HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-17-1991 City Council Minutes MINUTES
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
TIME: Wednesday, April 17, 1991 - 7:30 p.m.
PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Ave.
TYPE: Regular Meeting
7:15 - Council Office
Interview with Planning Commission Candidate Prucha.
1. ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Mayor Stutzman.
Councilmembers Present: Anderson, Vice Mayor Kohler, Monia, and Mayor
Stutzman.
2. CEREMONIAL ITEMS
A. Presentation of Check for $17,700 from Friends of the
Saratoga Libraries to Saratoga COmmunity Librat7
The Friends of the Saratoga Libraries presented a check in the amount
of $17,700 to the Saratoga Community Library.
3. ROUTINE MATTERS
A. Approval of Minutes - 4/3
Jennifer Crotty, 13861 Raven Court, addressed the Council regarding the
Minutes of the April 3, 1991 Council meeting. Ms. Crotty spoke as an
individual and resident of the Ravenwood neighborhood. To insure that
the record is clear and accurate, Ms. Crotty submitted corrections to
the Minutes regarding the Perry and Jones development, and asked the
CoUncil to consider the modifications.
Councimember Anderson referred to Mr. Corson's testimony on pages 6
and 7, and stated she is presuming the points which Ms. Crotty is
asking be added to the Minutes were, in fact, spoken by Mr. Corson, and
just omitted from the minutes.
Council members proceeded to review the editions one by one as follows:
Page 4, item 8, paragraph 3, line 2, amended to read:
" .... consideration the additional traffic that is going to be
generated in the Quito Road area once .....
Page 4, paragraph 7, line 2, amended to read: "...was delivered
by the appellants to City Hall on ..... "
Page 6, paragraph 4, line 3, is amended to read: "for the past
35 years. The property is located in the center of the
neiqhborhood. The neighbors gathered ..... "
Page 6, paragraph 5, line 4, is amended to read: "...no
additional traffic along the narrow streets that have no
sidewalks, no further disruption..."
Page 6, paragraph 5, lines 6 and 7, amended to read, "It is the
neighborhood~s opinion that the developers' plan is inconsistent
with the both the spirit and the letter of the General Plan of
the City, and inconsistent with the voters~ mandate to this City
Council."
Page 6, paragraph 8, line 2, is amended to read: "...for each
of the lots. The current frontyard setback is 58 feet.
Page 6, paragraph 9, line 5, is amended to read: "...a large
Redwood tree. The photos also depicted torn down protective
fencinq and equipment chained to one tree."
Page 6, paragraph 9, last line, is amended to read: "..the site
in question does not include all of the trees on the property.
He asked that the Council expressly recoqnize which trees may
City council Minutes 2 April 17, 1991
be removed and which trees must be preserved."
Page 6, paragraph. 10, lines four and five, amended. to read:
"...the neighbors question whether increasing the driveway width
will improve vehicular safety. Mr. Corson distributed photos
'of the developer's Rainbow Drive development depictinq driveway
predominance of the streetscape."
Page 7, third to last paragraph of page, last line, amended to
read: "...neighborhood, and across two arterials, Quito Road
and Allendale."
Councilmember Clevenger referred to page 8 and Ms. Crotty's
modifications to Mr. Jones' testimony. Council directed the
Minutes Clerk to check the record and make the corrections.
(Clerk's Note: Mr. Jones' testimony will appear verbatim in the
April 3 minutes as follows:- "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.")
Councilmember Monia stated that because of the specific
findings, he would like for the Minutes Clerk to go back, check
the record, and include his particular concerns on this issue.
For the record, Councilmember Monia's comments on page 9,
paragraph 3 are amended as follows:
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 revitalizedneighborhood 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,
City Councll Minutes 3 April 17, 1991
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.
Page 9, paragraph 6, line 7, amended to read: "..estimated that
'a 20.000 square-feet park ..... "
Vice Mayor Kohler referred to paragaph 3, page 5 of the minutes,
and questioned the verbatim transcription of his comments. The
minutes are to be revised to summarize his comments.
lollowing discussion, CLEVENGER/MONIA MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF
APRIL 3, 1991, AS CORRECTED. PASSED 5-0.
B. Approval of Warrant List
MONIA/ANDERSON MOVED APPROVAL OF W~%RRANT LIST. PASSED 5-0.
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 April 12.
4. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Planning CommisSion Actions, 4/10 - Noted and filed.
B. Parks and Recreation COmmiSSiOn Minutes, 3/4 - Noted and
filed.
