Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-04-1995 City Council Minutes MINUTES SAI~TOGA CITY COUNCIL TIME: Wednesday, October 4, 1995 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Ave. TYPE: Regular Meeting Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m. Pledge of Allegiance 1. ROLL CALL Present: Councilmembers Burger, Moran, Tucker~ Wolfe and Mayor Jacobs Staff: City Manager Peacock, Public Works Director Perlin, Community Development Director Curtis and City Attorney Steve Mattos 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 September 29, 1995. 4. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS AND THE PUBLIC A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS (limited to 15 minutes) 1) Presentation from Assessor Larry Stone concerning Procedures in Assessor,s Office Mr. Larry Stone made a presentation to the City Council regarding the roles and duties of the Santa Clara County Assessors Office (i.e., value property and responsible for property tax revenue). 2) communications from commissions - None. B. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS 1) Leo A. Barnard, 13151 Paseo Presada, resigning from Parks and Recreation COmmiSsiOn COUNCIIMEMBERS MORAN/TUCKER MOVED TO ACCEPT LEO BARNARD'S RESIGNATION WITH REGRET AND DIRECTED STAFF TO PREPARE THE APPROPRIATE RESOLUTION AND TO BEGIN THE RECRUITMENT PROCEDURE. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 2) Michael P. Evanhoe, Director, Congestion Management Program and Nancy Coss-Fitzwater, Manager, Policy and Administration, requesting ratification of Policy on Board Member Selection and Rotation COUNCILMEMBERSBURGER/WOLFE MOVED TO APPROVE THE POLICY ON BOARDMEMBER SELECTION AND ROTATION FOR THE CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM. Councilmember Burger clarified that there is to be no change in the current policy as the West valley cities reviewed its policy and felt that the existing policy was sufficient. Councilmember Wolfe clarified that there was a slight change in the policy in that if there is a change in rotation so that the person who is serving is asked to serve as vice-chair or chair of the district, that city Would be allowed to continue to have a person on the board for an extended period of time in order to retain continuity on the board as a whole. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (5-0). 5. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Prevlously-Discussed Items 1) Ordinance amending Nuisance Abatement Ordinance (second City Council Minutes 2 October 4, 1995 reading and adoption, waiving further reading) COUNCIlS!EMBERS MORAN/WOLFE MOVED TO ADOPT ORDINANCE 71-151 BY TITLE ONLY, WAIVING FURTHER READING. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIHOUSLY (5-0). B. New Items 1) Planning Comm{ssion A~:tlons, 9\27 - Note and file. 2) Approval of Check Register 3) Resolution approving amendment to agreement with CalTrans concerning Traffic Signal Maintenance - DELETED FROM AGENDA. 4) Resolution 95-44 vacating Esterlee Avenue 5) Final Map Approval at 14120 saratoga Avenue (SDR 94- 002)(Developer, Glenrock Development Co.) Mayor JacobS noted that staff has removed Consent Calendar Item B.3 from the agenda. Councilmember Moran requested the removal of B.4 from the consent calendar. COUNCILMEMBERS MORAN/BURGER MOVED TO APPROVE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS B.1, B.2, AND B.5. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (5-0). Councilmember Moran requested that staff explain the effect, if any, on the adjoining property. Public Works Director Perlin informed the City Council that a revised resolution was distributed this evening. Me noted that a map attached to the resolution labeled "Exhibit A" depicts the remnant pieces that would revert back to the various properties which would have an interest in what is known as Esterlee Avenue. The particular property in question is Parcel 40, shown on Exhibit A. A ll0' x 20' wide piece of what is Esterlee Avenue would revert back to the parcel so that it would gain in Size a couple of thousand square feet. It was his belief that this would result in shifting a setback line over a little bit and might allow for a slightly larger coverage of the lot. He noted that the parcel takes access off of Canyon View down the strip known as Esterlee and that it would appear to become a flag lot but won't because it touches Canyon View. COUNCILMEMBERSMORAN/BURGER MOVED TO APPROVE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM B.4. