Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-01-1991 City Council Minutes MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL TIME: Wednesday, May 1, 1991 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Ave. TYPE~ Regular Meeting 1. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Mayor Stutzman. Councilmembers Present: Anderson, Clevenger, Kohler, Monia and Vice Mayor Kohler. 2. CEREMONIAL ITEMS A. Resolution 91-37 commending Roy Cameron for service on Heritage Commission.. MONIA/KOHLER MOVED APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. 91-37. PASSED 5-0. Mayor Stutzman presented Mr. Cameron with the Resolution. B. Resolution 91-38 appointing and reappointing Heritage Commissioners Peepari and Ansnes. MONIA/ANDERSON MOVED APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 91-38. PASSED 5-0. C. Administration of Oath of Office to Above. City Manager/City Clerk Harry Peacock administered the Oath of Office to Mr. Robert Peepari and Ms. Elizabeth Asnes. 3. ROUTINE MATTERS A. Approval of Minutes - 4/17; 4/23 The Minutes of April 17, 1991 were corrected as follows: 1. Roll Call - Councilmember Clevenger was also present at the meeting. 2. Page 5, second to last paragraph, name of resident at 13890 Ravenwood amended to read Joe Sharon. 3. Page 13, indicate Councilmember Monia returned to the meeting following item 7-F. ANDERSON/CLEVENGER MOVED APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF 4/17/91 AS CORRECTED. PASSED 5-0. ANDERSON/MONIA MOVED APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF 4/23/91 WITH CORRECTIONS AS FOLLOWS: Page 2, item 6, bullet #8 from top Councilmember Monia stated his intent was to remove only the first sentence of Condition #27, and not the entire condition. MOTION PASSED 5-0. B. ApproVal of Warrant List Responding to Councilmember Anderson's question, Mr. Peacock stated that the $29,841.51 expenditure to HED Architects is for design of the improvements to the Civic Center Project. ANDERSON/MONIA MOVED APPROVAL. PASSED 5-0. C. Report of City Clerk on Posting of Agenda Mr. Peacock announced that pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the City Council Minutes 2 May 1, 1991 agenda for this meeting was properly posted on April 26. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Planning Commission Actions, 4/10 - Noted and filed. Removed from agenda by Councilmember Anderson for discussion of item #3. Planning Director Stephen Emslie responded to Council-member Anderson's concerns regarding the size limit which is within the lot size. B. Finance Advisory Committee Minutes, 4/8 - Noted and filed. C. Library Commission M~nutes, 4/24 - Noted and filed. D. Approval of revised smoking policy for City Buildings. Councimember Monia removed from agenda for discussion. He asked whether the policy allows for a designated smoking area for employees. Mr. Peacock responded that smoking will not be permitted inside any City building including the theater. E. Authorization of Request for Proposals for City Street- sweeping Contract. F. Proclamation concerning Clean Air Week, May 6-12. MONIA/ANDERSON MOVED APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR WITH EXCEPTION OF ITEM 4-AAND 4-D. PASSED 5-0. Following discussion, MONIA/ANDERSON MOVED APPROVAL OF ITEMS 4-A AND 4-D. PASSED 5-0. 5. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS AND THE PUBLIC A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Jeff Kalb, 14617 Carnelian Glen Court, Saratoga, addressed the Council as Chairperson of the Citizens Investigative Committee. He stated that the Committee has completed its draft report. It is the Committee's intention to have the report reviewed by independent counsel. The Committee has contacted Mr. Kenneth Scheidig. Mr. Kalb reported that in his discussions with Mr. Scheidig, there is a need for clarification regarding establishing whether the City or the Committee is Mr. Scheidig's client. The Committee's concern is that if the City as a whole is the client, then City Attorney Michael Riback may find himself in the position of having to defend the City and to execute the task described in the report. Mr. Kalb requested the Council to instruct the City Attorney to clarify in writing with Mr. Scheidig that the Committee and the City Council are Mr. Scheidig's clients in this matter. Following discussion, MONIA/KOHLER MOVED THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY COMMUNICATE IN WRITING WITH MR...SCHEIDIG CLARIFYING THAT THE CLIENT- ATTORNEY RELATIONSHIP IS BETWEEN THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE CITIZENS INVESTIGATION COMMITTEE, REQUESTING THAT HIS (SCHEIDIG'S) COMMENTS REGARDING THE DRAFT REPORT BE SENT TO THE CITY COUNCIL THEOUGH THE MAYORAND THE COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN, AND THAT THE COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN, UPON RECEIPT OF THE DOCUMENT FROM MR. SCHEIDIG, REPORT BACK TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH THE COMMENTS. PAESED 5-0. Mr. Tom Reddick, 12389 Larchmont Avenue, Saratoga, addressed the Council, expressing concern that not enough citizens participate in City Council meetings. Councilmember Monia commented that television coverage of City Council meetings will commence in a few weeks. Mr. Jeff Schwartz, San Marcos Road, Saratoga, addressed the Council stating he wrote a letter dated April 17, 1991, to the City Council, City Council Minutss 3 M~y 1~ 1991 and expected it to be on tonight's agenda. Mr. Peacock explained the procedure for getting on the agenda, and indicated that Mr. Schwartz' letter will appear on the May 15, 1991 agenda. Mrs. Wanda Alexander, County resident, addressed the Council on behalf of the Coalition for Hillside Protection. She voiced the Coalition's disappointment with the City's action to approve the Velinsky project. The group is concerned with the compatibility of the project to the area. She said the top of the hill has been shaved off 2000 yards of dirt. The Coalition is requesting mitigation in terms of screening and vegetation. She has had no response from the applicant/developer. Mayor Stutzman verified Mrs, Alexander's statements. He encouraged other Council members to visit the site. Me opined that something needs to be done to screen the area. He said that looking at the project from Mrs. Alexander's property, the project is an "architectural atrocity." Councilmember Monia recalled that when he spoke to Mr. Velinsky a few weeks ago, Mr. Velinsky was to have contacted Mrs. Alexander regarding this matter. However, Mr. Monia stated that per the applicant's agreement with the City, Mr. Velinsky is not required to do the landscaping until occupancy is requested. THE COUNCIL DIRECTED STAFF TO REPORT BACK TO COUNCIL AT ITS NEXT MEETING WITH OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO RESOLVE THIS ISSUE. B. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS 1) Robert V. Stiles, 1265 E1 Camino Real #105, Santa Clara 95050, requesting support to bring 1994 World Cup soccer championships to Bay Area. Mr. Jerry Kocir, 12855 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, Saratoga, addressed the Council. He said the City should be honored to entertain the 1994 World Cup Soccer championships. He asked why the Council plans to decline the invitation. Mr. Peacock replied that the request includes a $1,000 donation, and Staff did not feel it is good public policy for cities to be putting funds into these types of endeavors. Additionally, Mr. Peacock reported that the group has now raised the funds they need to proceed with the event at Stanford and Candlestick Park. Councilmember Clevenger suggested sending a letter indicating that the City would'like to be supportive of the group's efforts by distributing information to its citizens. She concurred with Mr. Peacock that there are no funds allocated for this type of request in the budget. Mr. Kocir rebutted that if money is the issue, he is willing to fund the event for the City. Mayor Stutzman agrees with Councilmember Clevenger to send a letter of support since the group has already met their goal, He said a majority of the citizenry would be averse to funding an event such as this with public funds. Councilmember Monia proposed that if the City agrees to support the event that Mr. Kocir might want to be the benefactor and purchase from the City a package consisting of so many general admission tickets, t- shirts, and other discounts that the City would get for a $1,000 donation. Mr. Kocir stated that if the tickets would go to children to attend the games, he will buy a package. Councilmember Monia clarified that the City would purchase the package which would then be purchased by Mr. Kocir for him to disperse the tickets as he sees appropriate. CONSENSUS TO SEND A LETTER OF SUPPORT. MR. KOCIR TO MAKE ARRANGEMENTS FOR BENEFACTOR PURCHASE. City Council Minutes 4 May 1, 1991 2) Bill Carlson, Saratoga Village Host Association, requesting additional matching funds for business promotion. Councilmember Clevenger suggested including the request in the budget process this year, and when reviewing budget items, the Council can decide if monies are available. Following discussion, CONSENSUS WAS TO PLACE REQUEST ON HOLD. STAFF TO SEND ME. CARLSON A LETTER ASKING HIM TO SUBMIT HIS REQUEST EARLIER FOR CONSIDERATION IN NEXT YEAR'S BUDGET. 