Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-05-2001 City Council MinutesMINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL DECEMBER 5, 2001 T'he City Council of the City of Saratoga met in Open Session in the Administrative Conference Room at 5:20 p.m. to interview applicants for the Arts Commission. The City Council of the City of Saratoga met in Closed Session, Administrative Conference Room. 13777 Fruitvale Avenue at 6:10 n.m. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL -ANTICIPATED LITIGATION: Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(b): (3 potential cases) CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL -EXISTING LITIGATION: (Government Code section 54956.9(a)) Name of case: City of Sazatoga v. Hinz (Santa Clara County Superior Court No. CV-784560) MAYOR'S REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION- 6:10 p.m. Mayor Mehaffey reported there was Council discussion but no reportable action was taken. Mayor Mehaffey called the Regular City Council meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. and requested Kathleen King to lead the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers Evan Baker, Stan Bogosian, Ann Waltonsmith, Vice Mayor Nick Streit, Mayor John Mehaffey ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: Daue Anderson, City Manager Richard Taylor, City Attorney Lorie Tinfow, Assistant City Manager Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk Tom Sullivan, Community Development Director John Cherbone, Director of Public Works Cazy Bloomquist, Administrative Analyst Danielle Surdin, Economic Development Coordinator Rhett Edmonds, Community Service Officer REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA FOR SEPTEMBER 19. 2001. Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk, reported that pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2, the agenda for the meeting of December 5, 2001 was properly posted on November 30, 2001. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS & PUBLIC None COMMUNICATIONS FROM BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS None None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS The following people spoke at tonught's meeting: Mary Gardner, Superintendent/Sazatoga Union School District 20460 Forest Hills Drive, stated that she wanted to bring the Council up to date on their study of the eucalyptus tree at Oak Street School. Ms. Gardner noted that they have had three arborist reports done. The School Board would be having a public hearing on December 11, 2001 at 8:00 p.m. at Saratoga School. Ms. Gazdner noted that the District has received 142 petitions and several phone calls and emails in support of removing the tree. Ms. Gazdner noted that the Boazd would take action on December 11, 2001. John Waite, SUSD Boazd member, 20344 Franklin Avenue, noted that the data received from the arborist report stated that the tree could be saved, by cutting off several feet from the top. Unfortunately, Mr. Waite stated the District has heard an overwhelming response from parents and teachers pleading that the tree be removed. Jill Hunter, 20606 Lomita Avenue, briefly explained her background in outdoor education. Ms. Hunter noted that sixty trees were taken down when the renovation project began at Oak Street School. Ms. Hunter noted that she has visited many schools that have large eucalyptus trees on the property. Ms. Hunter noted that if it's the height that is the problem she has anonymous donor who is willing to pay to have the tree lowered. COUNCIL DH2ECTION TO STAFF Councilmember Bogosain requested that the SUSD provide City Council with pictures of how mature trees look after they have been topped. Councilmember Bogosian noted that the arborist report stated that tree would not constitute a hazard if the height were lowered. Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that there are topped eucalyptus trees along Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road if residents would like to see what topped trees look like. ANNOUNCEMENTS None CEREMONIAL ITEMS COMMENDATION -SILICON VALLEY CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL FOUNDATION STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Read commendation. Mayor Mehaffey presented the commendation to the members of the Silicon Valley Children's Hospital Foundation Board. CONSENT CALENDAR 2A. APPROVE COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES REGULAR MEETING -SEPTEMBER 5, 2001 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve minutes. Councilmember Waltonsmith requested that Item 2A be pulled from the Consent calendar. Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that she would be abstaining from the vote because she was not present at the meeting of September 5, 2001. STREITBOGOSIAN MOVED TO APPROVE COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 5, 2001. MOTION PASSES 3-2 WITH BAKER AND WALTONSMITH ABSTAINING. 