Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-03-1991 City Council Minutes MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL TIME: Wednesday, April 3, 1991 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Ave. TYPE: Regular Meeting 1. ROLL CALL Mayor Stutzman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Councilmembers Present: Clevenger, Vice Mayor Kohler, Monia, and Mayor Stutzman. Councilmembers Absent: Anderson (excused absence) out of town. 2. CEREMONIAL ITEMS - None. 3. ROUTINE MATTERS A. Approval of Minutes - 3/20; 3/26 CLEVENGER/MONIA MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MARCH 20, 1991, WITH THE FOLLOWING CORRECTIONS: Referring to paragraph 2 on page 5, Councilmember Monia clarified the intent of his statement to .read: Counoilmember Monia observed that every thing has a bell-shaped life cycle. With the opening of the interchange, he believes that the City of Saratoga will start on its downside or backside of the bell-shaped curve. Paragraph 3 of page 5 was corrected to read, ,,Motion passed 4-0-1 (Kohler abstained.) ,, Line 3 of paragraph 4 of page 6 corrected to read, "Motion passed 4- 0-1 (Monia abstained.),, MOTION PASSED 4-0 (ANDERSON ABSENT.) MONIA/CLEVENGER MOVED APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF MARCH 26, 1991, WITH THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS: Page 3, last paragraph - Vice Mayor Kohler indicated that he requested that development standard revisions be brought to the Council as soon as possible and it was decided to separate them from the ridqe line study. MOTION PASSED 4-0 (ANDERSON ABSENT.) B. Approval of Warrant List MONIA/CLEVENGER MOVED TO APPROVE THE WARRANT LIST. PASSED 4-0. C. Report of city clerk on Posting of Agenda The City Clerk announced that pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on March 29. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Planning Commission Actions, 3/27 - Noted and filed. B. Public Safety Commission Minutes, 3/18 - Noted and filed. C. Libraz7 Commission Minutes, 3/27 - Noted and filed. D. Approval of Request from Saratoga Parent Nursery School to post special event signs throughout City subject to conditions in Staff Report. E. Proclamation on American Home Week as part of Fair Housing Month. F. Approval of Memorial Day Walk with services of Deputy Sheriff on May 27. City Councll Minutes 2 April 3, 1991 e. Final Building Site Approval, SDS8-019 (Birenbaum), 20052 Sunset Drive. Item G was removed from the Consent Calendar at the request of Staff, the Birenbaums, and Mrs. Meg Giberson. CLEVENGER/KOHLER MOVED TO CONTINUE ITEM G AT THE REQUEST OF STAFF. PASSED 4-0 (ANDERSON ABSENT.) MONIA/CLEVENGER MOVED TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR WITH THE EXCEPTION OF ITEM Gt WHICH WAS REMOVED FROM THE CALENDAR. PASSED 4- 0 (ANDERSON ABSENT.) 5. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS AND THE PUBLIC A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Councilmember Monia referred to a vandalism act in the City Hall parking lot wherein a Planning Commissioner~s automobilews tires were slashed. MONIA/CLEVENGER MOVED TO ADD THE ITEM TO TONIGHT~S AGENDA. PASSED 4- Councilmember Monia remarked that it is incumbent upon the City to take steps in trying to eliminate such acts from occurring as well as trying to find the perpetrator of the act. Mayor Stutzman proposed that the City adopt a resolution offering a reward, and asked City Attorney Michael Riback for the proper procedure to do so. Mr. Riback responded that the Council can direct the City Attorney and Staff to come back to the Council with a resolution establishing a reward for any information leading to the apprehension of the person who committed the vandalism act. Councilmember Clevenger suggested asking the Public Safety Commission for advice on this matter. A discussion ensued. Mr. Peacock referred to Resolution 2327 adopted by the City Council in April 1986, which is the current policy document covering approval for expenses. He cited pertinent sections which include the Mayor, members of the City Council, officers (which would include Commissioners and employees of the City). MONIA/KOHLER MOVED TO DIRECT STAFF TO COME BACK WITH A REVISED POLICY REFINING THE LANGUAGE TO CLEARLY INCLUDE ALL PERSONS WORKING AS AN OFFICIAL ON BEHALF OF THE CITYWHICH INCLUDES EMPLOYEES, COMMISSIONERS, AND COUNCIL MEMBERS. Mayor Stutzman stated he was contemplating a deterrent and to offer an inducement for someone to come forth with the information that would lead to the arrest of the person responsible for the act. MOTION PASSED 4-0 (ANDERSON ABSENT.) Councilmember Monia and Mayor Stutzman each offered a $1,000 reward to any individual whose information will lead to the arrest and conviction of the perpetrator of last nightws incident. MONIA/KOHLER MOVED THAT THE COUNCIL REQUEST THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION TO REVIEW A REWARD POLICY FOR ACTS OF VANDALISM OR CRIMINAL ACTS AGAINST CITY OFFICIALS, CITY BUILDINGSt ETC. PASSED 4-0 (ANDERSON ABSENT.) B. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS 1) Gary R. Herbert, 12175 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd., requesting fee waiver for Cub Scout event at Wildwood Park. Following brief discussion, KOHLER/MONIA MOVED TO DENY REQUEST, CONSISTENT WITH POLICY THAT FEES ARE WAIVED ONLY FOR GROUPS HAVING AN EVENT CO-SPONSORED BY THE CITY. PASSED 4-0 (ANDERSON ABSENT.) City Council Minutes 3 April 3, 1991 2) Bert Marts1, requesting that copies of final report of Citizens Investigative Committee of Tract 7770 be kept at Library. CounciI members noted Mr. Martel~s request, and commented that as a normal procedure, the report would be sent to the Library. 6. OLD BUSINESS A. Discussion of the Possibility of Becoming a Charter City. City Attorney Michael Riback summarized his report dated March 12, 1991 to the City Council, and responded to questions from the Council members. Councilmember Kohler inquired what-costs are involved. Mayor Stutzman proposed a study session regarding the prop and cons of the issue. Councilmember Monia suggested directing Staff to develop a report on the pros and cons and a reasonable estimate of costs to put measure on the ballot before going into a study session. Mr. Peacock reported Staff has been in contact with the League of Cities on obtaining whatever information is available on charter cities, and it has not been very extensive. The majority of the analysis work would have to be done by the City Attorney's office. Mr. Peacock noted that whichever process the Council selects will take a long time to accomplish, and ultimately has to be placed before the voters to approve the charter. The formation of the Committee is another elective act which has to be done. The cost of putting the measure on the ballot is going to be a significant one. Mr. Peacock proposed asking the League of Cities Policy Committee on Elections and Organizations and Government Administration to take up the issue whether the League would support a change in State law which gives cities the option of limited terms for elected officials. CONSENSUS TO OBTAIN PRELIMINARY LIST AND THEN DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT TO INVEST ADDITIONAL TIME FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. B. Report from Finance Director concerning National League of Cities Dues Mr. Peacock presented a review of the findings. Councilmember Clevenger commented that the item is on tonight's agenda at the request of Councilmember Anderson who is not present tonight. MONIA/KOHLER MOVED TO CONTINUE ITEM. PASSED 4-0 (ANDERSON ABSENT.) C. Route 85: Cox Avenue Overcrossing - Verification of structure elevation (continued from 3/a0). No further information available from CalTrans yet~ continue to April 17. D. Status Report from Planning Director on Construction on the Velinsky Property. City Engineer Larry Perlin presented the Staff Report dated March 29, 1991, to the City Council. Mrs. Wanda Alexander, County resident, addressed the Council. While she reviewed the agenda memorandum, Councilmember Monia reported that Mr. Velinsky called him last Thursday. Mr. Velinsky was not disagreeable to early planting to screen his property from the Alexander property. Mr. Velinsky volunteered to call Mrs. Alexander to work out the details as to what type of screening would be suitable. If he doesn't contact her within the next few days, Councilmember City Council Minutes 4 April 3, 1991 Monia will contact Mr. Velinsky again. Mrs. Alexander is still not satisfied with the some of the construction work completed and in progress. Planning Director Stephen Emslie explained the 660 contour grading and responded to Council Members' questions. Following discussion, Mayor Stutzman offered to do a land site visit. The hour of 8:30 p.m. having arrived, Mayor Stutzman moved the agenda to Public Hearings. 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS - 8:30 p.m. A. Appeal of tentative map approval to subdivide a 1.34 acre parcel at 13820 Ravenwood into three new parcels of approximately 19,000 sq. ft. each within the R-1-10,000 zone district (SD90-007) (Applicant, Perry & Jones; appellant, R. Cotson etal.) Mr; Emslie presented the Staff Report dated April 3, 1991, to the City Council. Councilmember Clevenger conunented she could not recall any other request before the Council where the house was torn down-and then subdivided. Mr. Emslie reminded her of a similar situation on Oahu Lane in the past year and a half; however, it was taken care of at the Planning Commission level and did not go before the Council. One of her concerns has been that if a lot is left too large it might be able to be subdivided in the future. She clarified that as a rule, a flag lot can not be created unless it is 20,000 square feet. Councilmember Monia stated asked whether the staff analysis took into consideration the additional