Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-15-1991 City Council Minutes MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL TIME: Wednesday, May 15, 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. council Members Present: Anderson, Clevenger, Kohler, Monia and Mayor Stutzman. 2. CEREMONIAL ITEMS - None. 3. ROUTINE MATTERS A. Approval of Minutes -.5/1 councilmember Monia corrected the Minutes as follows: Page 3, paragraph 4, 4th line, amended to read, "...Mr. Velinsky is not obliuated to complete all of his landscapinq until he is prepared to move in." Page 11, paragraph 5, line 2, amended to read, "No. 1991-2 with Englneerlnu Alternative #1." Page 7, 3rd paragraph from bottom of page, 3rd line, amended to read, "TO CONDITIONS #22, 23, 27 AND 31 .... " Councilmember Monia asked that the Minutes reflect that Perry & Jones~ request for a 15-day extension in which to implement the updated City Arboristts recommendations is from the time the City Arborist updates his report. KOHLER/CLEVENGER MOVED APPROVAL OF THE MINUTE8 OF 5/1/91 AS CORRECTED. PASSED 5-0. B. Approval of Warrant List ANDERSON/CLEVENGER MOVED APPROVAL OF WARRANT LIST. PASSED 5-0. C. Report of City Clerk on Posting of Agenda City Clerk/City Manager Harry Peacock announced that pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on May 10. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Planning Commission Actions, 5/8 - Noted and filed. Item removed by Councilmember Anderson. Referring to page 2, item 7 of agenda item 4-A (property at 20855 Kittridge Road), Councilmember Anderson questioned the average slope at 85%. Mr. Stephen Emslie, Planning Director, responded that there is no place on the site that can be built without exceeding the 30% slope limitations, and the 4,390 sq. feet is the size that would be allowed under the current slope formula. Following discussion, MONIA/CLEVENGER MOVED APPROVAL OF ITEM 4-A. PASSED 5-0. B. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes, 3/6 - Noted and filed. C. Final Map Approval, 4 lots, Edencrest Lane (SDST-00S) (Developer, Stella Investments). Item removed by Councilmember Monia. He explained he was not aware of a subdivision by the name of Stella Investments. He later learned from Staff that Stella Investments is also known as the 2 Sung subdivision, and has been brought before the Planning Commission as the Sung project. Discussion ensued regarding the property owners. M~. Larry Perlin, City Engineer, explained that Stella Investments is the name of the consortium which owns the property. Mr. Eric Sung is the representative of Stella Investments who has been guiding the application through the process. In response to Councilmember Anderson's inquiry, Mr. Perlin noted that the property was at one time owned by Anthony Cocciardi. It is unknown if Mr. Cocciardi still has an interest in Stella Investments. Councilmember Anderson noted that in light of the injunction which the City is seeking to prevent Mr. Cocciardi from building in Saratoga, it is important to know if he is, in fact, a partner in Stella Investments. Ms. Virginia Fanelli, 1175 Saratoga Avenue, #17, San Jose, addressed the Council. She stated that Stella Investments is the second buyer from Mr. Cocciardi of the property in question. She said Stella Investments property is not a Cocciardi investment. Mr. Peacock commented that the applicant has until June 5, 1991 to complete all the conditions requisite for the filing of the Final Map. Failure to do so will result in the lapsing of the Tentative Map, unless the applicant receives an extension from the City. The Planning Commission has decided that they would not grant an extension to the Tentative Map, and the matter is on appeal to the City Council. In the event that Stella Investments meets all of the requirements for the filing of the Final Map, then the appeal would be a moot issue. MONIA/ANDERSON MOVED APPROVAL OF 4-C. PASSED 5-0. D. Adoption of Guidelines for Use of Fund for Mousing Development for Low Income Seniors. E. Authorization for Planning Commission Retreat at local site on June 14 and 15, 1991. F. Proclamation designating May 19-25 as NationalPublic Works Week. city Financial Reports for April 1) Treasurer's Report 2) Investment Report 3) Financial Report MONIA/KOHLER MOVED APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR EXCEPT ITEMS 4-A AND 4-C. PASSED 5-0. 5. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS AND THE PUBLIC A. ORAL COMMUNICATION8 1. Mr. Bert Martel, a West Valley College (WVC) student of 14420 Fruitvale Avenue, addressed the Council. He discussed the use of the college facilities for football games. Me referred to a joint meeting of the WVC and City of Saratoga a few months ago wherein Mr. Peacock stated he would have the City Attorney review the possibility of holding sports events at WVC and respond to WVC officials. Mr. Martel requested a copy of the City's response. He will obtain copy from Mr. Peacock. Councilmember Clevenger noted that at the joint meeting of the college and Council, the matter was examined and it was determined that the only way football games could be held at WVC would be if the issue is brought before the voters for approval. Mr. Peacock clarified that the issue before the voters would be for a stadium at the college. 