Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-01-1995 City Council Minutes MINUTES / SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL TIME: Wednesday, January 4, 1995 - 6:00 p.m. PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Ave. TYPE: Regular Meeting Closed Session on various topics - 6:00 p.m. in Administration Conference Room CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR Agency negotiator: Mary Egan; Employee organization: Saratoga Employees Association CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-EXISTING LITIGATION PUrsuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 (a): Name of cases: Bloxham v. Saratoga; Baykeepers v. Saratoga CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 54956.9 in one case Initiation of litigation pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 54956.9 in one case No definitive action was taken during the closed session. The regular meeting was called to order at 7:40 p.m. Mayor Burger apologized for the late start this evening, explaining that the Council had an extended closed session with the City Attorney and thanked the public for its patience. Pledge of Allegiance - Led by Councilmember Moran. 1. ROLL CALL Councilmembers Present: Jacobs, Moran, Tucker, Wolfe, Mayor Burger Staff Present: City Manager Peacock, City Attorney Riback, PUblic Works Director Perlin, Community Development Director Curtis 2. CEREMONIAL ITEMS - None.. 3. Report of City Clerk on Posting of Agenda PUrsuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on December 29, 1994. 4. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS AND THE PUBLIC A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mayor Burger announced that the City Council will be holding a town hall meeting on Saturday, January 7, 1995 from 10 a.m. to noon in the Community Library. The Council would be making itself available to discuss issues it feels are important in the coming months and to hear from the citizens of Saratoga regrading any subjects that they feel are important to be discussed. Glenda Rossie, 19607 Kenosha Court, addressed the Council on two issues. The first issue was the substation to be located at West Valley College at the intersection of Fruitvale Avenue and Douglass Lane. She questioned why a substation that is to service Saratoga, Monte Sereno, Cupertino and Los Altos Hills needed to be located in the middle of a residential neighborhood in Saratoga. She recommended that substation be located in the commercial district of Saratoga/Sunnyvale Road, easily accessed from highway 85. She informed the Council that she contacted the Santa Clara County General Services Agency and they could not inform her as to the size of the facility, how much lighting is to be installed, whether the lights would be on all night, how many cars would be parked on site, or if there would be a holding facility. City Council Minutes 2 Januarl~ 4, 1995 The substation would be a 24 hour a day, 365 days a year operation. She did not believe that it belonged in the middle of a rural residential neighborhood. Ms. R3ssie also addressed parking on Douglass Lane and Kenosha Court. She informed the Commission that West Valley College has increased parking fees and that many individuals who utilize the college facilities do not want to pay the increased parking fee. Instead, they prefer to park on Douglass Lane or Kenosha Court. She requested that the City require permit parking at all times (including weekend and evening parking) as college users are parking in the residential area. She felt that it was West Valley Collegeis responsibility to provide the parking for those who use its facility. If the college gives up parking lot 6 for the substation, there would be a potential for an even greater problem. She requested Council solution to what is seen as a continuing and aggravated problem. B. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS 1) Karin Dowdy, 19101 Brook Lane, resigning from Publlc Safety commission. COUNCILMEMBERS TUCKER/MORAN MOVED TO ACCEPT KARIN DOWDY~S RESIGNATION WITH REGRET. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (5-0). 2) Friends of Saratoga Libraries, requesting to lease surplus mobile office trailer. Councilmember Tucker asked if the City carried insurance on the trailer or was insurance the responsibility of the Friends of the Library. City Manager Peacock responded that the users would be responsible for liability insurance. Councilmember Moran asked where the office trailer would be located. City Manager Peacock responded that the trailer would be located adjacent to the community center, and Public Works Director Perlin further clarified that it would be moved slightly from where it is presently located and remain in the civic center. COUNCILMEMBERS MORAN/WOLFE MOVED TO ADD ASURPLUS MOBILE OFFICE TRAILER TO THE LEASE AOREEMENTWITH THE STIPULATION THAT STAFF ENSURE THAT THE LIABILITY INSURANCE IS SECURED. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (5-0}. 5. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Previously-Discussed Items 1) Resolution adopting Rubbish Rate Adjustments to go into effect on Feb~lar~ 1, 1995 (as approved 12/7/94) City Manager Peacock informed the Council that the City Attorney has prepared a fourth exhibit, a resolution containing findings and that the exhibit was distributed to it this evening. COUNCILMEMBERS WOLFE/TUCKER MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 95-01ADOPTING RUBBISH RATE ADJUSTMENTS TO GO INTO EFFECT ON FEBRUARY 1, 1995. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (5-0). B. New Items 1) Planning Commission Actions, 12/14 - Note and file. 2) Youth Commission Minutes, 11/7 -.Note and file. 3) Parks and Recreation Commission Minutes, 11/7 - Note and file. 4) Public Safety Comm~sslon Minutes - 12/12 - Note and file. 5) Purchase of Speed Mon~torlng Awareness Radar Trailer at a cost of $10,288.53 Councilmember Moran requested removal of Consent Calendar item 5. City Council Minutes '3 January 4, 1995 COUNCILMEMBERS MORAN/TUCKER MOVED TO APPROVE CONSENT CALENDAR B. 1-4. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (5-0). Councilmember Moran stated that she was pleased to see that the City was purchasing and using a portable speed sign detector so that individuals would have an idea as to how fast they are traveling. She felt that it would help in speed control. COUNCILMEMBERS MORAN/TUCKER MOVED TO APPROVE THE PURCHASE OF THE SPEED MONITORING AWARENESaRADARTRAILER AT A COST OF $10,288.53. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (5-0). C. CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY 1) Claim of Layman in case of car towed during Celebrate Saratoga City Manager Peacock informed the Council that the City has settled with Mr. Layman for the cost incurred for the towing of his car. However, the City is recommending denial of a claim for damage due to the tow. COUNCILMEMBERS TUCKER/MORANMOVED TO APPROVE STAFF,aRECOMMENDATIONAND DENIED MR. LAYMAN'S CLAIM FOR DAMAGE. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (5-0). THE COUNCIL RECESSED AT 7:52 P.M. THE COUNCIL RECONVENED AT 8:00 P.M. 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS - 8:00 pm. A. Appeal of denial of a variance and a lot line adjustment torelocate an existing lot line between a 2.07 acre parcel and a 2.79 acre parcel. The variance is required to allow one parcel to be under the minimum lot size requirement based on the parcel's new average site slope. Both parcels are located within the Hillside Residential (HR) zoning district at 13245 Padero Ct. and 21152 chadwick ct. (Appellant/applicant, Chadwick & Barkas) (LL-94-002; V- 94-015) City Manager Peacock informed the Council that letters in opposition to the Chadwick variance and lot line adjustment applications have been received from Barbara, John, James, and Julianne Clark; Ray and Irene Piontek; and Priscilla B. Schneider Councilmember Tucker stated that she would appreciate it if staff would give her a call prior to the Council meeting to allow her the time to review letters or documentation received prior to the meeting because it is difficul~ to read the letters during the meeting. Mayor Burger requested that the public submit correspondence as early as possible to allow the Council ample time to review each letter received prior to the meeting. Community Development Director Curtis presented the staff report. He informed the Council that the Planning Commission could not make the findings to approve the variance that would increase the non-conformity of the parcel and therefore denied the variance. With the variance being denied, the lot line adjustment could not be approved. Approval would be granting of a special privilege. The Commission felt that the intent of the zoning ordinance