Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-22-1991 City Council Minutes MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL TIME: 'Tuesday, October 22, 1991 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: Senior Day Care Room, Community Center, 19655 Allendale Ave. TYPE: Adjourned Regular Meeting 1. Roll Call The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. Councilmembers Clevenger, Monia, Stutzman and Mayor Kohler were present; Councilmember Anderson was absent. Members of the Citizens Committee to Investigate Tract 7770 present: Caldwell, Macrae. Staff members present: City Manager Peacock, City Attorney Riback, City Engineer Perlin, Acting Interim Planning Director Adar. The City Attorney requested that the Council add closed session items to the agenda on the City v. Cocciardi litigation and Knox v. City of Orland litigation. MONIA/CLEVENGER MOVED TO ADD THE ABOVE CLOSED SESSION ITEMS TO THE AGENDA, THE ITEMS HAVING BEEN RECEIVED SINCE THE POSTING OF THE AGENDA. Passed 4-0. 2. Report of City Clerk on Posting of Agenda The City Manager reported that pursuant to Government code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on October 19. The notice of adjournment from the October 16 Council meeting was properly posted on October 17. 3. Proposed Program Enhancements~ Traffic Safety Enforcement and Traffic Engineering Analysis (continued from 9/18) CLEVENGER/MONIA MOVED TO APPROVE RECOMmENDaTION #1. Passed 4-0. Recommendation #2: Try to work with other cities and consider in the next budget cycle. Recommendation #3: - Increase public awareness of seat belt use. - OK to place "buckle up" signs at various parking areas around town. Recommendation #4: Do a back-to-school program for 1992. Recommendation #5: Request annual training on Section 40600 of the California Vehicle Code. Traffic Enqineerinq Recommendations Recommendation #1: No action required. Recommendation #2: Apply for OTS study in 1994. REcommendation #3: More training on bicycle safety. Recommendation #4: Pursue. Recommendation #5: Approve. Recommendation #6: Approve with intern or volunteer but don't ask City Engineer to do. Recommendation #7: Do not pursue. 4. Review recommendations of Tract 7770 Committee if necessary from City Council Minutes 2 October 22, 1991 discussion at the adjourned regular meeting of September ~991 (continued from 9/18) #21 - Being taken care of in part with conditional final map ordinanceI which will be heard on November 6. - Staff to develop procedures for recognizing deviations from commission policy. Commission to establish degree of deviation and list of critical items. - Develop standard condition regarding progress of work which states that no building or finish grading permits will be issued until improvements are in and as built plans are accepted. #22 - apply to all projects; use agreement as a comprehensive contract. #23 - Staff to follow up as necessary. #24 - To be worked on as part of tree ordinance revision. a. Standards for selection of qualified tree service, and/or b. % Pre-approved list of contractors. c. Revise penalties. #25 - As suggested; publish abstract by City Attorney. '-----~=#2=6 - System in place. #27 - No change required. #28 - No action. #29 - Must continue to handle on a case-by-case basis. #30 - Explore use of maintenance district for hillside areas, examine policy on how much of a subdivision should be built out before streets are accepted. #31 - City can take no action at this time. Once restoration starts inspections will be done by Willdan and Barrie Coate for grading and landscaping respectively. #32- Mayor to discuss with Mr. Kalb; Mrs. Clevenger and Mr. Monia to review research with the Finance Director. #19 - City Attorney suggests tree preservation bonds as used by the City of Roseville to protect oak trees from damage. Bond is forfeit if damage occurs. 5.- Closed Session - City v. cocciardi and Knox v. City of Orland Following the .closed session the City Council directed the City Attorney to proceed as directed in City v. Cocciardi and authorized the filing of an amicus letter in the case .of Knox v. Orland, a case relating to the Lighting and Landscape Act of 1972. 6. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. on October 29, 1991, at the Community Center, 19655 Allendale Avenue. Respectfully submitted, Harry R. Peacock City Clerk VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT PORTION OF SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 22, 1991 4. Review recommendations of Tract 7770 Committee if necessary from discussion at the adjourned regular meeting of September 17, 1991. (continued from 9/18) Kohler: OK. Thank you. We go to the next item, which is the review of recommendations of Tract 7770. (gap in recording as tape was changed) Kohler:...9/18. Peacock: Right. And you were on recommendation 21, so you started with that. Right. I think No. 21 is really being handled in terms of the conditional final map ordinance, which will be back for further hearing on the 6th of November. I know Mike's made revisions to it. Larry and I both looked it over, so that will be coming to you on the 6th of November for hearing and introduction, reintroduction. Clevenger: Harry, this is off the subject but I missed (inaudible). Have you hired an interim Planning Director? Peacock: I have not. I have one more person I want to talk to .Thursday morning, and then I will make a decision. Clevenger: Because I was wondering how much we were going to be doing without a Planning Director. Kohler: How's it going? Have you talked to quite a few ... Peacock: I've talked to 4 or 5 people and some of them can't meet the kind of demand of time that we're after, so I sort of disregarded them. But I have some others that time is not a problem. Some others, their problem is also they're in southern California and the issue of either commuting or renting a place up here for four months sort of does create a financial issue for those folks, so I tended to concentrate on people that live within a couple hours drive of here, so it's not ... Clevenger: If we can't get anybody who has as much time as we'd like, maybe we should just take somebody with ... a little time would be better than nothing. Peacock: Well, I've talked to some people who can start at like 2 days a week and then work up to 3, 4, 5 as we go on, so I will probably be making a decision after I talk to this one last individual Thursday morning. She comes very highly recommended from several sources, so I don't want to make a decision before I have a chance to talk with her personally. I talked with her over the phone, but we really haven't had a chance to sit down and talk about the job that much. Kohler: O.K., well thank you Harry. That's important, of course. Clevenger: So is 21 being taken care of do you think? Did the committee ... Kohler: Yes? Caldwell: That's O.K. But one of the, I think, crucial parts of the recommendation was that the as-built drawings be actually accepted by the City before we started accepting design review or construction applications. Is that how it works right now? How do we do that now? Because I don't see that in the staff response- -maybe I'm just missing something. Saratoga City Council 2 October 22, 1991 Peacock: I think you're going to have a practical problem, and that isthat once again we're in this position of that it almost has to be done on a project-by-project basis, because it's possible the design review may be going forward before all of the improvements are completed because they don't have to be finished before the final map is done. They're part of a financial package and so forth. So I think once again that is ... Caldwell: ... (inaudible) is to, O.K., let's break it down. So, if you separate out off-site improvements and then just the on- site improvements or lot development, how does it work for lot development, or do you just put it all together? Peacock: No, I think the point is that this is something that will have to be handled on a case-by-case basis as a condition levied by the Planning Commission at the time they approve the project. You can't legislate this on a ... Caldwell: So you're saying that at the tentative map stage we handle that on a case-by-case basis? Peacock: Yeah, along with whatever improvements are fitted into that context of being an exception or not an exception, which'is the way that the ordinance is being written. Caldwell: Right now, we don't think about as builts, I mean we don't even kind of think ... Clevenger: I guess I don't really get this. Caldwell: I know. See, it's more complicated than it seems. I think maybe you can help out in this. But I think that one of the things that was of concern was that when a subdivision is graded, let's say,'like rough grading takes place or the lots are actually graded and they turn out in some instances significantly different than what the original drawings or the subdivision were as approved by the Planning Department, there can be some variation. I think that the statute or ordinance allows up to,6 inches or something like that, but there can be greater deviations ... Kohler: Or have been ... Caldwell: Yeah, members of the committee have observed that--I guess is the thing. So the concern was, how do you get a handle on that? How do you make sure the City is happy with these very, these deviant lots? It may be that they're O.K. On the other hand, it may be that we want them to go back and grade them the way they were supposed to be graded. So the point is how do you keep the developer from moving forward with construction or design review or what have you until the City is happy with the way the lots have been graded. Monia: You don't sign off the .(inaudible). Caldwell: Well, that's my point. My point is at what point do we accept and approve the as built drawings. Peacock: Whenever you decide you want to do it on a case-by-case basis. Caldwell: You're not getting through to me I guess. Monia: I think what you're trying to say, Meg, is what is the mechanism for the control of the as builts. Caldwell: Uh-huh. Monia: In other words, in let's say the case of grading I think we had some conversations about this already. The maximum 6 inch deviation. O.K., what happens when it's a foot. I think that's Saratoga City Council 3 October 22, 1991 what you're saying. What's the process, then, for ... Caldwell: Yeah, if you're more than 6 inches which, am I right on that Larry, I recall Steve saying that 6 inches is as recognized as you can be, above or below 6 inches ... Perlin: Well, I think there's a, either a policy, a general plan policy or maybe it's in the ordinance that specifies that if you deviate by more than 6 inches on the pad elevation, you need to go back for a site modification from the Planning Commission. I think Adar: It's a policy that was adopted by the Planning Commission and it has a lot of criteria related to materials and all kinds of things. Among others, it's 6 inches and ... Monia: I think that one of the things is that, isn't there sort of a check off list that's sort of key certain things. One is the height of the pad. Another one is additional grading needed because something is discovered (inaudible). And so you have administrative approvals, and then you, you know, at what point does the administrative approval no longer have a meaning and it's really necessary to come back to the Planning Commission. Another one might be tree removal. You know, you approve a plan for so many trees and when you get out there, something else goes on because the canopy was such that you couldn't see all the trees that were there. I think that's what they were getting to, is they develop a sort of procedure that says in these particular areas, I don't know what they all are because I'm not familiar with all of them, these are the mechanisms by which they do get returned. When they get to this deviation then these have to be'returned for reconsideration of the site approval. Perlin: And I think there can be