3 Councilmember Monia commented that the City has no jurisdiction regarding whether or not a football game can be played there. The City has only jurisdiction over whether or not any seating, lighting, sound systems, etc. can be used there. It is ~prohibited at this time; however, the College can have a football game there if it so desires. Councilmember Monia stated that the City did take action when it appeared that bleachers were being installed several weeks ago. The City notified the District that it would be in violation of City ordinances to do so. 2. Mr. William Fazakerly, 14270 Paul Avenue, addressed the Council. He discussed Measure A, the Saratoga schools tax proposal. He urged the Council to take a public stand and oppose Measure A. Vice Mayor Kohler felt that it is the Council's responsibility to examine the issue because it is a tax increase for most of Saratoga residents and because it concerns children. He has been studying the issue and personally will be voting against Measure A. 3. Mr. Matt Christiano, 21120 Wardell Road, addressed the Council, and expressed concern that the City is inadvertently discouraging recycling. From an addition to his home he has accumulated 10 to 20 yards of wood waste which he would like to recycle. He has contacted a company in San Jose who can recycle the material at a competitive price, but they are not allowed into the City of Saratoga because of the City's franchise agreement with Green Valley Disposal.' A discussion ensued. Mr. Peacock referred to the City ordinance and the franchise agreement with Green Valley Disposal that the company does recycle wood, and explained why the City does not allow any outside hauler to come in. It was agreed that Mr. Peacock would check with Green Valley Disposal and provide Mr. Christiano with an answer tomorrow. 4. Ms. Diane Gorman, 13356 Kahala Court, addressed the Council regarding Measure A. She stated she is against the tax, and remarked that nobody wants to talk about it. She indicated she wants to know when the opponents' side of the story can be told. Councilmember Anderson commented it is not appropriate to take a stand on this issue at a City level, although Council members sometimes take stands personally, but not as a body. Mayor Stutzman stated that the schools are an autonomous group and the City has only one function regarding the schools. If the schools sell property, then the City comes in on the rezoning part. The tax issue is within the province of the school district, and does not fall within the authority of the City Council to do anything. It is the voter's responsibility to get out and make the community aware of how one feels about the issue. Vice Mayor Kohler disagreed. He commented that this is a tax which is going to be imposed on Saratoga citizens, and the Council should be concerned and be able to debate the issue. · KOMLER/MONIA MOVED TO AGENDIZE DISCUSSION OF MEASURE A ON TONIGHT~S AGENDA. MOTION FAILED 2-3 (ANDERSON, CLEVENGER, STUTZMAN OPPOSED.) Councilmember Monia noted that he seconded the motion for the purpose of residents having an opportunity to speak on an issue that is of concern to them. However, he mentioned that the Council is not consistent with items of this nature, although 4 the City takes a position on issues which might have a direct effect on the City. There is not much that can be done from the City's standpoint, but the Council does have an obligation to listen to what the public has to say. ~Councilmember Anderson felt uncomfortable opposing the school board when they come out unanimously in favor of a parcel tax. Mayor Stutzman commented that as individuals, the Council can oppose or support Measure A, but as a Council and as a City policy, it would be going over its jurisdiction to take a stand on this issue. For the record, Councilmember Monia stated he has already come out in support of Measure A. City Attorney Michael Riback reminded Council members that since the motion to discuss failed, the discussion should end. 5. Mr. Tom Reddick, Saratoga resident, addressed the Council regarding'taxes for others' education. B. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS 1) Jeffrey A. Schwartz, 19281 San Marcos Rd., requesting that City Council direct City Attorney to take certain actions on "Potpourri" items and other confidential transmittals and minutes. Mr. Peacock announced that he was contacted by Mr. Schwartz who is out of state and has requested that this item be continued. MONIA/KOHLER MOVED TO CONTINUE ITEM. Following discussion, the motion was withdrawn. CONSENSUS WAS FOR MR. RIBACK TO MODIFY THE PROPOSED RESPONSE INFORMING MR. SCHWARTZ THAT HE (SCHWARTZ) IS ENTITLED TO REVIEW THE COMMUNICATIONS MINUS CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS HE HAS REQUESTED. 2) Virginia Lee Templeton, Los Gatos-Saratoga-Monte Sereno Newcomers Garden Club, 13648 Howen Dr., donating $200 for landscaping of Warner Hutton House. KOHLER/CLEVENGER MOVED TO ACCEPT WITH THANKS AND SEND CERTIFICATE OF APPRECIATION. PASSED 5-0. Mayor Stutzman moved the agenda to item 8 - Public Hearings. 