to 4000 square feet and relocated away from the two existing mature trees on the lot. City Council Minutes 9 August 7, 1990 Councilmember Monia stated that relocating the house would require moving it higher onto the ridge. Mayor Stutzman noted his previous concerns to the proposal related to the size and location; the fact that the Hillside Coalition is watching; compatibility to surrounding structures; and, that other reservations relate to this being a visible ridge which may influence other cities in the area. Councilmember Clevenger stated that although the proposal would not have been her personal choice, the property owner has the right to builda home, he can afford a larger home and has not violated any city regulations. Also, she pointed out that the Council requested that he meet certain conditions and he met them including relocation of the~ home upon the ridge. Councilmember Anderson concurred with Anderson~s statements. Upon voting, the motion was passed 3-2 (Kohlerland Stutzman opposed). Mayor Stutzman returned to Old Business. 6. OLD BUSINESS (continued) C. Approval of Joint Powers Agreement to establish Stadium Finance Authority; includes authorization for Stadium Finance Authority to place measure on November ballot for imposition of I percent Utility Users Tax (continued from August 1, 1990) Acting City Manager Perlin presented the Council with three additional documents presented to the Clerk this evening,~letters from Justin Venamen, Joseph Sweeny and Edgar Sac and a revised Joint Powers Agreement, dated August 1, 1990. He pointed out that seven telephone calls were received by the City Clerk's office in opposition. City Attorney Toppel outlined the request noting that two separate _ items are combined, as follows: should the city become involved in the JPA at all . .. should the residents be subject to increased utility taxes He noted that if public vote determines that Saratoga should not participate in the Joint Powers Authority (JPA), then residents would not be taxed. He reviewed Section 8.08 on page 13 of the new agreement, which authorizes the Council to impose conditions on the agreement to participate in the JPA as it relates to the measure being put on the ballot. He questioned who would pay for the local elections and who would be responsible for preparing ballot arguments. He felt that challenges to the ballot measure would be the responsibility of the JPA. Councilmember Anderson and the City Attorney discussed a binding measure and Proposition 62 relating to special elections. Mr. Toppel noted that special elections relating to general tax increases are operated under the State Election Codes and that a majority vote is all that is required. In answer to Mayor Stutzman's question regarding the legality of this election, Mr, Toppel stated that there is a precedent in terms of other cities delegating a portion of their taxing authority to the JPA and that the procedure for doing this is proper. Mayor Stutzman asked if there is any indication ~n writing that if the City of Saratoga does not vote favorably the citizens of Saratoga will not be taxed. Councilmember Clevenger informed the Council that a Resolution was passed ensuring that cities such as Saratoga, Campbell and Los Altos could determine their own destiny and would not be affected by what other cities do. Mr. Herb Barbell, Fruitvale Avenue, stated that simply because a City Council Minutes 10 August 7, 1990 citizen is opposed to the tax it should not be determined that he is against the Giants or baseball. He noted his support of the Giants and baseball but spoke against Saratoga's involvement in the proposal. Additionally, he spoke of Section 503 of the powers of authority agreement to levy~and collect one percent of taxes, clarifying that taxes collected would come from all taxable utilities such as electrical, gas, telephones, water, sewer, garage, cable television and nitrogen gas. Mrt Art Albertson,. Sobey Road, discussed the specific taxes, limited benefits to the residents of Saratoga and opposed the suggestion made by the JPA that these taxes would cease in time to come. He stated that taxes do not go down and after the stadium is paid for'there would be taxes for mai. ntenance of the facility. Mr. Sam Arveto expressed concern that the City should not be involved in a business venture especially when investors are dependent upon tax dollars. George Rishell, I131013.Glen