Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-08-1995 City Council Minutes SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL TIME: Tuesday, August 8, 1995 - 6:00 p.m. PLACE: City Hall Administration Meeting Room, 13777 Fruitvale Ave. TYPE: Adjourned Regular Meeting/Joint Meeting with Heritage Preservation Commission Mayor Burger called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM. The following members of the City Council were present: Jacobs, Moran, Wolfe and Mayor Burger. Councilmember Tucker was absent but arrived in the closed session at 6:30 PM. 'Mayor Burger indicated the Council would convene in Closed Session for the purpose of: CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-EXISTING LITIGATION Name of case: Friends of the Nelson Garden Foundation, Inc. vs. the Cit9 of Saratoga and the Saratoga City Council and for the purpose of: CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Discussion of Initiation of litigation pursuant t0 subdivision (c) of Section 54956.9 in one case. Mayor Burger called the Adjourned Regular session of the City Council to order at 7 PM. 1. Roll Call - All Present o Staff Present: City Attorney Riback, City Manager Peacock, Associate Planner White. It was moved by Councilmember Moran, seconded by Vice Mayor Jacobs and PASSED on a vote of 5-0 to add two items to the closed session agenda. These items represent anticipated litigation in one case involving the filing of a notice of intention to circulate an initiative petition and pending litigation in the case of Green Valley Disposal Co. v. Saratoga, both items having been served on the City after the posting of the agenda for this meeting and requiring immediate action. 2. Report of City Clerk on Posting of Agenda The City Clerk reported that pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this me~ting was properly posted on August 4. The notice of adjournment from the July 25 Council meeting was properly posted on July 28. 3. Public Hearing for Weed and Brush Abatement Assessments. MayOr Burger announced that this was the time and place for the Pubiic Hearing to consider protests on Weed and Brush Abatement Assessments. Mayor Burger opened the public hearing at 7:06 PM and asked for any testimony. No one appeared to speak on this item. The Mayor closed the'public hearing at 7:07 PM. It was moved by Councilmember Moran, seconded by Councilmember Wolfe and PASSED 5-0 to adopt Resolution No. 95-37, Confirming the Weed and Brush Abatement Assessments. 4. Joint Meeting with Heritage Preservation Commission Commissioners Present: Fine, Cutler, Koepernick, Dutro, Peepari, Peck and Wyman. a. Review and discussion of new Heritage Preservation Commission policies regarding review of development applications Chairman Peepari reviewed with the Council the written proposal for City Council Minutes ~I August 8, 1995 procedures and requirements of the Commission in reviewing development proposals for properties. Mayor Burger indicated that She document does not specify that this review is limited to properties which are either designated or are on the inventory, or are properties located on a Heritage Lane, and the review is limited to landscaping and fencing unless the application involves a new home, in which case the home would also be subject to review. It was agreed that the docu~lent would be changed to accurately reflect its limited purpose. Councilmember Wolfe notes that since these procedures and requirements are recommendations only, perhaps the word, "should", is a better choice than the word, "shall", as um~ed in the document. Councilmember Tucker noted that the City arborist has indicated in the past that sometimes it is better to plant a small sized tree rather than a larger. Accordingly,.the reference to a minimum 24" box oak should be stated in terms of a desired size, rather than a reguired one. Vice Mayor Jacobs states that using "should" or "shall" is ]mmaterial to him, since the Commission can only recommend, not require. Mayor Burger suggests that the document should be edited so that words which imply specific requirements be removed. She stated as an example changing the wording to say: "Landscaping for projects on Heritage Lanes are to be based on the following considerations: -Preserving the natural (rural) characteristics and histori% character of the Lane, Clustering trees in natural groupings, Planting of native oak trees, etc." There appeared to be consensus among the Council members for these changes to be made in the document. b. General discussion of powers and authority of the Heritage Preservation Commission Chairperson Peepari recounted recent problems which the Commission feels it has encountered in fulfilling its role. He cited the examples of the Saratoga Cleaners building and a recent lot split where an inventory house was located. In the Cleaners case the City has no authority to require changes to plans, as the project itself was ministerial in nature, not requiring commission or staff approval beyond the issuance of building pe]~its. In such cases the current ordinances do not allow for intervention. It was noted that the Commission's role is advisory only, and property owners are not legally obligated to follow its recommendations. This is a source of frustration on the part of the Commission as it has special expertise amongst its members which is not being appreciated by property owners. The Council briefly discussed cons~idering an ordinance change but reached no conclusion. The discussion continued with the Commissioners suggesting that one option is to move jurisdiction from the Planning Commission to the Heritage Preservation Commission in such cases and seek Council permission to study the pros and cons of such a change. Councilmember Tucker expressed her concern regarding the added cost this would entail for the City in terms of staffing, legal counsel and the like. Mayor Burger expressed her concern over the legal issues such a possibility may raise, as the Planning Commission is a requirement of state law, while all other commissions are locally determined in terms of their existence. Vice Mayor Jacobs suggested that more contact between the Planning and Heritage Commissions occur when there is an application pending as an alterative to changing roles. City Council Minutes 3 August 8, 1995 Councilmember Moran indicated that in her view changing the status of the Commission will not get to the root of the problem, which seems to be the current limits the City has placed on itself in the