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS - 8:30 p.m. A. Appeal of denial of design review approval to construct a 5,943 sq. ft. two-story single family residence on a 1.4 acre site at 22068 Villa Oaks Lane in the NHR zone district (Applicant/appellant, GaUlt)(DRg0-057) Mr. Emslie presented a synopsis of the Executive Summary dated May 15, 1991. Vice Mayor Kohler reported he had a telephone conversation with the applicant's representative. He asked the applicant to explain the misnumbering of the lot and item #4 of the appeal wherein the applicant was given incorrect information regarding approval of the adjacent properties. Councilmember Clevenger announced she met with the applicant and representative on the site and reviewed their proposal. Councilmember Anderson stated she met with the applicant on the site, reviewed the materials in the agenda packet, and was told of the applicant being misinformed about the approvals of the houses on either side of him. Councilmember Monia indicated he visited the site alone. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:43 p.m. Ms. Virginia Fanelli, representative for the applicant, addressed the Council. She stated that the applicants, Mr. and Mrs. Gault; the architect; and Mr. Tom Jordan, attorney, were present tonight. Ms. Fanelli apologized for inadvertently transposing Lots 6 and 8 in her letter to the Council. She addressed Vice Mayor Kchlers' concerns. Regarding the misinformation on the approvals, Ms~ Fanelli explained that before Mr. Gault purchased the property, he went to the City to inquire about approvals on either side of the adjacent lots. At that time, he was told there were no approvals on either lot. _ Subsequent to that, the architect went to the-City and asked the same question and received the same answer. In October 1990, approval was given on Lot 8. After additional research on Lot 6, it was discovered that a design review approval was granted in February 1990 for a home 26 feet in height, larger than the Gault home. Using an overhead projector, Ms. Fanelli displayed designs at 26 feet in height .submitted to the Planning Commission, relationship to the home on Lot 8, removal of one of the turrets, and other reductions, modifications, and perspectives. Ms. Fanelli discussed the requirements which the Planning Commission must consider for making a positive decision. She referred to verbatim minutes regarding a portion of the Commission hearings. During one of the hearings, it was the understanding of the applicant that he had an approval. It was the applicant's contention that the approved motion voted upon on January 9, 1991, after the close of the Public Hearing, was the final vote and should be upheld by the Council. It is the applicant's belief that the design as presented tonight does meet the intent of the Design Review Ordinance, the zoning requirements for the district, and follows the specific directions given to the applicant by the Planning Commission at the hearing. Ms. Fanelli asked the Council for support of the appeal and approval of the application with the same design approved by the Planning Commission on January 9, 1991. Ms. Marilyn Riding, 21836 Villa Oaks Lane, addressed the Council stating she is currently building a home in the Mt. Eden Estates area. She noted that the Gault house would certainly be an attractive addition to the neighborhood and something she would like to have in her neighborhood. She felt that the house conformed to every guideline and to what the City is asking for. She would like to see the home built. Mr. Thomas Jordan of the law firm of Hopkins & Carley, San Jose, addressed the Council as attorney for the applicant. He stated that since this is an appeal de novo, the Planning Commission's action should be disregarded. He commented that should the Council vote to uphold the Planning Commission decision, it would be upholding the vote of three new Commissioners who Were not present during the Public Hearings. He said the three Commissioners should not have been allowed to vote. It was Mr. Jordan's contention that the Commissioners based their decision on only reading the meeting minutes which Ms. Fanelli alleged to be incorrect. Mr. Jordan stated that the Council is hearing this issue for the first time and there is no opposition to the project. Responding to Vice Mayor Kohler's concern regarding the new Planning Commissioners' actions, Mr. Riback replied that if the new Commissioners "cured" themselves in order to qualify to vote on the matter (i.e., review the record which was established prior to the new Commissioners being seated on the Commission), then they would be able to act on the issue. Apparently, the Co~unissioners felt comfortable in reviewing the record to the degree they felt they could act. 6 Mr. Riback stated that until there are findings indicating an intent to approve - such findings historically have been in the form of a resolution adopted by the Planning Commission - it is only at that time that a decision is made that is appealable. An appeal period