some type of policy statements that can be made. I would be very leery in trying to quantify exactly because the situations differ so much on every site and from project to project that I don't think you can apply a flat standard, but I think you can set some kind of policies that would certainly trigger in the mind of the engineer and the inspector that there's a deviation that's either O.K., that he can call in the field and either the engineer or the planning director can say that this is O.K., or it's exceeding really what the Planning Commission approved here ... Monia: Have you got in mind (inaudible) ... Perlin: Yeah, I think they can be developed. I think it might be, it's an exercise of the Planning Commission and staff can certainly work through. I'm sure we can put some things out to at least clarify how far staff's discretion should go in a number of instances. Monia: Well, I think it's really to capture this. It's not to capture the difference between'6 inches and 12 inches. I think that, reasonable people would say, you can understand why someone says this is O.K. I think the big difference is 6 inches and 6 feet or 5 feet. I think the case in point that got most people was when Stevens Creek, Stevens, whatever their name is, anyway they flat out told us that the as built differentials on some of those lots in San Marcos was 5 and 6 feet higher than what the plans were. Because they just had this dirt. They either haul the dirt away or they were going to pack it. That's what they did. They raised the, it had to be on Lot 16 or 18. Perlin: There was one lot off of Crisp that was raised and that was done at a staff level. Monia: Right, that was like 5 or 6 feet. And so I think that's sort of like you would come back and say, staff, what are we doing. I mean, if the guideline is 6 I can see why they might have written Saratoga City Council 4 October 22, 1991 off at 12, it's not a major deal. But 5 feet is a major deal. Peacock: I guess the question is in my mind there now appears to be a policy by the Planning Commission as to what degree of deviation is allowable to the discretion of the staff. Am I correct there? Caldwell: If Tsvia is right, I've never seen it ... Clevenger: Well, I ... (inaudible -- several voices talking at once) Peacock: There's a whole list of things that Steve has indicated was approved by the Planning Commission. Monia: Well, why don't we get a copy of that. Then review that and see if it's something we'd like to either tighten up or loosen up. Adar: Well, the 6 inches are for height of the structure and not for the grading. I don't remember how much the grading is ... you know, if it actually has quantities .o. Peacock: I think in rough grading from a (inaudible) standpoint, it's always been my experience that the rough grading is usually only about a foot of what is called out for in the plans anyway. So really when you get into the finished grading when you get down to the, what is it a tenth? Is that typically, you grade to a tenth of a foot, which is ... because you're dealing then with really fine changes in drainage and so forth. Macrae: Couldn't s~mething be introduced in the language pointing out that there is a problem here ... you talk about making allowances but unless there's something that clues the people in (inaudible) that this is a problem that needs to be considered before you go forward. One thing that leaps forward was that as builts were just fine, as long as they paid money for them let's do it. But somebody back in administration didn't seem to know what was happening there. That was my experience in hearing the testimony. Monia: Well maybe the thing that's needed is for any Commission to decide which are the critical items that they'd like to have site revisitation. You know, revisit the site. Maybe the Planning Commission ... Caldwell: Yeah, I see what you're saying. What you're suggesting is for tentative maps for subdivisions where we really see pad elevations being critical for privacy or whatever, viewer impact, that those would be the ones that we would say, O.K., we need a condition in here that says if finished grade pad elevation deviates greater than x inches or whatever, then this has to come back for modification. Monia: Yeah, I mean especially when you're talking about hillside development where you're talking about the viewshed and you're worried about the height of the home, so because of that you might have regulated the height of the home at 24 feet and then they come by and raise the pads by 4 feet, I mean you have essentially negated what you were trying to do and that is to minimize the... Perlin: That's, I think that's all well and good. I think that's a little bit off of what the intent of this recommendation is though. This recommendation is designed to prevent subdivisions of 5 lots or more of getting out ahead of themselves in the process. We have sub ..., we have had subdivisions where homes, the construction of homes began before the subdivisions was even completed. Roads were not even in and utility systems, other than water to a fire hydrant, were not in, yet the homes were being Saratoga City Council 5 October 22, 1991 built. And that's getting way out ahead of itself. I think that the intent of this recommendation is to alert the developer of the true subdivision, the 5 lot or more subdivision up front that until you get to a certain point through the construction and as builts are submitted and your geological map is submitted and everything is done, we're not going to either and then fill in the blank, either accept any design review applications or grant any design review approvals or issue any zone clearances or issue any building permits or grading permits for any of the lots within that subdivision, and you can draw the line for any one point. But at no point should a grading or building permit for an individual lot be issued until all of the subdivision work is done, because that's the real hold, the ultimate hold that you have over a developer that if he cannot develop those lots he's really bombed. This I think is really where the City can lower the boom over these errant developers. Peacock: That's what the ordinance requires. That there not be any zone clearances issued for any kind of building until all the improvements are done and accepted. Perlin: I think, we talked about it at the staff level and I think we drew the line at the zone clearance, because we recognized that design review and particularly on hillside lots can take 6-9 months, so we felt that it was probably O.K. to allow developers to start the process of design review. We would let them go through the process but not let them get a zone clearance, which means they cannot apply for building permits, which would mean that they could not get building permits. I think it's sort of mid-point in process of building a home that is fair both to the developer as well as to protecting the interest of the City. Caldwell: Yeah, that sounds like it may work for certain subdivision improvements, but when we're going through design review and if you're talking about pad elevations and in particular we have applicants erect height poles and they're erecting them on the pad area, the surrounding neighbors and the Planning Commission take those height poles reallyseriously and make decisions on what the optimal height of the structure is based on that, so I think this is a situation where the grade, the pad elevation was in fact wrong and you have to correct it just before zone clearance when we've made some potentially irreversible decisions or important decisions on design review based on what's at the site. Kohler: I agree with Meg here. You can have a very difficult situation. You say well, you don't give him a zone clearance or whatever, but that's after the fact. It becomes a way of wheeling and dealing, you say well we do this or that. And then you might end up in a situation nobody is pleased with. For me, it's better to avoid these situations than having it coming to a problem. That's what I personally feel. Perlin: The trigger point can be placed at any point in the process. It can even be done differently for different subdivisions. If it were felt that the subdivision out in the hillside was really sensitive and it was critical that the final pad elevations were set and certified, let's say, before any design review would go forward, that condition I think can easily be imposed on the project that there would be no design review applications accepted for any lots within the subdivision until, and I think the term we use is construction acceptance for the subdivision is granted. Construction acceptance means not only all the improvements and utilities both on-site and off-site, but also as built geological maps and final soils reports and grading plans and all of this stuff is submitted and certified. Adar: I'd like just to add ... Caldwell: That sounds like, that sounds sort of what I thought we were talking about, this recommendation. And you know it's often Saratoga City Council 6 October 22, 1991 really crucial for infill subdivisions, because the neighbors are very concerned about that (inaudible) whether the property is ... Perlin: And it can even be tailored for, you know if it were a larger subdivision and there were only say 3 lots out of 10, for example, that might be critical, I think that the condition can easily be worded that no design review applications for Lots 3, 4 and 5 would be accepted but that the other ones could be. So you have room to sort of tailor it to each subdivision, and I think what the intent here is, the overriding intent, is to' just not allow these subdivisions to get so far out ahead of themselves that we're, you know, you've got building inspectors tripping over engineering inspectors out there, and building contractors conflicting with the engineering contractors that are out there building the subdivision, and that's what we want to avoid here. Macrae: I think what you ought to do, that you're getting at, there ought to be a preamble by the County, a warning, and then the people are alerted that there's a problem. It's desirable to have flexibility, and you want to (inaudible) the developer or whoever to do their job, but at the same time you want to warn them ahead of time that there is a problem. What generally can happen is you leave the caveat off they go ahead and try to do it. Then they stumble and there's some trouble. I think there ought to be a warning someplace. Peacock: Well the proposed ordinance does draw the line of that specific point which is what Larry has indicated. But that doesn't mean that the line can't be drawn sooner on a case-by-case basis. I really think that really sort of is incumbent upon both the City Engineer and Planning Director in preparing their reports on the subdivision to the Planning Commission to try and identify these particular critical areas and say, O.K., this one we're going to have the rules (inaudible), we're going to do this and this, and here's the reason why. This particular lot has a particular pad elevation that is view sensitive or there is a particular kind of grading that has to go on this particular lot and we don't want design review going on until everything has been certified geotechnically that all the stuff's been done or whatever it happens to be, and then the Planning Commission can review those at the hearing stage and say O.K., we want those conditions or we don't. Macrae: Harry, how would you put that in the caveat language? Is this an ordinance or what ... Peacock: Well, the ordinance, the ordinance basically says you shall meet all the conditions prior to the approval of the final map unless the City Engineer makes a recommendation that you don't and the Planning Commission agrees with that recommendation. But in no event shall the entire, all of the conditions and improvements that are required by the tentative map be completed before a zone clearance is accepted for building the first house. Now, you can back that up and say before we'll accept an application for design review or whatever under the following specific conditions, so the ordinance is going to be very specific. It's changing what is currently the practice, which is really that no condition has to be met before (inaudible). There are certain things that have to be done in terms of water purveyors (inaudible) and those kinds of things, but most of the improvements, which is where you get into the hangups here, most of the improvements are not even started until the final map has been approved. And of course until you get a final map you can't sell a lot, so. Perlin: There's one caveat for that though, and that's also is that if you're dealing with a parcel map which is 4 lots or less Peacock: You can't do that. Saratoga City Council 7 October 22, 1991 Perlin: The City cannot require that. The City cannot require the construction of any improvements associated with the parcel map until the development approval is given for the land that's being developed. Peacock: The Map Act was amended in 89? 