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (5-0). C. CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY - None. 7. OLD BUSINE88 A. Awerd of Construction Contracts 1) Pierce Road Bridge 2) Pavement Maintenance Progrem (overlay) 3) street Maintenance Progrem (Slurr~ Seal) City Manager Peacock informed the Council that Public Works Director Perlin requests that the awarding of the overlay contract be continued to Tuesday, October 10. Councilmember Moran indicated that she has not had a chance to review the contracts. She inquired if the contracts could be continued to next week so that the Council could review the material and whether a time constraint existed. Public Works Director Perlin requested that the Council take action to award the Pierce Road Bridge contract this evening because it is an extremely time sensitive project. He noted that we are coming up against the end of the construction season and that any further delay in getting the! contractors started could cause a delay until next spring. City Council Minutes 3 october 4, 1995 Mayor Jacobs noted that the fiscal impacts were apparently greater than what was budgeted ($111,000 more than what was budgeted). Public Works Director Perlin indicated that the Pierce Road bridge was a little more complicated than the slurry seal program. As it was 8:00 p.m., Mayor Jacobstabled discussion on these items and indicated that the Council would return to these items following public hearings. 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS - 8:00 pm. A. Consideration of an ordinance amending Chapter 15-30 of the City Zoning Ordinance relating to standards for the placement of temporal7 signs in commercial zoning Districts and consideration of an ordinance establishing interim standards for temporarer signs in Commercial Zoning Districts (AZO 95- 003) City Manager Peacock informed the City Council that a public hearing would be conducted this evening and that at the conclusion of the hearing, the Council would consider introducing the ordinance as presented or amended, as necessary. Community Development Director Curtis presented the staff report on this item. He informed the Council that the Planning Commission discussed and reviewed political signs, special event signs, open house signs, signs on major arterial streets, master sign programs and window signs. Me indicated that temporary political signs were separated from this ordinance. Regarding special event signs, it was noted that the Planning Commission and City Council adopted an interim ordinance that would allow for banners to be displayed for a maximum of 42 days in a 6 month period to see how many individuals used them and to see if they become a visual blight. He reported that only two individuals used banners to advertise special events. Me noted that the existing ordinance was approved fifteen years ago for shopping centers. Shopping centers are being encouraged to change their sign programs if the sign program was outdated. The current sign ordinance does not address window signs. After two years of study, it was determined that there was not a needto amend the ordinance for open house and window signs. The Commission recommends that the special event sign ordinance be made a permanent amendment to the sign ordinance to allow 40 square foot banners for a six month period. The CommisSiOn further recommends that the City Council consider the use of A-frame signs on an interim basis for a six month period to see how it works out. Me informed the City Council that the Commission did not take action on real estate signs, window signs, signs on major arterial streets, and master sign programs. Councilmember Tucker requested clarification about the duration of the temporary signs for 42 days in a six month period (item 3 of proposed ordinance). Community Development Director Curtis clarified that an individual can use a temporary sign for 42 days within a six month period, regardless if it is a temporary banner or temporary sign. Councilmember Wolfe asked if this proposed ordinance amendment relating to A-frame signs also includes real estate directional signs. Community Development Director Curtis stated that the ordinance amendment would not apply to real estate signs. Councilmember Wolfe asked if there was public input from the business community and realtors at the Planning Commission level. Community Development Director Curtis responded that the realtors were not involved in this process because the Planning Commission did not feel that it was necessary to make real estate directional open house signs as part of this ordinance. Community Development Director Curtis informed the Council that three to four merchants attended the public hearings and work. sessions. He noted that the A-frame signs would not be allowed in the Village Shopping Center. Councilmember Tucker asked who would be liable if someone was to trip when walking around A-frame signs. Community Development Director Curtis responded that the A-frame signs would be located on private property, not on the sidewalk or public right-of-way. Therefore, the property owner would be responsible. City Council Minutes 4 October 4, 1995 Mayor Jacobs noted that the temporal{ sign ordinance never got tested during the six month trial period as only 2 banner permits were issued. He asked if there was ever a problem? Community Development