Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-20-1991 City Council Agenda packetSARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. z-Ir MEETING DATE: November 20, 1991 CITY MGR. APPROVAL ORIGINATING DEPT: City Managerl.�" AGENDA ITEM SUBJECT: Santa Clara County Abandoned Vehicle Abatement Service Authority Attachments: 1. Resolution No. Resolution of Intent to Join Service Authority 2. Report from Assistant to the City Manager Motion and Vote: Recommended Motion: Adopt Resolution of Intent to Join Service Authority. Report Summary: State legislation passed in 1990 allows counties to form service authorities to carry out a program to abate abandoned vehicles. To finance the program, residents within the service authority will be charged an additional $1.00 annually for each vehicle registered. This money will be available for reimbursement to member cities and the county. Santa Clara County and at least 12 of the cities have begun formation of an authority. Saratoga residents will be contributing whether or not the City joins the authority. Staff costs associated with investigation, inspection, monitoring, correspondence, etc., are eligible for reimbursement, even if the activity does not result in actual abatement of an abandoned vehicle. Since the Community Service Officers respond to an average of over 220 complaints per year regarding potential abandoned vehicles on City streets, reimbursement for carrying out our abandoned vehicle program would be approximately $11,000 $12,000 per year. Fiscal Impacts: Reimbursement of staff costs associated with administration of the City's abandoned vehicle abatement program. Printed on recycled paper. November 20, 1991 The full Authority will meet at least once of Directors will meet at least quarterly. Intent gives the City Manager authority to representative, who may be a staff member, member of the Sheriff's Department. Since 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Karen Anderson Martha Clevenger Willem Kohler Victor Monia Francis Stutzman To: City Council From: Assistant to City Manaager Subject: Santa Clara County Abandoned Vehicle Abatement Service Authority Recommendation: Adopt Resolution of Intent to Join Service Authority Santa Clara County and at least 12 of the 15 cities within the County are preparing to form a Service Authority which will enable the Authority to collect an annual fee of $1.00 for each vehicle registration by an owner residing in the County. Saratoga vehicle owners will be contributing $1.00 per vehicle per year whether or not Saratoga joins the Authority. The purpose of the Service Authority is to carry out a program to abate abandoned vehicles and use the revenues collected through registration fees to reimburse the member agencies for their abatement costs. Cities wishing to join in the Service Authority are required to pass a Resolution of Intent now in order to participate in the next fiscal year. The Authority will be governed by a Board of Directors comprised of one County representative, two from the City of San Jose, and two to be chosen from the remaining partici- pating cities. These last two Board positions will rotate so that all member cities will have an opportunity to participate on the Board. annually and the Board The Resolution of appoint Saratoga's elected official, or Saratoga's abandoned vehicle abatement program is now handled by the Community Service Officers, it is recommended that Saratoga's representative be a City staff member. Each city within the Authority will prepare its own plan for abandoned vehicle abatement. Saratoga already has an Ordiance for abatement of abandoned, wrecked, dismantled or inoperative vehicles, which is the basic element for the Plan. Recoverable costs include staff time expended which can be reasonably related to potential abandoned vehicle abatement cases consistent with each jurisdiction's approved and adopted program and /or plan. Costs include but are not limited to those associ- ated with investigation, site inspection, monitoring reports, telephone contacts, correspondence and meetings with affected parties. Staff time does not have to result in an actual abatement. Abandoned vehicles are not a big problem in Saratoga. Vehicles thought to be abandoned are identified when CSOs respond to complaints of vehicles parked in excess of 72 hours on a City street. In the past seven years, only one abandoned vehicle has been towed from private property. Tows from public streets for the last three fiscal years total 135, an average of 45 per year. During this time the CSOs responded to 686 complaints, and wrote citations totaling $3,780 on vehicles found to be in violation of the 72 hour Ordinance. Staff response to an average of 229 complaints per year, at $25 per hour and allowing two hours for all follow -up, would be approximately $11,450. Revenue received by the authority will be available to participating jurisdictions based on their percentage of population in the County. Saratoga's potential share of the additional revenue appears to be more than adequate to cover all costs of our abatement program. It is not anticipated that membership in the Authority will create much additional work for City staff, and will be more than offset by the revenue which will be available to reimburse us for a program we are already operating. e' -1111 '4 4*11. 7 C rolyn King jC/ SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. L'! MEETING DATE: November 20, 1991 e CITY MGR. APPROVAL ORIGINATING DEPT: Engineering AGENDA ITEM SUBJECT: Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District LLA -1, Annexation No. 1991 -2, Request for Detachment by Quito Oaks Way Property Owners Recommended Motion: Council discretion. Discussion: The eight property owners along Quito Oaks Way recently submitted a petition to the City Council requesting detachment from Zone 24 of the Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District LLA -1. Zone 24 was annexed to the District this past summer as Annexation No. 1991 -2 and was established to reimburse the City for 75% of the acquisition costs of one of the three lots created by the subdivision of the property at 13820 Ravenwood Drive. On June 19, the Council overruled the protests of a majority of the property owners within the proposed Zone 24 and adopted Resolution 91 -41.5 ordering the annexation of 76 properties into the District and confirming the first of what is scheduled to be 30 annual assessments of $110 per parcel. Each of the eight property owners on Quito Oaks Way who signed the petition also filed written protests against the annexation of their properties into the District. It is solely within the Council's discretion to act on the petition and initiate detachment proceedings. If the Council desires to proceed with the detachment process, then the Council should adopt' the attached Resolution of Intention which, among other things, sets the date and time of the required public hearing on detachment. The attached memo from the City Attorney further explains the detachment process. Also attached are all of the relevant documents relating to Annexation No. 1991 -2. Fiscal Impacts: Depends on what the Council decides. If the Council opts to not act on the detachment request, then there would be no fiscal impacts as the Quito Oaks Way property owners would continue to pay the $110 annual assessment. However, if the Council does decide to honor the detachment request, then one of two scenarios would occur. In the first scenario, the Quito Oaks Way assessments would be spread equally among the remaining 68 properties in the Zone. This would raise the annual assessments for the remaining properties from $110 to approximately $123. In the second scenario, the Council would maintain the $110 annual assessments for the remaining 68 properties and increase the City's annual contribution to the Zone by $880. Over the 30 year pay -off period, the City's share of the acquisition cost of the property would rise from $82,500 to approximately $108,020, or from 25% of the purchase price to almost 33% of the purchase price. Attachments: 1. Resolution of Intention to initiate detachment proceedings 2. Map of Zone 24 3. Memo from City Attorney describing detachment process 4. Petition from Quito Oaks Way property owners 5. Resolution No. 91 -41.5 authorizing Annexation No. 1991- 2 and confirming assessments 6. Verbatim minutes from City Council meeting of June 19, 1991 7. Written protests to Annexation No. 1991 -2 from Quito Oaks Way property owners 8. Proof of Publication of Resolution of Intention to undertake Annexation No. 1991 -2 9. Sample Notice mailed to each property owner within Zone 24 regarding hearing on Annexation No. 1991 -2 Motion and Vote: RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO UNDERTAKE PROCEEDINGS FOR DETACHMENT OF TERRITORY FROM AN EXISTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT KNOWN AS "CITY OF SARATOGA LANDSCAPE AND LIGHTING ASSESSMENT LLA -1, ANNEXATION NO. 1991 -2" PURSUANT TO THE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972 RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Saratoga, California, as follows: WHEREAS, on the 19th day of June, 1991, said Council adopted its Resolution No. 91 -41.5, "A Resolution Overruling Protests And Ordering The Annexation Of Territory To An Existing Assessment District, Ordering The Improvements And Confirming The Diagram And Assessment City of Saratoga Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District LLA -1 Annexation No. 1991 -2 pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972; and WHEREAS, by said Resolution, said Council determined that the public interest, convenience and necessity required the annexation of the subject territory to the existing assessment district and the levy and collection of assessments pursuant to said Act, for the acquisition of the improvements more particularly described in the Engineer's Report; and WHEREAS, said Council is in receipt of a petition from owners of properties located in Tract 2803 comprising a portion of the territory annexed to the existing assessment district by Resolution No. 91 -41.5, requesting that said aforedescribed tract be detached from Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District LLA -1, Annexation No. 1991 -2; and WHEREAS, said Council desires to undertake detachment proceedings for the detachment of the aforedescribed property from said District, NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby ordered as follows: 1. On Wednesday, the day of 1991, at the hour of 8:30 o'clock p.m., the City Council will conduct a public hearing on the detachment of certain property known as Tract 2803, from the aforedescribed Assessment District. The hearing will be held at the meeting place of the City Council at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California. 2. The Clerk is authorized and directed to give the Notice of Hearing required by the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972. Passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Saratoga, California, at a meeting thereof held on the day of 1991, by the following vote of the members thereof: Attest: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: City Clerk imrw \273 \res \Irtent.LLA Mayor MICHAEL R. NAVE STEVEN R. MEYERS NATALIE E. WEST ELIZABETH H. SILVER MICHAEL S. RIBACK MOLLY T. TAMI MICHAEL F. RODRIQUEZ KATHLEEN FAUBION FREDERICK S. ETHERIDGE WENDY A. ROBERTS DAVID W. SKINNER OF COUNSEL ANDREA J. SALTZMAN TO: MEYERS, NAVE, F City Council City Manager A PROFESSIONAL LAW GATEWAY 777 DAVIS STREI SAN LEANDRO, CAI TELEPHONE: (5 FACSIMILE: (51 MEMOR• FROM: Michael S. Riback, City Attorney 0 /1/474 I have reviewed the September 16, 1991 letter to the City Council from all property owners located in Tract 2803, on Quito Oaks. Those property owners have requested that "detachment proceedings with regards to the Saratoga Ravenwood Park site be placed on a regular council meeting agenda =ICE SUITE 250 1010.4211 348 -7130 42 -0886 :E SUITE E 4945 892 -8878 iro 991 RE: Correspondence to City Council from Quito Oaks Property Owners Requesting Detachment Proceedings Their letter will be placed on the Council's October, 1991 agenda, under "Written Correspondence The Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972 (Streets Highways Code S 22500 et sea.) does provide that the organization of an assessment district may be changed by consolidation, annexation, detachment or dissolution. In each case the determination to proceed with a change in the organization of an assessment district is within the discretion of the City Council (S 22609). The fact that the City Council has received written corre- spondence from a majority of property owners who wish to have their property detached from the assessment district, places no obligation upon the City Council to proceed with detachment proceedings. If the City Council determines to conduct detachment proceedings, the Council should direct the City Attorney to prepare a Resolution of Intention to so proceed which would be brought back to the City Council for action at its Oe-t ber I6 'Y meeting (S 22609). The resolution would set a public hearing date for the proceedings. TO: City Council City Manager FROM: Michael S. Riback, City Attorney RE: Correspondence to City Council from Quito Oaks Property Owners Requesting Detachment Proceedings DATE: September 24, 1991 PAGE: 2 If the Council does proceed with a detachment of a portion of the property located in the assessment district, the diagram and new assessment resulting from that detachment would not go into effect until the 1992/1993 fiscal year since the assessments to be collected on the County Assessment Roll for 1991 have already been established (S 22640). One other point, for your information, is that annually, property owners within the assessment district will receive notice by mail of a public hearing before the City Council for the purpose of levying the assessment to be paid during the succeeding fiscal year. At that time, property owners may file a written protest of the proposed assessment. (S 22628). MSR:dsp mnrw \273 \council \Quito.msr Michael S. Riback City Attorney Honorable William Kohler, Mayor City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mayor Kohler and City Council members: The undersigned property owners request that detachment proceedings with regard to the Saratoga Ravenwood Park site be placed on the regular council meeting agenda. (Please note page 50 of the State Landscape and Lighting Code, Section 22609: Detachment proceedings: Territorial limitation: Matters dispensed with et seg1 Ali property owners in Tract 2803, on the cul -de -sac known as Quito Oaks, unanimously object to the councils' added tax assessment for purchasing the Ravenwood Park site property. Our reasons for this include- 1. We were never officially informed by mail by the City of Saratoga of any plans to purchase the Ravenwood property; 2. We as property owners were never informed, nor invited to meet with nor did we meet with any person or any group in any "neighborhood" way about the Ravenwood Park as declared to in the council minutes by Roberta Corson; 3. The very fact that the Ravenwood group met during this lengthy period of time (over eighteen months) without our involvement or knowledge demonstrates the geographical separation which exists between the two areas. 4. The Park site is essentially non accessible to residents of Quito Oaks. We believe that the City Office of Engineers did not mail out notices to us because they acknowledge that natural barriers mitigate against our ever using that park. It is not in our neighborhood. We are by this letter requesting this matter of be placed on the Saratoga City Council agenda and that each of the under signed be notified by mail as to the date of the detachment hearing. Sincerely, Leonard Borello and Pauline Borello Pega tephenson an a R. Chamberlain DECMFM SEP 171991 CITY OF SAILATOGA CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE 1 16 September 1991 Parcel '403 -22 -005 14004 Quito Road cOY Parcel "403 -22 -006 13986 Quito Oaks Way LaVonne Morganthaler Kari W. Melcher and Ruth A. Melcher William P. Bording and Gloria C. Bording i t/iitboy Dean E. Donielson cc: Saratoga News Warren T. Merten and Jean L. Merten Audrey S. Rivoir d Dorothy H. Donielson 2 Parcel *'403 -22 -007 13984 Quito Oaks Way arcel "403 -22 -008 r 1.44 r Parcel *'403 -22 -019 Parcel 403 -22 -021 Parcel "403 -22 -022 C F/Gc/ pe /Parcel "403 -22 -011 Parcel *403 -22 -023 Parcel *'403 -22 -024 t),11.1 c $S X7 982 Quito Oaks Way G I LL,{^1.