C. Youth Commission Minutes, 3/11 -Noted and filed.
D. Publlc Safety Commission Minutes, 4/8 - Noted and filed.
D. Authorization for 8K/3K Run on May 5, 1991.
F. Resolution 91-34 Authorizing Destruction of Certain city
Records.
G. Final Building Site Approval, 8D88-019 (Birenbaum), 20052
Sunset Dr. (continued from 4/3)
Councilmember Monia removed item 4-G from the Consent Calendar. He
asked that the wording be corrected on Resolution 2698, specifically,
changing paragraph #1 of page 1 from, "The appeal from the Planning
Commission..." to "The appeal o__f the Planning Commission."
Referring to Page 2, paragraph 4(a) of Resolution 2698, dated December
19, 1991, Councilmember Monia expressed concern that the phrase, "Not
to grant an access easement over their property to any other
person ..... " is unclear. He said that the phrase might infer that
someone already has the right versus not extending the right to anyone.
City Attorney Michael Riback stated that the Resolution has been passed
by the City Council and it would not be appropriate at this time to re-
open the text of the Resolution for clarification. He indicated that
the Council can verify what the language intended to say on record, but
the text of the Resolution cannot be altered. A discussion ensued.
Councilmember Monia asked that the record reflect that the phrase
alludes to persons other than the applicants (i.e., "to any other
person, except the Birenbaums.")
Bruce Tichinin, the Gibersons' attorney whose office is in Morgan Hill,
addressed the Council. He submitted his letter dated April 17, 1991,
and a March 25, 1991 UPP Geotechnology report regarding the site.
Mr. Riback interjected that the materials submitted by Mr. Tichinin
should have been raised at the Public Hearing held a few months ago.
Mr. Riback stated it would be inappropriate to raise any issues at this
particular point in time as the public hearing was previously held and
concluded.
City Council Minutes 4 April 17, 1991
Mr. Tichinin stated he was not asking for the action taken at the
Public Hearing to be rescinded, and proceeded to address the Council.
In brief, Mr. Tichinin referred to the Berrocal Fault near the property
and asked Council to deny the final building site for two reasons.
Specifically, one reason is the safety element of the General' Plan
which he alleged does not meet the Government Code's requirements. The
other reason he cited was that the housing element prohibits approval
of development of the area where property damage to, or personal
injury, including damage to streets, could occur unless potential
hazards can be mitigated or avoided by engineering or construction
techniques.
Lucy [ofrumento, attorney for the Birenbaums, addressed the Council,
stating she agreed with Mr. Riback in objecting to any submission of
new testimony at this time. She noted that all of the geological
issues have been extensively discussed, and have been resolved to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer..
Following lengthy discussion, CLEVENGER/ANDERSON MOVED APPROVAL OF ITEM
4-G OF THE CONSENT CALENDAR. PASSED 4-1 (STUTZMAN OPPOSED.)
H. Resolution 2575.33 amending budget to provide funds for
additional coffee for City Council and Planning Commission
meetings.
I. Hakone Foundation Fund Raising - 3/4 through 4/5/91;
Disbursement Report.- None.
J. City Financial Reports for March.
1) Treasurer's Report
2) Investment Report
3). Financial Report
MONIA/CLEVENGER MOVED APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT CALENDAR WITH EXCEPTION
OF ITEM 4-G. PASSED 5-0.
5. COMMUNICATION8 FROM COMMISSIONS AND THE PUBLIC
A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
1) Request from Planning Commission for City Council and
City Attorney Clarification of Lot 3, Tract 7770,
Willjams.
Mr. Riback reported that the Planning Commission has raised the
question of the settlement agreements that were mentioned in the
memorandum to the Williams' approval application. In his opinion, Mr.
Riback comments it is appropriate for him to research the question and
report back with the findings so that the Council and Planning
Commission will have a complete understanding of the issue.
Councilmember Monia commented regarding the Planning Commission's area
of concern - the September 1986 settlement agreement. He questioned
why an analysis is necessary if the settlement agreement specifically
states they will comply with all the ordinances except for density and
setback. A discussion ensued regarding the Minor Ridge Ordinance and
building pad restrictions.
Consensus to direct City Attorney to report on effect of settlement
agreement and the NHR standards relating to minor ridges.
Councilmember Monia requested Staff to assure that Council members
obtain a copy of the application and Mr. Riback's findings.
There were no other oral communications from the audience.
B. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
1) Arts Council of Santa Clara County, 4 N. 2nd St.
#505, San Jose CA 95113-1305, requesting adoption of
city council Minutes 5 April 17, 1991
#505, San Jose CA 95113-1305, requesting adoption of
Vision Statement.