Director Curtis informed the Council that the merchants may not have applied for temporary permits as there was a fee involved and that the merchants may be waiting for the ordinance to be adopted on a permanent basis. Mayor Jacobs noted that there were changes proposed to temporary political signs under Section A which he believed crossed over to Section B of the proposed ordinance amendments. He recommended that discussion on temporary political signs be deferred until Section B is addressed. Community Development Director Curtis informed the Council that the information provided was a culmination of study sessions by the Planning Commission where all aspects of the sign ordinance were reviewed. He concurred'that discussion of political signs in public right-of way be deferred until discussion of the next hearing item, noting that the Council requested that the political signs be addressed separately. Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing at 8:22 p.m. Alexander Lunginovic, 14482 Big Basin Way, asked to which zoning districts this proposed sign ordinance amendment would be applicable. Mayor Jacobs informed Mr. Lunginovic that the proposed ordinance amendments before the City Council were not applicable to the Village because it has its own sign ordinance. Mr. Lunginovic asked if the Village Sign Ordinance would be brought before the Council for its review as the ordinance does not allow for additional signage. Mayor Jacobs suggested that Mr. Lunginovic speak to Community Development Director Curtis regarding a proposed amendment to the Village signage program. Councilmember Wolfe noted that there were a number of buildings in the Village that are being renovated. Me indicated that there was a new restaurant association in Saratoga. He recommended that the association get together and address this issue and then come to the City With a proposal that may improve the conditions in the Village. Mr. Lunginovic indicated that he is constantly being asked to conform to the Village sign ordinance while other business signs are not disturbed. Mayor Jacobs indicated that he would ask Community Development Director Curtis to investigate this situation. Councilmember Burger commented that she spoke to Community Service Officer Spoulos who indicates that she is required by the ordinance to enforce the no banner restriction in the Village. Ms. Spoulos indicates that many of the merchants comply with the sign program but that Mr. Lunginovic keeps utilizing banners on a regular basis. Mike Seeley, Citibank, Argonaut Shopping Center, indicated that problems exist due to the existing antiquated sign ordinance for putting up new signage. He felt that the use of temporary banners would help while there is a review and amendment of the existing sign program. There being no fu~her input, the px~lic hearing was closed .at 8:34 p.m. Councilmember Tucker stated that she would want to see that the sign ordinance permits the use of signs that are reflective of the city. She felt that the Council should have some evidence that this type of signage is actually bringing in business to stores. She asked if it was premature to make the use of banners permanent since the City was doing the Charette. Councilmember Wolfe felt that the Charette would be an important event and that it may lead to other permanent ordinance amendments that would improve the situation. In the meantime, when the City had this ordinance on a temporary basis, there was not an extraordinary use of it. He felt that the temporary sign .ordinance provided some relief to merchants and would provide flexibility to display their wares, advertise their businesses, and that it could only improve conditions for the merchants. City Council Minutes 5 October 4, 1995 Councilmember Burger concurred with Councilmember Wolfe's comments. She did not feel that there have been many banners seen in Saratoga. She indicated that she did not have a problem with making the use of banners a permanent part of the ordinance because the city still has the control of 42 days. She recommended that the City Council consider how it could tastefully accommodate businesses with signage. She indicated that she would allow signage that would allow merchants to participate in a joint, tasteful monument sign in the center (i.e~, Argonaut center). Councilmember Moran stated that she would support extending the current temporary ordinance that would allow for 42 days of use per 6 months for banners in order to increase business vitality, and at the same time not detract from the atmosphere of Saratoga. She recommended that the City work on a long term sign program and rely heavily on the planning process that is going to occur on Sunnyvale-Saratoga Road. She noted that the City was in the process of engaging a business consultant along with the development of a business plan for the City. If it turns out that a key component of those is temporary banners, that should be something