- 13978 Quito 0 13975 Quito Oaks Way Way 21)1 Dry Creek Road, San Jose, 95124 Parcel 4 03 226012)(13973 Quito Oaks Way rental) 403 -22 -013 13971 Quito Oaks Way FISCAL YEAR 1991 -1992 RESOLUTION NO. 91 •41.5 A RESOLUTION OVERRULING PROTESTS AND ORDERING THE ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY TO AN EXISTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT, ORDERING THE IMPROVEMENTS AND CONFIRMING THE DIAGRAM AND ASSESSMENT CITY OF SARATOGA LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT LLA •1 ANNEXATION NO. 1991 •2 RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Saratoga, California, as follows: WHEREAS, on the 1st day of May, 1991, said Council adopted its Resolution No. 91 -41, "A Resolution Determining to Undertake Proceedings for the Annexation of Territory to an Existing Assessment District Known as City of Saratoga Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District LLA -1, pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, and directed the City Engineer to prepare and file with the Clerk of this City a written report called for under said Act and by said Resolution No. 91-41; WHEREAS, said report was duly made and filed with the Clerk of said City, whereupon said Clerk presented it to this City Council for its consideration; WHEREAS, said Council thereupon duly considered said report and each and every part thereof and found that it contained all the matters and things called for by the provisions of said Act and said Resolution No, 91 -41, including (1) a description of the proposed improvements;;(2) estimate of costs; (3) diagram showing the exterior boundaries of the areas proposed to be annexed to the existing assessment district, which are also the areas proposed to be assessed; and (4) an assessment according to benefits; all of which were done in the form and manner required by said Act; WHEREAS, said Council found that said report and each and every part thereof was sufficient in every particular and determined that it should stand as the report for all subsequent proceedings under said Act, whereupon said Council pursuant to the requirements of said Act, appointed Wednesday, the 19th day of June, 1991, at the hour of 8:30 p.m. of said day in the City Council Chambers at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California, as the time and place for hearing protests in relation to the annexation of territory to an existing assessment district and the levy and collection of the proposed assessment pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, and to said improvements, and directing said Clerk to give notice of said hearing as required by said Act; WHEREAS, it appears that notices of said hearing were duly and regularly published and mailed in the time, form and manner required by said Act, as evidenced by the Affidavits and Certificates on file with said Clerk, whereupon said hearing was duly and regularly held at the time and place stated in said notice; WHEREAS, persons interested, objecting to the annexation of territory to an existing assessment district, or objecting to said improvements, or to the extent of the proposed assessment district, or any zones therein, or to the proposed assessment or diagram or to the Engineer's estimate of costs thereof, field protests with the Clerk of said City at or before the conc:.sion of said hearing, and all persons desiring to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard, and all matters and things pertaining to the annexation of territory to said existing assessment district and said improvements, were fully heard and considered by said Council; NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined and ordered, as follows: 1. That protests against the annexation of territory to said existing assessment district or against said improvements, or to the extent of the assessment district or any zones therein, or to the proposed assessment or diagram, or to the Engineer's estimate of costs thereof, were signed by the owners of a majority or more of each area of assessable lands within said territory proposed to be annexed and assessed herein, and that said protests be, and each of them hereby are overruled. 2. That the public interest, convenience and necessity require the annexation of territory to an existing assessment district and the levy and collection of assessments pursuant to said Act, for the acquisition of the improvements, more particularly described in said Engineer's Report and made a part hereof by reference thereto, which annexation is hereby ordered. More specifically: a. Open space in Saratoga is steadily disappearing. b. Open space is a necessary component to maintaining the quality of life of the citizens of Saratoga. c. There is no park or public recreational open space within approximately a one mile radius from the annexed territory. d. The creation of a neighborhood park on the territory will provide needed recreational open space, will be of benefit to the public in general, and is consistent with the following goals and policies of the city's General Plan: (1) Goal #1 under the Open Space Element and Policy #1 supporting Goal #1: OS 1s 2 Preserve the low density and natural character of Saratoga by the inclusion of permanent open space and landscaping within the City. OS.1.1 Further development in Saratoga shall, through site plan requirements, preserve open space as much as possible. (2) Goal #4 under the Open Space Element: OS.4.0 Provide public open space and recreation areas accessible to all residents, particularly those in the more densely developed residential areas. 3. That the annexed territory and the boundaries thereof benefitted and to be assessed for said costs for the ac of the improvements, are situate in the City of Sarato a California acquisition map thereof ondfile n thy by described b g Said map a Clerk ofsaideCity. to a territory lincluded by saiduasses line the extent of the annexed thereof and the assessment district, and any zone general location thereof. 4. That said annexed territory as "City of Saratoga Landscapingna 2 it is t Assessment District LLA -1 Annexation No. 1991 b whit may hereafter be referred to. by which name it 5. That the plans and specifications for the improvements to be made within said assessment district within any zone thereof contained in said report, be and they h ey hr ereby ey are, finally adopted and approved. 6. That the Engineer's estimate of the itemized and total costs and expenses of said improvements, and of the incide expenses in connection therewith, contained in said re and it hereb ntal y is, finally adopted and approved. Port, be, -3- 7. That the public interest and convenience require, and said Council does hereby order the improvements to be made as described in and in accordance with said Engineer's Report, reference to which is hereby made for a more particular description of said improvements. 8. That the diagram showing the exterior boundaries of the annexed territory referred to and described in said Resolution No. 91 -41, and also the boundaries of any zones therein and the lines and dimensions of each lot or parcel of land within said annexed territory as such lot or parcel of land is shown on the County Assessor's maps for the fiscal year to which it applies, each of which lot or parcel of land has been given a separate number upon said diagram, as contained in said report, be, and it hereby is, finally approved and confirmed. 9. That the assessment of the total amount of the costs and expenses of the proposed improvements upon the several lots of parcels of land in said annexed territory estimated benefits to be received by such otsnorrparcels, to the respectively, from said improvements, exclusive of the expenses incidental thereto, contained in said report, be, and the same hereby is, finally approved and confirmed. 10. That said Engineer's Report be, and the same hereby is, finally adopted and approved as a whole. 11. That the city Clerk Auditor of Santa Clara County said diagram thereto attached confirmed by the City Council confirmation thereto attached shall forthwith file with the the said assessment, together with and made a part thereof, as with the certificate of such and the date thereof. 12. That the order ordering the annexation of territory to an existing assessment district and the final adoption and approval of the Engineer's Report as a whole, and of the plans and specifications, estimate of the costs and expenses, the diagram, the assessment, as contained in said Report, as hereinabove determined and ordered, is intended to and shall refer and apply to said Report, or any portion thereof as amended, modified, revised or corrected by, or pursuant to and in accordance with any resolution or order, heretofore duly adopted or made by this Council. Passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Saratoga, California, at a meeting thereof held on the 19th day of June, 1991, by the following vote: ATTEST: AYES: Councilmembers Anderson,Kohler, Monia and MayorStutzman NOES: None ABSENT: Counci l member Clevenger ABSTAIN: None July 23, 1991 CITY CLT9 r----- nnrw \273\res\91- 41.5.msr again, my point here is, why, for the sake of just a few rubbery there, which as you were saying, there are probably n t•• many people care for it any more? Whereas there are so ma of -r problems in the neighborhood. That Kevin Moran Park. (Uni telligible) They put lighting in there back twenty ye ago. o what happened to it, I'd like to know? It was vandal •ed and nobody did anything about it -that was twe- y years a•• or so. (Unintelligible) improvement irk the neighborh•od for the benefit of the people who live in at area, 4, but as far -s I am concerned, I don't care to pay ano er hundred 1 dollars her and there, but it just doesn't make sen to me. Why, why a n •er of people in that vicinity, in th neighborhood, ecause of a few shrubbery, a couple of lights, here and there, o end up to pay, and the guy in e City 4 Engineer's Offic- tells me this is going to be r thirty years: o Is that correct? t's carries thirty years. other words..) Anderson: You're sp -.king to a person who's already in a district. Andarmani: Is that corr- t? I never sa anything about thirty years until I call (unint= ligible) fou times, and the guy couldn't even explain what he whole t ing was about. I never received any maps. All I received w just this notice, and I'm not sure the one to protest w made o is in there or not. I have brought another copy with e •.st in case. Kohler: Sir, could you please s .te your name for the record? Andarmani: Andy Andarmani an Susa Andarmani. Stutzman: Yes. Sir, you h• e used up ore than your three minutes. We will have to on with th hearing. Kohler: Mr. Mayor, I w and address. Your nam Andarmani: Yes. A and Susan Andarmani. '616 Ladera Court. Stutzman: Thank •u. Andarmani: copy. Monia boun Jul you already received it, I just -ave another Stutzman: y other individuals wishing to speak to t s issue? If not, we ill re -close the public hearing at twenty m Lutes to ten. I'm going to move the table this item until the dist 'ct ries can be redrawn by staff and have it brought back on 3. Is that what we want to do? derson: We already agreed to do that. ld like to have s name for the record, please? Page 7 Monia: I know, but I'm just... Peacock: This is a motion. Kohler: I second that motion. Stutzman: Any discussion? All in favor? Opposed Third one. Perlin: (Inaudible) Quito Road south of the freeway (inaudible) 54% of the property owners. (Inaudible) Stutzman: Any questions from the Council? Okay, we'll open the public hearing then at 18 minutes to ten. Roberta Corson? A n�� Corson: (Inaudible) appropriate to speak in support of this. I 1•1° ?j know we are dealing with this, but I... Anderson: Maybe you'll change someone's mind. Corson: A lot of energy has gone into working with this property in the last year and a half in the neighborhood. It's been good energy, and many of us have gotten to know and care about each other in ways that we might not have otherwise. I've been very concerned in the last several weeks, though, about some of the material that has gone out that has involved name calling, racist comments, and expressed fear of subversion and a plot. I had a higher sense of the spirit of our neighborhood, and I am concerned about this -the divisions that are coming between us and the spirit of those divisions. I'd like to share just a personal incident. Fifteen years ago our family moved to San Francisco when our children were two and three years old. It seemed an inhospitable place to take little children, but soon we discovered throughout the city small neighborhood parks to which we could walk from almost anyplace we were in the city. Those parks turned out to be places of haven and safety and joy for my small children in San Francisco. It made it a good place to live, and we stayed there ten years, partly because there was that beauty and there was that opportunity to break up the hardness and the concrete of the city. When we arrived in San Francisco,' we also learned that the city could not build anywhere. There could be no building unless buildings were torn down first. The parks were there. They were there because of the foresight of people who had planned that city long before many of those buildings were built. Saratoga is very different from San Francisco. On the other hand, we are getting to the point of needing to tear down in order to build. A case in point on our own neighborhood. Saratoga is a much more pleasant place to raise young children than San Francisco, but it has fewer parks per area. The foresight to have these parks needs to happen now, as the last of the land is being developed. Finally, I would like to thank the City Council, the City staff, and the developer for the ways in which you have worked with us as a neighborhood. And I would like to thank you all for the work Page 8 which has been going on on the trees yesterday and today, which has been one of my major concerns and will continue to be that. I thank you for your listening. Stutzman: Thank you. Finn Wilhelmsen? Wilhelmsen: Yes. I'll be brief. I'd just like to say I object to building a park, number one, which I will never use, which seems to me will be for the exclusive use of maybe ten families in the neighborhood with small children, Thirdly, we are talking about neighborhood parks in San Francisco, and Saratoga is vastly different. In San Francisco people live in apartments. Here they have big back yards the kids can play in. Also, it seems to me that $330,000 can be used much better to pay for the school. We just voted down $1,000,000, I believe, which was needed. And I think the $330,000 can be used much better for that. That's all I'd like to say. Thank you. Stutzman: Ken Hirschberg? Hirschberg: My name is Ken Hirschberg. I live at 13866 Espada Court. In view of the number of protests I will truncate my remarks, except I would like to say that the City might consider, and I will volunteer to help on this if you can use me in any way, improving the dissemination of information. I will just briefly state my personal experience with this. I was approached by a personable young fellow that I didn't know -part of the neighborhood association, I believe, offered me a chance to sign a petition, and I said gee, it sounds like a good idea. At that time I thought he was talking about the whole 1.3 acre parcel- make a beautiful little park -but I really can't justify it. I don't have the extra cash, so I'll decline. And that was the last I heard of this until the official notice from the City. There might be some way to improve the dissemination of information without having to get into flyers flying back and forth, one of which was mine, to dig this out. Maybe some better way to have a discovery period. Thank you. Stutzman: Thank you. H. 0 Nickelsen? Anderson: Am I to understand that you signed the petition in favor of the park and now you have filed a protest? Hirschberg: No, ma'am. I declined to sign it, and I think that... Anderson: You declined to sign the petition. Okay. Hirschberg: Either on purpose or perhaps by oversight. As a result of me not being part of the group working on this, I received no further information until the official notice from the City. Anderson: Okay. Thank you. Page 9 Stutzman: Mr. Nickelsen? Nickelsen: My name is Olaf Nickelsen, and I am living here on Espada Court for twenty -three years. I might say the message that seems to be prevailing here in acquiring the property for park service, for building a park, it's about that, but I believe Mrs. Dow, who was a candidate beforehand, expresses negative voting, or something of that sort. But our district has voted more than 54% now against the originally- contended idea that 70% of the property owners really approved of all this. If they did, I wonder where our 54% comes from. We are not an organized organization with a president and all that. We are just grass- roots developer. Therefore, I would like to say this. This meeting concerns the Resolution 91 -41.4, which is the official resolution that informs us, informed us, that the taxpayers in District LLA -1 want to pay $110 or want to be assessed $110, possibly for x number of years, which we found out later on to be thirty years. Number two of the resolution clearly and officially states the costs and expenses of said improvements are to be made chargeable upon the areas proposed to be annexed to the existing assessment district LLA -1. Also included in the otherwise non specific notice was a page to express an objection that should be mailed or brought to the City office. This, then, by implication means you vote for the assessment if you do not protest. Very simple. That is the negative procedure. We launched a flyer on June 8, and then this resulted -a reply by a small group headed by two Planning Commissioners and one Park Commissioner and, I believe, the lady who just spoke