begins on the date that the resolution is adopted, not the date that any motion~is made to direct staff to prepare a resolution for approval. On the basis of that procedure, the final decision does not occur until the resolution itself is, in fact, acted upon. The resolution is the document from which an appeal can be taken. Mr. Jordan commented that Mr. Riback's explanation of the procedure is contrary to what Attorney Kathleen Faubion advised on page 4 of her written opinion dated February 22, 1991 to the Planning Commission. Mr. Jordan cited the verbatim remarks from the Minutes of April 24, 1991, that "After the vote was taken to deny the application and after the Chairman had noted that the appeal...the time to appeal starts from that time, the City Attorney observed it would be nice if they had some findings..." Mr. Riback conveyed that the appeal period begins from the date that the resolution was adopted and passed, not from the date that Staff was directed to prepare a resolution and come back; otherwise, the appeal period practically would have run by the date that the resolution was finally voted upon. Councilmember Clevenger opined that it was not proper to change a decision when .the resolution is before the Council because the applicant involved in the original hearing would not attend .the resolution adoption meeting thinking it was a done deal. She is concerned that on this issue the Public Hearing was closed and the issue was decided on a 3 to 1 decision to approve it. Councilmember Monia stated that when the original resolution was to be drafted, he was not happy with the decision. He wanted to question the item, but was told at a meeting that the Council could not exercise its right to call the item because no resolution had been passed yet, and there was not a firm decision from the Planning Commission. He said he heard Attorney Faubion on many occasions clearly state the opposite of what Mr. Jordan had expressed earlier tonight regarding the appeal period. Councilmember Monia suggested focusing on the substance of the appeal rather than on the procedure. Mr. Jordan indicated there are two separate issues involved. One is procedural and the other is design. Councilmember Monia commented that the issue would have come before the Council in any event. Responding to Councilmember Anderson's inquiry, Mr. Emslie stated that the Minutes of April 24, 1991, are not presently available, and that the meeting tapes were transcribed by the applicant's representatives. Mr. Jordan distributed an excerpted copy of the verbatim transcript of the April 24, 1991 Planning Commission hearing to Council members. Mayor Stutzman. declared a recess at to give Council members an opportunity to read the verbatim transcript. Upon reconvening, the same Council members were present. Ms. Ann Marie Burger, 20045 Winter Lane, addressed the Council regarding a comment made earlier tonight that three Planning Commissioners had "bailed out" during the process of this application. She emphatically stated for the record that she did not bail out as a Planning Commissioner. She sought reappointment, but was not reappointed. With no further testimony, the Public Hearing was closed at 9:38 p.m. Planning Commissioner Gillian Moran who was in the audience was called upon by Councilmember Anderson to confirm the proceedings of the 7 Planning Commission. Commissioner Moran recalled that it was moved, seconded and voted to deny the application. Attorney Faubion reminded the Commissioners that they needed findings in order for the Commission to have a definitive action at the particular meeting. The Commissioners then discussed the findings to create a resolution so that a'final decision would be made. It was Ms. Moran's understanding that the series of events, although not in the normal order, was sufficient to constitute an action. She said it is the Planning Commission's role to take action whether it be to approve an item, deny an item, or continue an item. Ms. Moran recalled that the action was a denial and there was fifteen days in which to appeal. CLEVENGER/ANDERSON MOVED TO APPROVE THE APPEAL AND ALLOW THE HOME TO BE BUILT AT 24 FEET INCLUDING THE HORIZONTAL IMPROVEMENTS THAT WERE MADE BY THE APPLICANT AND APPROVED AT THE JANUARY 9, 1991 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. Councilmember Clevenger stated that she feels the appeal should be upheld because Staff is recommending that the appeal be upheld and the fact that the houses on either side of the applicant's property are compatible with the Gault home at 24 feet. Councilmember Anderson expressed concerns with the application. Even if the City Attorney is correct and it was completely legal to change the resolution after it came back for a vote, it has not been a practice in the past to do so. The practice in the past has been to correct a rendering. In her opinion when a resident comes before the City and Staff is directed to prepare a resolution, the resident has an expectation that an approval is forthcoming. It concerns her when a decision is changed which takes away from the application. She noted that not one neighbor has opposed the