3) Joseph P. Long, Jr., 14363 Saratoga Avenue, resigning from Public Safgty Commission. KOHLER/ANDERSON MOVED TO ACCEPT RESIGNATION. PASSED 5-0. ANDERSON/MONIA MOVED TO AUTHORIZE RECRUITMENT ADVERTISING. PASSED 5- 0. 6. OLD BUSINESS A. Resolution approving Joint Powers Agreement for Congestion Management Agency (continued from 4/17) Mr. Peacock summarized the resolution and document stating it has been approved by the Congestion Management Agency Board. The Joint Powers Agreement would be the basic legal document. for the formal creation of the Congestion Management Agency of Santa Clara County. The requirement for making the agency effective is that a majority of the cities as well as the County Board of Supervisors must ratify the document. Mr. Peacock reported on the controversial provisions in the document, primarily revolving around the issues'of what is considered to be noncompliance with the Congestion Management Plan and the provisions in Proposition 111. Disagreement and debates have been voiced over the provision that if a city withdraws from the agency, the city is automatically in noncompliance. Mr. Peacock said that legal counsel for the City of San Jose and County Board of Supervisors have opined that State legislation was not written broadly enough so that it could be applied. However, Mr. Peacock noted that the provision requiring that a city remain a member or be declared in violation and out of compliance, and all the penalties attached thereto, remain in the document. Mr. Peacock stated that other issues which have been raised by several cities relate to the stipend being proposed to be paid to the members of the Board, and objections to the scheduling of Board meetings which conflict with the Council meetings of at least three cities in the County. Councilmember Clevenger expressed concern that the Board meetings have been scheduled so that it precludes the City of Saratoga from attending. If the City does not join, the alternative would be very expensive for the City to try to do its own congestion management. She recommended adopting the resolution and sending a letter expressing the unfairness of holding the Board meetings on a night which precludes any member of the Saratoga City Council or staff from attending. If the Council objects to the stipend of $100 each to the delegate and alternate to attend meetings, the letter should include the Council's objections. Mayor Stutzman stated that the stipend issue was discussed at the Mayors meetings and he voiced opposition to it. CLEVENGER/ANDERSON MOVED TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION ACCOMPANIED BY A LETTER OBJECTING TO THE AMOUNT OF THE STIPEND AND THE NIGHT ON W~ICH THE BOARD MEETINGS ARE SCHEDULED TO BE HELD, AND SUGGEST THAT MEETINGS City Council Minutes 5 May 1, 1991 BE HELD ON THE FOURTH THURSDAY OF THE MONTH. Responding to Vice Mayor Kohler~s question regarding the tax revenue, Mr. Peacock replied that from previous discussions held and legal counsel opinions previously mentioned, if the agreement is signed by a majority of the cities, it will go into effect, and such an agency will be created. However, there is no compulsion in the law that requires a city to be a participating member. The congestion management statutes require certain programs be instituted by all jurisdictions in the state of California. Those requirements are quite extensive, and would cause the City to expend a considerable amount of staff resources and funds, probably much more than what the City~s assessment would be as a member of the agency. Mr. Peacock said that legal opinions have expressed that if a city does not pay its dues and decides it wants to withdraw from the agency, the agency can then declare that the city is out of compliance and would lose Section 2105 gas tax funds that each community is entitled to as long as the city is in conformance with the Congestion Management Act. Councilmember Monia conveyed that he disagreed with the agreement because it gives too much power to the City of San Jose. He expressed what is being created is a monolithic government agency which is stripping all individual towns of their right to govern themselves. If the cities do not comply, the money will be taken away from the cities. In his opinion, this is blackmail. He is against the issue and will continue to be against it as long as there is not a vote for each town. He will not be supporting the issue. Vice Mayor Kohler stated he has voted against this issue in the past. If the agreement is approved, he urged that a letter with the