86? Riback: 86 ... (inaudible) 87. Perlin: It's basically trying to recognize that on 4 lots or less the developer is probably going to build the homes and the improvements, sort of do the whole project at one time. Those smaller projects. Adar: I have (inaudible) comments that I would like to make regarding the establishment of pads in the subdivision level, and then when we come to the design review sometimes which may be in conflict with the design. Especially on hills that are steep, and you may have a situation where, you know, if the pad has already been established, we'll have a situation where the design needs to be done in such a way to fit into the established pads and the opposite when you actually decide on the design and decide how you want to have the pads done. Especially if the site is very steep it may be you know that we are creating a situation in'some cases that is not exactly the way we would like to have the pads. What I'm trying to say actually if the subdivision level, if we want to establish exact pad, we will need to review it very carefully and see what kind of design we have in mind. Otherwise it's really difficult. Because I see that as a practical matter. Because if we already establish a pad that will create like almost a flat, level home and create a visual impact, that's something that we don't want to happen. So we have to take that into account. Caldwell: I think, functionally how that happens is we do, we've got examples where we end up accepting additional grading in order to fit houses more into the natural contour of what used to be there. But you're right, I think the intent is that we get more conscientious at the subdivision level. Kohler: That's a good point, and in the cases like that they should go back to the Planning Commission. Caldwell: Yeah, well they do. It's during the design review process that you're accepting (inaudible) Peacock: The real critical evaluation should take place at the tentative map stage. You're deciding how the future look of the land is going to be at that stage and too many times it's just over-engineered and it isn't really done sensitively. Not enough is said about it. Kohler: O.K. Thank you, I think we ... Caldwell: Killed that one. Kohler: We have gone through that. Number 23, 22 ... Clevenger: Well, it says, why don't we just skip that? It says this items will be included in all future mitigation agreements. Caldwell: What about subdivisions that don't have mitigation agreements? Peacock: Well, every subdivision has to have a mitigation agreement unless it's categorically exempt from CEQA because the law says that either you have to have a mitigation agreement for the EIR or for their mitigated negative declaration. So you have to have a mitigation agreement. Caldwell: So, one in which you just got an initial study and no Saratoga City Council 8 October 22, 1991 mitigated negative dec ... Peacock: We can still require it. It's just not required by state law, but we can do it locally ... Caldwell: That's not the question. (inaudible) subdivisions. Peacock: Well, we're trying to integrate this, the mitigation - agreement in to be sort of a standard overall comprehensive agreement approving the development of the property that has all of the improvement agreements, the plans, the preconstruction meeting requirements and everything else all in one comprehensive document so that we don't deal with 15 or 20 pieces of paper. Caldwell: I just think it's a good idea to try to have those across the board. Peacock: Well, we intend to do that. That's what we're striving for. Kohler: So the intention is for across the board. Peacock: Yeah. Perlin: I don't think we've had a subdivision yet though that's gone through the process since the mitigation (inaudible) requirement went into effect. caldwell: I think Ravenwood did. Peacock: Yeah, Ravenwood did. Ravenwood did. Caldwell: It was just an initial study. See that's example where, no EIR, no negative dec. Perlin: So you know, again, we're still trying to squeeze out the ones that have been approved over the last number of years. Kohler: O.K., I think we have an understanding of this one that (inaudible) for everything. 23, the City should revoke the Saratoga business license (inaudible) to the City for knowingly submitting false documentation. Riback: Yeah, Mister Mayor, my response is the response for pages 7 and 8. Basically, the mechanism is in the City Code to cause a revocation already for knowingly submitting false documentation. Fraudulent statements, etc. Kohler: So it's all there? Peacock: It's already there. The second, the latter two sentences of that recommendation are certainly feasible. There's nothing legally to prevent complaints being filed with the engineer state license board for letting all ... Caldwell: How would this ordinance have affected Stevens Creek Quarry that was operating without a business license? How do we catch people like that? Or businesses like that? Would this ordinance ... Peacock: If they don't, you can't revoke a license ... Caldwell: If you never granted it. Peacock: What we did though is we filed complaints with the state contractor's license board that said that these guys, and we do this all the time, because every time we catch a contractor who is doing this we typically file a complaint with the state. Because if they don't have a license, chances are that we're running into a problem that they're also supposed to have worker's compensation Saratoga City Council 9 October 22, 1991 coverage ... Caldwell: Right, the insurance. Peacock: And the insurance (inaudible) is required by state law as well. The state relies upon the local jurisdictions to make sure that these contractors are following the state law when it comes to having worker's compensation insurance and so forth which is required of them as a state licensed contractor. They have to give us that information when they apply for a building permit and get their business license. In general, has to do that. Riback: It's extremely important that the City makes certain that there is, for instance, worker's compensation insurance. The contractor does have it, because the City issues business license or a permit, a building permit, if the contractor does not have that insurance then the City has liability to the employee of the contractor if there's an injury at the job. Kohler: If there's a case where the contractor doesn't have a license. Can the City be, if they don't have a license and they start applying at a later date. Based on this, can we deny him a license? Riback: No, I don't think so. Peacock: We've got a problem with what business licenses are really all about. Riback: (inaudible -- several voices) vehicles, it really isn't what a business license is for. If somebody doesn't have a license, we already have a mechanism in place for issuing him a citation for violation of a code or (inaudible) without a license. But then to deny them subsequently when they come in, we want to do what's right. Kohler: I understand that. However, we're dealing here with a suspicious contractor, so if he would do it again then we would take his license away. For instance, if you take the license away, for how long can you take it away? That's another ... Riback: Well that's a good question. Kohler: You know, that's the same thing basically. Monia: Yeah, what's, at what point or number of violations do you finally say to someone that's enough ... (inaudible -- several voices) Peacock: Right now the license is an annual license, so we can revoke it for the remainder of the calendar year. They can come back in and make another application the next year. And as Mike says, as long as they're doing a "legitimate business", we really can't turn them down. We can turn them down for things like where they're going to locate the business, a violation of zoning ordinance and those kinds of things, but that's generally the limitation on our police power under the business licensing statutes. Kohler: Alright the next item is 24. Perlin: The license again only applies to the general contractor. I guess it's, I think that term needs to be made clear. You can have, probably have a general and you might have 8 or 9 different subcontractors, and there's almost no practical way to ensure that every subcontractor has a business license in Saratoga and I ... Peacock: Oh sure. We can ask, we just ask for a list of their subs and require them all to be licensed. We do that all the time. Saratoga City Council 10 October 22, 1991 Monia: You make it clear to the general that it's his obligation that'he inform his subs. Peacock: That's why we have so damn many business licenses in this City. For a City that has very few businesses, because mostly we're licensing contractors. If I told you that we have 1200 business licenses active right now. Where are the 1200 businesses in this City? Well we have 1200 different businesses licensed. The large share of them are contractors. Most of them are subs. Kohler: O.K. Next item, landscape tree service companies are required to have a copy of the City's tree ordinance and sign for its receipt as a condition of the Saratoga business license. Again, revoke the business license in case of violation. Clevenger: Yeah I, I really don't see this, and I'll tell you why. It isn't enough for them to have it, it's enough for them to know it. And I don't think this addresses that. Caldwell: You know, we've been working on this draft tree ordinance, and the last time we met we had this prolonged discussion with SteVe and Barry about how you deal with that. How you get the good guys doing the work. How do you get the responsible people doing the work. The only, the mechanism that we sort of came up with that other jurisdictions have apparently used fairly successfully is providing in the ordinance a list of qualifications, which is actually pretty short, that they have worker's comp, proper insurance coverage, that they have on their staff someone certified by the International Society of Arborists, those kinds of things, and then from then on you can't hold their hand the whole time. Clevenger: Or you can have tough penalties. Caldwell: Right, you mix that with tough penalties and I think the other thing we came up with was that, other jurisdictions have used, is a list of prequalified tree services. So if for instance someone has gotten through the development process and they need to follow a tree preservation plan that Barry has developed, then they're, they have to choose someone who's qualified under the ordinances or they can simply pick someone off of the prequalified list that has been developed presumably ... Clevenger: I think that's better than this recommendation here. Caldwell: Yeah, it's a tough one to get your hands around. Clearly the onus is on every individual in carrying out a business or doing work in the City to know the laws that apply to them. That goes without