Brae Drive, drew attention to his letter, dated August 3, 19~0, regarding opposition to the proposed utility tax. He reiterated comments contained in his letter. Mr. Terry Bowmen, 01d Oak Way, spoke in opposition to the proposal. Marlens Brokaw, 12~48 Ferris Lane, addressed the Council. Stating that the real issue is ~hether the public should be allowed to vote or not and stated that sh~ would like. to have that opportunity. Christian Cary, 1530 Hallcrest Drive, San Jose, addressed the Council stating that she w6uld like to have the opportunity.to vote. Bill Murphy, SaratGga resident, stated that he would like to see the proposal placed on,the ballot and requested that he be allowed to vote. Ed Thompson, 13089!Couple Wood Drive, addressed the Council and stated that since the public voted for the Councilmembers the Councilmembers have every right' to act in the best interest of the residents of the City. Linda Sandel, 12800 Story Brook Road, spoke in support of placing this proposal on the ballot since it was the Council who requested public input. Dave Fraden, 20740 FoUrth Street, spoke of his experiences in development of a baseball facility in Minnesota and requested that the · issue be placed before the citizens on the baNlot. S owo s Way, noted a point made by SUpervisor Diridon George Tour, had ak that the project would move forward without the vote of small cities such as Saratoga. He concluded that if this is the case, then there was no need to put it on the ballot. Councilmember Clevenger noted that as the representative for Saratoga on the Joint Powers Authority, she has been a party to all of the negotiations surrounding development of the Stadium. She spoke strongly in favor ~of providing the citizens with an opportunity to vote. Further, She pointed out that the project requires a regional effort and that this would be a perfect opportunity to illustrate to surrounding cities] that Saratoga is willinq to participate in a regional effort. Mayor Stutzmanindicated his reservations, as follows: - should it b~ placed on the ballot and pass, it would be an increased'taX burden to no matter how they voted I_ the tax would encompass all utilities, not just electricity ~ no assuranc~ that this will not be a sunset tax - the facilit~ is built on a toxic site that may need to be cleaned up in years to come - doubts that ~Saratoga will get a return on the money - personally he does not attend many games and the expense would outweigh the benefits City Council Minutes 11 August 7, 1990 possibility of being involved in a war in the mideast exists possibility of going into a recession that the Council is responsible for making decisions for the citizens of Saratoga and cautioned against increases in residential expenditures Councilmember Anderson stated that she has a difficult time supporting or opposing the proposal since she feels the citizehs should have a right to vote. On the other hand, she feels responsible for burdensome tax increases. She noted that the possibility of private ownership still exists and she expressed a concern regarding the County and the JPA's ability to run such a facility. Councilmember Kohler noted that the Joint Powers Authority consists of the County and the City of San Jose and he feels that this is an arm- twisting proposal. He further noted the following: - the percentage of money Saratoga residents would have to invest is not the issue, but,' rather, the principle of allowing an authority to take tax dollars - the return would not warrant the potential investment - he would like to see it privately owned Councilmember Monia discussed issues raised by other Councilmembers noting his difficulty in making a decision on this issue. He expressed the following concerns: - love for the sport and the Giants baseball team - reluctance in raising taxes of residents - he owns a business in Sunnyvale that would profit from the investment - attends many of the games and having the Stadium so close would be beneficial to him personally - opposed long term increase in taxes to the citizens of Saratoga - belief that the tax is a sunset tax and after a twelve year period of time, new parking facilities and expansion of the proposed facilities would be needed - belief that more tax dollars will be requested over the lifetime of the Stadium belief that Saratoga does not get fair representation on the JPA since larger cities will have a greater