of such things as hatred and separation partition of the citizens -is practically nonsense. We have a right to express our opinions, just as they have the right to do that. However, the (unintelligible) assurance is verbal, not in writing, not in print from the City -that the City will handle this property and pay outright $330,000 with municipal funds, which in itself surprised me and some of our neighbors. For development and maintenance the City has already budgeted $25,000 next year. It seems that a developer originally proposed three or four single houses which would generate taxes -real estate taxes. But this was turned down because we wanted open space and we didn't want to create undue traffic. Instead, the City and the proponents for the park probably had to approve two single houses and a half -acre park. Stutzman: Are you almost through, sir? Nickelsen: Pardon me? Stutzman: Your three minutes are up. Are you almost through? Nickelsen: All right, I go to City has to sell two lots, for There is a balance of $180,000 City puts that. This concerns the heart of these things. The which they may get $150,000. left, and I don't know where the all Saratogans, not only us in Page 10 LLA -1, for whom the new park is created. Well, there are very few very small children, and the ones that are teenagers or pre teenagers, they would rather play in one of the parks of the neighboring schools or they go to the mall. I believe that Resolution 91 -41.4 should be relegated to oblivion. Stutzman: All right. Ken Colson? Colson: (Inaudible) Property at 13851 Raven Court. My name is Kenneth M. Colson (inaudible) before I came here, frankly, I didn't know what the procedure was, so I'm just one of the majority. I think the idea of putting a mini -park in this area is inappropriate and unwise. I don't think it's inappropriate and unwise for citizens to want open space. I think the Council has some opportunities, perhaps in reallocation of the Nelson property having fallen through apparently, I would hope that all of us in our particular part of the City could work with you and develop plans overall for open space. I think it's a noble effort, but I think a mini -park is not within the scope of the grander scale of open space. Stutzman: Do I...pardon me. Colson: (Inaudible) so I was in contact with them. Stutzman: Okay, thank you. Dwight Mitchell? Mitchell: I'm Dwight Mitchell, I live at 13894 Quito Road. (Inaudible) protest this park. Why would the City of Saratoga deem it fitting to spend $330,000 for a few families. I'm sure the money could be better spent in a more fortuitous manner, such as schools, etc. We also didn't get this thing until like (inaudible), so we didn't know. And I'm opposed to this negative voting. Stutzman: Andrew Ruotola? Then the next speaker will be Joel Sharon? If you could come forward, and that will speed it up a little bit. Ruotola: My name is Andrew Ruotola, I live at 13936 Quito Road. I am probably the first or the second, I would say, owner of a home in that project that we're talking about. I bought the house in 1955, and I've been here ever since. Probably here in Saratoga more than most people in this hall. I've seen many, many changes go on and off. I've seen traffic increase tremendously, but I'm still there because I love this area. But when the City Council comes out and gives me a notice that I owe $110 for the assessment a year for thirty years, without even mentioning the time period of thirty years on their letter, which I received only three weeks ago -never heard one incident about the place of the park to be built. Not one iota of a word. I bring this out because I get flyers, and they say -well, we've noticed, talking about this a year ago or so. You've been notified by the City. Never have I received one letter, one Page 11 telephone call, or one interviewer to come out and say would you look at this and read it? Now I am like the here from Blue Hills. He never got a notice. I never notices until just recently from the City Hall. I beg pardon? Perlin: There was only one (inaudible). to me, gentleman got no your Ruotola: But I get flyers from different people who are on the committee or whatever it is for the yes vote on this park. They say it's been in order for over a year. We've been talking about it. Now who's lying? Do we have to lie every time we say something? Or like that person who spoke first, that woman. She wants her children to see a park. Has she ever visited Wildwood Park here? Tell me that. And one other thing I'd like to bring up. If you bear with me, I'll bring out some things that might be of interest to everyone. I didn't know the City of Saratoga was in the real estate business by buying property. Monia: We have for years. Are you familiar with the Heritage Orchard by the Library? All of that property was bought by the City. There have been, from time to time -the City has bought property. Ruotola: Why was it bought? Why was it bought, then? Monia: It's a park. It's a heritage park. Anderson: The Library is sitting on it. Monia: And it's worth today a hundred times what we paid for it. Ruotola: We're talking about a private park here. Monia: No, we're talking about a City park, sir. We're talking about a City -owned park developed by the City, maintained by the City, policed by the City. It is part of our general parks system. Ruotola: You mean the Hagerson park thing, we call a park, the Hagerson site? Monia: No. I'm sorry. There's a difference between whether one thinks this is the appropriate place for a park versus the City's policy about parks. There has always been a policy about trying to develop parks. (Inaudible voice from audience) Monia: Monia. Monia. The City has always done this. It has done this all the way back to incorporation. One of the fine parks that we have is Hakone Gardens. And Hakone Gardens today is probably one of the best that we have in the South Bay. And I am sure, based on... Page 12 Ruotola: How many times have you walked... (NOTE: HERE THERE IS APPARENTLY A SLIGHT GAP BETWEEN TAPES.) Monia: It varies. From one to two all the way up to Wildwood, where I've seen hundreds. Anderson: I don't think this is... Monia: But we're just trying to give you some background information. There is a public policy that has been performed over and over again -the City procuring land for the purpose of parks. It's nothing new. I was just trying to let you know that there has been a policy since 1954. Or 56. Ruotola: The City of Saratoga was in the financial business of loaning money to the citizens. Monia: We have also sold open space for the purpose of raising funds. We have bought land in the past, not this Council, but previous Councils, and other Councils have sold that property for the purpose of raising funds to do other things for the City. Ruotola: I see. Monia: It's not an unusual course for cities to do so. Ruotola: Maybe not for Saratoga, but other cities don't seem to... Stutzman: All other cities do that. How do you think they acquire open space? Would you be willing to give some of your land to Saratoga? (Inaudible) Stutzman: Did you give it to us? Voice from the audience: We own it through the tax rolls. My taxes are going up every year. Stutzman: Okay, your time's up. Sorry. Your three minutes are up. Six minutes, actually. Ruotola: You didn't say that at the start of the meeting. Stutzman: I did. I announced this at the beginning of the meeting. We have a lot of business to conduct yet, and everyone wants to be heard. Ruotola: I thought you said there was only one more after me. Page 13 Stutzman: There are more. That's just to keep people moving in sequence so you don't just stand there and waste time. So if you would kindly step aside for the next individual, we can keep this going. We know that you're against it. We know you're opposed, and we respect that. Ruotola: Oh, you like that then, don't you. Very good, I'm glad you know that I'm opposed to it. Stutzman: I didn't say I liked it, I just said I know it. Joel Sharon, and the next speaker will be Charles Shaw. Sharon: Good evening, thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight. Anderson: You have to speak loud, there is no mike. Sharon: My name is Joel Sharon. I'm the owner of 13890 Ravenwood Drive, and I'm one of the 41 members who filed the protest or a no vote on this annexation. In order to limit my remarks, I would not wish to repeat what some of the other protesters have indicated, but just briefly -I think the park is too costly, both to residents and to the City. And I was at a meeting several weeks ago or several months ago at which I expressed some of my concerns then, and they are still my concerns, and I think they are the concerns of many of the neighboring residents as to the park. We really do not know the park's full configuration, the improvements, the equipment, what kind of fences are being placed up, and we don't know any of the rules, such as rules as to safety, rules as to security, policing of the park, problems as to noise, congestion, parking, the hours of use, potential pollution, any kind of insurance and other matters. Specifically some of those concerns are very important because I've been there in the neighborhood for years, and my side lots are not fenced. And if you have people from other neighborhoods coming into the park, they cannot be questioned as such. They belong there. And my lot is very close by, and they might end up right in my back window, for all I know. And what is the City going to do with regard to securing me, or do I have to then put up a fence and put up extra deadbolts and locks, or put in an alarm system or something, which I may not need to do otherwise. So those kind of concerns have not been treated by the City or in connection with any notice provisions, and I think that's why many of the neighbors are feeling very concerned about this, and I hope you will not annex the property. Kohler: Mr. Mayor, please. (Inaudible) Sharon: It is possible because the concerns are the ones that I'm giving you. I am very concerned about security. I'm not concerned about neighbors on my block coming there with little children to the park. I think that would be great. But on the other hand I would be concerned about people from other neighborhoods that I don't know, that I'm not familiar with, Page 14 parking their cars in front, creating mess and paper mess and possibly walking over on other parcels, and I can't even go up and question them. Whereas right now you have all the neighbors in a sense being linked together to secure their own property. Here now you have a public park which is going to bring an influx of traffic and other people, which gives me some severe concerns. Thank you. Stutzman: I thank you. Mr. Shaw? Shaw: I was wondering if I could speak from here so that my back is not entirely to the audience? Stutzman: Okay. Sure, that would be fine. Shaw: Am I limited? Stutzman: Yes, please. Shaw: I will start at the back and work to the front. Mr. Mayor (inaudible) First point is just a (inaudible)very similar problem to what is going on right now. Not a congruent problem, but very similar, which I recommend that you check with them. The Marin I.J. had articles yesterday and today. Essentially what it had to do (inaudible) Proposition 13, City money coming from (inaudible) investment funds, everybody's getting very'excited about it, the lawyers are just sort of licking their chops waiting to get at it (inaudible). There has been an awful lot of activity in the last fifteen days in the LLA -1 area. Much of that I attribute to information. Lack of information (inaudible) many examples I could give you, but just one or two. There was a flyer put out on June 15. It went over the names of three commissioners of the City and a member of the City Council, and it states in the first paragraph, no formal Ravenwood Drive association exists, and no plans to create one, etc. Going on further in the same article, the same flyer, it states that the proposal on the park (audible) very well and (inaudible) San Jose Mercury News. Yet, in two articles in the San Jose Mercury News, April 24 and May 8, Michael Cronk, the Ravenwood Drive Neighborhood Association is mentioned three times, it is capitalized, and even in one case a gentlemen is quoted as being of the Ravenwood Drive Homeowners Association. Confusion, misinformation, disinformation- -some of the problems. The other flyer that went out on June 15 -one of the questions was does this have anything to do with street lights. The answer is no. Very good. The fourth paragraph, fourth sentence of that very same paragraph states park lighting will be decided upon later. Now there might be a difference between street lighting and park lighting. (Inaudible)someone be aware of that -more confusion, more information, lack (inaudible) disinformation. Flyer, June 8, signed -went out over the name of three City commissioners. Paragraph 5. Pre approval of 70 per cent of the neighbors. That might be true. Depends upon how you want to define the universe and percentage thing. With only ten neighbors you would .only Page 15 need seven (inaudible). Is this statement correct? Very possibly so. Does it describe the entire picture? I don't think so. Again, (inaudible) information, lack of information, misinformation, disinformation. Stutzman: Are you almost through, sir? Shaw: One more point, if I may, and that is the announcement that came out from the City that stated that it is $110 assessment. Nowhere does it say it is a $110 assessment every year for thirty years. I know that if I were to make statements like this -like the percentages, like not completing the amount of assessment -in the private sector, my own business, I dread the litany of (inaudible) that would descend upon me. Again, I'm talking only in the private sector, I could never get by with it- -those kind of statements, that kind of operation. I really don't think the City of Saratoga should put itself in a position of being criticized for the same thing. My three minutes are up. I'm finished. Stutzman: Monique Drumm? Anderson: You have to speak really loud. Drumm: I live at (inaudible) facilities for bathrooms (inaudible) and open space (inaudible) in the immediate area (inaudible) every single person I spoke to (inaudible) that nice people. I think the fears of the people who opposed Ravenwood Park are unfounded and hysterical. Therefore I would like these people to reconsider their opposition. I would also like to thank the City Council, especially Vic Monia, and everyone who supported Ravenwood Park, for their efforts and unfailing support. Thank you. Stutzman: Thank you. Anderson: That park, by the way, was purchased from George Day about 25 years ago. Purchased. Stutzman: Anyone else wish to speak to this? This is the last of the slips that were handed in. Williams: My name is Robert Williams. I live at 13906 Ravenwood Drive, and I guess I would like to say that I'm glad to see the democratic process does work. And what's unfortunate is to see the degree to which -what I really heard was not mean spiritedness, but more fear that existed (inaudible) on fixed incomes (inaudible) worried about fences, about drugs, about things that were notably not covered in the City's (inaudible). However, it is true that in all the leafletting that was done, some of it very negative, some of it trying to be helpful and positive, was oriented to try and answer these questions, and that is the purpose of this forum. I do not know if tonight we will have a positive outcome, but I think it's been a positive Page 16 construct for the neighborhood. I would like to offer one alternative. If people do wish to reconsider, I noted that in the earlier proceeding tonight a decision was made to re- annex. And yes, it was true there were 70 (inaudible) percent pre approval from people who signed petitions, including some (inaudible) who changed their mind and decided to protest, but that 70% who originally signed came from the.Ravenwood- Montpere area, and it was decided based on financing concerns from the City (inaudible) Court and Quito Oaks. And I would like to propose to the City that a consideration be made to withdraw those strongly objecting neighborhoods from that annexation (inaudible) will unfortunately include individuals such as Mr. Shaw who may not ever be in favor, I think there would be again that clear majority, but it would require some reconsideration by the City with respect to the financing concerns which are still very real to those fixed income members. It would also allow personally, perhaps, time to address safety, landscaping, drawing, and to air some of the views issued by Miss Drumm, who indicated that most of the neighbors of Wildwood Park, for example, find it to be a joyous asset to their neighborhood. And I think that's what we're here for. We're not here to create ill will, and we're not here to put one over on you. You know, and if the City can still see a way to work this through, I would rather see the possibility of looking at the reconfiguration of drawing and consideration by the City Council of the all important financing. Because I think the safety issues, I think the liability issues, all of those can be addressed. And I think it comes down to the issue of those who really want