was to keep properties at a certain size and not make them a worse condition. Staff concurred with the Planning Commission that the findings could not be made to grant the applications and recommended denial of the variance and lot line adjustment. Councilmember Moran inquired if parcel A would be in the back position, how much additional land exchange would be requiredto satisfy the problem. Community Development Director Curtis informed the Council that he was not able to respond to the question because of the slope. However, he did not believe that it would be an even land exchange. Councilmember Jacobs askjd if these applications were reviewed in a City Council Minutes 4 Januar~ 4, 1995 land use perspective that the yellow portion that is proposed to be transferred, be transferred to parcel B. He noted that the yellow portion shown on the map appears to be flat. It appears that the rest of parcel A slopes downhill. He also noted that the yellow portion was basically unusable to the owner of parcel A. Community Development Director Curtis responded that it would be difficult to access parcel A and that it would be difficult to use as part of development of parcel A. Councilmember Jacobs asked if the ]purpose of exchanging the yellow portion for the green portion of land depicted on the map displayed was to try to avoid the slope reduction issue. Community Development Director Curtis responded that the purpose of the exchange was to add the yellow portion of land to create a larger yard area for parcel B located above. Councilmember Jacobs stated that he did not feel that the green parcel would help parcel A. He asked if the purpose of the exchange was to ameliorate the slope reduction rule. Community Development Director Curtis responded that the exchange was to keep the lots the same size so that it would not appear to be a significant change in the lot size but the slope calculation still requires a larger lot for parcel A. For all intents and purposes, the lot currently would stay the same. Councilmember Jacobs asked if there was a code requirement that the lots :remain the same size. Community Development Director Curtis responded that you cannot increase the non- conformity of the parcel without a variance. Councilmember Jacobs asked if it was an attempt to reduce the variance problem? Community Development Director Curtis responded that it was an attempt to reduce the severity of the variance. Councilmember Jacobs felt that from a planning point of view, setting aside technical rules, the logical thing to do was to transfer the yellow portion of land to parcel B and to forget the green portion altogether, leaving it in the ownership of Parcel B. Community Development Director Curtis responded that in terms of use of the property, it would be more appropriate to transfer the yellow portion of land to parcel B irrespective of the green portion of'land. However, he (Curtis) stated that staff could not make the findings to support variance approval. Councilmember Wolfe asked what it would take for the City to allow property owners to exchange land. Community Development' Director Curtis responded that it would require a code amendment that would stipulate that all grandfathered, non conforming parcels do not have to conform to the zoning standards. Mayor Burger asked if both lots were currently non conforming lots. Conununity Development Director Curtis responded that they were both currently nonconforming lots. Mayor Burger commented that she met with the appellants on site. Councilmember Jacobs stated that he was contacted by the appellants but did not meet them on the site. Councilmembers Wolfe and Moran stated that they both visited the Site under discussion. The public hearing was opened at 8:15 p.m. Allen Chadwick, 21152 Chadwick Court, informed the Council that there were-many reasons for the request. The existing 20 foot yard does not allow for much movement. Additional land is needed to mitigate the existing fire hazard. He concurred that the lots were both non conforming. However, he did not agree with the staff.report that you would be able to look over the hill and see these homes on Padero Way. The forty feetof land would be used as a buffer for fire and as a yard and would not be constructed upon. Robert Stark, 21247 Chiquita Way, noted that at the Planning Commission public hearing, it was brought out in the discussion that this extension was being requested so that an above-ground deck could be constructed. The neighbors have repeatedly attempted to stop the granting of extensions on design approvals for the house on this property because there have been many changes made to the approved house plans that have negatively impacted the neighbors. The current plan calls for a house over 5,400 square feet with a driveway over 300 feet long which traverses~a steep hill directly across from his home and that of a neighbor. Mr. Stark stated that there are safety, City Council Minutes 5 January 4, 1995 environmental, and drainage concerns associated with the proposed driveway. Councilmember Wolfe asked Mr. Stark if he had a deck'in the back of his house. Mr. Stark responded that he did and that it was included in the plans that were approved by the City. Daisy Stark, 21195 Chiquita Way, representing the Pionteks, read a letter from the Pionteks in opposition to the appeal due to the existing erosion problems. Lewis Franklin, 13209 Padero Court, informed the Commission that Padero Court is the street located at the bottom of the hill. He stated that he did not disagree with the building of a house, even though it appears to be a large and obnoxious house. He expressed concern that the lot line adjustment would be moved towards the very edge of the crest of the hill. He felt that the hill was at a point of instability with small landslides on the hill that not only would threaten a house below but also the road that goes along there. Construction of a house and the extension of a yard would make it a more risky situation. With this opportunity, the owner may want to move the house towards the crest of hill, making it a visible structure in the dominant skyline. He did not feel that was within the principles of the city. He recommended that the house be left as approved. If a larger lot was desired, it would be acceptable to him to move the house further away from the lot line. Luanne Nieman, 13217 Padero Court, stated that the neighbors have been promised in the past that variances would be discouraged. She felt that the lot was large enough so the Mr. Chadwick could move his house. towards Chiquita Court and have his 40 foot setback. She stated that it was pointed out to Mr. Chadwick when he presented these plans in 1990 that he did not have much of a setback from the lot line and that he acknowledged that fact. Mr. Chadwick now wants to increase his land that is out of line with the Hillside Ordinance. She felt that the applicant has had adequate time to build a home. She felt that it was one more political opportunity for Mr. Chadwick to seek a variance from the Hillside Ordinance. She felt that it was clear that Mr. Chadwick would put a lot of house on the ridge, the house to be'accessed from an undesirable and undefined driveway. She recommended that the plans be retained as previously approved. Alex Barkas, 13245 Padero Court, informed the Council that he and his wife are the owners of the property to the right of the map displayed. He stated that the land was not ~eing maintained and that it was open for people to cross it. He agreed with Mr. Chadwick's point on the potential fire hazard and that he could not maintain the land because he has virtually no access to the top of the hill (steep slope). He stated that people have legitimate concerns (i.e., size of the house, impact of the house on sight lines). However, the house would not change because of this proposed property transfer. Regarding the concern for erosion, the concern should come from him because his house sits right under this parcel. He did not think that the proposal would add to the erosion problem but may help the drainage situation. He stated that the reason for the land exchange was to reduce the extent · of the variance and the non conformance between the two properties and to minimize the change in slope. With the land exchange, the change in slope would be small (from an average slope of 41 percent to an average slope of 42 percent). If it was not for the one percent difference, there would not be discussion taking place. If the Council would be willing to grant a variance, he would agree to transfer the yellow piece of land and not accept the green piece of land in transfer because it would be isolated from him. Mayor Burger asked if the transfer was being made in order to minimize the one