project. She is uncertain that the two feet is going to make a big difference when the Gault house is lower than other house tops. She felt that the applicant has done everything that the City has asked him to do. The applicant went out in good faith after the motion was passed in January and he made changes to his drawings as he was asked to do. The project is not more bulky than the other houses in the neighborhood. She indicated she would vote to support the applicant and uphold the appeal. Councilmember Monia discussed the ordinance which specifically allows changing of minds until the next regular meeting. He presented a scenario of an item being voted upon by only a three City Council members present at a meeting, continuing the item, and then final voting with all five City Council members present. He asked for Mr. Riback's counsel. Mr. Riback replied that if it is the policy of the City, the final vote is not until the resolution is actually adopted. If such is not the policy, then the remaining two Council members would not be allowed to vote. Councilmember Monia expressed his concerns with the house. He stated the project is probably one of the most prominent sites in Saratoga. He disagrees with the Planning Commission's consideration of the application because he feels that a single-story would have been more appropriate. If the house is to remain at a two-story height, he would prefer removing the turrets as itadds to the prominence of the house. He would support a 22-foot height. He will be voting against the motion. Vice Mayor Kohler referred to his earlier comment regarding the Planning Commissioners and apologized to Ms. Burger, stating he was not referring to her. Vice Mayor Kohler stated he is concerned with the bulkiness of the house. He would prefer to avoid another prominent home in the neighborhood. He is against the motion. Mayor Stutzman addressed the point that there was nothing negative against this particular house. He said that in talking to the citizens of Saratoga, their most often expressed complaint was the large megahomes built in Mt. Eden Estates and other areas. He stated he visited the site and found it to be an extremely prominent site. He 8 concurred with Councilmember Monia that the house should be a single- story home. If it is to be a two-story house, he would accept 22 feet in height. He will vote to deny the appeal. Mayor Stutzman commented that as a member of the Council, it is inappr6priate to be accompanied on site visits by members who are actively involved either pro or con on any issue to be decided by the Council. THE MOTION FAILED 2-3 (KOHLER, MONIA, 8TUTZMAN OPPOSED.) MS. Fanelli asked whether the Council would be interested in any other information or re-design. The Council agreed to review modifications. MONIA/ANDERSON MOVED TO RE-OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. PASSED 5-0. Utilizing an overhead projector, Ms. Fanelli exhibited a redesigned configuration which was reviewed at a Planning Commission study session and at a Planning Commission Public Hearing. Ms. Fanelli and the applicant's architect explained the changes made and responded to Council members' questions. There being no further information, the Public Hearing was closed at 10:12 p.m. Councilmember Monia stated he would prefer to see all the elevations as it is difficult to make a decision without the complete plans to review. KOHLER/MONIA MOVED TO OBTAIN INFOI~MATION ON ALL DRAWINGS AND CONTINUE THE APPLICATION TO THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING. Mr. Peacock proposed that the Council agree to uphold the appeal and modify the decision of the Planning Commission subject to approval of revised drawings tobe brought back to the Council with a resolution at the next regular Council meeting. If the drawings are satisfactory, they can be labeled as Exhibit A to the resolution. The drawings and resolution can be approved then. If the drawings are not satisfactory, the Council can require that they be modified and continue the item. Mr. Peacock noted he is assuming that the conditions imposed by the Planning Commission approving the project would still be applicable, unless the Council has specific concerns about those conditions. The only change would be in the exhibit configuration. The only issue will be whether or not the revised drawings are acceptable. If they are not, the Council does not have to approve the resolution until the drawings are acceptable. VICE MAYOR KOHLER MOVED TO CONTINUE THE ITEM TO THE NEXT MEETING SO THAT A COMPLETE PACKAGE IS SUBMITTED FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION. COUNCILMEMBER MONIA SECONDED THE MOTION, clearly stating that his preference is still a single story alternative. He is not making any promises, but he will evaluate the particular design on its own merits when it comes back before the CoUncil. He stated he likes the last design presented much better than what was presented earlier. Councilmember Clevenger requested that the entire package and resolution be brought back at the June 5 Council meeting because she will not be at the June 19 Council meeting. COUNCILMEMBER~ KOHLER AND MONIA ACCEPTED THAT THE MOTION INCLUDE THE INTEGRATION OF THE RESOLUTION AT THE NEXT COUNCILMEETING (JUNE S) WITH THE ENTIRE RENDERING MATERIALS. Councilmember Monia requested that the Minutes of the April 24, 1991 Planning Commission meeting also be available at that time. THE MOTION WAS VOTED ON AND PASSED 5-0. Mayor Stutzman moved the agenda to item 5-B-3. 