Mr. Peacock presented a brief report, noting that the Cityts record in
terms of supporting the arts through its $10,000 arts grants program
has proven itself.
Following discussion, ANDERSON/CLEVENGER MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTE
RESOLUTION ADOPTING VISION STATEMENT. PASSED 3-2 (KOHLER, STUTZMAN
OPPOSED.)
Mayor Stutzman moved the agenda to item 8A, Public Hearing.
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 et al.)
Mr. Emslie summarized the Staff Report which was continued from April
3, 1991, to the City Council.
Councilmember Monia asked whether the Council should be looking at the
appeal first or hold the public discussion first. Mr. Peacock
responded that the key issues tonight revolve around information
regarding assessments and the acquisition of a piece of property for
a park.
The Public Hearing opened at 8:37 p.m.
Robert Williams, 13906 Ravenwood Drive, submitted a petition signed by
60 residents of the relevant neighborhood, representing 38 of 54
potential.households. He recited the petition indicating the signers
support the proposition of an open space pocket park area within the
proposed subdivision at 13820 Ravenwood Drive. They further support
the concept as initially described at the Saratoga City Council meeting
on April 3, 1991, wherein an Assessment District would be formed and
residents asked to participate.
Mr. Williams indicated that the neighbors can support a lot assessment
of approximately $100 per household per year. The neighbors requested
that the park include access to San Tomas Aquino Creek and as many
mature trees as possible, particularly the Coast Live Oak measuring
58.2" of diameter at rest height. They asked that the park be buffered
by the two new homes that have been proposed for the subdivision.
Mr. Williams distributed a map to the Council and defined the relevant
neighborhood as outlined in blue. A discussion ensued regarding costs.
Mr. Williams indicated that the neighborhood is not in full possession
of all financial options, and it is their understanding that
negotiations with the current landowner have not yet been conducted.
He distributed photographs of the site and requested that for aesthetic
wishes, the neighbors prefer Lot C to be identified as the potential
candidate for the creation of the pocket park.
Mr. Peacock suggested a recess to allow the neighbors to meet with the
developer in efforts to work out an accommodation which fits into the
proposal. A discussion ensued regarding cost projections.
Bob Bortfeld, 14820 Sobey Road, addressed the Council as former owner
of the property under consideration. He said the traffic in the area
is extremely low. Putting a park in place of the third house would
create more traffic, not less. He is not against the park, but a park
would draw people. He referred to Perry & Jones' previous work and
described the developers as a "class act."
Joel Sharon, 13890 Ravenwood, questioned the park~s location, security
involved, parking requirements, etc.
Ron Jones of Perry & Jones, developers, expressed their sincerity for
City Council Minutes 6 April 17, 1991
in the spirit of good faith, but there really is an economic issue
involved. They do not agree with the City Attorney that there is a
public safety, welfare and health issue involved. He said tht the
original plan called for medium density. Mr. Jones stated that they
do not want to get pushed around to the point where they feel that they
are no~ being dealt with fairly. He said he cannot understand why the
neighbors would want Lot C, when they could have Lot A which has all
of the mature groves and trees. Lot C will be protected regardless,
as a condition of the map. Perry & Jones have offered Lot A at a
smaller price than Lot C, which has more value to them. Again, he
asked the City to be fair as the developers are sincere.
Councilmember Anderson asked Mr. Jones if he was in agreement with the
Staff Report. Mr. Jones replied that he made an offer to the City on
Lot A and Lot C. He is not aware of the contents of the Staff Report;
therefore, he does not know what the numbers are.
Vice Mayor Kohler commented that the City certainly wants to deal in
good faith, but he does not feel the price can be discussed at
tonight's meeting nor in the lobby. He proposed that all parties get
together and discuss.
Councilmember Monia suggested assigning a committee in an effort to
negotiate a worthwhile matter and report back at the next meeting.
The'Public Hearing was closed at 9:06 p.m.
Responding to Councilmember Clevenger's questions, Mr. Riback referred
to the issue of purchase of real property and advised that if the
Council wishes to discuss this matter in closed session later this
evening, it can do so by a four-fifths vote.
Following discussion, MONIA/KOHLER MOVED THAT THE CITY ANNOUNCE ITS
INTENTIONS TO PURCHASE ONE OF THE LOTS THAT PERRY & JONES HAS OFFERED
FOR THE CREATION OF A PARK AND THAT A COMMITTEE COMPRISED OF MR.
PEACOCK, COUNCILMEMBERS CLEVENGERANDMONIA BE FORMED TO NEGOTIATE WITH
THE DEVELOPERS, IN THE EVENT THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVES A THREE-
UNIT SUBDIVISION. IN ADDITION, DEADLINE ON THE PERMITS IS EXTENDED FOR
AN ADDITIONAL THIRTY DAYS. PASSED 5-0.