percent difference in slope. Mr. Barkas responded that the transfer of the yellow/green configuration results in a slope differential of one percent. Mayor Burger asked if Mr. Barkas had a figure of what the slope differential would be if the Council allowed the yellow portion of land to be transferred and leave the green portion of land as it is. Mr. Barkas responded that he did not but felt that the slope would,be somewhat greater. City Council Minutes 6 January 4, 1995 Jitka Cymbal, Westfall Engineers, representing Mr. Chadwick, addressed the reason for the lot line adjustment. She noted that the proposed land trade resulted in a one percent differential in grade. She pointed out that even though there ~ould be an increase in slope for parcel A, it does not affect the lot size because it would be over the 40 percent margin. Calculation of the building size remains the same under all conditions. If there was an adjustment which would take the yellow portion of land from Parcel A and give it to parcel B and the green portion remains with parcel B, then there may be some difference. There would be some reduction of maximum building size on parcel A. However, the existing house on parcel A is way below its maximum building coverage. It would be difficult for to build parcel A to its maximum because of the site's steepness. There has been discussion by some of the neighbors who felt that the location of the driveway would be inappropriate. She stated that Mr. Chadwick was limited as to the location of the driveway because of the existing oak tree. Mr. Chadwick stated that he thought that the variance process was for this purpose. If not, he questioned .why the variance process was available. He stated that he does not have a backyard and that a fire problem exists. Councilmember Jacobs commented that some of the neighbors have expressed concern that the lot line adjustment would allow the house to be designed or be moved further into the new land area. He asked if there was some guarantee that the house would be built in the configuration as depicted in the plans. Community Development Director Curtis responded that there was no guarantee that the house would be built as approved because Mr. Chadwick or the property owner could request to change the plans. The change would require design review and public hearing before the Planning Commission. Councilmember Jacobs asked staff what would prevent the house from being moved forward on the lot. Community Development Director Curtis responded that the house could be redesigned and could be moved forward if there were no physical constraints. Councilmember Wolfe asked if there was an existing policy that allows the construction on the crest of a hill/ridge. He also inquired if there were a new design proposed closer to the crest, could that be approved? Community Development Director Curtis responded that there had to be design review findings at time of review and approval. Councilmember Moran asked if the new lot would require the 20 foot setback requirement similar to other lots. Community Development Director Curtis responded that if the lot line adjustment was granted, the 20 foot setback would be reguired, measured from the new lot line. Mr. Barkas commented that part of the negotiations and agreement with the sale of this property would be 'that no permanent structure would be built closer than 20 feet to the edge of the existing lot (60 feet from the new lot line). Bob Schwenke, 12265 'Viewoak Drive, commented that it was his understanding that the lots were downgraded to nonconforming lots after the lots were approved. Had the lots remained in conformance with city codes, a variance would not be required. Since the Council made the lots nonconforming, the property owner has to go through the variance process, taking away some of the property owners rights. There being no further input, the public hearing was closed at 8:47 p.m. Councilmember Tucker commented that concern has been addressed regarding safety. She had difficulty with the findings that need to be made. She asked if a safety issue could be taken into consideration. City Attorney Riback responded that the City Council can take into consideration conditions relating to the property. If fire safety is a concern, it could be an issue. Councilmember Jacobs commented that a separate finding needs to be made that indicates that special circumstances are applicable to the property including size, shape, topography, location, or surrounding uses. He felt that strict enforcement of the specified regulations City Council Minutes 7 Januar~ 4, 1995 would deprive the owner of the use of his property. City Attorney Riback commented that the Council needs to identify conditions relating to the property which would translate into special circumstances and that strict enforcement would deprive the property owner of privileges enjoyed by other property owners. Councilmember Tucker asked the Public Works Director if plantings would help shield the home from view and help stabilize the hill. Mr. Perlin responded that planting would be one way to promote stability of the soil on a hillside. Councilmember Moran felt that the green piece of land would be difficult to maintain. She also felt that it would be helpful if the two property owners could develop their own cooperative agreement for the care of the hill. She expressed concern regarding granting a variance for the purpose of getting around the slope density ordinance. Councilmember Jacobs commented that he did not believe that the applicant was seeking a variance to build something to avoid the slope density ordinance. He agreed that a variance should not be granted if that was the case. He did not believe that the owner of parcel A was proceeding with these applications to expand building a house on the lot. The applicant was seeking the transfer of a piece of property which he felt he could not maintain to someone who could maintain and use the property. It was brought up that these property owners were being forced to seek a variance because after the lots were created, a law has been passed which puts the lots in a non conforming situation. He stated that he could support the variance assuming that the appropriate findings could be made. Councilmember Tucker commented that the land swap would not create an increase in building on either of the two sites. Mayor Burger concurred with Councilmember Moran's suggestion of neighbor to neighbor cooperation. However, should ownership change, there could be no guarantee that the new owner would continue with the cooperation. She stated that she had an opportunity to speak with the fire chief regarding these issues from a public safety point of view. She stated that the fire chief indicated that transferring the yellow portion to parcel B from parcel A provides for an incentive to the owners of Parcel B to care for the strip of land. Because the owners of parcel A are not the owners, there is no incentive to perform weed abatement. The fire chief felt that it was a very valid point. She felt that weed abatement was a public safety issue. It was her opinion that the requested variance would not add to the degree of non conformity. Councilmember Wolfe stated that he had no problems with individuals agreeing to swap land. The lot line adjustment was being requested to conformto the codes as much as possible. So he felt that the variance was a minute request. He felt that a fire hazard exists because it was not accessible to the current property owner. Transferring the land would allow the new property owner to maintain the land. He felt that the City would be contributing to the fire safety issues if the.land was not swapped. COUNCILMEMBER WOLFE/TUCKER MOVED TO APPROVE THE APPEAL BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS: FIRE SAFETY AND THAT IT WOULD ALLOW BOTH LOTS TO CONFORM TO THE BUILDING, ZONING AND SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE REGULATIONS INCLUDING PARCEL DIMBNSIONAND RESIDENCE FLOOR AREA. Councilmember Jacobs asked the City Attorney with regards to the variance appeal, does the property owners need to adjust the land swap based on the Council's discussion to swap the yellow portion of land only. City Attorney Riback responded that the variance does not mandate that the lot line adjustment take place as proposed. If the City Council determines that the lot line adjustment was not appropriate, it could direct the applicant to adjust the lot line. Councilmember Moran commented that she was having trouble making findings to grant a variance. She. therefore would support the Community Development Department's and Planning Commission's City Council Minutes 8 Januar~ 4, 1995 recommendation. Councilmember Jacobs stated that ire would like the applicant