that the Council should consider. She felt that at this point, it is a stop gap measure that she would be willing to continue the use of banners on a temporary basis. Mayor Jacobs thanked Community Development Director Curtis, the Planning Department, the Chamber of Commerce and the Planning Commission for their work on this issue. However, he felt that there was something missing that would hold this issue together. He felt that there was a lack of a coordinated vision for signage. He felt that there be a review of the sign ordinance was needed and that it should not be looked at in terms of the entire city. He did not believe that there was a central person directing a vision as to what signage should be in the City. He felt that the evidence seems to indicate that the banners may not serve a useful purpose. He felt that this city has had a policy for years to limit the amount of signage in the city. He felt that the City should take the trouble, for the benefit of the community as a whole, to wait until the City has a business consultant aboard who can take a look at what is being recommended and put together a uniform sign program. He indicated that he did not have a problem with continuing the temporary promotional signs and banner ordinance. He recommended that someone with experience in signage plan for the entire community, treating the Village and Argonaut centers as distinctive entities. Councilmember Wolfe felt that Mayor Jacobs comments was well stated. The City of Saratoga needs a broader vision. He felt that steps were being taken in that direction as the Charette that will take place will addresssignage. He felt that the broader picture should be made clear. He felt that the City was headed in that direction but felt that it would take some time. He felt that the proposed permanent ordinance would be as permanent as anything gets in government. He indicated that the Council will be asked to consider bringing up business development in a town meeting to be scheduled in January. He felt that if the majority of the Council felt that extension of this ordinance.for an additional year would be adequate, during that one year, a lot of other good things would taking place. Community Development Director Curtis indicated that the driving force behind the sign ordinance amendment was the presentation of an ordinance by the Chamber of Commerce to the Council for its consideration. The Council directed staff to review the Chamber's proposed' ordinance amendment as a reactionary process rather than a proactive process which would identify a vision for Saratoga signs. In response to Councilmember Wolfe's question as to the necessary action to be taken to extend this ordinance for a year, City Manager Peacock recommended that a section be added to the ordinance that would stipulate that this ordinance would sunset a year after it goes into affect, changing the time from six months to one year. The City Attorney Mattos informed the Council that the same base language that is used in Section 3 of the ordinance which deals with temporary A-frame signs could be added to the ordinance, including the sunset provisions of 12 months. Cit~ Council Minutes 6. october 4# 1995 Councilmember Moran asked if the temporary banner ordinance was still in effect. City Manager Peacock infoi~ed the Council that there are no provisions for temporary banners at this time as the temporary ordinance expired in April. COUNCILMEMBERS BURGER/TUCKER MOVED TO DIRECT STAFF TO MAKE THE CHANGE TO THE TEMPORARY SIGN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE TEMPORARY PLACEMENT OF PROMOTIONAL AND BANNER SIGNS, INCLUDING THE LANGUAGE WHICH WOULD STIPULATE THAT THE ORDINANCE WOULD EXPIRE A YEAR AFTER IT GOES INTO AFFECT. STAFF TO RETURN WITH THE ORDINANCE IN CORRECTED FORM FOR THE COUNCIL'S OCTOBER 18 MEETING. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (5-0). Mayor Jacobs indicated that he was opposed to A-frame signs whether it was on a temporary or a permanent basis. He felt that one of the distinguishing features of Saratoga was the fact that A-frame signs are not permitted and that when you driwe to other communities who allow them they tend to be obtrusive and offensive. He did not believe that A-frame signs would fit in with the view of the Community. In light of previous discussion, he recommended that action on A-frame signs be tabled until further planning is conducted. Councilmember Burger agreed with Mayor Jacobs and that rather than dismissing the use of A-frame signs, she would like to keep the options open in case something comes up from the Charette or the. City-wide signage vision. Councilmember Moran stated her agreement that A-frame signs are unattractive and that she was not convinced that they were necessaryat this point. She would agree to take action on the ordinance that would not allow for A-frame signs at this time. BY CONSENSUS, THE COUNCIL TABLED THE AMENDMENT TO THE SIGN ORDINANCE