City's concerns be sent. Councilmember Clevenger commented that before the issue is turned down, it is necessary to know how much the City will be assessed to join, and how much it would cost for the City to administer the service. Councilmember Anderson stated that the important issue is that the City needs to adhere to State law and cannot get out of having a congestion management plan, unless it wants to forgo the new tax money. Mr. Jeff Schwartz, San Marcos Road, Saratoga, addressed the Council, suggesting that the Council consider not joining to make a strong point about the lack of representation, and wait six months to a year to see how the agency is doing. Councilmember Anderson responded that the City will not get tax money if it does not have a Congestion Management Plan in place by a certain date. Mr. Peacock clarified the reasons why the City of Saratoga is not choosing at this point to adopt the resolution. They are: opposition to Provisions 17 and 18 of the agreement; opposition to signing any type of document without knowing what the formula is going to be to assess the City for its annual cost; concern that the City has had no opportunity to attend the Board meetings and to review firsthand decisions made by the Agency because the Board has refused to move its meeting night to a night which is not in conflict with three of the sixteen member agencies; and the City's concern of using public funds to pay Board members a Stipend rather than putting the money into congestion management programs. Following further discussion, CLEVENGER/ANDERSON MOVED TO DEFER THE MOTION. PASSED 5-0. Mayor Stutzman moved the agenda to item 8-A, Public Hearing. 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS 8:30 p.m. A. Appeal of denial of use permit to construct a 240 sq. ft. GTE Mobilnet cellular equipment room and a 45' tall City Council Minutes 6 May 1, 1991~ monopole to operate a cellular communications system within the PA zone district at 14375 Saratoga Ave. (Appellant/Applicant, GTE Mobilnet)(UP90-009) Mr. Emslie summarized the Executive Summary dated May 1, 1991. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:50 p.m. Ms. Peggy Cocker, attorney for GTE Mobilnet., addressed the Council. She stated that GTE Mobilnet feels that the site they have selected meets all of the zone requirements and should be approved. They do not view the visual impact on this site as sufficient to deny the permit. Ms. Cocker noted that GTE's service in the Village area is zero to marginal. To service the area, ~t is necessary for GTE to establish a monopole in or near the Village area. Ms. Cocker described the alternate sites which were explored, Ms. Cocker presented new information for Council consideration. In place of a single monopole, she proposed installation of two wooden telephone poles about 45 feet in height with antennas towards the top of the poles. She said the alternate plan would greatly reduce the visual impact. She requested continuance of the appeal to allow GTE the opportunity to discuss the alternate plan to staff. Councilmember Monia confirmed from his experience the need for services. He questioned whether the nearby school might be a suitable location and whether consideration has been given to raising the present pole at Lawrence. Mr. Cole Newman, GTE Mobilnet representative, addressed the Council and responded to Council members' concerns. Steve Porter, 19730 Saratoga, Saratoga, addressed the Council as a business proprietor who uses GTE Mobilnet service. He requested that this matter be resolved soon. The Public Hearing was closed at 9:07 p.m. Following discussion, CLEVENGER/ANDERSON MOVED TO DEFER THE ITEM AND REQUEST THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO REVIEW THE NEW PROPOSAL. PASSED 5- 0. Mayor Stutzman declared a recess at 9:15 p.m. Upon reconvening at 9:20 p.m., the same Council members were present. Mayor Stutzman moved the agenda to item 6-B. 6. B. Additional Water Conservation Measures recommended by Santa Clara Valley Water District~ Letter from Royal Pools concerning swimming pools (continued from 4/17) Mr. Peacock reported on the letter dated April 8, 1991, from the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) regarding additional water use restrictions. Following discussion, MONIA/KOHLER MOVED THAT STAFF BE DIRECTED TO RESPOND TO THE SCVWD'S REQUEST INFORMING THEMTHAT THE CITY OF SARATOGA HAS IMPLEMENTED MOST OF THE GUIDELINES SUGGESTED BY THE SCVWD, AND THE CITY IS COMPORTABLE WITH ITS POLICIES AND PROCEDURES REGARDING WATER CONSERVATION. PASSED 5-0. C. Resolutions proposing continuation of Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District LLA-1 (continued from 4/17). City Engineer Larry Perlin reported on the Executive Summary dated May 1, 1991, MONIA/ANDERSON MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 91-39 DESCRIBING IMPROVEMENTS AND DIRECTING PREPARATION OF ENGINEER'S REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1991-92. PASSED 5-0. City Council Minutes 7 May 1, 1991 MONIA/ANDERSON MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 91-39.1 APPOINTING ATTORNEYS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1991-92 FOR A FIXED AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $500. PASSED 5-0. D. 