traffic that is going to be generated in the Quito area once Highway 85 opens up. Mr. Emslie responded that Staff has applied traffic projections on this particular subdivision. Mr. Emslie indicated that the analysis did not include the overall traffic impact with Quito becoming more of a feeder for Highway 85. Responding to Councilmember Moniats question, Mr. Emslie stated that the Staff analysis did not include evaluating the air quality. Councilmember Monia made reference to the Planning Commissioner who came to the ~'ebruary 27, 1991 meeting during deliberations of this item. Councilmember Monia stated that the records are unclear as to what time the Commissioner arrived and whether or not there was a fair amount of testimony taken before the Planning Commissioner arrived. Mr. Emslie commented that the Planning Commission has asked the Minutes Clerk to review the tapes and provide the specific time of arrival. It is his understanding that Commissioner Tappan arrived while testimony was being given which would have been after the Staff Report was given to the Planning Commission. (Clerk~s Note: For the record, Commissioner Tappan arrived at the 2/27/91 meeting at 8:00 p.m.) Responding to Councilmember Monia~s question whether new information was presented, Mr. Emslie replied that the concern over the increased development was not a new issue, but the neighborhood did bring up several specific issues related to the conditions being discussed by the Commission at the time. Councilmember Monia asked whether the full Planning Commission that voted was there when those -items were discussed. Mr. Emslie's recollection is that because the neighborhood had a very well organized presentation to the Commission, Commissioner Tappan entered partway through that, he did not hear the testimony from the very beginning. Mayor Stutzman wondered why supplemental material which he understands was delivered by the appellants to City Hall on Friday, March 29, 1991, was not included in the agenda packets, nor were the voluminous letters from the neighborhood. Mayor Stutzman indicated that the information is very significant and would probably have some bearing on the Council's deliberations as to how the neighborhood feels about this project. City Council Minutes 5 April 3, 1991 Some Council members received the information, and others did not. Mr. Peacock apologized on behalf of the City Clerk's Office for the oversight. Councilmember Kohler stated he had many questions, including questions concerning Item 30 on the matrix, which would preclude recordation of the final map until improvements are installed and accepted by the City. He believed that, contrary to the statement on the matrix, the Council approved of this idea but the staff did not want to consider it. Mr. Emslie responded that essentially the Staff recommendation is based on what the Council's policy is today. Staff has recommended that that be added to the Staff's toolbox in controlling development. Staff has indicated very strong support for that, but that was a development condition that was eventually removed from the list of the Council's direction to Staff. Vice Mayor Kohler questioned if it would be appropriate to take some tools away from the toolbox. Mr. Peacock replied that that is a matter for the Council to decide. City Staff had made a policy recommendation to the previous City Council who rejected it. The staff's response is that it would be impolitic on the part of the Staff to keep bringing in items which have been rejected for further Council consideration. If the City Council wants to change the City policy and accept the Staff recommendation, the Staff is not unhappy about that at all. Mr. Peacock commented that in this particular project is the classic example of this kind of application because there are no new streets to build, no sewer lines, no water lines, no utilities that have to be run to the property. The actual improvements which have to be made to meet the conditions of the Tentative Map are not an enormous financial responsibility for the subdivider. As an example, Mr. Peacock referred to condition #31 in the matrix pertainingto having a fence repaired prior to a building permit being issued for Lot A and stated that is exactly the type of thing Vice Mayor Kohler is talking about, can end up happening to the eventual purchaser of Lot A, and that is to buy some lot only to find out that before he gets a building permit, he has to re-do a fence on his property. In his opinion, Mr. Peacock feels that the condition should be amended. Vice Mayor Kohler referred to the neighborhood condition of 3,000 square feet. He asked for clarification that the developer was satisfied with that condition. Mr. Emslie responded that the developer is satisfied, and noted that the Planning Commission increased the square footage. Councilmember Monia asked City Attorney Michael Riback to explain the meaning of "de novo hearing." Mr. Riback replied