to resubmit a lot line adjustment. He suggested that the findings be expanded to include that the special circumstances applicable to the property include the topography of the property and that strict enforcement of the regulations woukd deprive the property owner of parcel A privileges afforded to others. Councilmember Tucker commented that in reviewing the slope density, the one percent increase does not change the size of the home. City Attorney Riback recommended that pursuant to past practice, that the motion be to direct staff to prepare a resolution approving the appeal and that the resolution be brought to the City Council based upon the discussion and determinations presented this evening relative to the findings. COUNCILMEMBERS WOLFE/TUCKER AMENDED THEIR MOTION ANDUPHELD THE APPEAL FROM THE APPELLANT AND DIRECTED STAFF TO PREPARE A RESOLUTION TO BE BROUGHT BACK TO THE COUNCIL IN TWO WEEK8 FOR FINAL APPROVAL (OVER- TURNING THE PLANNING COMMISSION~S DECISION TO DENY THE VARIANCE). THE MOTION CARRIED 4-1 WITH COUNCILMEMBER MORAN OPPOSING THE MOTION. B. Appeal of denial of variance to construct a five-foot high wrought iron fence and entrygate within the required front yard setback where three feet is the maximum height permitted. The property is approximately 40,000 sq. ft. and is located at 14199 Short Hill Ct. in the R-1-40,000 zoning district. (Appellant/applicant, Cornelius/Moore)(v- 94-01S) Community Development Director Curtis presented the staff report on this item. Mayor Burger commented that the request was for the entry gate and the five foot high fence. She inquired if the request was to extend the height of the existing two columns. Community Development Director Curtis informed the Council that the! columns could be extended higher than five feet. The public hearing was opened at 9:15 p.m. Councilmember Jacobs stated that he was contacted by a representative of the appellant. Mayor Burger commented that she visited the site.* Pete Pritchard, 255 North Market, San Jose, representing the Corneliuses, informed the Council that the swimming pool was constructed 20 years ago and was not fenced. The Corneliuses were subsequently cited for not having a security fence. He felt that the City could take into consideration special circumstances for granting a variance. He felt that there were special circumstances applicable to the site. He provided the Council with pictures of the property located at 14199 Shorthill Court. He informed the Council that he had letters from adjacent land owners stating their support of the request. He addressed the unique configuration of the lot in that the fence separates this property from that of the college. He noted that from a quarter mile from this property, there were approximately 20 fences that encroached into the required setbacks. He identified the special difficulties or undue hardship that could justify the findings to grant a variance (i.e., topography, flag lot, narrow entrance, professionally designed wrought iron fence proposed, and the two entrances to the property). He also noted that the orchard located in front of the property would be located outside the fence if the owner was required to meet setbacks. Councilmember Moran asked if the chain link fences would touch each other and whether the design of the fence met the requirements for prohibiting people from accessing the swimming pool. Mr. Pritchard responded that the chain link fence would touch the two fences and that the pool fence design would meet code requirements. Ron Moore, 14231 Shorthikl Court, stated that he has reviewed the city Council Minutes 9 Januar~ 4, 1995 design of the plans and finds them to be acceptable and appealing. Re noted that adjacent lots have similar fences and electric gates and'in some cases, having solid wooden fences. He heard no objections from the seven other neighbors on Shorthill Court, nor from residents on Chesboro at the Planning Commission level. At the Planning Commission meeting, he was asked if he would place a fence on his property similar to the one proposed. He informed the Commission that he would not because it would not lend itself to such a gate. Regarding the Planning Commission's recommendation that the fence be setback further, if this was required, it would cut into the established orchard or landscaping of the property. Another recommendation was that the fence be established across the retaining wall that was close to the pool area. He did not believe that the retaining wall lends itself to an attached fencing. He requested Council approval of the variance request. There being no further input, the public hearing was closed at 9:35 p.m. Councilmember Tucker stated that she was on the Planning Commission when the fence ordinance was reviewed and that the three' foot front fence was required instead of a five foot fence in order to provide a sense of openness in the City and not have a "wall city". Since that time, she has come to feel that the ordinance should be reviewed. She felt that the same feeling could be accomplished by looking at certain types of fences that are open or perhaps through vegetation-type fences. She noted that the City of Sunnyvale was currently reviewing and investigating these alternatives. She recommended that this issue be placed on its March policy meeting for further discussion. Councilmember Moran thanked the Commission for its review of this issue. However, she felt that findings could be made that the topography, the width of the site and the fact that the parcel is located adjacent to West Valley college. She did not feel that it would be appropriate to require that the fence cut through existing landscape or orchard. COUNCILMEMBERS MORAN/JACOBS MOVED TO GRANT THE VARIANCE, OVERTURNING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION. Councilmember Jacobs noted that the Planning Commission minutes attached to the staff report indicate that Commissioners Siegfried and Caldwell indicated that they felt that there were reasons that the variance could be granted. He stated that he was ready to adopt their comments which would support the granting of a variance. Councilmember Wolfe commented that the question posed by the Planning Commission regarding whether Mr. Moore would construct a similar fence was an appropriate one. However, he felt that the property was entitled to the reasonable use of his property enjoyed by others. THE MOTION CARRIED 4-1 WITH COUNCILMEMBER TUCKER VOTING NO. C. Ordinance Relating to Possession or consumption of Alcoholic Beverages in Wildwood Park city Manager Peacock presented the staff report. The public hearing was opened at 9:42 p.m. There being no input, the public hearing was closed at 9:42. COUNCILMEMBERS TUCKER/JACOBM MOVED TO INTRODUCE BY TITLE ONLY, WAIVING FURTHER READING, AND SCHEDULED SECOND KEADINGANDADOPTION FOR JANUARY 18, 1995. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (5-0). 7. OLD BUSINESS A. Request for Injunction against Traffic Authority concerning Freeway Noise - Joan Hershkowitz (from 12/7/94) city Attorney Riback updated the Council and public as to the options available to the City with regards to concerns raised by the citizens pertaining to excessive noise coming from Highway85. Pursuant to that City Council Minutes 10 Janual7 4, 1995 direction, he stated that he reviewed the mitigation plans and the EIR for Highway 85, particular the portions that have been referred to by various citizens in written correspondence to the City Council. He has concluded that in so far as these environmental documents are concerned, there appears that there is nothing in the documents that legally the City could require enforcement by CalTrans or the Traffic Authority. The environmental documents do not express promises or guarantees the decibel levels upon construction of Highway 85 and the implementation of the mitigation measures would reach a particular level or numbers. He stated that there were allusions to what is expected and that the term "expected" was used often in the document and that he could understand how someone would find that there would be some numerical result in terms of sound levels. However, it was his opinion that there was nothing in those documents that the City could require enforcement. In addition, there have been allegations that the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) portion of the report relating to the noise study portion of it was somehow inadequate. If that is the case, it is far too late to challenge that particular document as it is over seven and a half years old. It there were to be a challenge, it should have been challenged in 1987 when it was adopted. If new information was brought to the attention of the City at this time regarding the mitigation measures, that would