5. B. 3) Councilmember Barbara Waldman, City of Sunnyvale, requesting participation in opposing elimination of Child Care Ombudsman Program from State budget. Mr. Peacock reported that staff recommendation is that Council take no action on this matter. He referred to the State's budget deficit and stated that his primary concern is not that the State Child Care Ombudsman Program be left in the State budget, but that revenues which the City receives from the State are not cut. Mayor Stutzman pointed out that the City of Sunnyvale is very interested in keeping the child care program because of the big corporations in Sunnyvale and they need child care programs, which Saratoga has none. Councilmember Anderson commented she agrees with Mr. Peacock's position, but she does not agree that Saratoga has no concerns with child care. She indicated that child care is offered at the City and schools within the City limits. Following discussion, MONIA/KOHLER MOVED TO TAKE NO ACTION. PASSED 5- . 6. OLD BUSINE88 A. Actions in connection with Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District LLA-1 Mr. Perlin presented the resolutions to be voted upon tonight. 1) Resolutions 91-39.2 and 91-39.3 approving Engineer,s Report and setting public hearing for existing District. Mr. Perlin reported that Resolution No. 91-39.2 grants preliminary approval to the Engineer's Report and resolution No. 91-39.3 sets the date, time and place of the protest hearing which has been scheduled for June 19, 1991. Mr. Perlin referred to a map on the wall partially exhibiting the various zones within the existing district. Zones 22, 23, and 24 are not presently in the existing district and will be addressed in the next set of actions. A discussion ensued and Mr. Perlin responded to Council members' questions. ANDERSON/MONIA MOVED APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. 91-39.2. PASSED 5-0. CLEVENGER/MONIA MOVED APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. 91-39.3. PASSED 5-0. 2) Resolutions 91-36.2 and 91-36.3 approving Engineer's Report and setting public hearing for annexation of Property to LLA-1 (Annexation 1991-1). Mr. Perlin reported that Resolution No. 91-36.2 addresses the first annexation between Prospect and Cox. The Westbrook neighbors have expressed their desire to be created as a separate zone within the annexed territory which has been done as Zone 22. The remaining area would be designated as Zone 23. Resolution 91-36.2 grants preliminary approval to the Engineer~s Report and Resolution No. 91-36.3 proceeds with the annexation and sets the date, time and place of the protest hearing, also scheduled for June 19, 1991. ANDERSON/MONIA MOVED APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. 91-36.2. Ms. Karin Dowdy, 19101 Brook Lane, addressed the Council on behalf of the Westbrook Improvement Association. She said she sent out a survey and letter to all 92 homes in Westbrook explaining the pros, cons and procedures in creating a Landscape and Lighting Assessment (LLA) District. The results of the survey were that the neighbors wishes to be drawn up as a separate zone, which was conveyed to the City. She 10 stated that many of the respondents who did not respond, but whom she spoke to later, indicated a reluctance to part of the LLA District. Therefore, she will be circulating a petition in Westbrook objecting to such a formation, and will be presenting the petition at the June 19 meeting. Ms. Dowdy conveyed that one of the major concerns is that the proposal is too costly and that there is no guarantee that the costs will not continue to rise to what are considered acceptable levels. She said many people see this as an additional tax which they are not willing to pay. The neighbors feel they can do the job much cheaper themselves and have done so in the past. They feel that with minimum cooperation from the City, they can keep the area presentable with a cleanup twice' a year. Another concern is a dislike of an assessment district for what people believe the City should provide as a basic service. The neighbors are afraid that the City will attempt to finance other projects such as open space acquisition through this vehicle without going through the voters. Mr. Riback commented that Ms. Dowdy may be under the impression that a majority of the vote of the Westbrook neighbors would constitute a majority protest under the LLA District Act, but that is not the case. In order to have a majority protest that would require a four-fifths override by the City Council, there would have to be a majority protest of the entire proposed annexation area, and not just a zone. A discussion ensued. Mr. Peacock pointed out that the mere submittal of a petition does not constitute sufficient legal protest. The notice that