that the term means an entirely new review of the application takes place and the Council is not bound by any prior actions. The public testimony and Council deliberations are entirely independent of what took place prior to this evening. Councilmember Monia asked how much of the process which has gone on so far (i.e., through the Planning Commission) is weighed in the Council's deliberations in considering what can and cannot be interjected as new items, and whether the Council can raise new issues. Mr. Riback replied that the Council can raise any new issues it desires. Responding to Councilmember Monia's question, Mr. Riback indicated that the application is not really much different than if it were a new application; however, the only condition is that the Council does have in the record before them, the testimony and documentary evidence which has been presented to the Council, which provides a certain degree of information which the Council needs to be aware and cognizant of. It can be questioned, it can be supplemented, it can be given little weight or much weight, but Council has to be aware it is there. City Council Minutes 6 April 3, 1991 The Public Hearing was opened at 8:55 p.m. Mr. Richard Corson, 13831 Ravenwood Drive, Saratoga, addressed the Council on behalf of the Ravenwood Drive Neighborhood Association, opposing Resolution SD-90-007. Mr. Corson presented a background of the area and noted that the neighborhood has enjoyed the appealing open space environment for the past 35 years. The property is located in the center of the neighborhood. The neighbors gathered and developed a consensus to resist the development for many reasons. Back in 1985, when further development along Montpere Way was proposed and later approved, the neighborhood was assured by members of the then City Council that there would be no further development in the area, no additional traffic along the narrow streets that have no sidewalks, no further disruption, no further loss of trees and open space. It is the neighborhood's opinion that the developers' plan is inconsistent with both the spirit and the letter of the General Plan of the City and inconsistent with the voters' mandate to this City Council. Mr. Corson referred to the 1989 Open Space Survey which indicated wide support for preserving open space in Saratoga's neighborhoods. He stated that the neighborhood was gratified by the Staff's suggestion to "pursue strategies to initially create a neighborhood park," and that the City could require the developer to dedicate land to the City instead of acquiring park fees. Mr. Corson mentioned that Staff has been very cooperative. He cited several instances where Staff proposed a two-lOt configuration. The neighborhood's position from the outset has been that there should be no development; however, if there is to be development, the neighbors would advocate for the least amount of development possible - two homes. Mr. Corson referred to the matrix in the agenda packet and'commented that if any development is approved, the conditions are critical in showing some sense of conformity to the neighborhood and protection for the. trees, Which have already suffered a year of neglect due to the failure of the developers to respond positively to the Arborist's recommendations. Referring to Condition #19 pertaining to height, the neighborhood feels it would be most prudent to simply state the Ravenwood Drive center line elevations for each lot, and maintain a consistent 16-foot limit on the house height. He said the developer has already agreed to accept the 3,000 square-foot limit. If the plan is approved for a two-lot configuration, the neighborhood would be agreeable to expanding to 3,500 square feet. Pertaining to Condition #21, the neighbors urge a setback of 45 feet for each of the lots. The current frontyard setback is 58 feet. Mr. Corson commented on the preservation of the trees, which have hundreds of years of history and are important to the neighborhood. He distributed photographs of another of the developer's project on Rainbow Drive in Cupertino to depict construction within two feet of a large Redwood tree. The photos also depicted torn down protective fencing and equipment chained to one tree. Mr. Corson alleged that the Tentative Map for the site in question does not include all of the trees on the property. He asked that the Council expressly recognize which trees may be removed and which trees must be preserved. Mr. Corson referred to Condition #23, and stated that the neighbors agree with the Staff recommendation to limit driveway widths to coincide with existing driveway widths in the neighborhood. However, the neighbors question whether increasing the driveway width will improve vehicular safety. Mr. Corson distributed photos of the developer's Rainbow Drive development depicting driveway predominance of the streetscape. Mr. Corson made reference to Condition #26 and noted that if three lots were