number of votes. Councilmember Anderson noted that she was impressed by the number of telephone calls received requesting private ownership of the facility. Councilmember Monia initiated discussion regarding the $311,000 investment over the twelve year span from the City. He also discussed the possibility that low attendance would cause a great loss. Mr. Steve Woodside, County Counsel Representative, addressed the Council regarding proposed Memorandum of Understanding. He stated that the tax would support the purchase of bonds and have to be paid off in thirty years, but based upon an analysis done by reputable economists, the projection for pay-off is approximately twelve years. Councilmember Monia requested clarification regarding the Memorandum of Understanding between the JPA and the Giants relative to whether or not the Giants will stay in Santa Clara and if another baseball team would be allowed to use the park. Mr. Woodside stated that the Memorandum of Understanding is a binding agreement that will be effective prior to the election, and, that the Giants would be obligated to retain their lease. Further, he indicated that the JPA would be authorized to collect the taxes and that the Giants will have no participation in that process. Councilmember Anderson asked Mr. Woodside if he was familiar with any contract that takes twelve years to pay off and cautioned the Council relative to this type of agreement. ON MOTION OF COUNCILMEMBER KOHLER, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MONIA, IT WAS ORDERED ON A VOTE OF 4-1-0, COUNCILMEMBER CLEVENGER VOTING NO, THAT THE REQUEST FROM THE JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY BE DENIED. ~2ity CounCil Minutes 12~ August 7, 1990 Councilmember Clevenger requested discussion of the motion. councilmemberKohler stated that he is not supportive of putting the citizens of Saratoga in bondage over the next twelve years, especially to a contract thata continues to change. Mayor Stutzman ~afled for a recess at 11:30 p.m. and excused himself due to illness. Vice Mayor Kohler presided when the meeting resumed at 11:45 p.m. He returned to Item B under Old Business. B. Actions pertaining to certain lots within Tract 7770 and certain property located adjacent to said tract (extension of Old Oak Way and Chiquita Way) (continued from July 14, 1990) Replacement of Oak Trees Acting City Manage~r Perlin reported relative to the landscaping plan for Tract 7770, ~the Williamson Act Parcel and revegetation as recommended by the~City Horticulturist. Inaddition, Mr. Perlin noted additional items of communication from Barrie Coats, Kenneth Meyer, a tree report prepared by Mayne Tree Experts and suggestions for revegetation from ~isa Kurasch, residing at 18665 Ravenwood Drive. Planning Director Emslie reported regarding the revised landscape plan submitted by the ~pplicant's architect. He stated that the City's Horticulturist feels that the revised plan falls short of replacement for trees removed.~ He noted problems faced regarding transporting of larger trees to the site. Further, Mr. Emslie stated that staff has contacted tree movers that specialize in moving larger trees and that these tree .moving; experts are present for questions relating to transporting and replanting larger trees. He stated that staff is recommending that qity Council secure largest sized trees possible for the site. Vice Mayor Kohler!requested that the representatives from Coast to Coast Tree Movers come forward and discuss the feasibility of moving larger sized trees~in hopes of resolving this issue tonight. Scott Newlet, Coast to Coast Tree Movers, addressed the Council and presented photographs of trees available from San Benito County, noting the sizes. Councilmember Anderson asked why San Benito County would opt to allow the removal of their large oak trees. Mr. Newlet informed the Council that removal of trees 'from San Benito County was legal and he did not know why they are willing to allow their removal. Councilmember Anderson asked what kind of a site these trees'come from and Mr. Newlet responded that it was a cattle ranch. Discussion ensued relating to specific means of transporting the trees, their size, the m~thod of preparing the trees for moving and the survivability of the trees. Councilmember Monia-asked how many trees Coast to Coast Tree Movers have moved and if a guarantee is provided relative to their survival. Councilmember