2B. APPROVE COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES REGULAR MEETING -OCTOBER 3, 2001 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve minutes. Mayor Mehaffey requested that Item 2B be pulled from the Consent Calendar. Mayor Mehaffey noted that he would be abstaining from the vote because he was not present at the meeting of October 3, 2001. STREIT/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO APPROVE COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF OCTOBER 3, 2001. MOTION PASSES 4-I WITH MEHAFFEY ABSTAINING. 2C. APPROVE COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES REGULAR MEETING -OCTOBER 17, 2001 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve minutes. STREIT/WALTONSMITHMQVED TO APPROVE COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF OCTOBER 17, 2001. MOTION PASSES 4-1 WITH MEHAFFEY ABSTAINING. 2D. REVIEW OF CHECK REGISTER STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve check register. STREIT/BAKER MOVED TO APPROVE CHECK REGISTER. MOTION PASSES 5-0. 2:E. MONTHLY TREASURER'S REPORT FOR SEPTEMBER & OCTOBER 2001 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept reports. STREITBAKER MOVED TO APPROVE MONTHLY TREASURER'S REPORT. MOTION PASSES 5-0. 2F. REVIEW PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING -NOVEMBER 14, 2001 & NOVEMBER 28, 2001 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Note and file. STREITBAKER MOVED TO APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MINUTES. MOTION PASSES 5-0. 2G. RESOLUTION DECLARING WEEDS GROWING ON CERTAIN PROPERTY TO BE A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 01-083 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCH, DECLARING WEED5 GROWING ON CERTAIN DESCRIBED PROPERTY TO BE A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING STREITBAKER MOVED TO APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MINUTES. MOTION PASSES 5-0. 2H. ABANDONED VEHICLE ABATEMENT AUTHORITY STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: Ol- 084 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL ESTABLISHING SERVICES FOR ABANDONED VEHICLE ABATEMENT (ABA) Mayor Mehaffey requested that Item 2H be pulled from the Consent Calendar. Mayor Mehaffey asked if the City currently abates abandoned vehicles. Rhett Edmonds, Community Service Officer, responded yes. Community Service Officer Edmonds explained that every abandoned vehicle the City abates the County reimburses the City approximately 50% of the costs incurred resulting from the abatement. During the year 2001 the city abated 126 vehicles. MEFIAFFEYBOCrOSIAN MOVED TO APPROVE ADOPT RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING SERVICES FOR ABANDONED VEHICLE ABATEMENT. MOTION PASSES 5-0. 2I. MOTOR VEHICLE (MV) RESOLUTION RESTRICTING PARKING ALONG A PORTION OF SARATOGA AVENUE STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: MV-234 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL RESTRICTING PARKING ON A PORTION OF SARATOGA AVENUE Councilmember Bogosian requested that Item 2I be pulled form the Consent Calendar. Councilmember Bogosian asked what the procedure was if the City decides to reverse this resolution in the future to allow parking along Saratoga Avenue. Director Cherbone explained that the Council would have to adopt a resolution rescinding this resolution if adopted tonight. Mayor Mehaffey requested that Item 2I be pulled from the Consent Calendar. Mayor Mehaffey stated that the location of the property was not clear and requested that the description be reworded. Director Cherbone noted that the description would be corrected. MEHAFFEYBAKER MOVED TO APPROVE ADOPT RESOLUTION RESTRICTING PARKING ON A PORTION OF SARATOGA AVENUE AS AMENDED. MOTION PASSES 5-0. 2J. PROPERTY TAX SETTLEMENT WITH SANTA CLARA COUNTY STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize agreement. STREIT/BAKER MOVED TO AUTHORIZE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT. MOTION PASSES 5-0. 2K. AUTHORIZATION TO CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH SARATOGA LITTLE LEAGUE AND ADOPT RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize agreement and adopt resolution. TITLE OF RESOLUTION:OI-085 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL AMENDING THE 2001-2002 BUDGET FOR AN APPROPRIATION OF $130,000 CONSTRUCTION SERVICES AT CONGRESS SPRINGS PARK STREIT/BAKER MOVED TO APPROVE ADOPT RESOLUTION AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR CONGRESS SPRINGS PARK. MOTION PASSES 5-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF UP-O1-010 (403- 24-001)-METRO PCS, 13686 QUITO ROAD STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Conduct public hearing; Deny the appeal; Uphold Planning Commission's decision. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 01-086 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCH, APPROVING AN APPEAL OF THE USE PERMIT CONDITION, ALLOWING THE FACILITY TO BE PLACED ABOVE GROUND, OVERTURNING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S CONDITION REQUIRING AN UNDERGROUND WIIiELESS ANTENNA FACH.ITY, AT 13686 QUITO ROAD (UP-O1-010) John Livingstone, Associate Planner, presented staff report. Planner Livingstone explained that the applicant is appealing the approval of a conditional use permit to locate a wireless antenna system on an existing PG & E transmission tower. The system includes six new directional antennas mounted on the existing tower. Planner Livingstone noted that the applicant is appealing the condition that the cabinets be placed underground. Planner Livingstone stated that staff feels that the site is an appropriate location for a telecommunication antenna facility. The proposed antennas are unobtrusive as 7 viewed form the street and currently there is one other carrier at this location, which has a fully enclosed structure. Planner Livingstone nated that staff generally recommends that the facilities are co-located on the existing transmission towers. This increases the likelihood of multiple carriers being located at the same area. The underground facility would improve the esthetics and avoid creating a small village on vacant pazcel. It would also minimize any noise and visualize impacts to the adjacent neighborhood and reduce the chances for vandalism. Planner Livingstone noted that staff is recommending that the City Council deny the appeal and require the facility to be located underground. Councilmember Bogosian asked if the proposed under grounding facility has been done before in other cities. Planner Livingstone responded that underground facilities have been done in other cities. Planner Livingstone explained that the interest for underground facilities started when a different cazrier recently proposed an underground facility on Saratoga-Los Gatos Road. When the application went before the Planning Commission, the Commission asked the applicant why other carriers have not done the same. Planner Livingstone noted there were no particulaz reasons stated. Planner Livingstone stated that staff is now recommending that all wireless antenna facilities be placed underground unless the applicant can justify why it cannot be done. Councilmember Waltonsmith questioned why multiple carriers cannot share a site and insist that they must have their own site. Planner Livingstone responded currently the carriers are competing with each other. Perhaps in the future economics might force carriers to co-exist. Vice Mayor Streit commented that the City must find a solution to monitor the landscaping around these cell sites. Planner Livingstone responded that it is a condition of project approval and can be enforced by code enforcement. Mayor Mehaffey opened the public heazing at 7:35 p.m. and invited the appellant to speak for ten minutes. Karen McPherson, Metro PCS, 1080 Marino Village Parkway, Atameda, CA, noted that Metro PCS is a new carrier in this azea and planned on launching their services on January 28, 2001. In regazds to Councilmember Waltonsmith's questions about why carriers cannot share towers, Ms. McPherson explained that the antennas all have different frequencies and height requirements. As far as putting the facility underground, Ms. McPherson explained that PG&E would not allow them to do so and read a letter from PG&E explaining why. Ms. McPherson noted that PG&E stated they do not allow cell site carriers to perform deep excavation within the footprint of PG&E towers because underground equipment would compromise the structural integrity of their towers. Ms. McPherson noted that at this particular site that they cannot go beyond the footprint of the tower because the landowner wants to develop the rest of the property. Ms. McPherson requested that the City Council allow Metro PCS to build their facility above ground and they would be willing to sign a Landscape Maintenance Agreement. Julie Walker, Metro PCS, 1080 Marino Village Parkway, Alameda, CA, explained why carriers cannot share each others equipment. Ms. Walker stated that if the City Council allows Metro to build above ground they would do the following: • Issue a Landscape Bond • Build a wood fence around the facility • Use landscaping to screen the facility at the base of the tower Councilmember Baker asked what is the minimum size required for the footprint for mounting the equipment. Ms. Walker responded a 10 x 14 pad is required for the equipment pad and the actual equipment goes in the middle. Councilmember Baker noted that if Metro PCS builds a 10x14 pad, they would take up all of the space under the tower and no other carrier could shaze the site. Cheriel Jensen, 13737 Quito road, expressed the following: • Asked the Council to "just say no" • Suggested that the proposed project is not compatible with the residential area • Concerns for microwave exposure • Declared the Quito azea has been trashed and that nothing is being done • Opposes this antenna at this property • Displayed a diagram of a microwave spectrum Dave Anderson, 18491 Montepere Way, noted that he was a new resident in Saratoga and stated that antennas in residential areas are esthetically and environmentally disappointing. Eugene Zambetti, 14575 Oak Street, stated