saying. Monia: Well the purpose of these kinds of things really are input direction. Caldwell: Well, it's educational too. That's right. And I still think that it's a good idea to sort of force the knowledge on them as much as we possibly can. clevenger: Yeah, but some guy whose coming around, going through the neighborhood, trying to get business, he's here today and gone tomorrow, I don't care if he signs for that. He's not going to read it, and we're just fooling ourselves if we think that's going to make a difference. Caldwell: You're right. And the way it works too is that under this draft tree ordinance where you're going to be cutting down trees or whatever, you need to have, or pruning (inaudible) on that tree, you need to have someone, a tree service that is qualified. So, no, we haven't worked out all the details. Saratoga City Council 11 October 22, 1991 Clevenger: I think that ... (inaudible -- several voices) Peacock: What you're suggesting is that the onus is on the owner of the property. Caldwell: Right, the onus is on the person having the work done. To make sure that they get ... Peacock: Of course that's the case right now. Clevenger: Because you think they're the ones who tell somebody, get this tree out and grind it up before anybody sees it. (inaudible -- several voices) Caldwell: So I think that system will work, it's just that we haven't ... Peacock: Well, should I suggest that this should be worked on as far as the tree ordinance revision ... (inaudible -- several voices) Caldwell: (inaudible) a start, the qualification process. ~Clevenger: Yeah, the qualification process is good. Monia: Is this all going to be, is thi~ item (inaudible -- several voices) Clevenger: Yeah, I think that is a good response. Because as a former teacher, I can just tell you that having somebody sign that they read something isn't worth the paper it's written on. Monia: There are speed signs all up and down these streets and people break the law. The purpose is to inform the general public who want to obey the law what the law is. Caldwell: Yeah, and the whole purpose of this tree ordinance is to really make it user friendly. So education is a huge portion of it. Clevenger: So this one we're really not accepting the staff recommendation. On this one we want to develop it more and maybe with the tree ordinance or whatever. Monia: Oh, we're not saying we're going to develop it as part of the tree ordinance. Clevenger: O.K. That's fine. Peacock: Right, either, the tree ordinance revision would either provide a standard for selection of qualified tree services or a preapproved list of contractors which clearly ... Caldwell: Or both. Peacock: Or both, and/or, yes.. Kohler: O.K. Caldwell: And then stiff penalties. Peacock: I think the penalties are stiff right now. The penalties are very stiff right now. Kohler: Alright. Saratoga City Council 12 October 22, 1991 Peacock: They are, they're very stiff right now. CaldWell: I've compared them with other jurisdictions and we're really low on the monetary amounts. Kohler: Is that going to be in the tree ordinance too, the penalty? Caldwell: We're revisiting those. Perlin: What other jurisdictions? Caldwell: Oh, there's this whole handbook that was developed by the Department of Forestry, the California Department of Forestry Peacock: Which I gave to the Planning Department. Caldwell: Right. Perlin: And our penalties are low? Caldwell: Yeah. Lower than that ... Perlin: I'd have to see that ... Peacock: Yeah, I'd have to see that to believe it. We nailed a guy $66,000 for one tree. Clevenger: That is our big achievement though. Kohler: Yeah, I've heard that so many times, that one guy ... (inaudible'-- several voices) Macrae: Harry, how much did he sell the tree for? Peacock: I don't know. Macrae: He probably came out even. Clevenger: No, no. You can't sell that $66,000 worth of wood. It doesn't burn that well. Caldwell: Besides, the whole purpose behind the tree ordinance is to get people to do the right things so that the City doesn't have to ... Kohler: The termites are going to eat it. That's it. O.K. Number 25. The City should permit all the (inaudible) agreement and take the extra step in explaining the results of litigation to (inaudible) and the general public. Clevenger: How about just looking at the last sentence there, which is what our view is that the most (inaudible), and I guess Mr. Riback you don't have a problem with that, right? Riback: No, I don't have a problem with'that. Clevenger: And I think that's what you're asking for. So that should do it. Caldwell: Exactly. Kohler: Alright, (inaudible) that one in the hands of the City Attorney. 26, City should establish procedure for responding to citizen concern and complaints as to (inaudible) should become part of orientation attending all new personnel and should be to create an environment which the staff responds to citizens' complaints (inaudible) open and (inaudible). Procedure should include getting Saratoga City Council 13 October 22, 1991 back to the person (inaudible) several complaints that turn out to be in error where citizens may be (inaudible). These changes may be approached through procedure stating changes (inaudible) ... Caldwell: I'm pretty impressed that 75% of the complaints turn out to be right. That's pretty good. Macrae: Sometimes it's a problem of perception. Peacock: We're up to almost 900 now. Clevenger: 900 per ... Peacock: Well, since October 1990 when we started the system. Caldwell: So per year. Peacock: I think we've, while (inaudible) OctOber 1st it was just over 800, about 830 or 840 in the first year. We've been averaging about 15 a week. Monia: So we really have that high of a percentage of complaints that in fact have some validity to them? Peacock: Yeah, 75% of them there's something wrong that's legitimate. There's either a zoning violation or a business license violation or an abandoned vehicle or illegal parking or something like that. Clevenger: Or a dog barking. Peacock: A dog barking, so forth and so on. About 25% of the complaints turn out to be no violation or a fight between neighbors or something like that. Stutzman: Harry, what percent of those that are substantiated continue to be an irritant, I mean how many of these people after the issue is addressed continue to call back and complain? Peacock: Very few, Dr. Stutzman. I would say that in the first year probably no more than 6 people were dissatisfied with our ultimate solution to their problem. I would say that that's a, and I had a talk with them personally about it and then follow up even further. Adar: Many times because the zoning (inaudible) we don't allow it, so we don't ... Peacock: Well, you know, I had a gentleman call me this week, for example, he doesn't like the RV ordinance of not allowing people to park in the front yard, so forth and so on. He went on and on and on about constitutional rights, property rights, so forth and so on. I explained to him that the ordinance was, had been very controversial for years, but there it was and we were simply enforcing it. Adar: We have many leaf blowers, but .... Stutzman: Your goal is to satisfy the irritators, not irritate the satisfiers. Clevenger: That's our goal. (inaudible -- several voices) Kohler: I have a question on, on (inaudible) report of (inaudible) call 911, how do we know that things are reported, if you call up you hear a beep and I'm,sure that somewhere somebody recorded it or wrote it down. But how do we know that all these complaints get through to the City? I personally had a complaint at the time of Saratoga City Council 14 October 22, 1991 this (inaudible) on the hill and saw all these bulldozers going. I had the police officer at my place and apparently there was never a report made. The man.came over to my place and took my name and everything. I got his number. But how do we know these things go through? Peacock: Our system doesn'tinclude 911 calls. It only includes calls to the City. Niemann: So in the middle of the night you can't get anybody? Peacock: You-mean here? Niemann: Yeah, see that's what happened this past week. I called in the middle of the night. (inaudible) a Public Safety Officer came to the door. He was unaware that I called the police. Peacock: Who did you call, the Sheriff's Department? Niemann: I called 911. O.K., whoever answers that said they would send somebody out but if there was no one there they wouldn't bother with a report. So there is no report. There might be a reference that I called. Peacock: Oh, I'm sure there is. 911, they're all recorded. Niemann: But there's no coordination. If I had not called Monday morning that would have been it. That would have been, it would have died. (female): Right. Kohler: I think that's the problem. Niemann: And a lot of people don't know that. Caldwell: Is there any kind of system we can set up where on off hours and weekends if people want to file or lodge a complaint it doesn't require immediate action, they can just call a number and leave a message? Peacock: Well, they can call here and leave a message. We have the recorder ... Caldwell: You have a recorder? Peacock: Yes. Caldwell: O.K., I've never called so I never ... Peacock: Anytime we're closed the recording device is on, and then the first thing in the morning the receptionist takes all the messages off it. Kohler: Right, I know that, but still I, (inaudible) people call 911 (inaudible) major complaint. I mean, they wouldn't do it otherwise, hopefully. And I think that .should get through to the City one way or another. The problem might be in a personal problem people have or also it might be a problem that has to do with Saratoga and has to be part of our reports, I would say. Clevenger: You know, it's in our best interests to answer people's questions when they come up or concerns. Because the statistics show that the people who are really anti-anything, city government, are the ones who have not had contact with the City. By and large, I got this at one of the League of Cities meetings so I don't remember exactly, but by and large people who have called and have had an opportunity to complain about something and have discussed Saratoga City Council 15 October 22, 1991 it with someone at the City (gap -- tape changed) are the ones that we never have a chance to win over. So, it's in our best interest to get people to call. And I know that Harry was at the same meeting, so that's something that most of us understand. So we're not trying to discourage people from calling. For instance on the garbage rate increase and recycling. Todd spent hours on that, but you know we discussed it about the time he was spending on it, we felt that that was a worthwhile use of his time because at least the people wouldn't go ahead and vote down in the future anything that the City proposed because they were ticked about garbage. They had an opportunity to talk, he did an amazing job on that. And I think the same thing is true with other complaints. So it isn't that--I mean the City has always tried to address people's complaints. And we are, we still want to do that. The whole deal is to find a good system. So that it may be on this recorder that picks up over the weekend, people should be encouraged if you have a message, if you have a concern and there's no one in the office, you know, please leave your number and you will be called on Monday morning. Maybe we should change it so it says that. I don't know how to coordinate with 911 because that's another agency. Kohler: Well, if ... Niemann: Does your sheriff's franchise or whatever, do all those 911 calls go through ... Peacock: They go through county communications. Clevenger: And see, and we don't necessarily want them all. And so, unless, I don't really see that we're going to solve that. Peacock: If you have a specific thing, Mrs. Niemann, why don't you call me tomorrow and we can ... Niemann: We can talk. Peacock: Yeah, yeah, I'll ... Niemann: It's just disappointing that after two years on this other