RELATING TO A-FRAME SIGNS. B. Consideration of an ordinance amending Chapter 15-30 of the City Zoning Ordinance relating to the prohibition of certain signs within the public right of way (AZO-95-004). Community Development Director Curtis presented the staff report on this item. Councilmember Moran inquired how other cities addressed the problem of enforcement as she was concerned that it does not become cumbersome from an administrative and enforcement point of view. Community Development Director Curtis responded that other cities have indicated that if political signs are placed in areas that appear to be a yard, enforcement does not occur. Mayor Jacobs noted.that signs in public right of ways are regulated as permits are required. Garage sale and lost dogs signs that are posted in public right of ways are technically in violation of the ordinance and that the City does not take any action because these types of signs are left up for a relatively short period of time. City Manager Peacock noted that there are certain provisions contained in the ordinance which would allow the placement of certain signs in the public right of way if an encroachment permit is obtained. The City's primary concernwas that of public safety when signs are located in such a way that they do not impede vision. The only signs that are permitted are special event signs under a 72 hour permit (i.e., art show, cooperative nurserywine and cheese festival, and other community events). Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing on this item at 9:12 p.m. There being no input, the public hearing was closed a~ 9:13 p.m. Councilmember Wolfe agreed that he did not want enforcement to become cumbersome. Regarding political signs, it was an indication to him that democracy is alive and well in S~aratoga and that political signs are a celebration of the process of democracy. He did not believe that political signs disfigure Saratoga the few weeks that political signs are displayed. One of the functions for signs being allowed to go up City Council Minutes 7 October 4, 1995 was that an incumbent has an advantage in that someone running for office would not always have that advantage. It was his belief that political signs would place candidates in a level playing field with incumbents. Councilmember Burger concurred with the comments as expressed by Councilmember Wolfe. She did not believe that a large problem existed in this community. She felt that the City needs to be careful not to over regulate itself for a non-existent problem or one that is so small. She felt that the use of political signs are a celebration of the process that we go through in this country and that it should be preserved rather than regulating it away. She felt that the entire concept of regulating signs in the right of way was a gross over regulation of a very small problem. Councilmember Tucker noted that there were 8 othe~ cities in the area that prohibit the placement of political signs in the right of way. She indicated that when she attended the Cities' Association meeting, she asked how other cities address this issue and asked whether it was a problem. Every city indicated that it was a problem as citizens complain about the blight of political signs. She indicated that the problem that the larger cities have was enforcement as they do not have the staff members to enforce the ordinance. She stated that she would like to limit the location of political signs. She did not believe that it would inhibit anyone's liberty nor does it place one individual' in advantage over another. She hoped that a citizenry of this city, state and county would not vote for a candidate based on the m~mber of signs that are displayed Mayor Jacobs stated that he did not perceive this to be a free speech issue because the constitutional guestion has been decided. The constitutional determination has been that it is lawful to prohibit signs in the public right of way. He indicated that he hears complaints about political signage with every election. The real issue was political signs, not the use of garage sales or lost animal signs. He agreed that signs in public right of ways are a blight to the community. It was his belief that the citizenry recognizes that the true measurement of a candidate's strength lies not in the number of telephone pole signs but instead the number of signs that a candidate can post on the lawns of supporters. He felt that a candidate receives votes was by getting out and meeting people, convincing them that you are good enough to be elected and obtain permission to place one's sign on the lawn. It was his belief that the three Councilmembers who were elected in the last election were elected because the candidates met the voters and convinced them that they were the right candidates for the job. He felt that the Council would be doing the community a service to eliminate signs in the public right-of-way. In an effortto reach a