approved, the neighborhood faces a possibility of three years of work and construction on property located in the center of the neighborhood. Their concern is not only the noise, dust, disruption, but also safety hazards which ongoing construction poses to the residents, especially the 16 children under the age of seven in the City Council Minutes 7 April 3, 1991 neighborhood. The neighbors feel Condition #27 is unnecessary if the Council adopts their recommendation for specifying elevations (Condition #19.) Mr. Colson stated that the neighborhood has attempted to participate in the Planning Commission process by raising important neighborhood health, safety and welfare concerns. They have tried to deal with open space preservation and neighborhood aesthetics, neighborhood compatibility, tree preservation, and neighborhood safety. Mr. Corson concluded by commenting on the process and the occasions on which the item was continued at the Planning Commission level at the request of the developer. He requested the Council to vote in favor of the neighborhood concerns. Councilmember Clevenger addressed -Mr. Corsonws comment regarding the Council's statement that there would be no further development. She pointed out that she was on the Council in 1985. She indicated a letter in the agenda packet indicates that the Council had gone on record promising no further development in the neighborhood. She has gone back through the Minutes and found there was no record of the that promise having been made by the Council. Councilmember Clevenger believes she may have made the statement based on her assumption that there would be no more development in the Ravenwood Drive neighborhood as there was no more land to be developed in the area. At the time, it was inconceivable to her that a house would be torn down to be replaced by new homes. She emphasized that neither the present nor previous Council made the statement that no further development would occur in the neighborhood. Councilmember Monia asked for clarification regarding measuring the height from the center line of Ravenwood Drive. Mr~ Corson replied that it is his personal position to hold to the 16-foot limit on the house heights. He indicated that the neighborhood had proposed earlier that Staff state the Ravenwood Drive center line elevations and that numbers were provided to Staff. Mr. Emslie commented that Staff is suggesting that the perceived height from Ravenwood should be 16 feet but because of the lot's slope downhill, there's a possibility that they may want to step a pad or make a slight split-level so that the actual height of the house would be perhaps 18 feet, which would not be perceivable from Ravenwood Drive since it would face the rear. The front view elevation would be 16 feet. The applicant, Mr. Ron Jones of Perry and Jones Development, preferred to address the Council after all the other speakers have spoken. Mr. Dale Drumm, 18395 Montpere Way, Saratoga, addressed the Council, and questioned how a property that has two homes can be developed into three or four homes. If the property is to be subdivided, he asked the Council to approve two homes to be consistent with the neighborhood. In response to Mayor Stutzman's question, Mr. Drumm replied that the nearest neighborhood park is Gardiner Park about one mile from the neighborhood and across two arterials, Quito Road and Allendale. Mr. Jones addressed the Council stating that if he had known that the density and size of the lots were going to create such an issue, he never would have purchased the property. He has always felt that he wanted to compromise with the neighbors. It was never his intent to build a property that would not be compatible with the neighborhood. Mr. Jones remarked that one of the lots is 20,000 square feet and the other two lots are almost 19,500 square feet each. A good portion of the property backs into the San Tomas Aquino Creek. Two of the lots have a 45' setback which is 20' beyond the setbacks of the existing houses directly across the street. Lot A has a 25' setback because of constraint by the trees. Mr. Jones noted that when he took this property in trade, he went to the City to find out what the zoning was. He was told the zoning was R-l-10,000. The four-lot configuration originally conceived was based City Council Minutes S April 3, 1991 on the fact that every one of the lots exceeded by a greater extent the R-l-10,000 requirement. Therefore, he felt it was an acceptable density, but the Planning Commission did not agree with him. He feels that the three-lot configuration is very compatible with the neighbor- hood. The proposed homes will be one-story ranch-style homes and use materials that agree with the houses in.the neighborhood. Mr. Jones objected to Mr. Corson taking out of context the project on Rainbow Drive in Cupertino as it is totally irrelevant to the Ravenwood project. The Rainbow Drive project is a completely new subdivision built according to