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-l-10,000 zone district (SD90-007) (Applicant, Perry & Jones: appellant, R. Corson et al.) (continued from 4/23) Mr. Peacock summarized the Resolution upholding a decision of the Planning Commission which contains the conditions which would be applied should the City and the Ravenwood neighborhood proceed with acquiring a piece of the propert~ at 13820 Ravenwood for the purposes of creating a park. Mr. Peacock pointed out the necessity of amending condition #27, per Councilmember Monia, by deleting the first sentence only, to read: "No grading shall be undertaken until individual house plans have been approved by the Planning Commission. In no event shall any grading permit be issued for any of the parcels until the City Arborist verifies in written correspondence that the tree preservation measures have been satisfactorily implemented." Councilmember Monia requested amendments to the Resolution as follows: Page 6, item (v), condition #22 to read, "Home construction may include .... " . Page 6, item (vi), condition #23 to read, "Standard driveway approaches shall not exceed 18 feet in width and .... " Councilmember Monia also asked that another condition (.#31) be included which stipulates that "Upon approval of the Tentative Map, the City Arborist report on tree preservation and maintenance shall be updated and continually implemented by.the applicant." Mr. Ron Jones of Perry and Jones Developers addressed the Council, stating that one of the conditions may be a conflict. He said the developers have been told they have to demolish the house before they can get Final Map approval. There's another condition which says they cannot do any grading, yet the grading is incidental to demolishing the house. He asked for clarification. Mr. Peacock suggested further modifying Condition #27 to.read, "No site grading shall be undertaken with the exception of that necessary for the demolition of the existinq structures until individual houses, etc ....... " Mr. Jones, referring to condition #31, asked for a 15-day period in which to implement the updated City Arborist's recommendations. Councilmember Anderson stated that if there is no structural damage to the houses being demolished, that the developer make an effort to have someone take and move the houses. Mr. Peacock noted that if the houses are moved, the developers can always come back and ask the City for an adjustment or relief of condition #16. MONIA/AMDERSON MOVED ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION 91-40 APPROVING SD-90-007 PER STAFF REPORT AND OTHER MODIFICATIONS AS OUTLINED ABOVE PERTAINING TO CONDITIONS #22, #23, #27, AND #31. PASSED 5-0. Councilmember Monia expressed his concern regarding the unusual circumstances because of the lack of due process at the Planning Commission level. He felt that there would have been a stalemate at the Planning Commission if there had been due process and the item eventually would have come before the Council for consideration. He proposed refunding the applicants their $115 appeal fee. MONIA/KOHLER MOVED TO REFUND THE APPLICANTTHE $115APPEALFEE. PASSED City Council Minutes 8 May 1, 1991 3-0-2 (ANDERSON, CLEVENGERABSTAINED.) Councilmembers Anderson and Clevenger abstained because they question what determines due process. E. Discussion of the Possibility of Becoming a Charter City City Attorney Michael RibaCk reported on his findings to the City Council regarding the process for becoming a charter city. Councilmember Anderson asked for clarification regarding a charter city, and the different requirement for voting to increase taxes. Mr. Riback responded that charter cities have greater tax issuance authority than general law citie.s. Mr. Peacock stated that charter cities can be more flexible in tax structure than a general law city because the latter is restrained by the general laws of the State of California; however, since the passing of Proposition 13, the State Legislature has removed a number of those