not result in a cause of action against CalTrans because to the best'of his knowledge, there is no discretionary approvals that CalTrans must make with regard to this project, as it is now complete. He did not feel that there was anything that the City could do with regards to the environmental documents as far as the project was concerned. He stated that he has not as yet looked beyond the environmental documents. He would like to have the opportunity to do so if the Council determines that it is appropriate to do so. He was not prepared this evening to give an opinion regarding whether the City or the citizens have some recourse insofar as a public nuisance being created by this particular noise and whether there were any other statutory laws that may refer to CalTrans specifically or other projects in the State of California that did not turn out the way that they were anticipated to turn out. He has not had the opportunity to research those issues and would be happy to do if the Council so desires. City Manager Peacock informed the Council that further correspondence has been received on this issue in response to a letter he sent to the Traffic Authority in December reminding them of their obligation to conduct post freeway noise studies. He stated that a response was received that indicated that within two months, a noise study would be conducted. He informed the Council that copies of the 1991 Traffic Authority policy concerning local roadway impacts as well as the criteria for determining those impacts would be made available to any interested in those documents. He noted that the Council has received correspondence from Robert Karlak and William C. Elhoff. Councilmembers Jacobs commented that CalTrans and the Traffic Authority were two separate entities. He asked who was responsible for controlling Measure A funds and who was responsible for mitigation measures. City Manager Peacock responded that the Traffic Authority was responsible for Measure A funds. City Attorney Riback stated that he did not know who was responsible for the mitigation measures. Councilmember Jacobs felt that it needs to be determined who was responsible to ensure that the mitigation measures are met. Councilmember Tucker noted that page 5, paragraph 2 of the document received from the Traffic Authority, states that it is a policy of the Traffic Authority to require that FHWA and CalTrans provide noise barriers to attenuate the increased noise level to the largest extent feasible. City Attorney Riback felt that contracts for the implementation of the mitigation measures were CalTrans responsibility. City Manager Peacock commented that he could not state for certain that it is the Traffic Authority's responsibility but that he felt that it was the implication all along that they were in fact the agency responsible for the funding of the freeway and CalTrans was the acting agency. However, when the freeway is opened and complete, it becomes the jurisdiction of the state for maintenance. Mayor Burger informed thelpublic that City Attorney has requested that City Council Minutes 11 Januar~ 4, 1995 the Council provide him with more time to conduct further research to determine what clout the City has and which agencies the Council should be using it against. She felt that it would be the Council~s consensus to honor the City Attorney's request. Joan Hershkowitz, 19364 Shubert Court, informed the Council that she has been a resident of Saratoga for the past 25 years. In terms of challenging the sound studies, she stated that at a 1986 public hearing, it was asked where in the state of California has a 62 dba sound level been achieved. The public was informed that the 62 dba sound level has never been achieved. She felt that the public was led to believe that the noise level would be an acceptable/liveable noise level. That has not turned out to be the case. There was also a noise study completed which indicated that a distance of 500 feet from the wall would change the ambient sound level of 1 dba (not audible to the human ear). She stated that her house was located further than the 500 feet and noted that it was a different situation. She felt that mitigations should be conducted that would help mitigate the noise impact such as repavement of the road, installation of sound absorbing materials on the wall, enforcing the speed.limit, etc. She noted that there was concrete dust settling in the yards of neighbors adjoining the freeway. She felt that there may be some harmful material in the concrete dust which is known as a carcinogen. She requested that an injunction be placed on the agencies so that the money is not spent on other items because the neighbors do not believe that the project is completed and should be mitigated. Bob Karlak, 13000 Anza Drive, stated that he has been a resident of Saratoga for over 23 years and that his home is located approximately 350 feet from the freeway wall. He stated that most of the noise comes from a point that is 1,200 feet from the wall at the Saratoga Avenue over crossing. This was not one of the sound effects that was considered by CalTrans or the Traffic Authority or any of their subcontractors in determining what would be heard. The agencies took into account ideal weather conditions. He read excerpts from the EIR (Page 63) that indicate that the agencies made statements that suggested a noise level of 62 dbas. The excerpt states that every effort would be made to achieve the maximum reduction of noise levels within reason. He felt that the rough concrete surface was producing a very loud sound levels. He did not feel that every effort was made to reduce the sound levels. He stated that he received a letter from Joe Brown, District Director for CalTrans, stating that the pavement was installed for safety reasons. He noted that Australia completed a study of sound produced by vehicles on different types of pavement surfaces. The study found that there was as much as 10 dba difference between the use of different material. He maintained that CalTrans did not adhere to the spirit of what they told Saratogans in the EIR and the public hearings on this matter. Another issue brought up in the EIR was the fact that the publ'ic would have recourse or compensation for loss in property values. He felt that a class action law suit should be filed to make sure that the there is a clarification On this problem. Bill Clark, 19404 Shubert Drive, stated that the situation is unbearable for the residents. He has measured sound levels as high as 66 to 68 dbas. He noticed that noise was amplified by soundwalls. He requested that something be done to mitigate noise, even if it meant filing a law suit. He felt that there exists engineering solutions to mitigate noise. He asked if there were design equations in the information provided by CalTrans. James Bayler, 18677 Martha Avenue, stated that it was his opinion that it was premature to complain about the noise as the landscaping has not yet matured. He felt that Highway 85 has been a godsend, reducing commute time. He stated that he would be willing to be patient and wait for the landscaping to be installed and matured before he started complaining. Those neighbors. using the freeway were in no position to complain because they were part of the problem. Bob Browne, 18789 Aspesi Drive, stated that he did not agree that the only issue was that of a legal one but that it was also a political issue. He felt that the~ City needs to get involved at a political level as well as at a legal level concurrently. He addressed the issue City Council Minutes 12 Janual7 4, 1995 that was brought up that landscaping would contribute to sound mitigation., He felt that the landscaping proposed by CalTran was strictly for aesthetic purposes and not for sound control. He felt that money would be spent and whether it is spent for aesthetic or sound control was going to be a political position. He felt that it was important that the Council act in a timely manner. Bob'Schwenke, 12265 Viewoak Drive, requested that the City Council, City Attorney and City Manager review the design flaws that were created in the design of the freeway. The sound emanating from freeway was coming from the tunnels and off 'the walls. He felt that the walls needed to be redesigned so that the sound is reflected back to the freeway, not off the freeway. Lillian Barna, 19772 Yuba Court, commented that she has been a resident of Saratoga since 1966 and that she also has a partial interest in another piece of property because it is related to this issue. The property in interest borders Cox A~'enue. The issue was a minor one compared to the aggravated noise level being experienced in this area. The area bordered by Cox Avenue and the dead end of Glen Brae and Sea Gull Way were not