situation where calls weren't responded to during the night and we hadn't resolved that, I was surprised. I thought it had been resolved. Peacock: Well, it's generally the policy of the sheriff's department not to contact the responding party unless the responding party asks them to do that. So if you ask to have somebody come by then they should have come by. That's what I want to check on. Because it is their policy that they will do that if you ask them. If you don't ask, then they don't come by and tell you what they did. And they don't necessarily fill out a written report either. Niemann: (inaudible) Kohler: They don't really ask you, the times I called, do you want to be called back. Peacock: Yeah, they, see that's a problem with county communications which we have f~om time to time and we have to tell them that their people are not following the procedures that are established. That's what they're supposed to do. Niemann: I mean nothing was there. (inaudible) then basically there was nothing to tell me. Peacock: Yeah, it's possible. Caldwell: Just one more comment. I assume this applies to not just normal persons but to people who also volunteer for the City, like Planning Commissioners and other commissioners? Saratoga City Council 16 October 22, 1991 Monia: Oh, absolutely. Well, I think it's a tone that has to be handled throughout. I mean we get calls, council members get, if you don't return the calls people get angry about that. It's amazing how much better people feel if you return the call. Sometimes, they just don't really understand the whole issue and they get the.opportunity, somebody gets to explain the whole issue and by and large a lot of it goes away. So it is important. Caldwell: People don't differentiate necessarily the same (inaudible) Monia: Oh, as far as we're ... Clevenger: Are you talking about Planning Commissioners responding to the public? Caldwell: Yeah, actually I was talking about Planning Commissioners calling City Hall and you know, notifying you guys or something that we thought was amiss. It goes both ways. Macrae: They probably turned you off. Qaldwell: No, because a lot of people do call you. They've had one contact with you at a public hearing and, you know, they figure you're receptive, they call you up about something totally unrelated. Peacock: If you've done that, then I don't know who you've talked to. But all the secretaries are trained to take the information and put it into a system. If they're not doing that, 'they should be doing it. Because we write letters back to the Fire Chief, and to, I've signed letters back to all sorts of people, Commissioners, Council people, that have called in about things. 'Caldwell: In the past I've always funneled those complaints or requests through Steve. You know, typically you seem him so often, so he said, yeah that's something I can deal with. So, then ... Peacock: Well he may not have been putting them in the system and he should have. Caldwell: Yeah, who knows. Clevenger: Well, let's move on to 27. Kohler: Yeah, we move on to 27, which talks about (inaudible) within the City administration should be identified and backup plans established to ensure smooth functioning and proper coverage in the event of illness, death, or extended absence. Clevenger: Well, we have that now with Steve being gone. I mean, I think Harry is really doing a good job as far as trying to find an interim Planning Director, but sometimes it's pretty hard. It can be hard.- I don't know what kind of a backup plan you can, you know, I mean the backup plan is that (inaudible) (female): The next person. Peacock: She's the backup plan. Clevenger: I know. I mean, I don't know how it can be spelled out anymore. Kohler: Well, I think the idea here is to, you know, is that everybody has a job to do. That also if anybody else becomes sick or goes on vacation or whatever, so that there is automatically another person assigned.to take over. You know ... Caldwell: I think actually one thing that might, I'm not sure that Saratoga City Council 17 October 22, 1991 all the Planning Commissioners know that you're the one in charge right now. (inaudible -- several voices) Caldwell: So when (inaudible) notifying the Commissioners or whoever is dealing with, you know, who the point person is, is it Harry, is it Tsvia, is it James, you know who is it. That's part of the plan so that the system can continue to function, so that everybody doesn't feel that there's no one there. Adar: I think the residents know it very well. I think the residents know about it very well. I'm sorry that the Commissioners didn't, but everyone who calls the City Hall now knows that there is someone in charge. Caldwell: I didn't know, so ... Peacock: Tsvia, why didn't you tell Meg? Caldwell: Well, I found out today. (inaudible -- several voices) Caldwell: But, don't take this flippantly. Monia: Is there an automatic procedure by which, Harry, when you have to go to out of town for a day or two, I mean, is there an automatic, I mean it's clear in everybody's mind and if you happen to be out in the field and an emergency comes up, then I mean, this chain of command ... Peacock: Trinidad's in charge after Larry. Kohler: O.K. So there is--a chain exists. Peacock: Unless of course ... Monia: Now those are for an emergency. Somebody can't wait a day or wait an hour. For those items that can wait another day or two that's not a problem. Peacock: Right. The Sheriff's Department always know where I am. They always know where, who is supposed to be in charge if I'm gone, I always call, I always leave a message. I always tell them when I'm going to be gone, when I'm going to be back, who's in charge, who in an emergency they're supposed to contact. Kohler: Like on Saturday we had this brush fire. You were at a soccer game, right? Peacock: I was at a soccer game, nobody came to get me although my wife told them exactly where I was. They could send somebody for him if you need him~ He's .not near a phone. Monia: We had one of those when they burned that house down there, you know down by the tract at Paul Masson. I remember it was another issue where ... Peacock: Yes. Clevenger: Well, we were lucky on that fire, weren't we? Monia: You bet we were. O.K. (male): The chain of succession? Peacock: The chain of succession. Kohler: The City should pursue the relevant bonding, lending, and Saratoga City Council 18 October 22, 1991 insurance companies to finance the restoration of Tract 7770. This could possibly be done under the terms of liability, errors and omission insurance. Clevenger: O.K., so it says we can't do it right now. Caldwell: This was a Peter Smith one. Clevenger: O.K., well it says the City Council should consider requiring some kind of insurance coverage for developers. Are we going to do that? Perlin: We do that now. The code requires prior to final map approval that they file certificates of insurance. Clevenger: It does? O.K., so maybe we're already doing this, right? Peacock: Well, I think the issue of E and O coverage is a toughie. We could get these people for general liability, but E and O coverage is--most of these guys walk around now bare, including architects, geologists--will limit their exposure to $50,000 and if you don't like it they won't work for you. They put you in the position of--and the thing is it's industry-wide. So requiring insurance, for E and 0 coverage especially, is an extremely difficult thing to get anybody to do. I mean, most of them just laugh at you. And we have found out in dealing with architects- -general contractors--their liability coverage is such that that's not a problem. What you're probably looking at here is professional judgment mistakes, if you will. Geologists, architects, engineers, surveyors, whatever, and it's a difficult · situation to require these guys to have E and O coverage for the value of the job if you will. Because then it just, they're going _ to deal with it in the issue of the value of the contract that they have with whomever they have it with. That's a tough thing to crack. Monia: Aren't they setting themselves up for some difficult personal liability potentials here? Peacock: I'm not a lawyer. I'm not even an insurance guy. All I know is that ... Monia: I would think that they would want to cover themselves a little bit better, but what's the strategy there. Is it--you can't sue somebody if they don't have enough coverage? Riback: I think that is the strategy. You can't get blood out of a turnip. That's their attitude. Architects and engineers are taking that position now. Peacock: The insurance company says we'll settle for the amount of the coverage. If you don't like it, this will takes years to litigate, it will cost you a gaZillion dollars, and you might lose anyway. Perlin: Most of the smaller firms right now, they can't even afford the insurance. Structural engineers particularly. Architects, they won't carry it. Monia: Somebody has finally figured out a way to beat the lawyers. Peacock: I'm sure it's temporary. Monia: Yeah. So we'll get the law changed. Kohler: The answer here is no answer. Perlin: I think the insurance, we want to make sure we have though, is... Saratoga City Council 19 October 22, 1991 Monia: At least for the liability. Perlin: We want to make sure the contractor has insurance if he does something wrong. But the other insurance with engineers or architects or whatever, that's really, I see that as an owner/client type of relationship, not where the City is neither. Kohler: O.K., 29. Monia: Just one more, excuse me a moment, isn't the general contractor liable for the error of his architect? Riback: If the contract is between the City, well O.K., that's public work, a public project. Clevenger: I don't see how because the person hires their architect independently. Peacock: If the contractor builds it the way the architect designs it, then that's how you get into these litigations over who did what. YMCA over here is working on the same thing. They don't know whether to sue the contractor, the architect or the project manager. Because the building is a mess. The architect says, well I didn't design it that way. The contractor says, well I just built it the way he designed it. The project guy says, well all I was doing was passing paper back and forth. Monia: (inaudible) Kohler: 29 talks about the response (inaudible) for future events will be handled in a professional, responsible manner. This should include investigatory (inaudible) as well as media communications plans. The answer is that outside consultants should develop a media communications plan for the City. Clevenger: I'm not crazy about that. (male): I'm not really fired up about that one. Clevenger: Me either. You know that's up to the Council at the time to figure out how to handle any disasters that come up. Caldwell: Did you guys talk about that? I mean, when this happened Marty, did you guys sort of say, O.K., how are we going to deal with the media, did you think about that or did this all just sort of happen? (male): It just happened. Clevenger: I don't think we had a coordinated plan for dealing with the media. Caldwell: Because that's sort Of what this is getting to. That there should be some sort of consentual thinking about how you're going to deal with the media. Clevenger: We all agreed--but we didn.'t--and I think we agreed that the City, you know, Harry and/or Hal would release anything and the Council wouldn't do it, and we didn't do anything independently. Monia: This is one I had a problem with. Because the thing that always was difficult for me to rectify was the City basically moves so slowly, I mean because of the restrictions and how we have to do our business, I mean if it something happened this afternoon it would be very difficult to get a meeting called to discuss it. We have some practical limitations and the media, of course, just jumps on something' very quickly. By the time we have an opportunity to organize and discuss this, the media's been through Saratoga