the guidelines of the City of Cupertino. Mr. Jones said: "It is true we've only watered and deep-root fed the trees on this property one time. We keep getting accused that we've never done anything with the trees. That's not true. We've even submitted a letter to the Planning Commission from the Arborist who performed the service~ but we did-actually take care of the trees in one instance. Sure, that's not exactly what they want us to do, but there is'a certain economic reality. We really didn't know what we were going to be able to do with the property. And, we were supporting a fairly large loan on this. It's just simply a matter of economics." Mr. Jones remarked that losing 50% of the property could be devastating to him and his partner. Mr. Jones addressed the issue of the Planning Commissioner and the continuances of the project. The problem was that the Commissioner who was involved in the study session had given the applicant specific direction. The Commissioner was out of the country and it was important to the applicant that the Commissioner be present for the hearing. A discussion ensued wherein Mr. Jones responded to Council members' questions. Vice Mayor Kohler indicated he would like to work with the neighbors and reach a compromise. Mayor Stutzman expressed his concern regarding the care of the trees. Councilmember Monia asked Mr. Jones to comment on the matrix and staff recommendations. Mr. Jones responded that after listening to the neighbors, he could accept the recommendations. However, he is concerned with the height. No floor plans have been designed. The problem is that the pitch of a normal roof will exceed the allowed height of the house. The Public Hearing was closed at 9:45 p.m. Councilmember Clevenger commented that the issues are traffic, compatibility, the lot is viewed as a neighborhood asset, and the area needs a park. She proposed working toward trying to create a neighborhood park. She questioned how much of the development could be taken for park land instead of park development fees. Mr. Emslie responded that the City would be entitled to take between 1500 and 2000 square feet of land. Mayor Stutzman referred to Area G (includes Ravenwood neighborhood) of the General Plan which states, "Future development of the Fruitvale- Sobey Road area should be restricted to very low density single family homes in order to preserve the character of the area and the strong wishes of the area residents." Mayor Stutzman said that one of the components to consider is that the area has been a relatively low density area because of the open space. He commented that there has not been a park provided there although the General Plan specifies that neighborhoods such as this should have a park. Some open space has to be maintained in that area. Mayor Stutzman cannot see putting in three 'or four homes as an acceptable solution regardless of how it is zoned. He feels two homes would be acceptable in the lot, and the neighbors are willing to accept it. All the neighbors oppose the development and there has not been one single letter or person come forward who is in favor of it. The Council is responsible for seeing to it that the wishes of the neighborhood are respected. CitX Council Minutes 9 April 3, 1991 Councilmember Clevenger proposed the City purchase one of the lots or reserve the option to purchase one of the lots, pending the results from the Open Space Survey Committee. Putting the houses in two of the lots still meets with the compatibility of the neighborhood. Additidnal traffic would be from two houses only, and the neighbors would still have a focal point. Councilmember Monia agreed with Councilmember Clevenger. He has heard from the other Council members tonight that two houses on the lot is the most appropriate plan. However, he expressed a need to address the added traffic in the narrow streets. He said this is sort of a revitalized neighborhood with a lot of upgrading of older homes. There are many kids. He feels that the added traffic is going to create health and welfare problems in the neighborhood. It is also going to create more pollution. He said that the number of letters Council has received from the neighbors go to the weight of his concern. Another welfare issue is how many units are going to be allowed in many similar areas because of ordinances which dictate that those who have been in the City for many years must use less so that more can come in to create even more pressure. He feels that a critical issue with water exists. He said many citizens are having a hard time because they are constantly being asked to cut back in water and that creates a health concern. He noted that the Water District recently increased the amount of cutback to be imposed on citizens. Councilmember Monia noted that another welfare problem is congestion which creates stress, noise, etc. He feels that the removal of the open space also creates a lower ratio of open space to the number of