differences. Mr. Peacock explained the kinds of financial options that charter cities can exercise that are not available to general law cities in California. Vice Mayor Kohler referred to a Council two-term limit as a charter city. A discussion ensued. Councilmember Monia pointed out that if the two-term limit is studied, it is not an attempt to impose it upon any of the current Council members. Mr. Peacock asked what the Council wants the charter to accomplish. Councilmember Monia noted he is strongly interested in provisions which would relate to a change in the General Plan. He proposed forming a subcommittee to start developing a list of what the Council wants to accomplish through a charter and that it be brought back to Council for further discussions. Councilmember Anderson questioned what it would cost for legal advice and work for the process involved to charter. Mr. Riback replied that it is difficult to place a cost estimate until it is known what the Council wants to accomplish through the charter. Councilmember Anderson stated she is not interested in pursuing the matter unless more issues, other than the two-term limitation, are raised for the importance of making Saratoga a charter city. Following further discussion, MONIA/KOHLER MOVED TO SET UP A SUBCOMMITTEE TO STUDY THE ISSUE FURTHER AND TO FORM A LIST OF ITEMS COUNCIL WOULD LIKE TO ACCOMPLISH THROUGHESTABLISHING THE CHARTER. THE LIST IS TO BE REVIEWED BY STAFF TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE ITEMS CAN BE ADDRESSED BETTER THROUGH CHARTER CITY STATUS VERSUS GENERAL LAW CITY. THE LIST IS TO BE BROUGHT BACK TO COUNCIL FOR FURTHER DELIBERATIONS. Councilmember Clevenger stated she will be voting against the motion because of the expenditures involved for attorney research fees, Staff time, and to take the issue to the voters. She does not see enough pluses to justify the expense that this would entail. She prefers that the money be spent on acquisition of open space and providing other benefits for Saratoga residents. If the intention is to limit the terms, it could be done through an advisory vote on the ballot, which is less expensive. Councilmember Anderson stated she will be voting against the motion. THE MOTION PASSED 3-2 (ANDERSON, CLEVENGER OPPOSED.) Vice Mayor Kohler was appointed Chairperson of the subcommittee. He is to appoint other subcommittee members. Mr. Peacock cautioned against violation of the Brown Act and suggested that only one other Council member be chosen to serve on the subcommittee. F. Discussion of Selection of Planning Commissioner City Council Minutss 9 May 1~ 1991 Mayor 8tutzman stated that he is the swing vote on the selection of a new Planning Commissioner, and for him it is a difficult choice to make between the two top adequate candidates. He suggested continuing the recruiting process for additional candidates. Following discussion, KOHLRR/MONIA MOVED TO CONTINUE THE RECRUITING PROCESS FOR ADDITIONAL CANDIDATES FOR ANOTHER MONTH. PASSED 4-1 (ANDERSON OPPOSED.) 7. NEW BUSINESS A. Resolutions proposing annexation of Property to LLA-1 and creating a new zone. Mr. Perlin reported on the ExecUtive Summary dated May 1, 1991. He referred to the two alternate plans submitted for consideration. He said that alternate plan #1 includes 75 parcels, and alternate plan #2 includes 72 parcels. Mr. Peacock noted that alternate plan #2 should have been for 54 parcels, instead of 72, and the area on Espada Court and Quito Road (parcels #47 through #55) should be removed as well as page I of alternatives #2 and page 3 of alternative #2. Responding to Councilmember Anderson's question, Mr. Peacock stated that none of the neighbors had been notified of tonight's Council meeting regarding this item. Mayor Stutzman declared a brief recess while Mr. Peacock retrieved an exhibit illustrating the areas includes in the proposal. Upon reconvening, the same Council members were present. Mr. Peacock presented the exhibit submitted by the neighborhood which shows 54 parcels. He distributed a list of 12 options for Council to consider. Mr. Charles P. Shaw, 13920 Ravenwood Drive, Saratoga, addressed the Council. His residence is five homes away from the proposed park. He inquired about the function of the park, planned use of the park, policing the park, and whether it will increase traffic. Councilmember Monia addressed Mr. Shaw's concerns, adding that there is no definitive answer yet whether the park is, in fact, going in. Mr. Shaw stated that he had been concerned about a possible conflict of interest with some members of the Planning Commission who were intimately interested in the