it -and the benefit is more than just the people with families- -it's the property values in our neighborhood to the people that will buy when the elderly families move out, and all of that has to be taken into consideration in looking at who benefits. We think it does benefit the entire neighborhood. So thank you, and please consider my proposal for a potential redistricting as per the prior item today on tonight's agenda. And what that implication might be for possible approval and financing. Thank you. Anderson: I'd like to answer a question before... Stutzman: Okay. Anderson: If we were to split off a section here and go back. I mean, this is a fairly substantial financial consideration, I think. In the case of these other neighborhoods we were able to take sections that we didn't have to maintain any more and remove them from the work program as well. That kind of offset the financial impacts. In this particular case the land costs the same, regardless of how many homes are involved. And I'm wondering, is there any urgency to this. I mean, if we were to redraw it and we were to change the financial and up it say ten or whatever dollars, would we miss a window of opportunity budget -wise, or in this particular case is there no problem with just... Page 17 Monia: Coming back? Anderson: Coming back July 3 with a little bit different program. Do we miss it for a whole year, I guess is my question. Peacock: Yes you do, because if you change the assessment, then you have to notify everyone of what the new assessment is, the notice has to be at least ten days before the hearing, and we have to have this process completed by the first meeting in July in order to meet the deadline set by the County to notify the County Assessor and the Tax Collector of the parcels to be assessed and what the assessment is. Anderson: How about the duration of time. Can that be changed? I mean, if you made instead of thirty years, you made it thirty five... Peacock: You can't go beyond thirty years. Anderson: Thirty years it the maximum anyway? Peacock: Thirty years is the maximum length under the law for an assessment for acquisition purposes. (Inaudible voice from the audience) Voice from the audience: May I ask if this meeting is run by Robert's Rules of Order, and if so I would like to remind you that you do have a motion on the floor that must be acted upon before you take on other motions. Stutzman: We don't have a motion on the floor. (Inaudible voice from the audience) Stutzman: The next speaker is Jennifer Crotty. Crotty: Jennifer Crotty, 13861 Raven Court. Anderson: Louder, my dear. Peacock: There is no microphone. Crotty: Jennifer Crotty, 13861 Raven Court. I speak to you tonight as an individual. And I wish to thank so much the City Council for all your encouragement, your support, in our efforts to secure a small, safe, beautiful green legacy for our neighborhood and future generations. Your concerned, caring approach throughout this whole thing throughout the past year has been greatly appreciated. You recognized the value of seizing a golden opportunity to preserve a small portion of diminishing open space for a neighborhood which I know would have greatly benefited from a park. And though I am quite saddened and very, very disheartened by the scare tactics that were used by some of Page 18 the protesters, I am eternally grateful for all the support that we did get, and I am just very sad about the seeming outcome here. But thank you so much, and thank you to the City staff and to all the neighbors who worked so hard with us to get this park. Stutzman: Thank you, Mrs. Crotty. Any other speakers? If not, we'll close the public hearing at twenty minutes after ten. Anderson: I have a further question of the City Engineer. There is this one cul -de -sac that's directly off of Quito that does not have direct access... Perlin: Espada Court? Anderson: Is that what it is? Monia: No, I think she's talking about the court. Quito Court. Quito Oaks. Anderson: Uh -oh, I didn't see the other one. Where is Espada? Monia: Espada is this little one. Voice from audience: What about Quito Road? Anderson: How many protesters did you have from Quito Oaks out of how many houses -I think it's about ten houses? Perlin: In the Quito Oaks (inaudible) eight out of eight. Anderson: Eight out of eight protested? How about Espada Court? Perlin: Well, if you consider (inaudible) you have five of six. Kohler: Mr. Mayor, I would like to make a comment. (Inaudible) facts of this and (inaudible) first of all, when a neighbor who (inaudible) and they talked about the pain level, and I (inaudible). There is a limit for everybody. (Inaudible) were very confused and did not know what this park was going to be, and I don't blame (inaudible) educating and (inaudible) approach it in two ways. We have to see (inaudible). Secondly (inaudible) how financially people want (inaudible) right now obviously it's not be (inaudible) financially acceptable. Or, of course, the cost will go up. So (inaudible) out and think (inaudible) find out what the neighbors really want. And I, you know (inaudible). If we want to buy this property (inaudible). Anderson: We don't have any time. Stutzman: Mr. Monia? Monia: Well, I'd like to just clear up a few issues because there was some concerns about whether we should be spending our money for a park or for schools. Those are different Page 19 jurisdictions. We have nothing to do with the school districts, and the school districts basically have nothing to do with us as far as financial obligations. So it's not a question of taking our money and spending it someplace else. I think this Council, for the first time in many years, is concerned about neighborhoods and trying to improve the quality of life. And many of the people in this area are going to benefit from the Council's decision to spend more money than we had to spend to mitigate the impact of Highway 85 coming through that neighborhood. We have decided to spend somewhere in the neighborhood of $250,000 to increase soundwalls and berms and landscaping, etc. to help out the people. And many of those folks didn't come here asking for that help. That's what you elected us for. You elected us to review the needs of the City, to be the guardians of your money, and trust us with the best way to spend it. And we have to look at not only the needs of Saratoga today, but what will Saratoga need and what should Saratoga have for future generations. It is unbelievably troubling in the last couple of weeks to see the response that Saratoga has to the future. And we see it here tonight. The school tax did not pass, and we sent a clear message to our children that we don't care. Think about that. We don't care about our children. A park in a residential neighborhood that needs a park for its children, and if we say no, we don't care. My 19- year -old daughter, after the vote a couple of weeks ago, said she won't live in this town because the adults in this town don't care about us. And that's an unfortunate circumstance. We have an obligation to try to maintain a quality of life in this community, and that's why I supported this park. I support the purchase of Nelson Gardens park if we can financially do it. Open space is a critical element to the value of our property now, and more so in the future. On the issue of crime, we have a number of parks in this community, and we don't have crime. We have been able to manage those parks well. (Unintelligible) when from time to time there has been an incident, the City has reacted quickly and has put it to rest. I can't remember the last time we had someone coming to us saying we have a problem with a park in town. So that's not an issue in my mind -that we will create a nuisance. It's to the contrary. I think the testimony that we got about Gardiner Park, and my personal experience is, in talking with people who use parks and live around parks -they are glad that they're there. I happen to live next to one of the biggest parks we got. The biggest park -West Valley College. And there's hundreds, probably thousands of us, per week, that use that facility. And thank goodness it's there. I support this park. I have from the beginning because I think it's an important asset to the City. And some day, and we probably we won't be here to enjoy it, but some day they'll say to us, or they'll say to the Council that made this decision, they had the wisdom. The criticism was there for Hakone. The criticism was there for a number of other purchases by the City, but now that we look back, they were good decisions by those Councils. I think we would be missing an opportunity for three votes, the difference on this issue is three votes. And I would support overriding this protest because I think it's that important. I would like to mention one other thing. I had several people call me. We'd heard about disinformation, I had four people call me. And four people who were either on the fence or who were against it did not sign that petition. Because when they got the right information, then they made good sense of it and they decided not to file a protest. I think that's important. There was so much disinformation. If you read those flyers, you know -if you can't win it right, let's obscure it. It's the whole negative campaign that you see in politics all the time. And it's unfortunate circumstance, and I... (Inaudible voices from the audience) Monia: I'm just responding to the negative comments. (Inaudible voice from the audience) Stutzman: Okay, you're out of order. Mrs. Anderson? Anderson: I have not seen the flyers that went through the neighborhood. (Inaudible voice from the audience) Anderson: At any rate, I've done some... Stutzman: Please, you are out of order. Please be quiet. We are trying to conduct our business. I've read the flyers. Mrs. Anderson, did you wish to say something? Anderson: Yes. I'm not sure it's necessary to read the flyers to make a decision, but it is unfortunate that this neighborhood became embroiled in this controversy because 70% of this neighborhood signed a petition that they were interested in having the City Council participate with them to purchase this park. And on that basis... (Inaudible voices from the audience) Anderson: It was 70% of the neighborhood. At any rate, it was on that basis that we proceeded and we went through quite a long series of hearings and discussions about how to make this happen in the best possible way and how to make it affordable for the residents. Most of the protesters that I've seen tonight look to me like they are either long -time residents who are, well, they look, to me like they are long -time residents who are already paying the minimum in taxes in that neighborhood. The young families are the newcomers. They are paying probably four times as much in taxes, and they are still willing to take another $110 a year on their tax bill, and I share with Mr. Monia his concern. about this City's attitude about children, because I look at the vote against the tax on schools, and I think it's a tragedy that Page 21 this community turned down children. And I think it's, when we look at this situation with this little neighborhood park, it tells us what may happen to us when we talk about open space in general in this city. People want it, but they don't want to pay for it. And all sorts of scare campaigns come out in order to sway people that it's a bad idea to have a park in the neighborhood. And it is true that occasionally we have problems, but these little parks generally are used by the families that are nearby. And the configuration, the type of equipment, would be decided upon with the neighborhood, as we do with many of the other neighborhood parks. We are modifying Kevin Moran, possibly, and that whole neighborhood was noticed, and all has input. We are building a new park in Beauchamps, and that whole neighborhood is involved in what goes into that park, and what kind of structures will be in that park. This neighborhood would be participating also. Then I went and did some numbers, and we have 76 parcels. That was part of our debate also, when we structured this. We'have 76 parcels. If you take the fourteen I believe you said it was from these two cul -de -sacs out, we still have 62 parcels left. And if 13 is taken away from the 41 protests, you still have 28 protests, which is still 45% of the remaining neighborhood. So that if we bought the property now, under the plan we're talking about, and we had to increase this revenue up to at least $150 a year to make up for the fact that we've lost fourteen parcels, I am afraid this 45, this 55% support would probably disappear also, because that $100 seemed to be a threshold when we discussed this issue in the first place. So the Council would really basically be talking about whether or not we wanted to take on the additional cost, and we don't have any figures tonight because we didn't plan on excluding any areas from this particular lighting and landscaping district as we had considered, because these other neighborhoods had shown up and expressed a willingness to care for the property around their neighborhood, the financial considerations weren't something that we had to think about. In this particular case, we do have to think about it, so it's -to me, the only decision we have to make tonight is whether we're going to override or not. Stutzman: Do you wish to say anything further, Mr. Kohler? Kohler: Not now. Stutzman: Okay. I share Mr. Monia's views on this. If you look at the value of property, it's predicated in large part on whether or not you have open space in your particular area. The individuals who generated our General Plan many years ago specified that we were to have small community parks. And one of the areas that was designated is this particular area. There is not another park within a mile of this area. They did have foresight. Unfortunately, they didn't go ahead and purchase property ten years ago or fifteen years ago when property values, were very low, and acquisition of this would have cost the City a minimal amount of money. But I can assure you that if you have a Page 22 small park in your area, it will increase your property value much more than that $100 a year, which amounts to about 30 cents a day, will give to your particular area. I can't think of an area in Saratoga where there is not a park where property values have gone down. One of the best examples is over there by Brookside Club. Tiny little park -it's about a fourth or a third of an acre. And that is much used because of the play equipment by the little children in the area. There are not large numbers of cars. In one of these flyers I saw the comment that we would have it overcrowded with cars by people coming from Vasona. That is absolutely a ridiculous remark. Who would want to go all the way from Vasona over to that little community park? I mean, that's stupid. You know that. The main consideration of why you are opposing that is because of that $100 a year. And I think you're being very, very short sighted in that, and I also think that you are being very short sighted in the fact that you have enjoyed that open space for ten, fifteen or twenty years, and now because your children have grown and moved away, you have no more interest in leaving anything behind for future generations. Why don't you care a little bit for the children that are growing up and need a place to play. I should think that Saratoga would be so ashamed of what it's been doing in turning down money for schools, in turning down everything that will enhance the quality of this area we live in. I would think you would have more consideration for the future generations than you do. And I'm absolutely appalled at living in Saratoga, one of the wealthiest areas in California, and finding this very pecuniary attitude, where you are willing to pinch pennies and deprive those who come after us of the ability to share in some of the good that we have been fortunate enough to experience. For this reason I, too, would be very willing to override this. Monia: I would move Resolution 91 -41.5, a resolution overruling the protests and ordering the annexation of territory to the existing assessment district, ordering the improvements, and confirming the diagram and assessments, the City of Saratoga Landscaping and Lighting District, Assessment District LLA -1, Annexation Number 1991 -2, Fiscal Year 1991 -92. Anderson: I'll second that. Stutzman: Any discussion. Mr. Kohler. Kohler: Yes. I am very concerned about drawing in people in the assessment district and having them as (inaudible) however I am also very concerned (inaudible) pamphlets that went (inaudible) I think there is an (inaudible) from the beginning, and that's very sad. I also agree that (inaudible) I rather had seen a smaller neighborhood standing behind this park, and have it for themselves. That's not the reality. Everyone else will also enjoy the park. I will vote for the overriding. Monia: Thank you, Willem. Page 23 Peacock: The motion, then, is to revise -amend the resolution to declare that a majority protest has been received, but that the City Council has, by four fifths vote, overridden... Monia: You have to put that caveat in the front. Peacock: Yes. The resolution does need to be amended and then it can be adopted. Monia: I'll move the amendment. Voice from the audience: The democratic process -it's wonderful. A vote of the people? Wasted. Monia: You're welcome. I'll move to amend the motion. Stutzman: Do we have a second? Anderson: I'll second it, including the amendment. Stutzman: All in favor? Opposed? Monia: Do we need the original motion? Or do you want it? Stutzman: Yes. We will declare a ten minute recess. Voice from the audience: So much for a majority vote. Page 24 Protest by Property Owner Objecting to Annexation No. 1991 -2 to City. of Saratoga Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District LLA -1 To: City Clerk, City of Saratoga 1. On May 15, 1991, the City Council of the City of Saratoga adopted a Resolution of Intention to order the annexation of territory to the Saratoga Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District LLA and to levy and collect assessments for certain landscaping and lighting improvements more fully described in said Resolution. 