people in the number of homes. Another concern is the removal of the rural atmosphere which provides peace and quiet, especially for those coming home after a stressful day on the job. He said that the increased traffic on Quito Road and the highway going through the area are going to dramatically change the health and welfare of the community in that area. He referred to the CO and NO concentrations along the corridor that will be increased and stated that all of the neighborhoods along the corridor area are over the threshold point, and once over the threshold, it becomes even more significant. He worries about these issues. He feels the Council is obligated not to allow increase in traffic in this kind of area, for he strongly believes the health and the well-being of the residents are being put at risk. He said that if the City allows too many developments like this into the area, it will be doing a great injustice to the residents. He would like to explore the idea of buying the property and making it into a park. Vice Mayor Kohler commented that the Council has to consider what it would pay for a lot. He, too, would support two homes. However, he suggested postponing the item until a mutual solution can be worked out. Mr. Peacock interjected that the proposal involves the neighborhood, the property owner, and the City. He questioned whether or not the Council is envisioning a three-lot subdivision with the City acquiring one of the parcels, and whether the appliant is amenable to that kind of approach. Mr. Jones indicated he would be agreeable to discussing the proposal. Mr. Peacock suggested that the City and the neighborhood split the cost of acquiring the property for the park and establishing an assessment district for the acquisition of the park where the City may take contributions relative to 50% of the value and the neighborhood paying the other 50%. The neighborhood would then make a decision as to how much they are willing to pay to develop the neighborhood park. He estimated that a 20,000 square-foot park would probably cost about $25,000 to $30,000. Mr. Peacock further suggested making an annexation to the Landscaping and Lighting District, include the neighborhood, put it in place for next year's tax bill, establish a way to fund the project on a fairly reasonable basis, borrow the money through a Certificate of Participation bond with ABAG or the City front the entire amount of money and have the District pay back the City. City council Minutes 10 April 3, 1991 FOLLOWING LENGTHY DISCUSSION, MONIA/CLEVENGER MOVED TO CONTINUE THIS ITEM TO THE APRIL 17, 1991 CITY COUNCIL MEETING, SUBJECT TO: 1. STAFF TO PREPARE A PRO FORMA ANALYSIS TO ACQUIRE THE PROPERTY TO CREATE A NEIGHBORHOOD PARK. 2. 8TAFF TO PREPARE A PRO FORMA ANALYSIS ON CREATING A HEW ASSE88HENT DISTRICT OR INCORPORATING INTO A LANDSCAPE AND LIGHTING DISTRICT. 3. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS FROM PERRY AND JOHES RELATIVE TO DISPOSING OF OHE OF THE THREE LOT8 (WITH A REVISED LOT CONFIGURATION ANALYSIS.) 4. HEIGHBORS TO MEET TO DEVELOP A PETITION INDICATING BROAD SUPPORT FOR CREATING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT, ~ TO DEFINE THEIR PARTICIPATION IN THE PROJECT. Mr. Peacock noted that the annexation to the Landscaping and Lighting District has to be made by early July 1991 or wait for an entire year. MOTION PASSED 4-0 (ANDERSON ABSENT.) Mayor Stutzman declared a recess at 10:20 p.m. Upon reconvening at 10:35 p.m., the same Council Members were present. Mayor Stutzman moved the agenda to item #7. 7. NEW BUSINE88 A. Proposal from Public Safety Commission for Public Safety Awards Program KOHLER/MONIA MOVED TO APPROVE THE PROGRAMAS PROPOSED WITH THE ADDITION OF THE WEST VALLEY COLLEGE POLICE DEPARTMENT; 2) APPOINT A COMMITTEE CHAIR; AND 3) APPROVE ADDITION OF $250 FOR FY 1991-92 COMMISSION BUDGET FOR AWARDS. PASSED 4-0 (ANDERSON ABSENT.) B. Recommended Changes Resulting from Classification Study of Positions in Clerk Typist and Secretary Series CLEVENGER/MONIA MOVED TO APPROVE CHANGES TO BECOME EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 1991. PASSED 4-0 (ANDERSON ABSENT.) 9. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS A. Discussion of Budget Adjustment for Additional Coffee for Regular Council and Planning Commission Meetings - Kohler Mr. Peacock briefly reported on this item. Following discussion, CONSENSUS WAS TO PLACE ON CONSENT CALENDAR OF APRIL 17, 1991. B. Reports from Individual Councilmembers Councilmember Clevenger announced the visit of Saratoga's sister city in Japan on November 2, 1991 through November 9, 1991 and presented an itinerary of events to be held inhonor of the sister city delegates. 10. CLOSED SESSION on pending litigation on illegal grading, clearing and tree removal on Cocciardi/Chadwick development, Tr. 7770. and potential litigation on Landtech Subdivision 11. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lynda Ramirez Minutes Clerk