fenced with concrete blocks as was the remaining area all the way to the overpass. The residents in this area not only get the noise from the freeway, but also gets increased noise from Cox Avenue. She requested that the City Council becomes aware of this issue and that it includes this issue in its consideration and negotiations with the Traffic Authority, CalTrans or other appropriate authorities and that this concern to be mitigated. .Jim Stallman, 19740 Braemar Drive, stated that he felt that landscaping was a mitigation required by the EIR and that it has not been completed along the freeway. Since the landscaping has not been completed, he supports litigation to ensure near term compliance with the landscaping. He also recommended that the landscape be selected by qualified sound abatement experts. Karen Anderson, 19887 Sea Gull Way, raised the issues of noise and the cement dust. She felt that the West Valley Mayors and Managers Association would be a good vehicle for the' political thought line addressed earlier. The City Council could join with other cities who have similar problems facing Saratoga as it is not just unique to Saratoga. She felt that CalTrans and the Traffic Authority would resist paying any monies out for mitigations, further litigation, or for correcting anything that they have done. She reminded the Council that before the soundwalls were put up, the City Council discussed that the walls did not appear to be satisfactory as there were complaints being received from Sunnyvale, Mountain View and parts of Santa Clara. Complaints have been received as far away as Marin county complaining of the noise bounce off from the walls. She discussed alternatives that she observed in Germany, Japan, Virginia and New York and that CalTrans categorically refused to consider any'of the designs except the one that was installed. She felt that there was a position where CalTrans was warned in advance that the citizens would not be happy with the noise bounce off from the sound wall and that they chose to ignore other technologies. She noted that grading of the cement was not covered by the EIR and that dust from the cement paving was causing problems with swimming pool and creating dust in backyards. She noted that the dust contained a known carcinogen. She felt that there was a health hazard in Saratoga and that complaints would be received shortly from residents stating that pool equipment was not functioning properly. John Grebenkemper, 19490 Miller Court, addressed noise measurements. He stated that his backyard was located about half a mile from the freeway. He noted noise levels in the daytime at less than 30 dbas and at night time as high as 58 dbas. He has taken measurements at different distances, and it was found that one night, a 60 dba level at three quarters of a mile. At the junction of Cox and the freeway, there was a 66 dba reading. He recoz~ended that vegetation be as dense as possible. However, he did not feel that landscaping would assist with freeway noise. He felt that there may be other alternative solutions that may help mitigate noise levels (i.e., pavement, improving sound walls infraction, etc.). If the EIR is being considered as a contract, he felt that the City should press CalTrans City Council Minutes 13 January 4, 1995 to improve the situation. City Manager Peacock requested that information on noise readings taken by residents be provided to staff to help staff build a data base of the information that has been gathered. Ms. Hershkowitz requested that the City provide the public with the base line noise readings of the ambient sound levels taken prior to construction. Mr. Clarkstated that he has spoken to Mike Stone who informed him that he has a 24 hour spec analyzer capability and that it should be looked into. Mary Lou Wyman, 19981 Karn Circle, Greenbriar development, offered the use of her residence for a sound study. She felt that this was a political problem. She felt that when there is a problem in Saratoga, property values go down. Councilmember Tucker requested that the Public Works Director review the landscape changes. She felt that the City should look into the possibility of using the landscape money for attenuation and working with the City forest division to get increased plantings, including reviewing the plantings that would be best to use to attenuate the noise problem. She recommended that Lillian Barna's concern regarding completing the soundwall on Cox Avenue be referred to the Public Works Director and to the Traffic Authority. She also referred Jim Stallman's remark regarding incomplete be referred it to the Public' Works Director. She stated her interest in Ms. Anderson's concern regarding the noise of the walls and the dust issue. Public Works Director Perlin stated that he was the City's point man when it comes to the freeway design and construction. He informed the Council that the landscape plans have been finalized. They would be approved and go out to bid in February. It is expected to award the first of the landscape contract in April or May. If the city was to request changes to the landscaping plan, he expected that the Traffic Authority would come back to the City and require that the City pay for the cost for any redesign or changes to the plans. Councilmember Tucker recommended that the City take the money that is to used for landscaping and not disregard the plans totally. The City could require the City forestry division to plant the trees and install additional trees. Councilmember Tucker recommended that the monies be used to best mitigate noise and requested that staff explore the options available. City Manager Peacock informed the Council that he and Public Works Director Perlin have reviewed the landscape plans. He did not know if it would be possible to install trees along the freeway. He felt that it should be verified that what is to be installed would mitigate noise to the maximum extent possible. He commented that almost all of the landscaping would be planted along the freeway right-of-way. He expressed concern for the safety of city forces being put out on the freeway making planting installation. He did not know if there was the manpower or equipment to do the work. Ms. Hershkowitz recommended that an acoustical engineer be consulted to determine if the landscape plans would mitigate noise. Councilmember Jacobs commented that it has been requested that the City file a law suit and felt that the Council should address the request. He asked the City Attorney what he would need to determine whether the city has a course of action, if any. Would the City Attorney need the assistance of expert witnesses to obtain empirical data? What would be the estimated cost to obtain what he needs? He requested that someone tell the Council whether there is a cause of action so that the Council can decide whether it wants to pursue this issue. If there is not a basis to go forward, then it would be known that the option would end and that the City would not spend or go through the upheavals. He recommended that the City, Attorney investigate the material in terms of legalities and what were the legal responsibilities of CalTrans and City Council Minutes 14 Januar~ 4, 1995 the Traffic Authority. He also questioned whether there was a potential legal liability as a result of the concrete dust and the cost of obtaining the expert data required to support the legal position. City Attorney Riback responded to Mayor Burger's question as to the amount of time needed to report back to the City Council by stating that he would be able to report his findings to the City Council at its first meeting in February. Councilmember Jacobs asked if the session should be considered in closed session due to the fact that it could lead to potential litigation. Ms. HershkowitZ asked if the City would require testing of the concrete dust sample. Councilmember Wolfe stated that the Council should take the position that this project was not complete and that there should be a three pronged direction (citizen effort, Council political effort, and legal effort). Mayor Burger commented that she has written letters to the Mayors of each jurisdictions indicating to them that the City of Saratoga has a great deal of concern with the freeway and that the City was interested in pursuing further discussion with CalTrans and the Traffic Authority. She inquired if they or their Council Members would in interested in joining Saratoga in this effort. She stated that the response to date has been lukewarm and that she would continue pursuing this issue at the Mayors and Managers meeting of January 25. Ms. Anderson asked if there was still a Traffic Advisory Board. She stated that she raised the issue of sound bounce off with that Board. She recommended