Mr. Jones agreed to the thirty-day extension.
MONIA/KOHLER MOVED TO AGENDIZE THIS ITEM TO A CLOSED SESSIONLATER THIS
EVENING. PASSED 5-0.
Mayor Stutzman declared a recess at 9:15 a.m. Upon reconvening at 9:25
p.m., the same Council members were present.
Mayor Stutzman moved the agenda to item 5-B-2.
5. 2) State Director of Forestry and Fire Protection,
requesting Tree Planting to be exempt from Drought-
Related Planting Moratoriums.
Mr. Peacock reviewed the request. He stated it is Staff's
recommendation that the City's position should be not to plant any new
trees, but the City should preclude tree replacement.
Councilmember Anderson commented that if one wants to make a sacrifice
of indoor water use in order to water a tree, one should be allowed to
do so. In most cases, where the City has made a decision for other
people, it has been for an entire landscape plan. She does not feel
that an exception can be made to landscaping plans in general.
Councilmember Monia expressed his disagreement to the xeriscape
ordinance recently adopted by the Council. This burden of water
cutbacks is going to be on the residents. Leaving it to the discretion
of the individual homeowners is the best practice. He prefers that the
City continue on a program to educate its citizens while simultaneously
leaving the good judgment to the individual citizen.
KOHLER/CLEVEN~ER MOVED APPROVAL TO EXEMPT TREE PLANTING FROM MORATORIUM
ON LANDSCAPE INSTALLATION. PASSED 4-1 (ANDERSON OPPOSED.)
City Council Minutes 7 April 17, 1991
3) Letter from Public Safety Commission recommending
continuance of "Driving Under the Influence" Patrol.
CLEVENGER/MONIA MOVED TO ACCEPT RECOMMENDATION OF THE PUBLIC SAFETY
COMMISSION AND CONTINUE "DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE" PATROL PROGRAM.
Responding to Councilmember Anderson's question, Mr. Peacock replied
that the cost of the program is about $110,000 to $125,000 per year.
MOTION PASSED 5-0.
4) Californians Against Waste, requesting resolutions
supporting recycling.
Mr. Peacock presented a brief report.
MONIA/KOHLER MOVED TO DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE LETTERS OF SUPPORT.
PASSED 5-0.
6. OLD BUSINESS
A. Recommendation from Public Safety Commission concerning
Reward Policy.
Mr. Peacock presented the Staff Report dated April 9, 1991, to the City
Council.
Councilmember Monia expressed disappointment and stated that perhaps
the Public Safety Commission may have viewed Council's direction as a
general vandalism problem in town. He emphasized his intent was
focused on acts purposely directed at certain individuals because they
are who they are in City government. When City Commissioners and
officials are on public official business and are victims of a direct
criminal act, whether on City property, at home, or elsewhere, the act
goes beyond the general term of vandalism.
Councilmember Anderson expressed her concern with the City's written
material which shows City officials' names and home addresses. A
discussion ensued.
ANDERSON/MONIA MOVED THAT BEFORE THE CITY PUBLISHES ANY WRITTEN
MATERIAL WITH CITY OFFICIALS' NAMES AND ADDRESSES, EACH AFFECTED
INDIVIDUAL BE CONTACTED FOR PERMISSION TO DO SO. PASSED 5-0.
B. Report from City Attorney concerning Modification to
Highway 85 Profile.
Mr. Riback presented the memorandum dated April 8, 1991, to the City
Council.
Councilmember Monia commented he came in late into the process, and
expressed his frustration at the total misconception the general public
has been given as to what it is that the City can do. Once the City
approved and signed the contracts, the City lost its negotiating power,
and this is not what the City was led to believe. As he probes further
in his attempts to mitigate what is going to take place in the City,
he finds that the City cannot force the Traffic Authority to do
anything. Although he disagrees with Mr. Riback'~ report, he accepts
the thorough report. Councilmember Monia still supports the Quito Road
issue, and if he could find a mechanism to proceed with it, he would
do so. He expressed frustration with the Santa Clara Valley Water
District (SCVWD.) The SCVWD has planned an additional three feet for
access to a culvert to go through Wildcat Creek for a one-day-a-year
access, and the residents have no power to do anything about the noise
and visual impact inconveniences.
Councilmember Anderson commented on the frustration she experienced
when going through negotiations for the freeway.