City Council 20 October 22, 1991 it and they're on to something else. So, when they were discussing this, and to me I was having a problem with that because knowing that' it's very difficult for us to respond quickly as an organization, I didn't know how this could ... Peacock: Another thing is you can't, you basically can't do it without calling a meeting and having the whole thing ... Monia: Well, that's just my point. I mean it would take us 3 days to have a meeting about how we're going to respond to something. And the press is, the press is ... Peacock: Well, the press is going to be there covering your meeting on how you are going to handle them. Monia: Right. Kohler: Then we have no policy for a press release? Monia: Well, yeah, that's a little different issue. Well, yes and no. This is sort of really to deal with the situation where there was a lot of misinformation. Disinformation, misinformation, I can go on and on with it', that came out initially. There was never an official position from the City until some weeks later, and that became very, very difficult. I just don't know how, you know, if something happened today, how this Council could even have a meeting quick enough to ... Kohler: I agree with that, but it's still the responsibility of the whole Council, I think, to work it out. Maybe not today or tomorrow, but come up with a press release, an answer, some reports Monia: Well, that's different, that's, I was reading this thing as something the media ... Clevenger: But I'm not interested in a media communi--I don't want to ... Monia: Well, we have a media communication method. We really do. Unfortunately, it's only on a quarterly basis. If nothing prohibits us, I guess we can make it something else. Clevenger: Well, I mean I don't want to hire an outside consultant to develop a media communications ... Monia: Well, I don't want to do that either, Marty. I agree with that. What I'm saying is that there is a method by which the City can present to the residents or to the media its position on something. I mean, we do have an official publication that comes out, and we all review that each quarter that it does come out. There's a lot ef information it comes out with. I mean, to me it's a reasonable~-it's just unfortunate that it takes so long to get out. That's the problem. (male): Inaudible. Peacock: But that again, ... Monia: We can make a speech every other Wednesday night. Peacock: Yeah. We're better off than we were. Monia: I don't know how to do this one. I had a problem with this originally in the subcommittee. I just don't know how we can respond quick enough. Peacock: I mean it just almost all boils down to putting it in the position of an emergency operations response kind of thing where you simply don't let the press talk to anybody except the Mayor and Saratoga City Council 21 October 22, 1991 the Manager. And the Mayor and the Manager get briefed by the staff before they talk to anybody. But the interesting difference here'is that we don't let the press in to the EOC. And so it's sort of like a Desert Storm deal. We get to control the access to information. In a situation like this, we don't control the access to information. They're running around checking, talking to anybody and their brother. It's very difficult in that kind of an environment to say you're going to always channel everything into a particular individual. It doesn't bother me to do that in a true emergency situation where we are dealing with a disaster. But on day-to-day kind of stuff, you know, if we want to get to that point, we're going to have to hire somebody who is a Public Information Officer and doesn't do anything but that. Caldwell: One thought comes to mind though. Obviously, with large emergencies like this, it's really an effective, an effective way of getting the information out that you really want to get out is a press release. So that there's no accident or misconstruing what you've said, when you have it in a document. Peacock: Sure, but the press doesn't necessarily use it nor do they want it. Caldwell: No, I understand that. But it's about as far as you can go in terms of lay it out straight and give them what you want to .Clevenger: I'll tell you. Another thing was on this, we didn't have that much information. We had information about the extent of the damage, but there wasn't, we didn't have that much to say. Caldwell.: In those instances I think that it's appropriate to let the public know, the media know, that we don't have the information, rather than pretend that you do have the information. Clevenger: I don't think we ever pretended that we had the information. Kohler: Well, I think each case should be considered in itself. If a real emergency, earthquake, fire, things like that, it's a different case. I'm on the emergency team at work, and always, the information officer, people give out is the president, the CEO of the company. They have to get involved. So in cases like that, sometimes you have to wait because you cannot locate the officer who is responsible to give out the information and you don't have a direct answer to the public. Monia: Yeah, there's another point, though. Marty, there was some information that came out and I think that's what they were really trying to get to. It had to do with the fact that some of the information that was released was that our inspectors were on loan, that most of this happened after the earthquake, that kind of information got out. It didn't sort of square later on. But you know thereis another side of it. And that is the rights of the individual Council members, the Planning Commissioners, or anybody else to speak to the press. And, I mean, you look somewhat foolish if you had something going on for a day or two, the Council and the staff hasn't really had the opportunity to get all the information, the press is calling and.quizzing you about something, and the only 'thing you're doing is taking the Fifth, I mean after a while you look pretty foolish. It's like, what's the matter, aren't you on top of this-- this is something very important. I mean, it's this balance, I don't know how you really put it together but it is very, very difficult. And then also, I mean if you truly believe you have some information that'S helpful to the general public, are you honor-bound not to release that as a Council person until you've sort of cleared it with everybody else, or is it in the best of the public information to--for the public to receive whatever information you might have? Saratoga City Council 22 October 22, 1991 Peacock: I think the most effective thing we can do is to continue to try and train our management staff people and in dealing with the press, and I'm not necessarily suggesting that they aren't doing a pretty good job because my viewpoint is that they do a pretty good job, but I think that when we get into what I consider to be a really unusual situation, then they ought to take a lot of care about providing information that's premature because it hasn't been verified or confirmed. So that we make sure that the message that is getting out is consistent. And I think that's always the big problem we have here. Monia: I think the thing that we have to be careful about with the press is that they have basically an attitude, an adversarial attitude, towards public entities. They basically take the position that they're suspicious that something went wrong. I mean, it didn't take 36 hours in the fire disaster up there, and they're already on this thing about who screwed up, why didn't they make a ... Clevenger: Yeah, why didn't they call in people earlier. Monia: Right, exactly. But that's O.K. That's part of the proper process of a democratic system. We just have to accept that. Peacock: Take your lumps. Monia: Take your lumps. Either take your lumps or get out. Clevenger: Well, let's move on. I don't think we're going to solve that. Kohler: Right, I think on a case-by-case basis ... Monia: That's what (inaudible). Kohler: Item No. 30, I think is an important one. The City should be cautious about accepting dedication of streets in areas like this. The roads, the base of. the landslide show signs of instability. That's the general problem that you could have by building roads in a landslide area. The answer is that it should be reflected in the policy of the City. The policy is not to have private streets. If you have private streets, then it's the problem of the private homeowner. Peacock: I don't think the City would be out of it regardless. Kohler: Still not? Peacock: If we approve the design of the street, whether it's public or private, somebody is going to come back if it fails and say why did you approve this design, City of Saratoga? And I think that from a public policy standpoint, we're still going to be dealing with people who are voters, taxpayers of the City of Saratoga. They're your constituents, and they're our constituents. And to say, well, gee, private road, too bad, your problem. I don't know that that's necessarily a good public policy posture to have. Not necessarily suggesting that cities don't have private streets. The last city I worked in for 12 1/2 years that I was there, they never once had a public street improvement. Every single new subdivision, every single street was private. Now they didn't have the same geotechnicat problems that we have in the hillsides, but that was simply a policy of that particular city because the gas tax revenue that the city was getting was so small because it was based upon population, and the street requirements for maintenance were so much larger than the amount of revenue, that they made a conscious decision that they simply could not afford to do it. So we, I think we added 3 1/2 or 4 miles of streets in the 12 1/2 years I was there, not a single one of them was a public street. So it isn't something that's unusual, but the current policy right now, and I was told this flat out by the City Saratoga City Council 23 October 22, 1991 Council, is we don't want private streets. We want streets to be public. Kohler: Is it a written policy or ... Peacock: It's a policy policy. We always accepted dedications, we always required offer of dedication, but why require an offer of dedication and tentative map if you're not going to accept it? My point of view is don't offer it. The thing is that once you do that then the street itself has to be either a separate lot that"s owned in common or the properties have to go to the middle of the street, there have to be easements in common, and there has to be some sort of mechanism set up for the maintenance of that street and a whole different kind of approach is used if you're going to consciously make that kind of decision. As I've said, it's not something you can't do and it's done all the time. But it does require a change of policy for the City if you're going to do that. Clevenger: Well, I don't want to change that policy, because I don't think that Saratoga as a residential community would be upgraded and improved byhaving a policy of private streets. I don't think ... Peacock: There's also a law enforcement problem with private streets as well. You have to go through a whole rigmarole to enforce the speed laws and stuff. Monia: I think this gets to the issue of hillside development vs. flatlands. I can see there's a relatively low risk factor in accepting streets in flatlands. I can understand the public policy that says that if you actually go back, and we didn't do it in the subcommittee, we did it when I was in Planning Commission, when you look at the cost to maintain a mile of road in the hills vs. a mile of road in the flatland, it's like 4 or 5 times the cost, so there's a tremendous burden put upon the City. So I think that when you're looking at having a policy that says you're going to accept all streets, you've got to be looking at the factor that one has 4 or 5 times the cost factor vs. the other and then, you know, what's the responsibility for those people. We have one