project; however, he said Councilmember Monia explained to him that those Commissioners acted as private citizens and abstained from participating in the whole process of the subdivision, and his concern was satisfied. Mr. Shaw replied to Councilmember Anderson's questions, stating he does not want a park in the neighborhood, nor does he support an Assessment District. Mr. Richard Corson, 13831 Ravenwood Drive, Saratoga, addressed the Council. Speaking on behalf of the neighborhood, he recommended the purchase of Lot B for the park. He said that the neighbors are supporting option #1 which might be modified down to 73 parcels. They feel that Quito Oaks, Espada Court, Montpere Way, Ravenwood Drive and Ravenwood Court would be the most appropriate parameters for the district. The neighbors have agreed to support a maximum assessment of $100 +/-. A discussion ensued regarding the costs to purchase the parcel. Councilmember Monia commented that if the City is going to purchase something beneficial not only to the neighborhood but to the community and residents themselves, why is the neighborhood being charged City Council Minutes 10 May 1, 1991 interest. He disagrees with the policy. He said he has a philosophical problem with charging interest to people who have already paid into the fund. He proposed that the City purchase the parcel, and the residents should pay back the City a certain percentage. If the residents want the City to buy the $330,000 parcel, then the residents should pay more money back to the City. Councilmember Monia distributed his formula for purchasing the parcel to Staff and other Council members. He proposed a Plan A and a Plan B on a 50%-50% plan for the Lot A parcel cost of $250,000. In Plan A, an assessment district of 55 residents would pay $78.78 annually over a 30-year period for Lot A. Under Plan B, 78 residents would pay $53.42 annually over a 30-year period for Lot A. For Lot B, at an estimated cost of $330,000, Mr. Monia proposed a plan of 25% share from the City and a 75% share from the'residents. The cost to 55 residents would be $150 annually and for 78 residents, the annual assessment would be $105.77 over a 30-year period. He noted that interest has been excluded from his formula. Councilmember Clevenger asked about discretionary funds. Mr. Peacock responded that this issue is part of the Council's priority in terms of capital projects over the next five or six years. He said he has been revising the calculations to the budget for presentation of the plan through 1996 to the Council. It is too early to tell what other projects the Council may have to forgo in order to purchase the proposed park property. Councilmember Monia commented that it is important that the Open Space Committee formulate a recommendation for the City to proceed with an open space policy that would include a request for a parcel tax city- wide, at a general election, for about $65. If a vote is taken and the $65 assessment is passed, he would like to see this particular parcel as the first designated parcel, so that the money can be recovered. Discussion ensued. Councilmember Anderson asked Mr. Corson should the City not be able to put a package together as low as $100 for Lot B, would the neighbors prefer lot A at a $100 annual assessment or no lot at all. Mr. Corson responded that they would lose the support of a number of people if that were the case. Vice Mayor Kohler commented that the neighbors have a problem with Lot A, and he does not want to overlook their concern. Lot B is a tremendous opportunity for the City and he would vote in favor of it. Councilmember Monia publicly thanked Mr~ Jones and Mr. Perry, the developers, for their time and openness in negotiating, and for encouraging the City in thi~ matter. Mr. Jeff Schwartz again addressed the Council. He stated that a neighborhood is offering to help the City purchase property. He expressed frustration that the City generated another list of alternatives to the research conducted by the neighborhood. He feels that the neighborhood needs the park although he will not get any direct benefit from it. Councilmember Anderson responded that her question to Mr. Corson regarding "lot A or nothing" was not intended as a negative statement. Her sole purpose was to determine if there was any point in pursuing discussion of Parcel A. KOHLER/MONIA MOVED TO PURCHASE LOT B WITH 75% COST-SHARE TO THE RESIDENTS AND 25% COST-SHARE TO THE CITY, WITH A $110 ASSESSMENT RATE PER PARCEL FOR ALL PARCELS LOCATED BETWEEN THE RAILROAD TRACKS, THE CREEK, AND QUITO AND POLLARD ROADS. During discussion, Mr. Peacock said that according to his calculations, there