2. The undersigned is the owner of the following described real property located within the boundaries of the proposed annexation and is shown as the owner of such property on the last equalized county assessment roll: Assessor's Parcel Number 3. The undersigned objects to the proposed annexation for all of the f llowin reasons: (Stat reasons. I_ 5�,!(. g k F1.� S e.ss wi +z, w c i S Tv; c s b. Ot o r; tt Lc 4 d'Lac2,3 77 1 a t 114 t 1 e, l's 1 v�. 0 5 e d C' ttos� Ot3 0 ;strr� ct C.L4 le t Q. ���iv-is o viCQ cc1 wc,.,k. ce^tr k.wtt(y ti l;kL o kAe RU1 k ;25 K. p a po t kp q ':o my 0.5ck 4. The undersigned requests relief from the proposed annexation through the following changes in the proposed improvements or proposed assessments or alteration of boundaries of the proposed annexation territory or any zo a therein: (State changes.) 1 C fio S. A1( i ((,L(& l( ft( moo a��, t l 1..k.) i s L o w(c (too( 4Mt1i (I'll Q4 l( C t (k P s ��Eklk Dated d k.)vo 7 1991 Si g nature Printed Name L o nor! BorQ1'o Address t 4 0o (v„:tto IV• J i 1 ,7 1991 X03 Qo SarEk o_ c A 9 O 7o Protest by Property Owner Objecting to Annexation No. 1991 -2 to City of Saratoga Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District LLA -I To: City Clerk, City of Saratoga 1. On May 15, 1991, the City Council of the City of Saratoga adopted a Resolution of Intention to order the annexation of territory to the Saratoga Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District LLA -1 and to levy and collect assessments for certain landscaping and lighting improvements more fully. described in said Resolution. 2. The undersigned is the owner of the following described real property located within the boundaries of the proposed annexation and is shown as the owner of such property on the last equalized county assessment roll: Assessor's Parcel Number 7 (0 3 a 3. The undersigned objects to the proposed annexation for all of the following reasons: (State reasons.) rti .ten Cc�c� 4. The undersigned requests relief from the proposed annexation through the following changes in the proposed improvements or proposed assessments or alteration of boundaries of the proposed annexation territory or any zone therein: (State changes.) /,cJ X.c- /L -L o 'vY`' /-4, if o r c P r :dilgr J 1 '7 1991 Dated 4 /c5 1991 Signatur Printed Name Address ta y A fc5 D2U Protest by Property Owner Objecting to Annexation No. 1991 -2 to City of Saratoga Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District LLA -1 To: City Clerk, City of Saratoga 1. On May 15, 1991, the City Council of the City of Saratoga adopted a Resolution of Intention to order the annexation of territory to the Saratoga Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District LLA -1 and to levy and collect assessments for certain landscaping and lighting improvements more fully described in said Resolution. 2. The undersigned is the owner of the following described real property located within the boundaries of the proposed annexation and is shown as the owner of such property on the last equalized county assessment roll: Assessor's Parcel Number 3. The undersigned objects to the proposed annexation f all of the following reasons: (State reasons.) Property tax increase Benefits too few in the area Will be on a fixed income 4. The undersigned requests relief from the proposed annexation through the following changes in the proposed improvements or proposed assessments or alteration of boundaries of the proposed annexation territory or any zone therein: (State changes.) JtFo 19 1991 1991 403 -22 -007 Signature, Printed Name LaVonne F. Morgenthal Address 13984 Quito Oaks Way Saratoga. CA. 95070 -4737 Protest by Property Owner Objecting to Annexation No. 1991 -2 to City of Saratoga Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District LLA -I To: City Clerk, City of Saratoga 1. On May 15, 1991, the City Council of the City of Saratoga adopted a Resolution of Intention to order the annexation of territory to the Saratoga Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District LLA -1 and to levy and collect assessments for certain landscaping and lighting improvements more fully described in said Resolution. 2. The .undersigned is the owner of the following described real property located within the boundaries of the proposed annexation and is shown as the owner of such property on the last equalized county. assessment roll: t4 1,3_06 Assessor's Parcel Number 3 -"O O 7 /AI QCJf S7/ t/ 3. The undersigned objects to the proposed annexation for all of the following reasons: (State reasons.) (a 4. The un•ersigned requests relief rom the pCtoiosed annexation through the following changes in the proposed improvements or proposed assessments or alteration of boundaries of the proposed annexation territory or any zone therej (State :nges.) Dated 7 A 1 d 4 i r'41,14--v l';'0 N 1 0 x991 01'c;;fA1 CITY ENCIINEE; 'S OFFICE 1991 Signature p.AJA. G1 1m9 Printed Name 07-4 /�•1�! t jZ Address /3 9$ 2 l d A /c 6 411 5/9 5-070 Protest by Property Owner Objecting to Annexation No. 1991 -2 to City of Saratoga Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District LLA -I To: City Clerk, City of Saratoga 1. On May 15, 1991, the City Council of the City of Saratoga adopted a Resolution of Intention to order the annexation of territory to the Saratoga Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District LLA -1 and to levy and collect assessments for certain landscaping and lighting improvements more fully described in said Resolution. 2. The undersigned is the owner of the following described real property located within the boundaries of the proposed annexation and is shown as the owner of such property on the last equalized county assessment roll: Assessor's Parcel Number 603- 2 Z -t 9/x{03- (1 04(//0,3- Ao -oat 3. The undersigned objects to the proposed annexation for all of the following reasons: (State reason ,p ett„,, rtd-- bilAcm■c-ilitiA- 44 444 g. Wii 8y fiLmi 11,41-64,e, u 4. The undersigned requests relief from the proposed annexation through the following changes in the proposed improvements or proposed assessments or alteration of boundaries of the proposed annexation territory or any zone therein: (State changes.) Dated LN 6 1991 1991 Signature Ad in P /s v hal Printed Name L/)/71 1 Old (;51 41,5 Address J qT g AJO AQ Q a/V p Protest by Property Owner Objecting to Annexation No. 1991 -2 to City of Saratoga Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District LLA -I To: City Clerk, City of Saratoga 1. On May 15, 1991, the City Council of the City of Saratoga adopted a Resolution of Intention to order the annexation of territory to the Saratoga Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District LLA -1 and to levy and collect assessments for certain landscaping and lighting improvements more fully described in said Resolution. 2. The undersigned is the owner of the following described real property located within the boundaries of the proposed annexation and is shown as the owner of such property on the last equalized county assessment roll: Assessor's Parcel Number z4 4C 3-22- c 3. The undersigned objects to the proposed annexation for all of the following reasons: (State reasons.) picot, 2 T,/C ,.lc 0/4-/6 id %�i A7 P41 fez. r i c PPuPe T V 02.-€: 4 X 67) 7 E r o .s• 5 c C> 4'a.! T21� c �G� e,.1 O 0 f u I (Z yr7 77- t F c A) i ltr"" r 47)1°A14712j.. 7.1 4( E 411. 7 1 /lc. tt., w r ned re uests relief from the nn era �u�r� 4. The undersi g q proposed annexation through the following changes in the proposed improvements or proposed assessments or alteration of boundaries of the proposed annexation territory or any zone therein: (State changes.) 75 /i7 Grze...„ n at.- n- T TA./ e t-cc.--c V E /I--S id0 p,.L• 1c17 6 .s•.-i ci. 1> .vv lilriAdr i,UhD (1 •?cl ce.. tt s park Dated g 0 1991 Signature L,- Printed Name/1412/10 7, f2202-7V Address 327 S cu. •t) DAiI e. 47 S. W-77.) a p' C/J, .531120 /3975 ,gv i m Cols we. 5 cc ra) j 95 JUN 18 1991 WARREN T. MERTEN i 13975 QUITO OAKS WAY SARATOGA, CA. 95070 r6t- 7 Yo/ /7r'73 C3(A A:1j 1 9 /99 (8 (75Y Protest by Property Owner Objecting to Annexation No. 1991 -2 to City of Saratoga Landscaping and Lighting Asse ikis7 LLA-1 1 To: City Clerk, City of Saratoga A Signature Dated June 6 1991 Signature Printed Name ci IA 1 01991 1. On May 15, 1991, the City Council of the c, Y rega adopted a Resolution of Intention to order th fi gifdrPFFAE territory to the Saratoga Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District LLA -1 and to levy and collect assessments for certain landscaping and lighting improvements more fully described in said Resolution. 2. The undersigned is the owner of the following described real property located within the boundaries of the proposed annexation and is shown as the owner of such property on the last equalized county assessment roll: Assessor's Parcel Number 1(63 3. The undersigned objects to the proposed annexation for all of the following reasons: (State reasons.) 4. The undersigned requests relief from the proposed annexation through the following changes in the proposed improvements or proposed assessments or alteration of boundaries of the proposed annexation territory or any zone therein: (State changes.) it. f ...Tgr D Donielson Dorothy Donielson Address 13971 Quito Oaks Way Saratoga, CA. 95070 -4737 Z 1 f Tot City :Clerk, City of Sar 1. On May 15, 1991, the City Council of the City of Saratoga adopted a Resolution of Intention to order the annexation of territory to the Saratoga Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District LLA -1 and to levy and collect assessments for certain landscaping and lighting improvements more fully described in said Resolution. 2. The undersigned is the owner of the following described real property located within the boundaries of the proposed annexation and is shown as the owner of such property on the last equalized county assessment roll: 1 Assessor's Parcel Number 4 447 3 2. —0 G (iox. �Qu,.A, 3. The undersigned objects to the proposed annexation for all of the following reasons: (State reasons.) 4. The undersigned requests relief from the proposed annexation through the following changes in the proposed improvements or proposed assessments or alteration of boundaries of the proposed annexation territory or any zone therein: (State changes.) Dated ?f 1991 Signature q 2,24 f 44(-4774 Printed Name l 4 5' j /iot 6 19 199T Address *o 6 Chil 4 I.-4 to 7q C 'Two PROOF OF PUBLICATION (2015.5 C.C.P.) State of California County of Santa Clara RESOLUTION NO.9141.4 A RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO ORDER THE ANND(A- TIONOFTERRITORY TO AN EXISTING ASSESSMENT DIS- TRICT AND THE LEVY AND COLLECTION OF ASSESS- over the age of 18 years, and not party L MENTS WITFi11dSA1D TERRITO R, PURSUANT TO THE LAND- SCAPING AND IGHTING ACT OF 1972 I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid: I am or interested in the above entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer of the: Saratoga News 12378 Sunnyvale Saratoga Rd, Suite 8 Saratoga, CA 95070, a newspaper of RESOLVED, by the City Coun- cil of the City of Saratoga, Cali general circulation, printed every forma, as follows: WHEREAS, pursuant toReso- Wednesday in the City of San Jose lution 91 -41, 'A Resolution Determining to Undertake Pro- California, County of Santa Clara, and ceedings for the Annexation of Territory to an Existing Assess which newspaper has been adjudged a ment District Known As City of Saratoga Landscaping and newspaper of general circulation by the e d ti District 1�ss1,'ad adopt- t Superior Court of the county of Santa the n ano sai dimg d scan g Clara, State of California, Case number Act id City hasp pared and filed 328148, dated June 2, 1975 that the with the City Clerk of this City the written report called for under notice of which the annexed is a printed copy (set in type not smaller than non- pareil), has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to wit: is arof19 I all in the year I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Date at Saratoga, California, this 19 CITY OF SARATOGA LAND SCAPINGAND LIGHTING DIS- TRICT LLA -1 ANNEXATION NO. 1991-2 FISCALYEAR 1991 -1992 said Act and by said Resolution No. 91 -41, which said report has been submitted and pre- liminariyapproved bythisCoun- cil in accordance with said Act; NOW, THEREFORE, it is here- by found, determined and ordered, as follows: 1: In its opinion the public interest and convenience require and it is the intention of this Council to order the annex i s Filing Stamp PROOF OF PUBLICATION gg 5 OL 771»v /)'Q- 7 is hereby made for further par- fished and cimulated in said ticulars. Said map indicates by said publication to be had and a boundary line the extent of the completed at least ten (10) days territory included in the pro- prarto the date of hearing spec- posed annexation and areas to fled herein. be assessed and of any zone 6. Said Clerk is hereby further thereof and the general location directed to mail or cause to be of said areas. mailed a copy of this Resolution 3. Said Engineer's Report pre- by first lass mail, postage pre- pared by the Engineer, prelimi- paid, to all persons owning real nary approved by this Council, property in the areas proposed and on file with the City Clerk of to be annexed and assessed this City is hereby referred to for herein, whose names and a full and detailed description of addresses appear on the last the improvements and the equalized County assessment boundaries of the areas pro- roll or, when: applicable, on the to be annexed herein and State Board of Equalization any zones thereof, and the pro- assessment roll, said mailing to posed assessments upon be had and completed at least assessable lots and parcels of fifteen (15) days prior to the land within said areas. date of said hearing. 4. Notice is hereby given that 7. The Office of the City Eng Wednesday, the 19th day of neer be, and is hereby desig- June, 1991 at the hour of 8:30 nated as the department to p.m. in the City Council Cham- answer inquiries regarding any bers at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, protest proceedings to be had Saratoga, California, be and the herein, and may be contacted same are hereby appointed and during regular office hours at the faed as the time and place fora City Hall, 13777 Fruitvale hearing by this Council on the Avenue, Saratoga, California question of the annexation of 95070, or by calling (408) 867- territory to an existing assess- 3438. ment district and the levy and Passed and adopted by the collection of the proposed CiyCouneiloftheCiryofSarat assessment and when and ga, California, at a meeting where itwill consider and deter- thereof held on the 15th day of mine whether the owners of a May, 1991, bythefollowingvote majority of the area of the prop- of the members thereof: erty to be assessed in each area AYES: Counctlmembers proposed to be annexed herein Anderson, Clevenger, Kohler, have, at or before the conclusion Monia and Mayor Stutznan ation cif territory to an ex ng assessment district and the levy and collection of assessments therein pursuant to the provi- sions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, Part 2, Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of Califomia, for the acquisition of improvements, more particularly described in Exhibit "A" hereto of said hearing, filed written attached and by reference incur- protests against the acquisition porated herein. of said improvements, the 2. The cost and expenses of boundaries of the area proposed said improvements, are to be to be annexed herein and any made chargeable upon the zone therein, the proposed dia- areas proposed to be annexed gram or the proposed assess to an existing assessment dis- ment, the Engineer's estimate trict designated as "City of of cost thereof, and when and Saratoga Landscaping and where it will consider and finally Ugtting District LLA -1 Annexe- act upon the Engineer's Report tion 1991 -T, the exterior 5. The Clerk of said City be, boundaries of which are the and is hereby, directed to give composite and consolidated notice of said hearing by caus- areas as., more particularly ing a copy of this Resolution to described'on a map thereof on be published once in the Sarato- file in the office of the City Clerk ga News, .a newspaper Di h- of said City, to which reference NOES: None ABSENT: None Ns \F. L Stutanan Mayor Attest ‘.5\ Grace E. Cory City Clerk PROOF OF PUBLICATION (2015.5 C.C.P.) State of California County of Santa Clara I ani a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid: I am over the age of 18 years, and not party to or interested in the above entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer of the: Saratoga News 12378 Sunnyvale Saratoga Rd, Suite 8 Saratoga, CA 95070, a newspaper of general circulation, printed every Wednesday in the City of San Jose California, County of Santa Clara, and which newspaper has been adjudged a newspaper of general circulation by the Superior Court of the county of Santa Clara, State of California, Case number 328148, dated June 2, 1975 that. the notice of which the annexed is a printed copy (set in type not sinaller than rron- parell), has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to wit: all in the year of 19 I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Date at Saratoga, California, this 19 7 Filing Stamp PROOF OF PUBLICATION .L X1 /ei i9 A ir.2 SGf,;.vc I /l //j ,q iy 8x.