Anderson asked about transporting large trees to this specific site and Mr. Newlet stated that he could move the trees. Vice Mayor Kohler a'sked about maintenance of the trees, and Mr. Newlet stated that the guarantee is dependent upon a maintenance agreement that Coast to coastswould be allowed to maintain the trees for at least six months. Mr. Perlin stated ~that he has witnessed the transporting of large trees. He spoke of]Coast to Coast's reputation, pointed out that they are one of two large tree movers in California nation and that they abide by all State'Highway regulations. Mr; Barrie Coats commended the work done by Coast toCoast Tree Movers; City Council Minutes 13 August 7, 1990 however, he cautioned against replanting with larger trees, since the move will stunt the growth of larger trees more than smaller trees and that in five years smaller trees may surpass the larger transported trees. Vice Mayor Kohler stated that he prefers seeing larger trees on the site as soon as possible. Mr. Coate discussed trunk diameters, the estimated short falls in the revised landscape plans and.expressed concern relating to planting so many large trees. He felt it would be more appropriate to vary the size and types of trees at the site. Mr. Emslie explained that the short falls related to trunk diameter. Ms. Lisa Kurasch, 18665 Ravenwood Drive, reported to the Council regarding her recommended revegetation plan, noting reasons for replanting with smaller trees, as follows: - size, ages and types of trees should vary due to environmental reasons - oak trees are sensitive to being moved ~ince very little of the original root mass is moved with the tree so it causes a delay in the growth - six months is not enough time for maintenance of a large tree that has been moved - the smaller boxed trees have a long life span and do not experience the root problems associated with the transporting larger trees Ms. Kurasch concluded that the City should hire a consultant to advise them regarding a viable revegetation plan. Vice Mayor Kohler asked how many inchesof trunk diameter is necessary to meet the short fall. Mr. Emslie responded that 229 square inches are needed and he discussed' how this figure was calculated. Mr. Richard Murray, the developer's landscape architect, referenced the report he prepared and transmitted to the Council noting the company's vast experience in tree replacement. He suggested that planting on a hillside is not conducive to plant growth because the large oak trees mentioned earlier for moving are not used to excessive heat, that the use of smaller trees spaced appropriately would provide the highest viability for this site. Mr. Bob Wilson, Physicist, noted that placing several smaller trees together would not allow for adequate light. Vice Mayor Kohler requested that a motion be made to address a fair representation of the trees lost based upon variety and size for the best results possible. Mr. Newlet suggested that the trees removed be replaced by square inch for square inch basis and in such a way that you have variety in types and sizes. Discussion ensued relating to the best possible solution to the problem and Councilmember Anderson suggested using thc trces reserved and add the square inches that are missing up to 15 inches in the larger tree sizes and complete the balance with whatever the City Horticulturist suggests. Councilmember Kohler agreed with the suggestion. Ms. Kurasch maintained that the City should hire a consultant to decide on the exact replanting procedure. After lengthy discussion of how the replanting should be done, Councilmember Monia suggested that staff investigate the best method of replacement and return with a report at the next City Council meeting. Mr. Emslie suggested that the City use the approved trees, and add City Council Minutes 14 August 7, 1990 trees to make up the difference using eight to fifteen inch diameter trees. Councilmember Clevenger left her seat at 12:30 p.m. and returned after the vote was taken. Councilmember Monia suggested staff work out the .details with the landscape architect and the City Horticulturist. ON MOTION'OF COUNCILMEMBER ANDERSON, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MONIA IT WAS ORDERED ON A VOTE OF 3-0-2, COUNCILMEMBER CLEVENGER AND MAYOR STUTZMAN BEING ABSENT, THAT STAFF APPROVE A REVISED RESTORATION PLAN WHICH INCLUDES ADDITIONAL SPECIMEN TREES RANGING IN SIZE BETWEEN 8"- 15" CALIPER; THE NUMBER OF TREES SMALL BE AS RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY HORTICULTURIST IN HIS REPORT. D. Report on COuncil Noticing Policy On consensus of 'the Council the written report was accepted. E. Proposal fo~ provision of City Attorney Services CounCilmember Moni~a suggested designating two members of the Council to work with the City Manager to prepare a proposal. Councilmember · Monia and Vice Maypr Kohler volunteered. F. 