compromise, he recommended that the proposed ordinance be sunset to the end of November 1997. Doing so would give the Council the opportunity to see whether or not political signs are a benefit or a detriment to the community. Councilmember Burger stated that other communities have these ordinances. However, it does not take away from the fact that they are an enforcement nightmare. She did not feel that the City could prohibit one type of sign without prohibiting all kinds of signs. She did not buy the argument of blight. She was not sure if the sunset compromise would help at all. She felt that it would allow this issue to return to the Council with all the same arguments and concerns in 1997. She felt that once again, there is to be an overregulation of what seems to be a very minor problem. Councilmember Wolfe stated that he did not want to see the celebration of liberty sunset. Councilmember Moran felt elections are an exciting time for the community. She felt that there would be an increase the opportunity for individuals to promote and endorse candidates if there is an increased focus on private property signs. She indicated that she runs across individuals who express concern about signs and the fact they are not in keeping with the vision for Saratoga. She stated that she would be willing to go along with the proposal that it be a temporary solution and not a permanent one. City Council Minutes 8 October 4, 1995 Councilmember Tucker indicated that She could support a sunset alause. COUNCILMEMBERS WOLFE/TUCKER MOVED TO ACCEPT THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION TO REJECTTHE DRAFT O~)INANCE. THE MOTION FAILED 2-3AS FOLLOWS: AYES: BURGER, WOLFE~ NOES: JACOBS, MORAN, TUCKER. Councilmember Moran recommended that staff be directed to return with a draft ordinance that would include a sunset provision of NoVember 1997. City Attorney Mattos recommended that the proposed ordinance be amended to renumber Section 4 to read "Section 5" and that a new Section 4 be added that would indicate that the ordinance to be adopted.would be effective to November 1997 at which time, its effectiveness would be sunset. COUNCILMEMBERS MORAN/TUCKER MOVED TO WAIVE THE READINg AND INTRODUCED THE ORDINANCE AS AMENDED TO INCLUDE A SUNSET CLAUSE =OF NOVEMBER 30, 1997 FOR THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THIS ORDINANCE. THE MOTION CARRIED 3-2 AS FOLLOWS: AYES: MORAN, TUCKER, JACO[IS; NOES: BURGER, WOLFE. THE COUNCIL RECESSED AT 9:30 P.M. THE COUNCIL RECONVENED AT 9:45 P.M. 7. OLD BUSINESS (cont'd.) A. Award of Construction Contracts 1) Pierce Road Bridge Public Works Director Perlin reported 'on the award of construction contract for the Pierce Road Bridge replacement. He indicated that the City was able to obtain federal grant: monies to replace the bridge on an 80%/20% matching basis. In addition, development fees were collected from subdivisions within the area in the 1980's that helped fund the initial design and work on the project. He informed the Council that three contractors submitted bids for the work and that the low bid was submitted by Jones Brothers InCorporated, San Jose, with a bid in the amount of $411,694. Staff felt that the bid was responsive to the notice and-that it met all the criteria for federal aid contracting. He recommended that Jones Brothers be declared the low bidder on the project, to award a construction contract to Jones Brothers in the amount of $411,694, and to authorize staff to execute change orders to the contract up to an amount of $25,000, which leaves sufficient funding to accomplish both the construction of the project as well as the construction management cost. Councilmember Moran noted that staff has indicated that the City would be spending approximately $100,000 more than what was originally planned, with 80% of the funding coming from the.federal government. She asked if there was a guarantee that the City would receive that money. Public Works Director Perlin responded that funding is guaranteed and that the guarantee ~ould be coming to the City in writing. She (Moran) wanted to make sure that the City receives 80% funding for the entire amount for the project. Councilmember Moran stated that she appreciated the fact that there is a narrow window of time and that action was needed tonight. In reviewing her responsibility to the citizens, she needs to look carefully at how the City spends their money. She asked when the bridge would be completed if work was able to commence tomorrow? Public Works Director Perlin indicated that it was his belief that the bridge would be completed towards the end of the year. She (Moran) indicated that she did not believe that the $25,000 change work order amount seemed to be a lot. She asked about grading in a creek bed and if there was a date beyond which the grading was to be completed in preparation for the rainy season. Public Works Director Perlin responded by stating that the City was