Vice Mayor Kohler commented that the whole freeway situation is a sad
chapter in the history of Saratoga. He personally feels that the
freeway options were bargained away. He noted he did not vote for the
City Councll Minutes 8 Aprll 17, 1991 'f
final approval of the Saratoga freeway because he had nothing to do
with it.
C. Report on feaslbillty and extra costs to meet requests of
Quito Road area with respect to Soundwalls.
Mr. Peacock reported he met on Monday, April 15, 1991, with CalTrans
and the Traffic Authority in an effort to get a response to his lengthy
letter dated March 27, 1991, to Will Kempton of the Traffic Authority.
Mr. Peacock went through each section of his letter and remarked on
his findings.
Issue #1 - Soundwalls between Prospect and Saratoga Creek.
a) The Traffic Authority has agreed to make the change.
They are not sure-of the cost at this~time because it
does require a Change Order to the existing contract.
To -effect the change would require a Cooperative
Agreement between the Traffic Authority and the City,
which they will prepare and send to the City.
b) The Traffic Authority has agreed to make the change.
They don't have a confirmation on the cost. There is
concern on their part that raising the wall from 12
feet to 16 feet will require a redesign of the
foundations and the $14 per square foot figure the
City has been using may be substantially higher, but
the direct cost is unknown at this time. The change
would also require a Cooperative Agreement.
c) The Traffic Authority has agreed to make the change.
They will verify the cost, and the change will be made
through the Cooperative Agreement, but there is no
change order involved because this part of the design
has not been completed.
Issue #2 - Berms and visual barriers near Quito Avenue
overcrossing.
a) The Traffic Authority has agreed to make all berms 16
feet high, wherever space permits without additional
costs to the City.
b) The Traffic Authority has agreed to the change,
although the acreage which needs to be landscaped will
be increased substantially because of the slopes that
have to be planted. They have agreed to meet the
$25,000 per actual square foot acre, and will be
factored into the cost reduction quoted to the City.
Councilmember Anderson made reference to the agreement and the
assurances regarding landscaping. She noted they were not
allowed to open the road until the soundwalls were in, but no
conditions were made with regard to the landscaping. Mr.
Peacock said that according to Mr. Kempton and Mr. Michael
Kotowski, Traffic Authority delegate representing the City, the
walls and landscaping are not part of the proposed cut in the
project along the freeway corridor. Councilmember Anderson said
the walls and landscaping are part of the list she saw at a
meeting. Mr. Peacock said that the agreement requires the
Traffic Authority to landscape the freeway corridor at $25,000
per acre, but the City has the choice, when the landscaping
plans are proposed and reviewed by the City, of skimping in some
areas to add to others, so long as the cost to the Traffic
Authority does not exceed $25,000 per acre. This does not apply
to replacement of the medians along Saratoga Avenue.
c) The Traffic Authority will review this agreement for
the requirement to meet their standards and if there
is visual intrusion, they will re-design. However,
they noted that the Performance Agreement signed by
the City, in Exhibit C, also contemplated a Quito Road
City Counoll Minutes 9 April 17, 1991
overcrossing that has now been reduced by several feet
in height.
d) The Traffic Authority will not accommodate a request,
but they will put walls on top of the berms to 16 feet
if the City agrees to pay for the additional cost.
They will not raise the walls on the structures that
cross the creeks above 12 feet, even if the City paid
the difference because they cannot make walls that
high due to the sizing requirements of the design and
construction.
Issue #3 - Removal of trees to accomplish Rodeo Creek
channelization improvements.
The Traffic Authority will replace trees as required by the
City Planning Director~ The Water District would prefer not
to have Oaks and plant the trees in such a way that they
do not interfere with the access road to maintain the
creek.
Issue #4 - Soundwall height at Anza Drive
The Traffic Authority said that CalTrans is adamant about
this, and the property owners need to be polled. Mr.
Peacock has sent letters to the six property owners
affected by this situation.
Issue #5 - Extension of Bonnet Way soundwall
At the meeting, the Traffic Authority indicated they have
extended the exterior wall to create a larger overlap, but
they cannot extend the wall along Bonnet because it would
significantly interfere with access to the right of way of
Southern Pacific and Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E.) They
have agreed to extend the overlap on the northerly wall as
a means to address some of the Lis' concern.
Issue #6 - Bicycle path from Cox Avenue overcrossing to Glenbrae
Drive.
The Traffic Authority concurs that such a path is not
feasible.
Councilmember Anderson noted that she and Councilmember Clevenger
visited the site of the soundwalls that are being constructed in their
neighborhood. Responding to her question, Mr. Perlin said that the
concrete bottoms are not going to be put in the soundwalls. She asked
for the point from where the walls are going to be built as there is
concern for the south side of the freeway of the drop-off in the
backyards.