everyone affected will receive will be very specific about how to file a protest. The protest can be filed up to the close of the public hearing, but not after the public hearing. At the point where the City Council completes the hearing process, it may, at its discretion, amend the boundaries of the annexation to exclude an area, but they cannot expand the proposed annexation area. Mr. Marvin Becker, 12120 Mellowood Drive, addressed the Council as President of the Brookview Homeowners. He indicated they do not want to annex into the Prospect/Cox LLA District. Mr. Becker distributed a map of parcels, color-coded to indicate 326 parcels of 256 parcels are against annexation, 21 parcels are for annexation and 49 parcels did not respond. Mr. Becker stated that the neighbors have expressed that Councilmember Clevenger should not vote on this matter as it is the neighborhood in which she resides. Councilmember Anderson stated that Councilmember Clevenger will not be present at the June 19 meeting and, therefore, will not be voting on the issue. MOTION TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 91-36.2 PASSED 4-0-1 (CLEVENGER ABSTAINED.) MONIA/KOHLER MOVED APPROVAL OF 'RESOLUTION 91-36.3. PASSED 4-0-1 (CLEVENGERABSTAINED.) 3) Resolutions approving Engineer's Report and setting public hearing to create a new zone in LLA-1 (Annexation 1991-2). Mr. Perlin explained that Resolutions 91-41.3 and 91-41.4 address the annexation of the Ravenwood Drive area, Zone 24, and it is being established for the purpose of acquiring the parcel on the Perry and Jones development for creating a public park. 4) Resolution establishing a revolving fund to lend money to the LLA-1, Annexation 1991-2 from the General Fund to purchase park land. Mr. Perlin reported that Resolution No. 91-41.2 establishes a revolving 11 loan fund to account to the contribution that the City will make to the annexed area for the purchase of the park and eventual repayment of those funds through the annual assessments. This Resolution also determines the intent of the City to loan the money and sets the annual assessment payback. Responding to Councilmember Anderson's question, Mr. Perlin replied that the actual assessment for 76 parcels is $115 each, or $110 each per Councilmember Monia's formula plus a $5 per parcel charge for administering the zone. Councilmember Monia noted that the neighbors had been told the assessment would be $110 and now it is being increased. Mr. Peacock stated that the only change might be over the years, probably the cost of administering the zone would increase slightly. He said the Act as established allows for repayment up to 30 years. Seventy-six parcels multiplied by $110 equals over 30oyears, exactly the amount of money that was required to repay the City's 3/4 cost of the land. The assessment cannot be lower because it would go beyond the 30 years and the Act does not allow a payoff beyond 30 years. Ms. Meg Caldwell, 13906 Ravenwood Drive, addressed the Council. She stated that the residents went away from the last Council meeting understanding that $110 would be the maximum assessment. She urged the Council to remain at that level. Mr. Perlin stated that it was the City's interpretation that the $110 was the amount the neighborhood would be assessed to pay back the loan, plus an incidental charge. He reiterated that if the assessment is set at $110, then the loan will not be repaid in 30 years. The administrative charges need to be collected. Mayor Stutzman proposed that the City examine ways to accommodate its budget to pay the $380 administrative cost. Mr. Peacock responded that the City's contribution would have to be changed. Ms. Caldwell stated that the district is being formed for the purpose of acquiring a public park, which will be the City's property, and the administrative cost should be borne by the City. A discussion ensued. Mr. Peacock addressed the annual adoption of the resolution wherein the resolution would include that the City would be making a contribution to this particular zone. While it is appropriate, he asked the Council to consider the precedent setting nature of that action with other zones in the City. Mr. Perlin pointed out that the administrative cost is subject to change annually, and there is no way to determine what the increase will be. Ms. Jennifer Crotty, Raven Court Circle resident, addressed the Council. She said if the residents are going to be required to pay beyond the $110, the project is going to lose a significant amount of supporters. She said it would be a hardship especially for many of the residents on Social Security income. Mr. Peacock explained that the agreement for the payback needs to be established now for 30 years and the contribution that the City makes has to be established the first year in terms of the acquisition. He said it is possible that in the future the resolution could say that the City is contributing whatever the administrative cost is at that time. Again, he emphasized the precedent this action would set. Mr. Peacock noted this district is not to maintain, but is being created to acquire open space property, which is a first for the City. Following discussion, MONIA/ANDERSON MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 91- 41.2, ESTABLISHING A REVOLVING FUND FOR THE PURPOSE OF LENDING MONIES TO THE CITY OF SARATOGA ON LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT LLA-1, ANNEXATION NO. 1991-2 , and that the City adopt a policy whereas the yearly administrative fee is paid for by the City because of special circumstances surrounding a fund purpose to acquire open space. 