that the information presented this evening be taken to that group to see if they want to pursue it. Regarding the concrete dust, she felt that it would be nice if the City made sure that the dust was tested because CalTrans denies that the grey dust is from the freeway. Councilmember Jacobs asked if the City had the capability t~ test the dust. Public Works Director Perlin responded that the city would probably have to hire a toxicology lab to take samples. Councilmember ' Jacobs recommended that the Council be provided with an estimate of the cost for the testing. Public Works Director Perlin stated that if the City was to do this, the City would need to determine where the dust was coming from. Marvin Comb, 10840 Viewridge Drive, informed the Council that his company performs risk analysis for power plants. He stated that it does not cost much to determine chemical composition and that it was just a question of obtaining a good. sample. Mayor Burger requested that Mr. Comb leave his business card with staff so that staff could contact him for further information. Councilmember Moran felt that the Council needs to take action regarding the concerns expressed. She asked if Ms. Barna could provide staEf with the addresses along Cox Avenue. City ManagerPeacock stated that staff was aware of the area that Ms. Barna brought up. BY CONSENSUS OF THE CITY COUNCIL, TIIIS ISSUE TO BE AGENDIZED FOR THE COUNCIL'S FEBRUARY 1, 1995MEETING. (CLERK'S NOTE: FREEWAYLANDSCAPING WAS LATER AGENDIZED FOR THE MEETING OF JANUARY 18, 1995.) B. Customer service Standard: Providing Public Information and Public Records Assistance COUNCILMEMBERS MORAN/TUCKER MOVED TOAD OpT CUSTOMER SERVICE STANDARDS, CORRECTING THE TYPOGRAPHICAL ERAOR PROVIDED TO STAFF BY MAYOR BURGER. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (5-0). C. Telecommunicatlons (Information Superhighway) Policies (continued from 12/7/94) city Manager Peacock informed the Council that this item was continued City Council Minutes 15 January 4, 1995 to allow it the opportunity to review the video tape. He indicated that he had a lengthy meeting with Pac Bell. He recommended that the City Council adopt the policy and that it give staff direction for further negotiations. Mayor Burger felt that the Telecommunication policy proposed was acceptable to her and was ready to adopt the policy. COUNCILMEMBERS MORAN/WOLFE MOVED TO ADOPT THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS INFORMATION STRUCTURE POLICIES. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (5-0). D. Cox Avenue Community Wall Color Public Works Director Perlin presented the staff report. He recommended that the City do nothing and leave the walls as they are for the reasons indicated in the report. If the Council directs repainting the wall, he ~ecommended that the same colors that are used on Saratoga Avenue community walls be used for consistency and so that the City would only need to deal with two colors versus multiple colors. Karen Anderson, 19887 Sea Gull Way, informed the Council that her hd~eowners association board were present this evening but have since left. The homeowners board of directors were present this evening to inform the Council that they have taken the position as a'board to repaint the wall unless the landscaping plan includes ivy or some other plant that would totally cover the wall. But if the wall was not to be covered entirely, the homeowners would want the wall repainted. She felt that the color on Saratoga Avenue would be satisfactory to make it easy for the city. Councilmember Moran asked if ivy or other plants were proposed. If not, could they be included in the plans. Public Works Director Perlin responded that ivy was not included in the plans but that it could be added and that the cost could be inexpensive. Councilmember Jacobs inquired as to the cost to repaint the wall. Public Works Director Perlin noted that it would cost $3;100 to repaint the wall. Mike Samuelson, member of the San Jose Garden Association, informed the Council that planting of ivy would be a maintenance problem due to the height of the wall. COUNCILMEMBERS WOLFE/JACOBS MOVED TO NOT PAINT THE WALL AT THIS TIME, DIRECTING STAPF TO REVIEW THE COST OF A CHANGE WORK ORDER. IF THE CHANGE WORK ORDER IS LESS THAN $3,100, STAFF WAS DIRECTED TO PROCEED WITH THE CHANGE WORK ORDER WITHOUT RETURNING TO THE COUNCIL. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (5-0). 8. NEW BUSINESS A. Oral Communications (continued) and instructions to staff regarding actions on current oral communications · Mayor Burger recommended that staff include discussion on fences at its policy development meeting scheduled for March 1995. City Manager Peacock informed the Council that he.suggested months ago to Ms. Rossie that she write a letter to West Valley College regarding the parking problem. She now comes before the City Council for a solution. He concurred that a parking problem exists. However, he did not feel that the problem was caused by the students and was caused primarily by the weekend users of the facility who do not want to pay the fee to park on campus. IT WAS THE CONSENSUS OF THE COUNCIL THAT STAFF WRITE A LETTER TO COLLEGE STAFF AND THAT A COPY OF THAT LETTER BE SENT TO MS. ROSSIE. Regarding the substation facility proposed at West Valley College, City Manager Peacock stated that he would respond to the questions posed by Ms. Rossie. City Council Minutes 16 Januar~ 4, 1995 Councilmember Moran requested that on the routine check of how the Council's last meeting went, she ]requested that item 5.a. on the garbage rate be discussed because the Council did not receive the resolution until late and that she did not have an opportunity to review it. B. Proposal to Increase Radar Enforcement Councilmember Tucker asked if it was staff's 'opinion that the city needed the 10 extra radars. City Manager Peacock responded that the ten radars were needed and that tile radars would be owned by the Sheriff's Department, even if they were purchased with City funds. COUNCILMEMBERS MORAN/WOLFE MOVED TO APPROVE THE PROPO8AL TO EQUIP ALL FIELD UNITS ASSIGNED TO SARATOGA WITH RADAR AT AN ANNUAL COST OF APPROXIMATELY $1,150. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (5-0). C. Resolution amending Resolution 2663 regarding Permanent Positions in the City Service (increases status of Assistant to the City Manager from 0.6 to 1.0 full time equivalent on May 1, 1995) Mayor Burger noted that the City Council would be requesting that this item be continued to allow staff to respond to its concerns. Councilmember Jacobs recommended a meeting with staff be held to discuss financial constraints given the City's budget. He stated that he does not know what the position would pay, the benefit package, and the list of duties associated with the position. He also wanted to review alternatives and review whether this position should be a non- management position with a consequence of cost savings. Councilmember Tucker r&commended that the Council meet with City Manager Peacock at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, January 10, 1995. Councilmember Moran stated that a concern was that the City was in the midst of salary negotiations and a salary study. The City may be going in the direction of redefining some of the work that staff is performing. She also had some questions about increasing the staff size for the purpose of working on budget because the Finance Committee agreed to assist with the budget. Regarding maternity leave, she felt that it was a short term problem that may need a short term solution rather than a long term solution. City Manager Peacock informed the Council that the city would be missing two staff members and that he was trying to send a message of urgency to the Council on this issue. Mayor Burger noted that if the budget is be reformatted, that a Finance Committee Member would not be sitting in front of a computer reformatting the budget. That would be a staff assignment. Councilmember Moran stated that it was her understanding that staff was very busy and that it would not have time to reformat the budget. The Finance Committee agreed to share the responsibility regarding proposed changes. She stated that she did not have any problems with maintaining the position at the current level if there was an urgency. Councilmember Wolfe commented that the City Council may need ~o be aware of the actions it requests which adds to staff's work load. IT WAS THE CONSENSUS OF THE CITY COUNCIL TO CONTINUE THE MATTER TO TUESDAY, JANUARY 10, 1995. D. Leaf Blower Survey Report City Manager Peacock informed the Council that it had asked that staff solicit public input regarding this issue and to discuss recommendations. Mayor Burger noted that a letter was received from