are 77 parcels within the proposed area. City Council Minutes 11 May 1, 1991 Discussion ensued. Councilmember Anderson noted she is uncomfortable with the motion because she does not have an analysis of what it means in terms of the budget and will be abstaining from voting until after she has gone through the budget process. THE MOTION PASSED 4-0-1 (ANDERSON ABSTAINED. ) The Council directed Mr. Perlin to prepare the Engineer's Report for annexation at a proposed $110 assessment rate per parcel and return to the Council on May 15 with the Engineer's Report. MONIA/KOHLER MOVED ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION 91-40 APPROVING ANNEXATION NO. 1991-2 WITH ALTERNATIVE #1 OF THE ENGINEER'S REPORT. PASSED 5-0. MONIA/KOHLER MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 91-40.1 APPOINTING ATTORNEYS TO CONDUCT PROPOSED ANNEXATION NO. 1991-2 TO CITY OF SARATOGA LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT WITH A FIXED COST NOT TO EXCEED $500. PASSED 5-0. B. Appointment of Special Prosecutor in case of People vs. Cocciardi. Mr. Riback reported that the purpose of the appointment is to have a special prosecutor assist him in. preparation for the criminal action trail in this case. MONIA/KOHLER MOVED APPROVAL OF MR. HOLLEY AS SPECIAL PROSECUTOR. PASSED 5-0. C. Policy regarding subdivision conditions being met prior to final map approval. Mr. Peacock presented a brief overview of this item. Mr. John Di Manto, Saratoga resident, addressed the Council, stating that this is a severe impacting proposition. He said that federal and state banking laws make it virtually impossible for financial institutions to commit to financing of subdivisions without a Final Map. The Final Map is their security for making loans. Bonding companies will not bond without a Final Map. Mr. Di Manto referred to the City's requirement of a set-aside fund letter from the applicant's bank. He proposed that following a sixty- day period upon commencement of any project, that the off-site items identified with any project also commence. At all times, the City would have the set-aside funds, a letter from the bank, and a separate bond for off-site as well as on-site. He urged the Council to delay any action on this item, and suggested that the matter be discussed with two or three banks and bonding companies who are active in the subdivision business and with the Department of Real Estate. A discussion ensued. ' Mr. William T. Brooks, 20230 Merrick Drive, Saratoga, addressed the Council, stating his inclination to generally support Staff's request because there have been many instances regarding this matter which need to be monitored. However, he gave an example where he would not be able to convey a portion of his property to a developer until he had a Final Map. He agrees with Mr. Di Manto. If Council is going to give policy discretion to Staff, he suggested that Staff also be aware of situations where the policy would not work. MONIA/KOHLER DIRECTED STAFF TO OBTAIN INFORMATION FROM OTHER CITIES THAT HAVE A SIMILAR POLICY AND RETURN TO THE COUNCIL WITH MODIFICATIONS TO THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE AND POLICY WRITTEN THEREOF, AND PLACE THE ITEM ON THE AGENDA FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION. City Council Minutes 12 May l, 1991 Councilmember Anderson indicated she is interested in pursuing Mr. Di Manto's recommendations regarding the set-asides. In her opinion, the City can accomplish the same thing with the set-asides as what the proposed policy is trying to accomplish, without impacting a developer's ability to get financing. Councilmember Monia commented that the problem with bonds is that the City ends up spending money in trying to get the bonding company to pay. Councilmember Clevenger expressed concern, but she will be voting for the motion. She would like to see the flexibility as suggested by Mr. Brooks when Staff returns with the requested information. MOTION PASSED 5-0. D. Memo Recommending Publicity for Upcoming Hearings - Gault Appeal. MONIA/ANDERSON MOVED TO APPROVE PUBLICITY AS RECOMMENDED. PASSED 5-0. 9. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS A. Agenda items for joint meeting with Planning Commission May 14. Tabled. B. Reports from Individual Councilmembers - None. 10. CLOSED SESSION on pending litigation on illegal grading, clearing and tree removal on Cocciardi/Chadwick development, Tr. 7770 and on acquisition of Nelson property. 11. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 12:05 a.m. to May 14, 1991, at 7:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lynda Ramirez Minutes Clerk