'City Council Expense Allowance - City Expense Reimbursement Acting City Manager Perlin presented the written report and Councilmember Monia requested that Mr. Toppel explain the legalities related to the expense allowance. Mr. Toppel, City Attorney, explained that the $20 paymeht for meeting 'attendance would be categorized as a salary and subject to provisions under the GovernmeNt Code. Further, he stated that an ordinance change speci'fying a limitation is required, unless the Council determines the expense allowance .is for travel and food, in which case an amendment to the Ordinance iS unnecessary. Discussion ensued relating to past action taken by the Council with regard to this allowance and CoUncilmember Anderson stated that all that is required ~is for this Council to ratify the action taken previously. ~ There was consensus to consider the matter further at the Council's September 5 meeting. G. Review of R~quests from Saratoga Village Host Association referred to staff on June 20, 1990 ON MOTION OF COUNCILMEMBER MONIA, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER KOHLER IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY ORDERED 4-0-1, MAYOR STUTZMAN BEING ABSENT FOR THE VOTE, THAT ITEM NO. 6G BE DEFERRED TO THE SEPTEMBER 5, 1990, CITY COUNCIL MEETING.' H. Report oncoffee for Council Chambers Lobby Vice Mayor Kohler stated that he would like to provide coffee to citizens since meetings often last beyond midnight. Councilmember Anderson informed Vice Mayor Kohler that for the past several years the Council has been provided with coffee for the Council Chambers by a volunteer agency (Good Government Group) at no cost to the City, and sta'ted that she is not supportive Of changing this policy. ~ MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBERANDERSON, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER CLEVENGER, TO CONTINUE THE CURRENT POLICY REGARDING THE PROVISION OF COFFEE FOR COUNCIL MEETINGS WAS DEFERRED DUE TO A VOTE OF 2-2-1, MAYOR STUTZMAN ABSENT AND COUNCILMEMBERS KOHLER AND MONIA VOTING NO. I. Open Space ~ommittee - General Members from four parts of the city City Council Minutes 15 August 7, 1990 Mr. Steve Emslie, Planning Director, reviewed the previous action taken by the Council requesting that an Open Space Task Force be established to review open space matters. He stated that a draft mission statement will be prepared and recommended that four appointments be made from the public to represent each geographic region, and that a Councilmember be appointed to act as alternate. Councilmember Anderson suggested that the position be advertised in the newspaper and that interviews be conducted for the public representatives. Mr. Don Macrae, Saratoga resident, requested that he be;appointed to represent his region, noting his experience and willingness to attend all of the meetings. IT WAS THE GENERAL CONSENSUS OF THE CITY COUNCIL THAT THE PUBLIC REPRESENTATIVE POSITIONS BE ADVERTISED AND APPLICANTS INTERVIEWED. 7. NEW BUSINESS A. Housing Element Progress Report Planning Director Emslie presented an overview of the State Law requiring each city to prepare a Housing Element as part of its General Plan. He recommended that, since a provision in the State Law requires that cities prepare a preservation program for lower income households, a citizens' committee be formed to review the community needs. Councilmember Monia spoke in opposition to forming committees of any kind and suggested that a Public Hearing be initiated instead to receive input from the community. Councilmember Anderson is not supportive of the City Council conducting Public Hearings relating to this item and suggested referring to the Planning Commission. ON MOTION OF COUNCILMEMBER MONIA, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ANDERSON, IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY ORDERED, 4-0-1, HAYOR 8TUTZMAN BEING ABSENT, THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION CONDUCT PUBLIC HEARINGS RELATING TO THE HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN AND REPORT BACK, DATE UNCERTAIN, TO THE COUNCIL REGARDING ITS FINDINGS. B. Review of County Transit Alternatives Acting city Manager Perlin presented the written staff report and noted that an operations analysis was prepared to study bus service and identify areas considered for future service. Councilmember Anderson stated that the West Valley area is very under rated relative to the need for bus services; that north, east, and west of Saratoga is also under rated. Further, she requested that staff inform the Santa Clara County Transportation Agency to provide the route proposed. ON MOTION OF COUNCILMEMBER MONIA, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ANDERSON, IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY ORDERED THAT PUBLIC HEARINGS BE HELD AFTER OCTOBER 1, 1990, TO SEEK PUBLIC INPUT RELATING TO NEEDED BUS SERVICE IN THE WEST VALLEY AREA; AND, THAT SANTA CLARA TRANSIT BE REQUESTED TO PROVIDE AN ALTERNATIVE FOR PROVIDING SERVICES TO THE WEST VALLEY AREA AND THAT STAFF FORWARD OPTIONS PREVIOUSLY PRESENTED BY COUNCILMEMBER ANDERSON. C. Congestion Management Plan - Initial Criteria for saratoga Vice Mayor Kohler asked if the Council would like to have a study session to discuss the City Engineer's request for staff direction. Mr. Perlin requested that sections of Pierce Road and portions of Quito Road be deleted from the Congestion Management Plan. ON MOTION OF COUNCILMEMBER CLEVENGER, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ANDERSON, IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY ORDERED THAT THE STAFF BE DIRECTED TO FOLLOW THE INITIAL POSITION IN STATING SARATOGA'S OBJECTIVES REGARDING City council Minutes 16 Augu~t'7, 1990 CONGESTION MANAGEMENT. .9. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS A. Reports from Individual Councilmembers It was the general consensus of the Council that t~e issues relating to Nelson Gardensibe deferred to a future Council meeting. 'i B. consfder reversing Cityts support of SB 209 - Councilmember c b le Coun ilmem er C v~enger discussed the conversation by the City Council at ~itS .last meeti.ng opposing SB 209. She stated that the City of saratoga has supported SE 209 in the past and that opposition to this proposition will have a negative impact on traffic along Saratoga Avenue. Councilmember Monia stated that he would support'reversing Council action due to his concern that the City is being threatened by the Traffic Authority.. oun 'lmem er Anderson stated that she will write a C cl b letter to Assemblymember Qua~kenbush expressing the City's concerns. ON GENERAL CONSENSUS OF THE COUNCIL ITEM NO. 9B WAS DEFERRED TO THE ~ ' ' '' cities conference, October 21-24, Ariahelm, with reasonable and necessary expenses Acting City .Manageir Perlin requested that a member of the Council be selected tO attend the League of California Cities Conference on ,october 2.1 - 24th. oun ilmem er An erson noted Mayor Stutzman's absence indicating it was C c b d appropriate for th~ Mayor to attend the conference and volunteered to be the alternate. un ilmem er Monia noted his reluctance to send City Councilmembers Co c b on meetings, trips and conferences. ON MOTION OF COUNCILMEMBER ANDERSON, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER CLEVENGER,'IT WAS ~ORDERED 3-1-1, COUNCILMEMBER MONIA VOTING NO AND MAYOR STUTZMANBEING ABSENT, THATMAYOR STUTZMAN, THE CITYMANAGER, THE PUBLIC SERVICES DIRECTOR, AND THE CITY ATTORNEY BE AUTHORIZED TO ATTEND THE=LEAGUE 0F CALIFORNIA CITIES CONFERENCE IN OCTOBER AND THAT COUNCILMEMBER ANDERSON BE SELECTED AS THE ALTERNATE. -CoUnCilmember Mo '~ requested that a report of expenses and an outline nl of conference issues be brought back to the Council for review. 10.I CLOSED SESSION on potential litigation concerning Draft Environmental Impact Report for E1 Paseo Redevelopment prepared by'the City~of San Jose, and, the illegal grading, clearing and .removal on Cocclardi/Chadwick development and on Pool vs. City .of Saratoga et al. The ~i~y AttOrney ~equested authorization to substitute a lis pendens recorded against the lots in Tract 7770 with a Notice of Code Violation 'to allow owners to~ secure 'financing tO implement restoration plans. There was consensus for such authorization. . 11.. ADJOURNMENT The-meeting was adjourned at 1:15 a.'m.'