of those situations I think at the Planning Commission right now. I mean, you know, it's talking about building on, and as we continue up the hill, we're talking about building on 65 and 75 and 80% grade levels, you end up with more and more problems, higher'and higher potentials of City liability if the policy is we're going to accept all those streets. Somewhere along the line we need to deal with that, as a reasonable differential between the two. Stutzman: I think that, why don't, as you had pointed out here, why don't you just put the period of bonding for a longer period of time. Instead of 1 year, (inaudible) 5 years. Clevenger: Can we do that? Monia: Yeah, that's a good point. Peacock: we did that with Mount Eden Estates. They have to carry- -we're not going to release it until 3 years after acceptance. Monia: What about this, Harry -- letis assume that Mount Eden Estates is (inaudible). Let's say 4 or 5 years afterwards because they go through a drought for 4 or 5 years. The land becomes, it has a different stability factor after the 100 year flood and this road fails. Are we--and it's a private road. Case 1, it's a private road; case 2, it's a City road. If it's a private road, and they won't fix it, can we put a lighting and landscaping assessment on that, a special assessment to fix the road? Peacock: No, because it's private property. Monia: O.K. If it's public, can you? Saratoga City Council 24 October 22, 1991 Peacock: If it's public, yes, because the, what was it Larry, the street lighting, the street improvement act, was just changed, I think 2 years ago, to allow for the creation of street maintenance districts inside cities to deal with that very issue where you might have an area of the City that has a high differential of cost of maintenance. Now I know that this hillside specific plan actually called for that as a policy which was never implemented, because there was no legal mechanism at the time that the specific plan was adopted to do that. The legislature has now created that legal policy. Monia: Because what I'm concerned about is not so much today, because the developments are still young, but I'm thinking of, you know, as we continue to build more and more on the hillsides and these become aged roads, they start to fail just like roads will anyplace, I mean the City is at some point in time is going to, I think, is going to have a big part of their maintenance budget fixing roads up in the hillsides. It's going to be so, you just look at it. I remember we looked at ones like in Los Gatos, this is while I was on the Planning Commission doing the specific plan. I'm trying to remember why we were looking at that. That was the time that we were. When you look at those communities that had both, God, their maintenance budgets for those hillsides wer'e much greater than the whole rest of the City. Perlin: I think it's a perfect opportunity to create some sort of a assessment district on the hills for road maintenance. Monia: Maybe that's what we should get to ... Peacock: Well, the thing is is that as long as we're charging the utility user's tax and using the money for street maintenance, I think it's a fair approach to say that we will continue to fund that level with this money. But if it ends up costing us more, then we will do it on a street maintenance basis. The problem you have, of course, is that you're going to have to deal with the issue of forming the district, having the protest and the whole business, and if you get a majority protest again, then you're back right where you are with ... Monia: Well, this Council has shown a little guts once in a while. Peacock: Yeah, but I don't necessarily think has to be very large because it would probably be a very small assessment spread over a large number of parcels to build up a reserve. Clevenger: What about the Swine road fund? Can't we use that? Monia: Well, you have to tie it in with some benefit. Peacock: Yeah, you've got to go back to the benefit issue and that's still something to work on with the Circulation Element. Monia: But maybe just as a follow-up item, Harry, and on a low priority, but I'm sure, if we can just get some of those numbers just so we can get a consciousness, I think, one of the things I had totally forgotten about that we looked at that data. I think everybody will be surprised if we can communicate with some other municipalities that have flatland and hillside development that are older than us, Los Gatos is one of them, and see what their maintenance costs are. I think it will be an eye-opener. Peacock: Well, Larry and Dan are working on a deficiency report now that will give us some sort of idea of what we're looking at. Kohler: I have a question, on street dedications that's normally 1 year, right? The City has to take over the dedication after 1 year. Saratoga City Council 25 October 22, 1991 Monia: No, we don't have to, we don't ever have to take over. Kohler: We don't? Peacock: No, the normal time for maintenance responsibility we establish at 1 year. 1 year after Larry accepts the street as being built according to City's standards then we'll release their maintenance bond, and then the developer has no further responsibility for maintenance. It falls on the City. Now during, at the end of that 1 year period Larry could go out and make an inspection and say, O.K., you've got to fix this, you've got to fix that, or we won't take it, we won't release the bond. Kohler: That 1 year is pretty short in several cases. For instance, you know, you have a development and they start building. It takes maybe3 or 4 years. Peacock: Well, we don't accept the street right off the bat. That was one of the issues with Parker Ranch. We didn't accept the street until the very end. They were real upset about that because Kohler: They planned to sell the subdivision. Peacock: Yeah, usually we do. As I say, in Mount Eden Estates, for example, we accepted the street but the maintenance period is 3 years rather than just 1. Kohler: 3 years from when? Peacock: 3 years from when Larry accepted the street, which I guess was what, a year ago? Mount Eden Estates? Perlin: No, it was 3 years from last--we're about a year into it. Peacock: July or so? O.K., we're about a year or 2. Kohler: O.K. There's 2 years to go. Perlin: To put it in perspective just for the Council's knowledge, we have never accepted any of the streets in either Teerlink Ranch, BAS Homes, Mount Eden Estates, Cocciardi/Chadwick, the part that was built, I'm not sure about Parker Ranch. Peacock: Yeah, we have. Clevenger: We had to. Perlin: Now there are problems with the streets in Teerlink Ranch and BAS Homes, and some, at some point in time here, maybe sooner than later, I think this issue will have to be brought to a conclusion because there have been some phone calls I've been starting to get from people in the Teerlink subdivision wondering about the condition of these streets out there. Kohler: I understand that. So I think that's--in a way, it's a good policy to extend that time. Peacock: So, is there a conclusion on this one that we should look into the assessment district as an alternative to maintenance? Then the other thing is the policy about public streets. Is that something you think the Planning Commission ought to be taking a serious look at in the future, that if it appears that there is an opportunity to have private streets that, I mean some of the condo projects have private streets. Kohler: Certain ... Clevenger: And Willem lives on a private street. Saratoga City Council 26 October 22, 1991 Perlin: We have a map in the Engineering office of which streets are private streets (inaudible -- several voices) part of what will (inaudible -- several voices) Caldwell: That means you can have bumps. Peacock: Potholes. Perlin: Everything off of Tollgate and ... Monia: San Marcos Road. (inaudible -- several voices) Caldwell: Harry, you said that Parker Ranch,. the roads in Parker Ranch weren't accepted until the end. You mean the end of what, the end of the development, or ... Peacock: Oh, they weren't accepted until probably 1988, 89, I mean they had been there for like 8 or 9 years ... Clevenger: And the residents were all complaining because we hadn't accepted them. Caldwell: But statistics that the Planning Commission just got in conjunction with the Wong subdivision application is that Parker Ranch still is only about 75% developed. So another consideration that folds into this is that when you have still a quarter of the subdivision to be developed you've got really heavy machinery travelling over the roads, you may not want to have the responsibility for maintenance of that until development is more complete. Monia: Maybe that's one of the policies that we should be looking at. When, at what point should we consider, you know at 75% completion, 85% completion, all of it completed? Perlin: I think it should all be built out. I don't see any rush to accept streets. It's not like there's in ... Peacock: It's in our, if you have Parker Ranch and then you have 1 lot still sitting there, I mean that's the problem. Monia: Well, O.K. Caldwell: Which is conceivable. Peacock: Yeah, I mean that's the disadvantage of these people building these things and not developing the houses. They just sell off lot by lot, and it takes years and years and years. And the political reality is that all these people are now voters. They come down and they start pinging on the City Council about why do we have to keep maintaining the street, how come we can't get law enforcement, how come we can,t get this, how come we can't get that. Monia: Policy says that you have to have 97% of your subdivision Peacock: That's right, and then they suggest that you'd better change your policy. Monia: It's a good policy, sometimes you have to take the heat. I'm for that. I think we should get some better direction about that. O.K. Let's move on. We've got the last 3 to go. Kohler: O.K., so we agree on this one. Now, on Item 31, response time to fix the damagedone on that hill. Exclamation mark. Included in the restoration should be authorized work done (inaudible -- several voices) the subdivision. The City should Saratoga City Council 27 October 22, 1991 hire an outside engineer or consulting firmto monitor the progress of the corrective work on Tract 7770. The representative should be onsite full time until project completion with the cost to be borne by developer. This approach should also be used if there are similar (inaudible) on future developments occur. And, then the answer here is that the City has obtained (inaudible) the property restoration plan is subject to dispute and litigation. We are currently pursuing this most expeditiously, but the City has no legal ability to commence restoration without the approval of the court. Macrae: What is that court case? Monia: The court case is Cocciardi. Caldwell: No, Conner. Riback: Actually, it's Conner, not O'Connor, Conner v. City of San Leandro. Caldwell: Oh, that's why we didn't understand it. (several voices) Riback: That case is a 1990 case--in fact I just sent Carolyn a memo on it--what it says is that even after having gone through the entire administrative process of determining that there is a public nuisance existing which occurred in this situation, and ordering the abatement of that nuisance, you still cannot, the City still cannot go on to the property and abate the nuisance itself if the property owner doesn't without a court order. That's in essence what ... Macrae: That means a final (inaudible) by the court. Riback: That's right, it has to go through that final act of getting the court order to authorize what the City has already determined is the appropriate action to take. It's fairly new, it's a very new approach. Monia: Are we satisfied that we've gotten proper winterization program? Perlin: We were as of last February. It's time to make another round of the subdivision to see what the current condition is like. That actually was something that I was going