12 Motion passed 5-0. Mr. Perlin indicated the verbiage would be included under Recital #1. MONIA/KOHLER MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 91-41.3, RESOLUTION OF PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF ENGINEER'G REpORT, CITY OF SARATOGALANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT LLA-1, AI~NEXATION NO. 1991-2, to include fixing the annual assessment rate at $110, and that the annual administrative service fee be paid for by the City. Motion passed 5-0. MONIA/KOHLER MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 91-41.4, RESOLUTION OF INTENT TO ORDER THE ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY TO AREXISTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT AND LEVY THE COLLECTION OF ASSESSMENTS WITHIN CITY TERRITORY PURSUE TO THE ~SCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1971 (AND SOMETHING ELSE?) MOTION PASSED 5-0. B. Proposed contract Amendment to Complete Open Space Element CLEVENGER/ANDERSON MOVED APPROVAL. PASSED 5-0. 7. NEW BUSINESS A. Actions relative to Certificates of Participation for Civic Center Improvements. Following Mr. Peacock's report, CLEVENGER/ANDERSON MOVED APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 91-42 AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE PREPARATION ~ EXECUTION OF CERTAIN LEASE FINANCING DOCUMENTS, AUTHORIZING THE PREPARATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF A PRELIMINARY OFFICIAL STATEMENT IN CONNECTION WITH THE OFFERING AND SALE OF CERTIFICATES OF PARTICIPATION RELATING THERETO, AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING CERTAIN ACTIONS WITH RESPECT THERETO. PASSED 4-1 (KOHLER OPPOSED.) B. Amendment to Lease Agreement - Friends of the Saratoga Libraries. Mr. Peacock presented summary of report. Councilmember Monia referred to a comment made a few meetings back regarding the earthquake proofness of the building. He asked whether the City would be in any kind of violation. Mr. Perlin responded that the engineer's supplemental report indicates there is no problem. MONIA/ANDERSON MOVED APPROVAL. PASSED 5-0. C. Third Amendment to Agreement to provide local Law Enforcement Agency Access to the California Identification System. CLEVENGER/MONIA MOVED TO AUTHORIZE MAYOR AND CITY ATTORNEY TO EXECUTE AMENDMENT. PASSED 5-0. D. Memo Authorizing Publicity for Upcoming Hearings - Budget/Fees; Sung Appeal; Senior Housing Report. CLEVENGER/MONIA MOVED APPROVAL. PASSED 5-0. E. Actual Soundwall Heights - West Side of the Route 85 Freeway Corridor between Cox Avenue and the Blue Hills School Pedestrian Overcrossing. Mr. Peacock presented his report. Following discussion, MONIA/ANDERSON MOVED TO CONTINUE ITEM TO MAY 28. PASSED 5-0. Mayor Stutzman moved the agenda to item 9A. Councilmember Monia left the meeting at 11:35 p.m. and did not return. 9. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS A. Agenda items for joint meeting with Youth Commission May 13 28 and with Finance Committee May 30 Mr. Peacock stated that planned agenda items for the Finance Committee meeting were review and approval of materials for Civic Center Improvements (internal and external); review proposed budget; review Capital Improvement Program. B. Reports from Individual Councilmembers 1. Councilmember Clevenger discussed two legislative bills regarding old forests. She proposed a letter be sent supporting Sierra Club's position on the preservation of old forests. 2. Councilmember Clevenger reported that the Hakone Gardens Festival last week was a tremendous success with 1800 attending. Staff is to be congratulated on a fabulous event. 3. Councilmember Anderson reported she attended a Sanitation District meeting. She reported that a sewer pipe was placed between two Sycamore trees 10 to 12 feet in diameter in a Saratoga resident's property. The District is saying that the trees were diseased and the trees have fallen. The resident has filed a claim which has been denied by the District. Councilmember Anderson suggested that the City take an interest on behalf of the resident. 4. Councilmember Kohler referred to a discussion a few meetings back regarding improvements which need to be done for the final map process. Mr. Peacock responded that Staff is still examining the issues and will be reporting back to the Council at its meeting of July 3, 1991. 10. CLOSED SESSION on pending litigation on illegal grading, clearing and tree removal on Cocciardi/Chadwick development, Tr. 7770. Closed Session was cancelled. 11. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:40 p.m. to May 28, at 7:30 p.m. and May 30, at 7:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lynda Ramirez Minutes Clerk