City Code, which gives property owners final decision as to whether to follow or not follow the recommendations of the City relative to historic preservation. Councilmember Wolfe concurred with the statement of Councilmember Moran and suggested that the ordinance be reviewed on that basis. Mayor Burger indicated that the problem may not be as much a matter of under-regulation as it is one of under-incentive for people to follow the recommendations. She does not want to see people saying "take my property off the inventory" because the City has over-regulated such properties. It was the sense of the City Council for the Commission to focus on how to get recommendations to become conditions of development, not on acquiring new power or authority. The Council indicated its desire to have the Commission review the current limits of the ordinance and how the commissioners go about selecting a property and to provide a report to the City Council at a future joint meeting to be at the call of the Commission. c. How is property selected for listing on inventory? This item is covered in the above discussion. The Mayor called a recess at 8 PM. The City Council reconvened at 8:10 PM with all members present. 5. Discussions with Freeway Noise Committee. Mr. Karlak made a presentation on the conclusions reached by the committee based upon testing and monitoring, which is covered in a handout entitled, "Comments Regarding James W. Van Lobensels' Replies to Representative Cunneen, e~ al." and presented to the City Council at this time. Mr. Karlak stated that current freeway sections in California which were originally cement concrete are being overlaid with asphalt so the issue of safety by having a grooved roadway surface is not valid. Such a resurfacing would reduce noise by 10 dBA, according to the studies which the group has done. The presence of retaining walls for the depressed section of the freeway in combination with the soundwalls exacerbates the noise problem rather than reducing it. The bottom line is that repaving the freeway with AC will reduce noise by 6-10 dBA if used in combination with noise absorbers on the retaining walls. An overlay of 0.1' of AC cost $250~000 per mile of freeway. Mr. Karlak suggests making Saratoga, from ProSpect to Saratoga Creek, a test section to show how residential areas should be handled with AC paving and sound absorbing panels on the retaining walls. General discussion foilowed. What have other agencies said? Do not expect relief. Councilmembers Wolfe and Jacobs asked the agencies to respond tonight. Caltrans representative said that depressed freeways use concrete because of the potential for flooding and ground water problems. He doesn't think a 10 dBA reduction will happen, it will be more in the order of 1-4 dBA reduction in sound. When asked for an alternative, he indicated that speed on the freeway should be reduced. In response to his comments on groundwater and flooding, a member of the general public stated that systems were designed and installed in the freeway to deal with flooding and groundwater. The real issue is that Caltrans wanted a concrete freeway so it could reduce its maintenance costs, and the Traffic Authority staff wanted an AC freeway to reduce construction costs. Since Caltrans insisted on concrete, that is how it was designed. The City was never made aware or asked to participate in any such discussion, so saying the City had a voice in the design is false. The. Traffic Authority representative indicates that she supports City Council Minutes 4 August 8, 1995 efforts to create a demonstration [~roject and the proposed area is a logical point to start and to stop. These decisions are now in the hands of the local CMA which has been merged into the Transportation Agency, and the project would need 'to compete with others at a county level for funds available under environmental enhancement. City could also go after a demonstration project using state funds through the legislature or directly to the California Transportation Commission which ultimately decides on project:] on a state wide basis. The representative from Congressman Mineta's office indicated that the passage of the ISTEA legislation means that there are no longer any federal project decisions being made which would overturn local priorities and provide money for a project which was not high on a local priority list.. In such cases. the Congress would only consider adding funding to an already locally identified high priority project. It was the sense of ~he City Council that the next steps in the process should be for the Council subcommittee and the committee members to meet to convince Caltrans to agree to support such a project, as it would be on a State Highway and they would have to be the project applicant or sponsor. 6. Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program Quarterly Report. Public Works Director Perlin presented his NPDES quarterly report for the quarter ending on July 1, 1995. No changes to the report were requested by the City Council. In response to questions about action from the Regional Board staff concerning the remediation project on Saratoga/Los Gatos Road at Oak Street, Mr. Perlin indicated that he had received no reply from the staff about the concerns he expressed in his last report. Council concluded that perhaps it would be appropriate for the City to write to the Chair of the Regional Board expressin% concern over the lack of staff response to the problems cited in the last quarterly report. 7. Other Mayor Burger discussed her work on setting up the Park Plan focus groups and that the Council needs to schedule a time to draw up parameters for the work of the groups. She indicated that staff is working on background material on the parks and the schools as an educational piece for the members of the focus groups. Council agreed to schedule time to establish parameters at its adjourned session on September 12th. Council also discussed the request of the former tree committee to have the Planning Commission take up its report at the Planning Commission meeting of September 2~th. The Council indicated that it would discuss the report, as scheduled, on August. 22nd and so inform the Planning Commission. Councilmember Wolfe asked that a ceremonial item be placed on the August 16th agenda regarding the visit of the HONOR SARATOGA essay contest winner from Saratoga Springs, New York. 8. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 10:10 Respectfully submitted, ~arry R. Peacock~ City Clerk