¢r/ vN X00. /99/--,2 E1t11IDIT °A" CITY OFSARATOGA LANDSCAPING AND UGHIING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT UA -1 ANNEXATION NO. 1991-2 a) The acquisition of a portion of Assessor's Parcel No. 403- 23-062 In the County of Santa Clara, City of Saratoga, more commonly referred to as 1.3820 Ravenwood Drive, for park, recreational and open space purposes. RAAK ROLF W AND MARCIA L 13959 RAVENWOOD DR SARATOGA CA 95070 CITY OF SARATOGA 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 NOTICE OF HEARING CITY OF SARATOGA LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT LLA -1 ANNEXATION 1991 -2 FISCAL YEAR 1991 -92 TIME: 8:30 P.M., WEDNESDAY, JUNE 19, 1991 PLACE: SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA ASSESSMENT NO. AND PARCEL NO. 403 -23 -046 AMOUNT OF ASSESSMENT $110.00 A COPY OF COUNCIL RESOLUTION 91 -41.4 IS ENCLOSED Property Owners may submit either oral or written protests to these proceedings by appearing in person and testifying at the Hearing or by returning the enclosed Protest form to the City Engineer at 13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, CA 95070, by the close of the Hearing. Additional information may be obtained by calling the City Engineer's office at 408 -867 -3438 RESOLUTION NO. 91 -41.4 A RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO ORDER THE ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY TO AN EXISTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT AND THE LEVY AND COLLECTION OF ASSESSMENTS WITHIN SAID TERRITORY PURSUANT TO THE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972 CITY OF SARATOGA LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT LLA -1 ANNEXATION NO. 1991 -2 FISCAL YEAR 1991 -1992 RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Saratoga, California, as follows: WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution 91 -41, "A Resolution Determining to Undertake Proceedings for the Annexation of Territory to an Existing Assessment District Known As City of Saratoga Landscaping and Lighting District LL.7 -1," adopted on May 1, 1991, by the Council of said City, pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, the Engineer of said City has prepared and filed with the City Clerk of City the written report called for under said Act and by said Resolution No. 91 -41, which said report has been submitted and preliminarily approved by this Council in accordance with said Act; NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined and ordered, as follows: 1. In its opinion the public interest and convenience require and it is the intention of this Council to order the annexation of territory to an existing assessment district and the levy and collection of assessments therein pursuant to the provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, Part 2, Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, for the acquisition of improvements, more particularly described in Exhibit "A" hereto attached and by reference incorporated herein. 2. The cost and expenses of said improvements, are to be made chargeable upon the areas proposed to be annexed to an existing assessment district designated as "City of Saratoga Landscaping and Lighting District LLA -1 Annexation 1991 -2 the exterior boundaries of which are the composite and consolidated areas as more particularly described on a map thereof on file in the office of the City Clerk of said City, to which reference is hereby made for further particulars. Said map indicates by a boundary line the extent of the territory included in the proposed annexation and areas to be assessed and of any zone thereof and the general location of said areas. 1 Passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Saratoga, California, at a meeting thereof held on the 15th day of May, 1991, by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES: Wind limbers Anderson, C1evelger, Kohler, Picini a, and Mayor Stutanan NOES: None ABSENT: Ncne Attest: City Clerk mnrw \273 \res \levy &col.msr 3 vl Mayor 0 EXHIBIT "A" CITY OP SARATOGA LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT LLA -1 ANNEXATION NO. 1991 -2 a) The acquisition of a portion of Assessor's Parcel No. 403 -23 -062 in the County of Santa Clara, City of Saratoga, more commonly referred to as 13820 Ravenwood Drive, for park, recreational and open space purposes. Protest by Property Owner Objecting to Annexation No. 1991 -2 to City of Saratoga Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District LLA -I To: City Clerk, City of Saratoga 1. On May 15, 1991, the City Council of the City of Saratoga adopted- a Resolution of Intention to order the annexation of territory to the Saratoga Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District LLA -1 and to levy and collect assessments for certain landscaping and lighting improvements more fully described in said Resolution. 2. The undersigned is the owner of the following described real property located within the boundaries of the proposed annexation and is shown as the owner of such property on the last equalized county assessment roll: Assessor's Parcel Number 3. The undersigned objects to the proposed annexation for all 'f the following reasons: (State reasons.) 4. The undersigned requests relief from the proposed annexation through the following changes in the proposed improvements or proposed assessments or alteration of boundaries of the proposed annexation territory or any zone therein: (State changes.) Dated 1991 Signature, Printed Name Address Proposal: Printed on recycled paper. M E M O R A N D U M 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 COUNCIL MEMBERS: TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Susan Riggs, Assistant Planner DATE: November 14, 1991 SUBJECT: Appeal of AR -91 -016; Location: 14375 Saratoga Avenue Applicant Appellant: GTE Mobilnet Karen Anderson Martha Cleven Willem Kohler Victor Monia Francis Stutzman The applicant, GTE Mobilnet, proposes to construct two, 40 ft. tall cellular transmission towers within the Professional and Administrative (PA) zone district. The property is currently developed with a two -story office building and is located at the entrance to the Village, near the intersection of Saratoga Avenue and Saratoga Sunnyvale Road. The cellular tower is intended to provide cellular phone service to the southern portion of Saratoga which, according to the applicant, now receives marginal to non existent service. Background: On october 9, 1991, the Planning Commission denied the design review application to construct a cellular transmission tower(s). Although this is an allowed use in this zone district, the application is subject to design review and is discretionary. This proposal has been before the Planning Commission on several occasions and has included several variations in terms of height, design, number of poles, and types of antennas. The chronological history of events leading up to this appeal was included in the 9/11/91 memorandum to the Planning Commission (attached). The applicant's letter of appeal, states that the Planning Commission's denial was improper on the basis that: 1. The project does meet the design review criteria. Respectfully Submitted, VZom Susan Riggs, Assis Attachments: t Planner 2. The project does not enlarge or intensify the nonconforming parking use; and 3. The project is categorically exempt from CEQA. The attached staff report dated 10/9/91 addresses each of these issues and was the basis for the Planning Commission's denial of the application. Also attached, is the resolution of denial adopted by the Commission. The Planning Commission felt that purely on the issues of design review the proposal was not appropriate as it is adjacent to a residential use. More critical, however, and still unanswered, are the issues of health and safety. The initial study prepared by staff clearly indicates that the proposal may have significant adverse effects on the environment and, therefore, is not exempt from the CEQA review. These concerns are outlined in the attached report dated 10/9/91. As stated in this report, staff has received conflicting information from GTE and the adjacent neighbor, Mr. Whetstone, who are in disagreement on the issues of health and safety. Staff recommended that a non biased third party be retained by the City and paid for by the applicant, to evaluate these issues. To date the issues of health and safety remain unanswered. Should the Council direct staff to retain an independent consultant to provide additional environmental research, a Request for Proposal (RFP) and Scope of Work will be prepared for distribution to qualified consultants. Prior to execution of a contract with the selected consultant, the applicant will be notified and an amount equal to the consultant's estimate of cost will be required for deposit with the City. All time limits for the completion of the consultant's work shall follow the prescriptions of the Permit Streamlining Act. 1. Resolution AR -91 -016 2. Staff Report Dated 10/9/91 3. Staff Report Dated 9/11/91 4. Planning Commission Minutes Dated 10/9/91 5. Applicant's Letter of Appeal Dated 10/22/91 C-� NOES: none RESOLUTION NO. AR -91 -016 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA DENIAL OF DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION GTE MOBILNET WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for design review approval to construct two, 40 ft. tall, cellular transmission towers. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and, WHEREAS, the applicant has not met the burden of proof required to support said application, and the following findings have been determined: The structure(s) is not harmonious with the existing architec- tural features and landscaping in the immediate area. The structure is not compatible in terms of height, bulk, and design with other structures in the immediate area. The applicant is unable to provide the six additional parking spaces required to bring the parking up to current standards. The proposal is not exempt from the requirements of CEQA and the environmental initial study indicates that the proposal may have negative, adverse impacts on the environment. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application of GTE Mobilnet for design review approval be and the same is hereby denied. Section 2. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15 -90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commis- sion, State of California, this 9th day of October 1991 by the following roll call vote: AYES: BOGOSIAN, CALDWELL, DURKET, FAVERO, FORBES, MORAN, TUCKER AR- 91 -91; 14375 Saratoga Avenue ABSENT: none ATTEST: a iroerson. Plannicl hairperson, Planni�ag Commission Printed on recycled paper. TVW ©0 0 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Susan Riggs, Assistant Planner DATE: October 9, 1991 SUBJECT: AR- 91- 026; GTE Mobilnet 14375 Saratoga Avenue M E M O R A N D U M COUNCIL MEMBERS: Karen Anderson Martha Clevenger Willem Kohler Victor Monia Francis Stutzman Description: Request for design review approval to construct two, 40 ft. tall cellular transmission towers within the Professional and Administrative (PA) zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Background: This proposal has been before the Planning Commission on several occasions. The chronological history of events leading to this review was included in the 9/11/91 memorandum to the Planning Commission (attached). This application was last before the Planning Commission as an appeal of an administrative approval to construct a 40 ft. tall monopole cellular transmission tower. The application was continued to the next Planning Commission meeting for the City Attorney to make a decision regarding conflict of interest and mutual fund investments on the part of the Planning Commissioners. Staff continued the application two additional weeks to review the applicants new proposal. Discussion: In an attempt to mitigate staff's concerns regarding visual impacts of the 40 ft. tall transmission tower, the applicant has revised their proposal. The new proposal replaces the monopole with two, 40 ft. tall tapered wood poles. The poles are equipped with three, 1 ft. wide by 2.5 ft. long, box shaped directional antennae mounted flush against the pole. This replaces the 13.5 ft. wide antennae array at the top of the monopole with the two, 4 ft. transmitting devices located beneath. The antennae will be enclosed with a 6 ft. high redwood fence. The applicant proposes to screen these structures with two, 8 ft. tall redwood trees planted along the east property line behind the structure(s). Due to the continuance of this project at the 9/6/91 Planning Commission meeting, several issues addressed in the staff report were not discussed. After consulting with legal council, new issues have been brought to staff's attention. These issues are discussed below. Design Review: All structures in the P.A. office district are subject to design review approval. Section 15- 46.040 states that when reviewing structures under the design review criteria the Planning Commission must be guided by the following criteria: (a) Where more than one building or structure will be constructed the architectural features and landscaping thereof shall be harmonious. Such features including height, elevations, roofs, materials, color and appurtenances. (b) The proposed development shall be compatible in terms of height, bulk and design with other structures in the immediate area. Although the applicant has attempted to address staff's concerns regarding the visual impacts of the structures, staff is still unable to recommend approval of the project. Based on the above design criteria, staff can not find the structures to be harmonious with the surrounding uses. The height and bulk of the structure far exceeds the height of other structures in the immediate area. Nonconformity: Parking The parking for this existing two -story office building is nonconforming. According to a Planning Commission staff report which involved a second story addition to the existing office building in 1981, 26 parking spaces were required. This was based on the requirement of one space for each 250 sq. ft. of gross floor area. New standards were adopted in 1987 which require one space per each 200 sq. ft. of gross floor area. Based on the current standard, 31 spaces would be required. Site Coverage: According to Section 15- 18.070, the maximum net site area covered by structures on any lot in the P.A. district shall be 30 This nonconforming site is presently at approximately 90% or greater site coverage. Section 15- 65.060 (a) states "A nonconforming use may not be altered, enlarged, expanded, or intensified. This prohibition shall include any alteration, enlargement, expansion, or intensification of a nonconforming use which; (1) Increases the number of structures or size of any structures housing such nonconforming use or any portion thereof." The applicant is proposing to add a new structure(s) to an existing nonconforming parking lot which is clearly an alteration and intensification of this nonconforming use. This is not allowed under the current zoning ordinance. Environmental Initial Study: As continually stated throughout the review of this proposal, one of the objectives of the P -A office district is to serve as a harmonious buffer between residential and commercial districts. Section 15- 18.040(c), General Restriction on Use, states, "No use shall be permitted which emits air pollution, solid or liquid wastes or dangerous radioactivity, or which creates odor, noise, vibration, glare or electrical disturbance detective beyond the boundaries of the site, or which involves any hazard of fire or explosive. Staff has received conflicting reports on the issues of health, and safety of the proposed transmission tower. Based on these concerns, staff prepared an initial environmental study. The study (attached) indicates that the project may have significant adverse effects on the environment. Areas of concern as outlined in the initial study are listed below. Staff answered maybe to all the following statements and questions: 1. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions. 2. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health). 3. Exposure of people to potential health hazards. 4. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 5. Aesthetics: Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? 6. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking. Staff has determined that this application is not exempt from the criteria of CEQA. If the Commission wishes to go forward with this application, a negative declaration must be prepared. In order to do so, a determination must be made as to whether the above stated e. impacts can be mitigated. Conclusion: Attachments: 1. Environmental Initial Study 2. Staff Report dated, 9/11/91 3. Correspondence 4. Plans, Exhibit "A" The applicant has submitted a lengthy document which was presented to the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) 1/15/91, addressing the issues of health and safety. Mr. Whetstone, the owner of the adjacent office building, has submitted a series of letters and articles (attached) regarding wireless equipment and health and safety issues which relate to its use. Mr. Whetstone is in disagreement with the applicant on the issue of health and safety. These document must be reviewed further, in order to determine which of the conflicting information is accurate. A professional, non biased third party must be retained by the applicant and approved by the Planning Director, to evaluate these issues before the required negative declaration can be prepared. Based on the issues of nonconformity, involving parking and site coverage and the inability to make the findings of compatibility in terms of height and bulk as well as the inability to find the structure(s) harmonious with the existing structures, staff is not able to recommend approval of the application. In addition, under the guidelines of CEQA, the Planning Commission is not able to grant approval of this application until the mitigation measures (if required) have been determined and a negative declaration has been prepare. Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the application. 1 PROJECT: LOCATION: I. BACKGROUND 3. Date of Checklist Submitted: 4. Agency Requiring Checklist: CITY OF SARATOGA CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (TO BE COMPLETED BY PU9LIC AGENCY) GTE Mobilnet Cellular Telephone 14375 Saratoga Ave. Saratoga. CA 95070 1. Name of Proponent: GTE Mobilnet Cellular Telephone +e= 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: Mr. Cole Newman 5. Name of Proposal, if applicable: N/A N/A ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe "answers are required on attached sheets.) 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or over- crowding of the soil? d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? FORM EIA -lb FILE NO AR -91 -016 3375 Scott Blvd. #318 Santa Clara, CA 95050 YES MAYBE NO c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? e. Any incre wind or water erosion of soils 0 either on or off the site? f. Changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of a lake? g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? b. The creation of objectionable odors? c. Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or region- ally? 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements in fresh water? b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? YES MAYBE NO d. Change in t'!fe amount of surface water or any water in any water body? e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water other- wise available for public water supplies? i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? j. Significant changes :in the temperature, flow, or chemical content of surface thermal springs? 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass r crops, and aquatic plants) b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? -3- YES MAYBE NO c. Introdu of new species of plants into area, or in a b rrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? 5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals includ- ing reptiles, fish, or insects)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? d. Deterioration to existing wildlife or fish habitat? 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? -4- YES MAYBE NO 8. Land Use. W the proposal result in a substanl a teration of the present or planned land use of an area? 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? 10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve: a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (inlcuding, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? 11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density,: or growth rate of the human population of an area? 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? 13 Transportation /Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? -5- YES MAYBE NO b. Effects on (Wing parking facilities, or dem for new parking? Nonconforming parking lot. Twenty -six (26) parking spaces existing, 32 spaces required. c. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and /or goods? e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? f. Increase in traffic hazardous to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 14 Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? c. Schools? d. Parks or other recreational facilities? e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? f. Other governmental services? 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? -6- YES MAYBE NO b. Substanti increase in demand upon existing sources o energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? b. Communications systems? c. Water? d. Sewer or septic tanks? e. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste and disposal? 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? Conflicting materials submitted identifying health and safety issues.. Independent study necessary. b. Exposure of people'to potential health hazards? Conflicting materials submitted identifying health and safety issues. Independent study necessary. 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruc- tion oUany scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the c' "i.ity or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? -7- YES MAYBE NO Structure not harmonious with existing office /residential use. Strucutres height and bulk is not compatible with other structures in the immediate area. x_ 20. Cultural Resou s. a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archeological site? b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? c. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short -term, to the disadvantage of long -term, environmental goals? (A short -term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a rela- tively brief, definitive period of time while long -term impacts will endure well into the future.) -8- YES MAYBE NO -p' c. Does the 'ject have impacts which are indi, dually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? PUP to conflirting reports from applicant and the adjacent neighbor, this issue remains unresolved. An independent study is required to determine if these are in fact health and safety issues. II. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION -9- YES MAYBE NO W. DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an independen r study is required. DATE: 9/30/91 (�(,n ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: S NATURE For: -10- (rev. 5/16/80) MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DESCRIPTION: BACKGROUND: 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 887 -3438 Planning Commission Susan Riggs AR -91 -026; 14375 Saratoga Ave (GTE Mobilnst) DATE: 9/11/91 Request for administrative approval to construct a 40 ft. monopole cellular transmission tower within the Professional and Administrative (P.A.) zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The following is the chronological history of events leading to this appeal: 3/27/91 Planning Commission denied a request for a use permit to construct a 50 ft. monopole cellular transmission tower based on the adverse visual impacts it would have on the surrounding office and residential uses and the inability to mitigate the visual impacts of the tower. 5/1/91 Applicant appealed the denial by Planning Commission to City Council. Direction from Council was for applicant to return to the Planning Commission as plans had been revised to show two, 50 ft. tall, wood telephone type transmission towers. 6/12/91 Applicant returned to Planning Commission with a new proposal to construct two, 50 ft. tall, wood telephone type cellular transmission towers. Applicant requested two weeks continuance to study possibility of reducing height of towers to 40 feet. 7/23/91 Applicant submitted application for administrative review to construct one, 40 ft. tall monopole cellular transmission tower. 7/25/91 Notice of administrative review sent to surrounding, property owners within 500 ft. of project site. 8/9/91 Proposal for 40 ft. transmission tower denied by Planning Director. Ten day appeal period began. 8/16/91 Applicant appealed administrative decision to deny project. DISCUSSION: The Planning Director denied the application for Administrative Review approval based on the inability to screen or mitigate the visual impacts of the 40 ft. tall transmission tower. Section 15- 80.080 of the City Code states that the antennas and their support structure shall be screened as much as possible by architectural features, fences, or landscaping to minimize the visual impacts of the antenna and its support structure upon adjacent properties and public rights -of -ways. During the 10 day administrative review period, several concerned neighbors and business owners reviewed the plans for the proposal. All were concerned about the inability to screen the visual impacts of the transmission tower. Concerns were also raised regarding the effects the transmission waves would have on nearby electronic equipment. A further concern involved the required parking standards for the existing office use. CELLULAR TRANSMISSION INTERFERENCE: In the City's "letter of denial" to the applicant (attached), staff requested information on cellular transmission waves and their effects on nearby electronic equipment should they appeal the denial. GTE did not include this information in their appeal letter. In a phone conversation with Mr. Newman, Radio Engineering Supervisor for GTE Mobilnet, Mr. Newman stated that the transmission tower would cause no interference with nearby electronic equipment. He stated that he would provide supporting documents to back his claims prior to the Planning Commission meeting. To date, this information has not been received. Mr. Newman stated that GTE would remove the transmission tower should any interferences occur. Mr. Newman recently submitted a summary of comments prepared for the Public Utility Commission by the Cellular Carriers Association and the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association (attached). The report discusses health and safety issues and basically states that the low levels of emissions from cellular transmission are safe and do not in any way pose a danger to the health of the general public. The report stated that "analyses of emissions from typical cellular transmission facilities demonstrate that public exposure to such emissions are several hundred times or more below the most stringent U.S. standard PARKING REQUIREMENTS: According to a Planning Commission staff report which involved a second story addition to the existing office building in 1981, 26 parking spaces were required. The transmission tower will eliminate one of the required parking spaces. Therefore, the applicants will need to provide an additional parking space in order to comply with the conditions placed on the office building. According to the City Traffic Engineer, there is adequate room for an additional parking space south of the proposed tower and along the rear of the building. This also allows for the required 24 ft. backup space for the cars parked along the rear property line. Should this application be approved, one additional parking space must be provided and indicated on the site plan. CONCLUSION: In summary, staff does not feel that they can support the 40 ft. tall transmission tower as proposed. The tower is not in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance in that surrounding properties would be adversely impacted. Section 15- 18.010 (a) Purposes of the Article, states that one of the purposes of the Professional and Administrative zone district is to provide harmonious transitional uses between commercial and residential districts. Given the unavoidable impact of this proposal, and the visual impact it creates for the adjacent business and property owners, staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the proposal. Staff feels that the visual impacts could be mitigated if the applicant were to use one, 40 ft. wood telephone type pole with the screening devices on top as discussed at the 6/12/91 Planning Commission meeting. Staff also would recommend a wood fence enclosure in place of the proposed chain link fence. Staff also feels that the concerns regarding possible interference with the adjacent uses has not been adequately addressed by the applicant. Due to the absence of the requested information regarding the possible effects the transmission tower may have on nearby electronic equipment, staff feels they have no other choice than to recommend denial of the application. RECOMMENDATION: Deny the application without prejudice. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Correspondence 2. Denial of Application, Dated 8/9/91 3. Appeal Letter, Dated 8/16/91 4. Public Utilities Commission Summary 5. Memorandums Dated 6/12/91 with Attachment PUBLIC HEARINGS P.C. MINUTES 10/9/91 MOTION to continue Item 10, Open Space Element, to a study session. M/S Forbes /Favero Commissioner Bogosian stated he would like to add that individuals notified again for the study session and would like to adopt a format similar to zoning ordinances with a line by line analysis. He indicated he could support the motion if these concerns were understood. Commissioner Tucker asked if it would be in the best interest to listen to those people that have come to this meeting to hear this item, allowing the Commission some format to follow in a study session. Commissioner Forbes stated he did not feel it was fair to Wither citizens that their items be delayed or continued in order to hear this item and that the open space issue should be given careful consideration, and deserves an individual, less formal forum. Commissioner Favero expressed agreement, indicating this matter requires a great deal of public input and he is anxious to hear from the average Saratoga citizen regarding this. Chair Moran spoke in favor of hearing the matter this evening, stating that citizens had come to this meeting expecting this matter to be addressed, and she would like to hold the hearing as advertised. Planning Director Emslie indicated that the Planning Commission can continue a public hearing without opening the public hearing and it would be appropriate to continue it to a date certain. Commissioner Tucker suggested that those present in the audience to hear the open space element item should contact staff to make sure their concerns are addressed at the study session. Commissioner Caldwell suggested that if this matter is voted to a separate meeting, it should be a very structured meeting and one at which only this matter will be heard. Planning Director Emslie stated that November 5 is a regularly scheduled study session and staff would check to see that the theater will be available. Chair Moran indicated to the audience that the Planning Commission would reconvene on November 5, 1991 to hear the Open Space Element item. She further stated that the Commission will convene in its regular meeting room (theater) and any change to that would be posted on the doors directing the public to the Community Center. Commissioner Caldwell suggested that staff post the doors this evening to let late- comers know that the public hearing for the Open Space Element has been postponed to November 5. Chair Moran announced to the audience that with 14 public hearings on the agenda it was very likely that the Commission would not get to all public hearings; the Commission's policy is to not begin any public hearings after 11:30 p.m. and anyone interested in having their item continued should make that request of the Commission. 