Oscar Thermberg recommending that individuals and gardeners be licensed for the use of leaf blowers, and, once licensed that the individuals meet dba City Council Minutes 17 January 4, 1995 standards. City Manager Peacock felt that the suggestion was worth a try for commercial gardeners. Councilmember Tucker recommended that the government rebate trade-in suggestion be considered. Jim Bayler, 18677 Martha Avenue, spoke as a resident and businessman of Saratoga. As a resident, he resents being told that he cannot care for his home in the most economical efficient manner possible. As a businessman, he resents that a small group of individuals were infringing on his ability to provide an economical service to his clients. Residents cannot absorb increased cost because they are on fixed income. He asked if the City was going to impose this hardship, was the City ready to assist the homeowners in converting the properties to electric and compensate him for the blowers that would be used only in the City of Saratoga? He questioned the patience and the tolerance of the neighbors. He stated that he represented the Northern California Gardeners Federation and the local chapter, the San Jose Landscape Gardeners Association, and informed the Council that they were willing to work with the City to reach a reasonable solution that is commercially viable and works for both the City and the Gardeners Association. Councilmember Moran asked Mr. Bayler what solution he would recommend that is commercially viable. Mr. Bayler responded that a solution could be restricting the hours. He indicated that~the professionals were willing to work within the~boundaries set or further restricted but that there needs to be a guarantee that those that do not follow rules be held accountable. Alan Halverson, 12390 Woodside Drive, informed the Council that he owns a second home in Santa Cruz to get away from noise of leaf blowers. He refuted most of what was stated by Mr. Bayler. Mike Samuels, Landscape Associate, San Jose, stated that his association has 85 members that they supported retaining the ordinance as written because it was an economic issue for gardeners. Councilmember Jacobs stated his'support of banning gas leaf blowers. Councilmember Tucker stated that some properties were larger than others and would not be conducive to electric blowers. She recommended a phase out of gas blowers. She felt that it would be helpful if the individuals experiencing problems with the blowers talk to the neighbors and explain the situation so that there is consideration for others. Councilmember Jacobs recommended that an ordinance be reviewed that requires a lower decibel. City Manager Peacock suggested that the City of Redondo Beach solution be considered by the City Council. Councilmember Wolfe recommended that the use of gas blowers be phased out. He also recommended the review of the ordinance from southern California. Councilmember Tucker stated that she did not want to ban the use of blowers but wanted to lower noise levels in a fair and equitable way over a period of time. She felt that it was important that the City look good and that she has received calls from the elderly stating that it was difficult for them to do their own gardening. Mayor Burger felt that gardeners needed to be aware of th& concerns and that they educate each other. IT WAS THE CON8ENSU8 OF THE COUNCIL TO OBTAIN THE REDONDO BEACN MODEL ORDINANCE ANDTHAT STAFF RETURNTO THE COUNCIL WITH A DRAFT ORDINANCE. E. Political Signs on the Public Right of Way IT WAS THE CONSENSUS OF THE COUNCIL TO DISCUSS THIS ITEM ON SATURDAY, JANUARY 7t 1995. Cit~ Council Minutes 1S ~anua~ 4, 1995 F. Memo Authorizing Publicity for Upcoming Hearings COUNCILMEMBERS JACOBS/MORAN MOVED TO APPROVE THE PUBLICITY OF THE UPCOMING HEARINGS. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (5-0). 9. ROUTINE MATTERS A. Approval of Minutes - 12/7 THE ABOVE MINUTES WERE APPROVED AS SUBMITTED. B. Approval of Warrant List COUNCILMEMBERS WOLFE/TUCKER MOVED TO APPROVE THE WARRANT LIST. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (5-0). 10. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS A. Agency Assignment Reports 1. ABAG - Tucker 2. Cable TV Board - Jacobs 3. HCD Policy Committee - Wolfe 4. Saratoga Business Development Council - Wolfe 5. Hakone Foundation - Wolfe 6. North Central Flood control Zone Advisory Committee- Jacobs 7. League of Cities Peninsula Division - Burger 8. SCVWD Water Commission - Wolfe 9. Santa Clara County Cities Association - Tucker/Burger 10. Sister City Committee - Councilmember MOran informed the Council that the Committee met last night and that it was well attended. 11. Traffic Authority Policy Advisory Board - Moran 12. Transit Assist Board - Moran 13. Senior Coordinating Committee - Burger 14. West Valley Sanitation District - Tucker/Burger 15. County Cities Assn. Legislative Task Force - Wolfe 16. Emergency Planning Council - Moran 17. Congestion Management Agency Advisory Board - Burger/Wolfe 18. Local Transportation Authority Policy AdvisoryBoard - Jacobs 19. Joint Venture Silicon Valley - Tucker B. General council Items 1) Agenda items for next scheduled adjourned regular meeting on February 21 Councilmember Jacobs asked when a task force would be established for design review.' City Manager Peacock informed the Council that this issue would be discussed at the Policy Development meeting. Councilmember Moran recommended that the topics that the Planning Commission would want to discuss be received early on. Councilmember Tucker recommended fencing be discussed. Mayor Burger noted that fencing would be discussed at the Policy Development meeting. 2) Economic Development Conference, February 1995, Yosemite Valley - Burger Mayor BUrger recommended that Councilmember Wolfe be requested to attend the Economic Development Conference and that if there is money left in the Council budget, that the City pay for his registration. She commented that the Council has stated that economic development was important to the community. Councilmember Moran recommended that a member of the retail community member be invited to attend the conference and that she would not have City Council Minutes 19 January 4, 1995 any problem funding part of the registration. City Manager Peacock infUSed ~he c6un~il that funding exists in the Economic Development Appropriation. Councilmember Moran stated that she would hate to see the first expenditure out of the Economic Development Program go towards funding a member of the City Council to attend a conference to be held in Yosemite and would rather spend the money on somebody from the commercial community to attend the conference. Mayor Burger stated that she could not support funding for a retail member from the community. She felt that there has been a strong commitment towards economic development and that she had no problem sending Councilmember Wolfe to the conference because he would pay attention to the business at hand. It does not bother her that the expense for registration and hotel expenses come from the Economic Development Program as a statement that the city cares for economic development for the community. Councilmember Wolfe stated that he would be willing to pay for his own registration and would see if the Chamber would be willing to share in the expense. Councilmember Moran stated that she supported this effort but not the expenditure. COUNCILMEMBERS BURGER/TUCKER MOVED TO PAY FOR COUNCILMEMBER8 WOLFE'S REGISTRATION AT THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CONFERENCE TO BE PAID FROM THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (5-0). Councilmember Wolfe recommended that the Council consider increasing its travel budget as other cities pay for the entire cost of their Councilmembers attendance at various conferences. 3) Select Council representative for Library Joint Powers Authority COUNCILMEMBERS MORAN/TUCKER MOVED TO NOMINATE MAYOR BURGER AS THE CITY COUNCIL HEPHESENTATIVE FOR LIBRARY JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (5-0). 4 ) Other Mayor Burger informed the Council that she has been contacted by television station KSAR and that the television station has agreed to televise the Saturday town meeting at no cost to the City. She also stated that she would be available to the public from 2:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. next Monday at City Hall. 11. ADJOUItNMENT The City Council adjourned at 12:15 a.m. to the next meeting at 10:00 a.m. on Saturday, January 7, in community Library, 13650 Saratoga Avenue and then to 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, January 10, in the 'Administration Conference Room, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue. Respectfully submitted, Irma Torrez Minutes Clerk