working under a permit issuedby the Fish and Game Department that has an October 15 cutoff date. However, the warden is allowing work to occur after October 15, weather permitting. The contractor will need to put in certain measures that, in the event of inclement weather', would prevent problems from occurring in the creek. City Council Minutes 9 October 4, 1995 CoUncilmember Wolfe asked if there was any means of tracking how often the City spends the money authorized for change orders. Public Works Director Perlin responded that at the end of each project he brings back a notice of completion, and provides the Council with a s~mmaryof the project which indicates the awarded contract amount, what the final pay quantity was and the difference and why the project ran over or .under. Mayor Jacobs asked if there was going to be a realignment of the roadway and whether the old bridge would remain in place while the new bridge is being constructed. Public Works Director. Perlin clarified that the old bridge would be demolished and that Pierce Road would be closed for three to four months during reconstruction and that there would be a detour around the project site. Mayor Jacobs asked if there was a reason why the old bridge could not be left'open until the new bridge is constructed. Public Works Director Perlin indicated that there was not enough room and the City does not have the public right of way. Mayor Jacobs recommended that an article be placed in the newspaper advising the community as to the closure of Pierce Road due to the construction of the new bridge and the reason for the closure. COUNCILMEMBERS BURGER/TUCKER MOVED TO DECLARE JONES BROTHERS INCORPORATED, SAN JOSE, AS BEING THE LOW BIDDER FOR THE PIERCE ROAD BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT. THE MOTION PASSED 5-0. COUNCILMEMBERS BURGER/TUCKER MOVED TO AWARD A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO JONES BROTHERS INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $411,694. THE MOTION PASSED 5-0. COUNCILMEMBERSBURGER/TUCKER MOVED TO AUTHORIZE STAFF TO EXECUTE CHANGE ORDERS TO THE CONTRACT UP TO $25,000. THE MOTION PASSED 5-0. 2) Pavement Maintenanoe Prcgrem (overlay) Public Works Director Perlin requested that the Council table this'item until Tuesday, October 10 to allow staff to work out changes in the Scope of the project. BY CONSENSUS THE COUNCIL TABLED THIS ITEM UNTIL TUESDAY, OCTOBER 10j 3) Street Maintenance Program (Slurry Seal) Public Works Director Perlin presented the staff report on this item. He informed the Council that four contractors submitted a bid. California Maintenance Incorporated, Sacramento, submitted the lowest bid in the amount of $125,975, below the City's estimate of $135,631. Staff felt that the bid was responsive to the notice. Therefore, staff recommended that the Council declare this company to be the lowest responsive bidder, award the construction contract to them in the amount of their bid and authorize staff to execute change orders to the contract up to an amount of $10,000 with funding to come out of the Street Maintenance Activity (No. 31 in the budget). COUNCILMEMBERS MORAN/TUCKER MOVED TO DECLARE CALIFORNIA MAINTENANCE INCORPORATED TO BE THE LOWEST RESPONSIBLE BIDDER. THE MOTION PASSED 5- . COUNCII/4EMBERS MORAN/TUCKER MOVED TO AWARD THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO CALIFORNIA MAINTENANCE INC. IN THE AMOUNT $125,975.18. THE MOTION PASSED 5-0. COUNCILMEMBERS MORAN/TUCKER MOVED TO AUTHORIZE CHANGE ORDERS UP TO $10,000. THE MOTION PASSED 5-0. B. Resolution apprcving Supplemental Appropriation andamendlng 1995-96 Budget for the Purpose of Rollover of Eno-mhrances COUNCILMEMBERS WOLFE/MORANMOVED TO ADOPTRESOLUTION 95-30.04 APPROVING SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION ANDAMENDING 1995-96 BUDGET FOR THE PURPOSE OF ROLLOVER OF ENCUMBRANCES. THE MOTION PASSED 5-0. 8. NEW BUSINESS Finance Director Fil informed the Council that this item was reviewed city Council Xinutes 10 October 4, ~995 by the Council two meetings ago regarding expenditures anticipated to be spent in 1994-95. Staff recommended that the Council appropriate the funds in the 1995-96 budget. Public Works Director Perlin informed the Council that the City ordered two trucks in February through the state with a delivery date of October 18, 1995. He noted that there was a window period to pay for the purchase at a $1,000 savings to the City. Mayor Jacobs noted that monies were not being appropriated that were not previously appropriated for this purpose. Mayor Burger noted that this was not money that was allocated for anything else other than for the purchase of vehicles with funding rolling over from one fiscal year to the next. COUNCILMEMBERS TUCKER/WOLFE MOVED TO APPROVE THE RESOLUTION AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 1995-96 BUDGET. THE MOTION PASSED 5-0. B. Memo Authorizing Publicity for Upcoming Hearings COUNCILMEMBERS TUCKER/WOLFE MOVED TO APPROVE PUBLICITY FOR UPCOMING HEARINGS. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (5-0). 9. ROUTINE MATTERS A. Approval of Minutes - 9/12;~ 9/20; 9/26 Councilmember Moran asked about the 9/26 minutes. She noted that Mr. Hammack expressed concerns about construction of retaining walls. The Council directed staff to prepare a staff report to address his concerns. She asked if a date had been established when staff would return to the Council with a report? City Manager Peacock responded that the Council did not establish a specific date when staff was to return with a report. He stated that Community Development Director Curtis had indicated that he would be meeting with Mr. Hammack. Staffwould report to the City Council when the issue was resolved, but would prepare an interim report for review on October 18. ~ COUNCILMEMBERS MORAN/WOLFE MOVED TO APPROVE .THE 9/12; 9/20/ 9/26 MINUTES AS SUBMITTED. 10. CITY COUNCIL ITEM8 A. Agenda Items for October 1(~ Meeting= 1) Items for Joint meeting with Los Gatos-Saratoga Joint Union High School District and Saratoga Union School District a) Libraries, Information Technology, Internet Access b) Public Safety an~! Traffic c) School Growth and School Facilities 'd) Saratoga Youth Plan= What it is and how schools can help. 2) Other Agenda Items a) Radius of Legal }lotification b) Report of Personal communications Service on Request from Pacific Bell to Locate Cell Site at Congress Springs Park c) Councll Liaison ~pointments d) christmas/New Year,s Holidays city Manager Peacock informed the City Council that the staff work necessary for the Christmas/New Year's Holidays has not been completed. This item would be rescheduled for the October 18 meeting. He City Council Minutes ll October 4# 1995 indicated that the approval of the scope of services and authorization of the award of contract for the Nelson Gardens EIR would need to be scheduled for the October 10 meeting. Councilmember Moran noted that the overlay project would also need to be scheduled for the October 10 meeting. Mayor.Jacobs informed the Council that the public hearing noticing radius was agendized at his request for discussion. Councilmember Burger asked if a public safety commissioner or someone who is familiar with the traffic patterns be able to attend the joint meeting with the School District as she was not knowledgeable of traffic and safety concerns. City Manager Peacock indicated that the school district requested the joint meeting with the primary focus was to receive feedback from City staff on the Circulation changes that have been made to Redwood and how it was working. He was not aware of other topics or issues that would be discussed. Public Works Director Perlin indicated that he would be in attendance at the meeting. Councilmember Moran agreed that it was a good idea to have a staff member present at the meeting. She also recommended that the public safety person who specializes with the school (school liaison) also be invited to attend the meeting. CoUncilmember Tucker announced that there would be a town hall meeting held on Saturday, October 14 in the large meeting room in the Senior Center. She encouraged that those individuals who have received a letter of invitation or who have an interest in the youth in the' community attend the town hall meeting. Councilmember Burger requested that a member of the library staff be invited to attend the October 10 meeting to provide input on item a) (Libraries, Information Technology, Internet Access). B. Other Councilmember TUcker stated that today she met with individuals who were working towards mitigating the noise problems associated with Highway 85. She indicated that the group met with the Traffic Authority and members from CalTrans. These agencies provided the group with information' on how to write a grant to request funding for mitigations. She indicated that Public Works Direc~er Perlin's name came up as a good resource to help the group in preparing grants. Councilmember Moran stated that she wanted to make sure that the City responded as comprehensively as it can to the individual who addressed the Council regarding his concern regarding signage at his restaurant in the Village. She recommended that he be invited to attend the Business Development Committee meetings or that he communicate his concerns to the business development committee. Councilmember Wolfe further recommended that he be encouraged to speak to the restaurant association. They, in turn, would come to the City council regarding proposed changes to the ordinance. 11. ADJOURNMENT COUNCILMEMBERS WOLFE/BURGER MOVED TO ADJOURN AT 10:30 P.M. TO 5:30 P.M. TUESDAY, OCTOBER 10, ADMINISTRATION MEETING ROOM, 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE FOR CLOSED SESSION TO DISCUSS PENDING LITIGATION WITH PUBLIC MEETING TO BEGIN AT 7:00 P.M. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (5-0). Respectfully submitted, Minutes Clerk