Mr. Perlin stated that the walls are probably going to be built
essentially on the right of way line. A discussion ensued regarding
the location of the soundwalls.
Councilmember Monia noted that it Will be difficult to get a reference
point for the wall construction. He asked whether it is expected that
the wall height will commence at the natural grade as it is today or
be graded down to create a flat area. Mr. Perlin stated it varies with
the natural topography. Mr. Perlin noted that a resident can go into
his office, pinpoint the location of the house on the plan, and he can
provide the resident with the information.
Allan Strong, 18407 Montpere Way, noted that this issue was discussed
at great length at a recent meeting. He asked whether a report has
been generated in response to the neighborhood's petition wherein they
requested the technical feasibility and costs for the 16-foot soundwall
on the southeast/east side of Quito, the 12-foot soundwall across the
creeks, the landscaping and berms.
Councilmember Monia responded that the average cost figure has been
$14 a square foot.
City Council Minutes 10 April 17, 1991
Mr. Strong questioned whether the assumption is that they will be
getting 12-foot soundwalls across both of the creeks. Councilmember
Monia stated that the Council has not set the height, but CalTrans has
responded to 16 feet as being unacceptable, although 12 feet is
acceptable.
Mr. PeacoCk mentioned that he submitted copies of Mr. Strong's letter
of March 16, 1991, along with Mr. Howard Bailey's letter of January 23,
1991, with his letter to the Traffic Authority. The responses he
received in his meeting with the Traffic Authority is inclusive of all
the correspondence he submitted to them.
Mr. Strong referred to the noise abatement issue.
Mr. Peacock responded to Mr. Strong that one of the practical problems
with a 16-foot wall along the southeast/east side of Quito Road is that
it couldn't go across the railroad track property nor across the PG&E
property, as it would only go south of the railroad tracks, which is
outside of the project area.
Councilmember Monia noted that the Council has not yet addressed this
particular section. Mr. Peacock stated that the plans are at 65%
completion. Mr. Perlin remarked that on the bridges at San Tomas
Aquino and Wildcat, the present design plans for heights of 10 1/2
feet, which is consistent with the supplemental noise study submitted
to the City recently. He said the area north of the railroad tracks
in the northside of Quito is not in the City of Saratoga. The area is
in the City of San Jose, and before a decision is made, he proposed
contacting the City of San Jose.
A discussion ensued regarding the project limits.
Responding to Mr. Strong, Mr. Perlin indicated that the detailed
landscape and noise abatement plans would be available to ithe public
once they are completed.
Mr. Peacock indicated that the Council will need to decide whether the
City should add a wall to increase the noise protection level to 16
feet where the berms cannot be made 16 feet high.
Councilmember Monia requested Staff to get clarification from CalTrans
(Traffic Authority) regarding the 12-foot and 16-foot height walls so
that the residents will have an idea of where the project is going.
Mr. Peacock responded that within the next month to six weeks, the City
should have the revised plans.
Mr. Strong raised the issue of the elevation on Quito. Mr. Peacock
responded that if the Traffic Authority's requirements so deem such a
wall for visual intrusion, then they will provide it. If it is not
required, then the City will make a decision on an alternative.
Mayor Stutzman directed Mr. Strong to communicate his concerns to Mr.
Perlin for follow-up.
The Council directed Staff to get clarification on CalTrans' intent so
that the City will know what action it needs to take regarding the
afore-mentioned issues.
Councilmember Anderson requested Staff to site visit the block
soundwalls in San Jose City Councilmember Judy Stabile's district as
a possibility for Saratoga's soundwalls.
D. Resolution 2327.1 amending expense Account Procedure to
allow for reimbursement for Commissioners in certain cases
of damage.
Following brief discussion, KOHLER/ANDERSON MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION
2327.1. PASSED 5-0.
Responding to Councilmember Monia's question, Mr. Peacock said that
each expense claim will appear on the Warrant List.
City Council Minutes 11 April 17, 1991
E. Dues for National League of Cities (continued from 4/3)
Following a report from Mr. Peacock and a discussion, ANDERSON/KOHLER
MOVED APPROVAL TO JOIN NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES. MOTION FAILED 1-4
(CLEVENGER, KOHLER, MONIA, AND 8TUTZMAN OPPOSED.)
Mayor Stutzman moved the agenda to item 7-H.
H. Resolutions proposing annexations to Landscaping and
Lighting Assessment District LLA-1.
Mr. Perlin presented the Staff Report to the Council. He informed the
Council that if they wish to redraw the boundaries of the zones, they
cannot vote on the Resolutions tonight, and he would have to return at
the next meeting with revised exhibits defining all the properties to
be annexed.