to arrange for next week, the inspector and myself to go up there and to see if there needs to be some things done to keep the site protected for this winter. Monia: Hay, grass seed, whatever we use. Perlin: Whatever we can do. Kohler: So if it's not satisfactory, what can be done then? Is there still time enough to put seed in there? Perlin: Yeah, I don't think the seedingis needed as much as other measures to just control runoff and silt and that sort of thing. Most of the exposed slopes have already naturally reseeded themselves, but hay bales that were placed out there last year have sort of become disintegrated, other things that were put out there in February have either been moved or are no longer there, so. Monia: You're going to supply us with a report on that by the end of the month? Perlin: Well, I will be going up there and determining what needs to be done, but I will be looking, I will tell the City Attorney what my findings are. Whether we can require that any Saratoga City Council 28 October 22, 1991 winterization work take place, or go on to the property and do winterization work ... Riback: If it's a matter of urgency we can go to the board immediately and obtain the authorization to take whatever action is necessary to ... Monia: So the determining mechanism really is your report to the City Attorney as to what needs to be done, and we either get cooperation or we need to ... Perlin: Yeah, I need to basically go out there and look at the property and see ... Monia: When can We have, when will we have this all wrapped up? I mean, the rains can start, I thought last night they would start, but what I'm just getting to is that if we're going to that, if we have to do that, then we should do it in a timely manner so ... Perlin: Actually by the middle of next week I will have gotten what I need to do and have something (inaudible). Monia: So that either we can come to an agreemen-t on a winterization program with the owner or we need to give some kind of direction as to what we want to try to do with the courts. 'Try to get a court order to allow it to be done. Perlin: We have a winterization plan that will keep the site protected, it's a matter of going up and seeing what needs to be put back in place. Just sort of put the plan back together. · Monia: So we're going to get a ... Kohler: Our next Council meeting? November. Monia: O.K. Caldwell: There's one more aspect to the recommendation which I didn't write, but there is no real response to and maybe it's just inherent in the process, that's the whole issue of monitoring the progress of the implementation of the restoration plan and how the City intends to do that. I realize that may be well into the future at this point, but it's an issue that's important for the Council to consider. Kohler: Yeah, very important. Peacock: Well, I think as part of the restoration plan that we developed last summer with the property owners. With the monitoring of the restoration work and the inspection and all was built into that restoration plan to which we thought there was general agreement. Obviously that's now all been sort of tossed aside and we're pursuing it in court. Caldwell: Was the onus on the City, the staff to monitor it? Peacock: No, we were going to use Wildan and Barry. Wildan was going to review all the grading and So forth and the drainage systems, and Barry would review all of the installation of the landscaping and trees and irrigation systems. Kohler: So as soon as we have the revegetation plan going then (inaudible) maintenance, supervision, and all that. Perlin: Yeah, and there were maintenance bonding amounts that were figured into it. It went from beginning to end. Unfortunately, he hasn't pursued it. Monia: This is an item that's obviously out of our hands at this moment. Saratoga City Council 29 October 22, 1991 Caldwell: Yeah, I just wanted to make that point. It sounds like it's been considered. That's good. Kohler: Can we talk about 32? Caldwell: About the monitoring ... Monia: Let's go on to 32. Kohler: 32 should be further investigation into the '86 settlement agreement. It's all his ramifications with particular attention to all subdivisions involved, with special attention to be paid to the commitment of additional loss and the management of the trust created by finance of the repair of Quarry Creek. So we have looked at that, and that's still pending for further discussion I guess. (inaudible -- several voices) Monia: I don't think the committee is going to be formed unless somebody else wants to serve. Mr. Kalb has expressed to me--I don't mean to speak for Mr. Kalb--but, he expressed to me that'he didn't find it was necessary to have a committee to review these numbers. Any accountant can do that. But then he wasn't interested in serving. Kohler: So we should find somebody else. Monia: I think it's important for you, Mr. Mayor, to get that first hand from Mr. Kalb. Again, I mean that's what he relayed to me. Maybe he had second thoughts. But that's what he told me on ... and remember I suggested that I would be happy to try to put the committee together to, at least for the first meeting, as I did for the subcommittee, but the absence of the enthusiasm to do this and basically the work (inaudible) at least he feels has already been done and didn't need to.have a subcommittee to count the numbers again. So I don't know where it's going to go from here. I guess the Council either wants to look at the Quarry Creek or not look at the Quarry Creek. So maybe you want to talk to Mr. Kalb and then instruct us to either have the committee or not. Clevenger: Which one are we on? Monia: 32. That is the committee that you and I were going to serve on. Clevenger: Oh, and Mr. Kalb is not interested? Monia: Right, Mr. Kalb does not think any more information will come out of the committee that's already in the report than was given. Basically, you count more numbers ... Clevenger: You know, Vic, Patricia Shriver has gone through that letter and done some of the answers. Maybe we should just look at that letter and see, because that may clear up some issues that were raised. Monia: The issues are not so much the numbers, for me anyway. The issues were that there were some specific things that we were going to do as a matter of course in administrating this trust, and this was at least from the initial view those safeguards were not followed. That really was what I think the issue primarily was for the subcommittee. Not whether the numbers all add up right. Maybe they do and maybe they don't, an accountant could tell you if they do or they don't. The issue was really about those ... Clevenger: Well Vic, maybe for the first thing, the first thing we ought to do is that you and I can meet with Patricia Shriver and see if she's got the answers that satisfy you. Saratoga City Council 30 October 22, 1991 Monia: O.K., let's do that. Clevenger: O.K. Kohler: At the same time I'll still talk to Jeff Kalb. Monia: And the last item we've already done. Kohler: Right. Grand jury is also done. Caldwell: Do you ... does the grand jury get back to you, do they tell you? Clevenger: They haven't yet though. Riback: They'll let us know what if anything we need to do. I have sent the grand jury the transcripts from the September 10 and the September 17 meetings. Monia: We will get those in our package next week or (inaudible). Kohler: Alright. Riback: Mr. Mayor, one last matter, if I may. Just to revisit actually one item, number 19, regarding fines, penalties, and the like, liquidated damages. Thanks to Mr. Macrae, who suggested I contact the City of Roseville because he had heard from someone had heard that the City of Roseville had a rather innovative approach to a similar problem. I have been sent by the City of Roseville a tree preservation bond which they use which they 'place on developments that require a developer to take out a .bond specifically for the purpose of guaranteeing that should an oak tree be disturbed, and I guess they designate specific trees that they're talking about, there will be a forfeiture of, in this case, $10,000. The amount can be obviously depending upon the value of the trees. What I would suggest is that we incorporate this into our conditions of approval and use perhaps Barry Coats to create an evaluation of the trees on the property. Then require a bond commensurate with that evaluation. Monia: So how does that work then? For instance, they give up the right for us to collect on the money. Then if they want to have an argument about it they can take it to court vs. the other way around where we would have to initiate the court proceeding. Riback: Well, what we would do is that we would go after the surety. Monia: Right, we'd get the surety. Riback: It would be between us and the surety at that point. And if the developer wants to argue, the developer can argue later. Or argue with the surety. (inaudible -- several voices) Macrae: One of the things is they value very highly the quality of their environment. There's a lot ofmoney involved there, and they want to protect the trees in the environment. The oak trees are the main things there, they're doing the best to protect them. Peacock: Mike, was it either you or did I read or talk to someone else within the last 24 hours about the, no, but about something slightly different, and that is you don't go after the bonding company. Monia: You get the money. Peacock: You get the money, and then the debate in court is whether or not the value is such that the value of the damage is Saratoga City Council 31 October 22, 1991 equal to the amount of money that these guys lost in the deal. So, the City has the money in hand and we're not going to the ... Caldwell: So it's a deposit--something of that nature? Monia: It could require a set-aside or a letter of credit. And then waive the right to the money, you know, conditionally. Peacock: Oh, I know what it was, it was this morning. When we were in the meeting with cable t.v. consultants. They had a specific way to deal with that with the company not performing. Monia: It's another way of getting your damages. (inaudible) and then the burden is on them to recover. Peacock: Yeah, that's exactly right. Monia: And then what you end up with is that they have to look at the cost benefit ratio on their end rather than us looking at our end. Caldwell: We've got a couple applications up tomorrow night at the Planning Commission that involve expensive maintenance-programs for trees, and I can see the Commission wanting to get some condition like this in on the approval ... Monia: You need an ordinance passed tonight Meg? Caldwell: No, no, it's just that, in the Commission language if you could develop it in case it (inaudible) or ... Monia: Well, one of the things you can do is you can announce the intent to put it in an ordinance. Caldwell: Well, it's not necessarily an ordinance. Monia: Yeah, it's ... Peacock: It's another bonding, it's a performance requirement. (inaudible -- several voices) Caldwell: And so I'm suggesting that it would be really helpful if she has something in her hip pocket. Monia: But Harry and I are talking about something a little bit different. Caldwell: I know you are. Monia: It's actually a little stronger. Caldwell: Yeah, I like that idea, having something ... the money is there. Peacock: Yeah, the issue ... the main thing at this point is to establish that you're going, that you would require a surety that ~ould be acceptable to the City and that the amount of the surety is to be determined by the City's arborist. And that, then we'll deal with the details of what's acceptable surety. Mike and I can deal with that at the administrative level. Perlin: I might be mistaken, but I think Cupertino is doing that right now. I think they're requiring a cash bond (inaudible) trees on the property. Monia: Cash bond. It's getting tight. Kohler: Alright, we'll continue. Closed session. Saratoga City Council 32 October 22, 1991 Peacock: Closed session. Wait for the pizza.