3. AR -91 -016 GTE Mobilnet, 14375 Saratoga Ave., request for design review approval to construct two, 40 ft. cellular transmission towers per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The structures are located in the Professional and Administrative 3 Office (P -A) zone district (cont. from 9/25/91; application expires 3/11/92). Planner Susan Riggs presented the staff report, indicating the item had been continued previously over concerns with conflict of interest and stated the City Attorney would address that issue after the staff report. Ms. Riggs reviewed the revised proposal before the Planning Commission, indicating that staff has prepared an initial environmental study. Ms. Riggs reported that staff was recommending a non biased third party be retained by the applicant, and approved by the Planning Director, to evaluate conflicting reports to determine if the environmental impacts can be mitigated. Planner Riggs further reported that, due to the issues of design incompatibility, non- conformance and environmental concerns, staff is unable to recommend approval of this project. The City Attorney addressed the conflict of interest issue, indicating that a mere participation in mutual funds does not constitute a conflict of interest as long as the mutual fund meets the statutory definition registered with the SEC. Several Commissioners indicated they had no conflict of interest and were prepared to vote on this matter this evening. Commissioner Caldwell asked for clarification that either a Negative Declaration or an EIR would be needed if the Commission determined to go forward with the project. Planning Director Emslie responded that the study shows that a Negative Declaration would be prepared. Commissioner Caldwell added that it could be the Commission's conclusion that a full EIR is necessary and Mr. Emslie agreed that was correct. Several Commissioners reported viewing Mr. Wetstone's clips regarding another GTE monopole in the bay area. Chair Moran opened the public hearing at 8:02 p.m. Peggy Cocker, representative of GTE Mobilnet, reviewed the new plan before the Commission, indicating the new proposal is for two 40' foot wooden poles, with three antennas attached to the top. Ms. Cocker reviewed the staff report, focusing on the issues of design review, non conformance, and further environmental review. She reported that in their opinion this site does meet design review criteria, it is compatible in terms or height and bulk design, and they believe this particular use will not enlarge or intensify this non conforming use. This is an unmanned facility and will not increase parking requirements for this site. As to the issue of site coverage, Saratoga ordinance definition of structure specifically excludes fences, and they will not be looking at fence to determine if this use is non conforming as to site coverage. In their opinion the two wooden poles will not be intensifying or enlarging the non conforming use. As to environmental review, they do not feel that further environmental review is necessary but rather, under SEQA, a categorical exemption should apply. Ms. Cocker further reported that they do not feel that this type of facility poses any health hazard. Ms. Cocker asked that the Planning Commission vote on the specific plan before them this evening, and if denied, give GTE specific reasons for denial to assist them in determining rather or not to look at other plans for 4 other antennae poles on this site. Don Whetstone, 14395 Saratoga Avenue, expressed concern over the fact that screening has not been addressed, indicating that trees on the east side of the site will do nothing to screen the view from his building located on the west side of the property. Mr. Whetstone further stated his concern with the rapid increase in cellular use indicating that applications have been filed with the FCC and the EPA to do something about setting some standards. He expressed appreciation to the Planning Commission for trying to protect residents regarding this issue. Noel Lindsay, 14349 Saratoga Avenue, asked that consideration be given to the potential damages that could be incurred by homeowners in the area of the site. Mr. Lindsay stated his opinion that equitable restitution should be made to homeowners who's property values will drop if this project proceeds as proposed. Joe Long, 14363 Saratoga Avenue, spoke against the project stating it does not belong this close to residences and it will take away views and property values. Shelley Williams, 11951 Brook Ridge Drive, spoke in favor of the project and urged the Planning Commission to visit the site. Bob Pierce, 20350 Argonaut Drive, stated the project would not do anything to enhance the aesthetic value of the Village and urged the Planning Commission to deny the project. Mary Monaghan, 14351 -C Saratoga Avenue, expressed concerns with health hazards and urged denial of the project. Peggy Cocker, representing the applicant, addressed some of the concerns raised by residents stating that the applicant has been working on the need for service in the project area and reiterating her previous statement regarding the SEQA categorical exemption. Ms. Cocker further stated the applicant feels they have put their best plan before the Planning Commission. Ms. Cocker proceeded to answer various questions of the Commission, indicating the poles are 22" in diameter at the bottom with tapering to the top; wires shown in Exhibit A would be in the interior of the structure; there is approximately 395 sq. ft. inside the building, which is presently being used as office space but will house telephone switching equipment. MOTION to close the public hearing at 8:34 p.m. M/S Favero /Bogosian All ayes MOTION to deny AR -91 -006 with prejudice. M/S Forbes /Tucker Commissioner Tucker withdrew her second when the repeated. The motion died for lack of a second. Commissioner Favero referred to documents provided by 5 motion was staff giving ....w r.x2��wkiLrail:.C�Y ✓,..t a chronology of events, indicating that the Planning Department was going to approve this on August 5 and asked why this point was not included in the chronology of events. Planner Riggs responded that because this was a permitted use under this zone district staff typically, in order to keep the process moving, sends a letter of intention to approve to affected neighbors to let them know what the proposal is. Ms. Riggs stated concerned citizens then have ten days to review the proposed plans, giving them an opportunity to discuss and raise issues of concern to staff. At the end of the ten day period, a second letter is sent stating that staff will either go forward with intention to approve the project or, as in this case, staff will recommend denial of the project. Commissioner Favero expressed concerns with sending mixed signals to the public and the credibility of the representations made. Commissioner Favero questioned why a petition signed by residents was not included in the agenda packet and Planner Riggs responded it may have been included in a previous packet. Commissioner Favero also expressed concern with health hazards, indicating he would not vote in favor of this project. MOTION to deny AR -91 -016 with prejudice. M/S Forbes/ Motion died for lack of a second. MOTION to deny AR -91 -016 without prejudice per the staff report. M/S Caldwell /Tucker Commissioner Caldwell stated that she felt the heart of the issue is how to define the use and, for the purposes of the Commission's evaluation of non conforming use, are we talking about just the aspect of the use that makes it non conforming or the totallity of the use at the site. The City Attorney responded that categorical exemptions apply only if there is no chance the project will have an adverse effect. If it is determined there could be an adverse effect, as staff has found, the categorical exemption doesn't matter. Commissioner Caldwell further asked the issue of enlarging or intensifying the use what use are we talking about and the City Attorney responded it is dependent on what question is being asked. She stated that for the purposes of processing this application, staff determined that a design review permit was required because the antennae is a new, independent structure. As to determining what type of parking and the details of the district standards, one way or another we need to look at what the parking effects are. Commissioner Bogosian stated he is opposed to this design review proposal because he can't make the design review findings, the view cannot be successfully mitigated, and it will adversely impact the environment and the people living there. He also stated he feels there will be an intensification of use in the area, impacted the total flow of traffic. Chair Moran thanked the Planning staff for the series of reports and stated a different location should be looked into. 6 Commissioner Durket expressed appreciation to staff for the reports on health issues expressed agreement with Commissioner Bogosian's views. CALL FOR THE QUESTION All ayes Chair Moran informed the applicant they have ten days to appeal this action to the City Council. Chair Moran again invited applicants to request a continuance of their items to another meeting. Mr. Oliver requested his item, Item 9 Dividend Development be continued for two weeks. MOTION to continue SM -91 -003, ZC -91 -001, to the October 23, 1991 Planning Commission meeting. M/S Tucker /Durket Mr. Brackwill asked if was appropriate to ask for a study session regarding the carbon monoxide issue and Chair Moran indicated the carbon monoxide report was not available this evening and it would be more appropriate to address this issue at the next meeting when all the information will be available. She further recommended that Mr. Brackwill leave his name and address with staff who will see that he is notified of future meetings on this subject. CALL FOR THE QUESTION Ayes 6 Noes 0 Abstain 1 (Favero) Chair Moran called a recess at 8:55 p.m. The Planning Commission reconvened at 9:09 p.m. 4. DR -91 -022 Orosz, 14113 Pike Rd., request for design SD -89 -011.2 review approval to construct a new 5,217 sq. ft. two -story residence on a one acre site within the NHR zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Modification to condition #27 of SD -89 -011 is also requested to allow the structure to exceed the 200 ft. contour elevation (cont. from 9/11/91; application expires 10/26/91). Planner Walgren presented the staff report, noting that the Planning Commission reviewed this matter at its September 11 meeting and, based on the prominence of the parcel, continued the item to allow the applicant to revise the plans per staffs recommendations. Mr. Walgren reviewed the changes before the Commission this evening, stating that staff feels the applicant has satisfactorily addressed each of the concerns raised at the September 11 public hearing. Commissioner Caldwell indicated that at the last public hearing the second story pullback was discussed and asked if the resolution to that concern was the window boxes. Planner Walgren indicated that 7 R C IVED OCT 2 3 i;91 Matteoni Saxe Nan L A W Y E R S HAND DELIVERED October 22, 1991 Honorable City Council City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: Appeal of Denial of Design Review (AR91 -0106, GTE Mobilnet, 14375 Saratoga Avenue) Dear Mayor Stutzman and Members of the City Council: GTE Mobilnet appeals the decision of the Planning Commission denying design review approval to allow GTE Mobilnet to establish two 40 -foot wood antenna poles to operate a cellular communications facility at 14375 Saratoga Avenue. GTE requests the Council to consider, in its deter- mination, the benefits of cellular communication to Saratoga residents and businesses located in the Village area. Cellular communication is extremely important in emergency situations where standard telephone lines are down. GTE's system was functional through the Loma Prieta Earthquake and its aftermath. The system also was critical in the emergency efforts in the recent devastating Berkeley /Oakland Hills fire. Unfortunately, GTE's cellular service in the Village area of Saratoga is virtually non existent. There are only two zoning districts_ in Saratoga where an antenna pole can be established (the PA zoning and the C district) As you are aware, there are few PA districts and commercial districts in the City of Saratoga. Conse- quently, there are few places where GTE can establish this site to service the Village area. It is GTE's opinion that it has found the best site in the Village area in which to locate the two poles. An Association Includin a Profe ssional Kodak Center 1740 Technology Drive Suite 250 San Jose, CA 95110 408 441 -7800 FAX 408 441 -7302 Norman E. Matteoni Allan Robert Saxe Margaret Ecker Nanda Peggy M. Cocker Debra L. Cauble Honorable City Council October 22, 1991 Page Two Before going into the specifics of the appeal, it is important for the Council to understand exactly what GTE is proposing at the site. GTE is not proposing a standard monopole topped by a 13- foot -wide antenna structure, but rather it is proposing to construct two 40 -foot wood poles which look like wood telephone poles. Attached to the top of the poles are the necessary antenna equipment which are not more than 22 inches in width. (Attached to this appeal letter is a copy of a photograph of the type of pole GTE is pro posing.) Also, it is important for the Council to remember in its consideration that a 40 -foot pole is a permitted use in the PA zoning district. GTE is not asking for a use permit but for design review approval of a permitted use. The grounds for this appeal is that the Commission's denial of design review approval was improper on the basis that: criteria; ,reNc -C LJ 31- 1. The project does meet the design review 2. The project does not enlarge or intensify the nonconforming parking use; and 3. The project is categorically exempt from CEQA. ti CPA t DESIGN REVIEW In its resolution, the Commission states that the structure is not harmonious with the existing architectural features and landscaping and is not compatible in terms of height, bulk and design with other structures in the immediate area. The term "structure" is somewhat misleading in this context, given that what GTE is proposing is not a structure such as a building, but simply two wood telephone poles. These wood telephone poles certainly are compatible with the area in terms of "bulk," and in terms of height, the sur- rounding buildings are two stories and the poles will extend above these by approximately 14 feet. Again, it is not a building which is 14 feet higher, but two poles. GTE is Honorable City Council October 22, 1991 Page Three proposing to plant two redwood trees and is agreeable to planting additional redwood trees for landscaping. PARKING The Commission also denied the design review approval application on the grounds that the applicant would have to provide six additional parking spaces to bring the parking up to current standards. According to staff, when the office building on this side was established, only 26 spaces were needed. Since that time, parking requirements have become more stringent and six additional parking spaces would be needed if the building was established today. It is GTE's position tht it does not increase the site's parking require- ments and does not enlarge or intensify the nonconforming use status of this site for parking. This facility is unmanned and will not impact the parking. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION The Commission determined that the project was not exempt from CEQA review. GTE disagrees. GTE's project will consist of establishing two 40 -foot wood telephone poles and the renting of interior office space. The minimal nature of the project clearly comes within one of the categorical exemption exceptions of CEQA. The categorical exemptions which GTE believes apply in this case are as follows: CEQA Guidelines §15301(e) Class I which relates to additions to existing structures provided that the addition will not result in an increase of more than 2,500 square feet or 50% of the floor area of the structure before the addition. This specific exemption would apply if the City was to determine that given that this site already has an existing office building that the addition of the cell site consisting of the two wooden poles would be an addition to the existing structure (the office building). In the alternative, CEQA Guidelines §15303 Class III would apply which exempts construction of limited numbers of new small facilities or structures. It is GTE's opinion that two wood poles would certainly qualify as new small structures. Honorable City Council October 22, 1991 Page Four In summary, we request the Counsel to overturn the denial of design review approval from the Planning Commission and allow GTE to proceed to establish this cell site given that it is a permitted use under the Saratoga zoning code and meets all applicable criteria. Very truly yours, PMC:md cc: City Clerk, City of Saratoga Steve Emslie, Planning Director Cole Newman Cocf4'l PEGG Y COCKER Saratoga City Council 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA. 95070 Dear Council Members: SARATOGA FOOTHILL CLTTB P.O. BOX 2233 SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 November 18, 1991 RE: G T E Mobilenet Cellular Poles (AR -91 -016) On behalf of the Saratoga Foothill Club, I wish to express our deep concern that the installation of 40' tall antennae could interfere with our in -house public- address system. We cannot risk that possibility. We also believe that such poles are unsightly and do not belong in our town, which the merchants have tried to beautify! Therefore, we protest the installation of any cellular poles in our area. Sincerely yours, Mrs. P. F. Bowlin President