Councilmember Clevenger stated she is a resident of the Landscaping
and Lighting District in question. She has asked the City Attorney
whether it is appropriate for her to participate in tonight's
discussion regarding this matter. The City Attorney has advised her
she may participate as she is no more affected than the other
residents.
Mr. Perlin made reference to a petition signed by the residents in the
Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road area which has been distributed to the Council.
Luther W. "Bud" Haugh, 12981 Brandywine Drive, addressed the Council
on behalf of the property owners in the Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road area.
He stated that the property owners are behind the City~s efforts to
keep the area clean. He cited the petition; which was signed by 120
of 195 property owners, and mentioned that the others who did not sign
the petition were not home when he visited them. The petition states
that they are opposed to the proposed assessments for their area.
They do support such a program, but not one which would require
expenses for new major beautification projects. The property owners
proposed forming a City-wide zone for all Saratoga property owners as
they all use the City~s major roads. If the City-wide zone is not
acceptable to the Council, the property owners propose that the
Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road Zone be expanded to include additional property
owners to the west of the zone who have access to Saratoga-Sunnyvale
Road. Mr. Haugh remarked that the intent is a program equitable to all
and that concern all the people of Saratoga.
Mr. Haugh, when speaking of west of Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, proposed
the area entirely from Prospect to Big Basin Way and west.
Mr. Haugh said that if a City-wide zone cannot be considered at this
time, that the Council consider two categories or two tiers of
assessments. One would be of general benefit to all affected property
owners; the other would be of specific benefit to a specific situation.
Responding to Vice Mayor Kohler's question regarding assessing the
entire City and impacts of Proposition 13 regulations, Mr. Peacock
explained the process for establishing assessment 'districts,
exemptions, etc.
Mayor Stutzman asked whether other Landscape and Lighting Districts
are already in existence and whether the City plans to gradually extend
them throughout the City. Mr. Peacock responded there is only one
District, but District law allows re-creating other zones. He said the
City currently has 21 zones. City Council policy direction is that in
over the next four to five years, that the City increase the
annexations by 10, or 11, or up to 13. Mr. Peacock indicated that the
law does allow for consolidation, so it is possible that the City could
attempt to create a City-wide zone.
Councilmember Anderson commented that a City-wide zone would be of
benefit to the City for maintaining all of its major arterials and
entrances to specific subdivisions. It would also be just as easy to
include the whole City as it is to add two districts a year.
Councilmember Monia stated that with a City-wide assessment district
City Council Minutes 12 April 17, 1991
and two-tier approach, special consideration would be based on the
area, which would create an inequitable situation. A discussion ensued
regarding specific and general benefit assessments.
Clifford Gardner, 13641 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, indicated that he and
his wife signed the petition and strongly support a desire to keep the
area clean. He pointed out that his family is one of six families
along Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road who have been excluded from the District.
Mr. Gardner proposed that if the City has a plan for landscaping, that
the City adopt a consistent landscape plan for the area.
A discussion ensued regarding a drought-resistant plan for the area.
Jerry Kocir, 12855 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, encouraged Mr. Haugh's
suggestions. He expressed that every citizen should pay for the
district zone, and no one should be excepted.
Marvin Becker, 12120 Mellowood Drive, addressed the Council as Vice
President of the Brookview Homeowners Association. Based on a survey
of 22 persons, consensus appears to be that their area be removed from
the district zone. They have scheduled a meeting for Saturday (April
20, 1991) for a decision. He is opposed to a City-wide assessment.
Margaret Metcalf, 13278 Paramount Drive, stated that her property does
not abut Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, but her property is included in the
assessment area. The homes at the end of her street (which is not a
through street) were not included and have no other way out except
through Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and her home. She agrees with
Councilmembers Anderson and Clevenger that the assessment should be
City-wide.
KOHLER/CLEVENGER MOVED TO DIRECT STAFF TO EXPLORE THE POSSIBILITY OF
ESTABLISHING A CITY-WIDE ZONE.
Councilmember Clevenger noted that although the assessment may not be
implemented until next year, the City could get started on a City-wide
assessment now. She asked that the motion include all public areas and
entrances to subdivisions.
Mr. Perlin suggested that before voting to set up a City-wide zone,
Staff should first research additional information regarding projected
assessments to do the basic maintenance, areas, etc. for the
feasibility of a City-wide zone, and then report back to the Council.
He proposed that prior to adopting the City budget that this item be
considered as a budget item for Staff to work on next year with
intentions of having a City-wide assessment by this time 1992.
Responding to Councilmember Monia's question, Mr. Peacock replied that
a public hearing has to be held, and protests have to be in writing and
must be submitted no later than the conclusion of the hearing on the
formation of the district.
Councilmember Monia asked whether a tax is going to be added without
a general vote. Mr. Peacock explained it is an assessment where the
process established under the law is that citizens have a right to
protest the assessment and formation of the district. If there is more
than a 50% protest, it fails, unless the Council over-rides it by a
four-fifths vote.
MOTION PASSED 3-2 (MONIA, STUTZMANOPPOSED.)
Discussion continued on the process for acting on this item.
Councilmember Monia noted he does not mind Staff preparing an
assessment district cost based on City-wide, but he would support
taking it to a ballot measure for the general public. To him, this is
a general tax increase, and his fundamental philosophy is that if taxes
are going to be increased, the general public should vote on it.
Councilmember Clevenger noted that the only people who have complained
have been the Brookview residents. Councilmember Anderson stated she
would be willing to exclude Brookview as they are already maintaining
their area.
City Council Minutes 13 April 17, 1991
Councilmember Clevenger expressed uncertainty in whether Brookview
should be excluded until after their neighborhood association meeting
this coming weekend.
Councilmember Monia left the meeting.
Mr. Perlin opined that Brookview should be left in simply because it
is the area between the freeway corridor and the creek.
KOHLER/ANDERSON MOVED TO PROCEED WITH THE TWO RESOLUTIONS, DELETING
THE SUNNYVALE-SARATOGA' ZONE. PASSED 4-0 (MONIA ABSENT.)
7. G. Resolutions proposing continuation of Landscaping and
Lighting Assessment District LLA-1
This item was continued to May 1'-
Mayor Stutzman moved the agenda to item 6-F.
6. F. Certificates of Participation - Civic Center Improvement
ANDERSON/CLEVENGER MOVED TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO PROCEED TO
SECURE CERTIFICATES OF PARTICIPATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $1.9 MILLION
THROUGH ABAG FINANCIAL SERVICES TO FINANCE THE CIVIC CENTER
IMPROVEMENTS. PASSED 3-1 (KOHLER OPPOSED, MONIA ABSENT.)
Mayor Stutzman moved the agenda to item 7-A
7. MEW BUSIMESS
n. Resolution approving Joint Powers Agreement for congestion
Management Agency
Continued to May 1, 1991 City Council meeting.
B. Proposal from Planning Director for Fee Recovery.
CLEVENGER/ANDERSON MOVED TO DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE REVISED FEE
RESOLUTION FOR CONSIDERATION AT BUDGET HEARINGS. PASSED 4-0 (MONIA
ABSENT.)
C. Agreement between five agencies to conduct work related to
Solid Waste General Studies - Components of Source
Reduction and Recovery Element (AN 939).
CLEVENGER/ANDERSON MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 91-35 AUTHORIZING CITY
MANAGER TO SIGN AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITIES OF CAMPBELL, MONTE SERENO, AND
SARATOGA, TOWN OF LOS GATOS, AND SANTA CLARA COUNTy. PASSED 4-0 (MONIA
ABSENT.)
D. Contract for Services Consultant to prepare Solid Waste
General Study (AN 939).
CLEVENGER/ANDERSON MOVED TO AUTHORIZE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE CONTRACT
FOR SERVICES. PASSED 4-0 (MONIA ABSENT.)
E. -Additional Water Conservation Measures recommended by Santa
Clara Valley Water District; Letter from Royal Pools
concerning swimming pools.
Continued to May 1, 1991 City Council meeting.
F. Memo recommending Publicity for Upcoming Hearings - GTE
Mobilnet Appeal.
Noted.
Mayor Stutzman moved the agenda ~o item 9.
9. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS
A. Reports from Individual Councilmembers - None.
City Council Minutes 14 April 17, 1991
A. Reports from Individual Councilmembers - None.
B. Agenda items for joint meeting with Library CommiSsion
April 23
1) Library expansion; work of the Building Plan Committee
2) Book-Go-Round and future use of the Village Library
building
3) Landscaping of Library grounds; follow-up on
demonstration xeriscape planning
(Mr. Monia returned to the meeting.)
Noted.
10. CLOSED SESSION on pending litigation concerning illegal grading,
clearing and tree removal on Cocciardi/Chadwick development, Tr. 7770.
and in case of Pacific Bell vs. Santa Clara County et al. and Pacific
Bell vs. State Board of Equalization et al.
11. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 12:10 a.m. to April 23, at 7:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lynda Ramirez
Minutes Clerk