that he owns the adjacent property on the corner of Quito Road & Sousa Lane. Mr. Zambetti noted that the site has enough space on it to fit Metro PCS's facility underground. Ms. McPherson explained to the Council that their goal was not to erect any new towers; the PG&E tower already exists and is available. Ms. McPherson noted that moving their site would impact the service they provide. John Schwartz, Engineer, Metro PCS, 1080 Marino Village Parkway, Alameda, CA, noted that with the current applications, Metro was not proposing any new towers in the area. Mr. Schwartz addressed some of Ms. Jensen's concerns. Mr. Schwartz noted that moving their site would impact the service they would provide to Saratoga and impacts the rest of their network. Councilmember Baker asked how many antenna sites Metro has in Saratoga. Mr. Schwartz responded that they would have two sites in Saratoga, but neither one is constructed yet. Vice Mayor Streit asked if the City Council allows Metro to build an above ground facility would they be willing to build a facility like the existing one owned by AT&T. Ms. Walker responded yes. Mayor Mehaffey asked if they looked at other sites in the area. Mr. Schwartz responded yes. Ms. Walker noted that there is no other site in the area that meets their height requirement. Mayor Mehaffey closed the public hearing at 8:05 p.m. Vice Mayor Streit commented that in the staff report it states that applicants have to build their facilities underground or justify why it cannot be done. Vice Mayor Streit asked staff if the letter from PG&E justifies why this facility cannot be built under ground. Planner Livingstone responded no. Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that the Council cannot discuss safety issues but can talk about the esthetics. Attorney Taylor responded that the Council can talk about safety issues but cannot base any decisions on those types of issues. In regards to esthetics the Council can base decisions on those types of issues. Vice Mayor Streit noted that he could support Metro PCS building above ground as long as a landscape maintenance agreement is signed and renewed sooner than 10 five years. Vice Mayor Streit noted that in the future any new sites be required to build their facilities underground. Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that the safety issues still concern her. Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that she feels that the applicant should push PG&E to allow them to build underground. Councilmember Baker noted that his concern is that there is no limit on the number of companies that can build facilities and put up antennas. Mayor Mehaffey noted the visual impacts of antennas and towers in the City of Saratoga need to stop. Mayor Mehaffey noted that he is opposed to this appeal. Councilmember Bogosain stated that he is willing to go ahead with the above ground facility if the applicant provides a landscaping bond. Councilmember Bogosian asked what amount are landscaping bonds set at. Director Sullivan responded that when staff gets to the point to approve a landscape plan, the bond would probably be set at 150% of plan. In response to Vice Mayors earlier comments regarding the renewal of the landscape maintenance agreement, Director Sullivan stated that in some communities landscape maintenance agreements are renewed annually. Councilmember Baker asked the applicant if the Council upholds the Planning Commission's decision and denies the appeal, would that eliminate Metro PCS from serving the City of Saratoga. Mayor Mehaffey reopened the public hearing at 8:25 p.m. Ms. Walker responded if Metro PCS does not get this site, they would have to redesign and re-engineer the area and put in several more sites to cover Saratoga. Ms. Walker stated that there is not another tower in Saratoga that has the required height specification for their use. Metro would have to launch an incomplete service on January 28, 2001. Ms. Walker stated that Saratoga would not be covered. Mayor Mehaffey asked if Metro considered Mr. Zambetti's offer. Ms. Walker responded that Metro PCS was not aware of Mr. Zambetti's offer. Mr. Zambetti noted that Metro has not even looked at his property. Mr. Zambetti noted that his property would be perfect for Metro. Ms. Walker noted that Metro PCS would have to build a vault and increase the height of the existing pole on Mr. Zambetti's property. 11 Mayor Mehaffey asked how tall the PG & E tower was. Ms. Walker responded that PG&E's tower is 70 feet and the pole on Mr. Zambetti's property is only 30 feet. Ms. Jensen urged the Council to deny the entire project. Mr. Anderson asked if the Council has documentation of the negotiations between Metro PCS and the landowner. Mr. Anderson urged the Council uphold the Planning Commissions decision. Mayor Mehaffey closed the public heazing at 8:30 p.m. Vice Mayor Streit noted that he does not want monopoles in the City of Sazatoga and stated that he supports this project with the added condition that the landscape maintenance agreement be renewed annually. Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that she is not convinced that the landowner would not let Metro PCS put their facility underground and noted that she opposes this appeal. BOGOSIAN/STREIT MOVED TO UPHOLD THE GRANT THE APPEAL AS AMENDED WITH THE ADDED CONDITIONS THAT METRO PCS PROVIDE A LANDSCAPE BOND, THE FACILITY BE BUILT TO CONFORM TO AT& T FACILITY, THE LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT BE RENEWED ANNUALLY AND THE BUILDING BE BUH.T WITHIN THE FOOTPRINT OF THE TOWER. MOTION PASSES 4-1 WITH WALTONSMITH OPPOSING. 4. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF UP-O1-009 (393- 21-013)-METRO PCS, 12383 SARATOGA-SUNNYVALE ROAD STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Conduct public hearing; Deny the appeal; Uphold Planning Commission's decision. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 01-087 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCII, APPROVING AN APPEAL OF THE USE PERMIT CONDITION, OVERTURNING THE PLANNING COMMISSION CONDITION REQUH2ING THE FACILITY TO BE PLACED UNDERGROUND, ALLOWING THE APPLICANT TO USE AN EXISTING ABANDONED ABOVE GROUND WHiELESS ANTENNA FACILITY AT 12383 SARATOGA-SUNNYVALE ROAD (UP-O1-090) 12 John Livingstone, Associate Planner, presented staff report Planner Livingstone explained that once again the applicant is appealing the condition that the cabinets be placed underground. The main difference between the two sites is that this site already has two carriers and this would make three. Vice Mayor Streit questioned if one of the existing carriers on the site is no longer operating. Planner Livingstone stated that Vice Mayor Streit was corrected and explained that the applicant is still trying to finalize taking over the Metrocom site. Planner Livingstone noted that this is the fenced in site that is not under the tower. Mayor Mehaffey opened the public hearing at 8:38 p.m. Ms. McPherson explained that the reason they cannot put a facility underground is because there are gas lines that run under the tower. Ms. McPherson noted that PG&E is willing to allow Metro PCS to use Metrocom's equipment pad. Vice Mayor Streit asked if Metrocom's panels are still there. Ms. McPherson noted yes. Councilmember Baker asked if there were any discussion with Sprint's to share their pad under the tower. Ms. Walker explained that there was no way that Metro PCS could share Sprint's pad. Vice Mayor Streit asked the applicant if they didn't take over Metrocom's site, where were they going to go. Ms. McPherson responded that the property owner has stated that he would allow Metro PCS to put their facility anywhere on the property. William Guthery, 20422 Seagull Way, noted that the City should enact an ordinance allowing the City to revoke permits on all cellular companies. Mayor Mehaffey closed the public hearing at 8:50 p.m. Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that Metro PCS should be forced to build underground. 13 Vice Mayor Streit noted that he could support Metro PCS taking over the Metrocom site, plant appropriate landscaping, remove the old Metrocom panels, and impose the same conditions as the previous application. Mayor Mehaffey noted that he agrees with Councilmember Waltonsmith that the City should enforce carriers to build underground. MEHAFFEY/STREIT MOVED TO APPROVE THE APPEAL WITH THE CONDITIONS THAT THE METROCOM'S ANTENNAS BE REMOVED FROM THE TOWER. PLANT APPROPRIATE LANDSCAPING. PROVIDE LANDSCAPING BOND. AND ANNUAL REVIEW OF LANDSCAPING MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT. MOTION PASSES 4-1 WITH WALTONSMITH OPPOSING. Mayor Mehaffey declared aten-minutes recess at 9:00 p.m. Mayor Mehaffey reconvened the meeting at 9:10 p.m. CITY OF SARATOGA HOUSING ELEMENT STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Conduct public hearing; direct staff accordingly. Tom Sullivan, Community Development Director, presented staff report. Director Sullivan explained that this is the continuing development of the City's Housing Element under the mandate of the State of California. Director Sullivan noted that the City Council authorized the submittal of the Draft Housing Element to Housing and Community Development (HCD) on September 19, 2001. HCD received the Element on September 24, 2001 and staff met with Margaret Murphy of HCD on September 26, 2001. Director Sullivan noted that he received four pages of questions or issues from Ms. Murphy. Director Sullivan briefly explained some of Ms. Murphy's concerns and stated that 85% of her comments were fairly benign and only required the City to provide clearer detail of information already in the document. The remaining 15% involves actually identifying particular parcels and providing details regarding the parcel's history, current use, and how many units of rental housing could be expected to be developed on that parcel. This can easily be accomplished but would not be consistent with previous Council direction. Director Sullivan described the City Council's options: 1. Make some of the changes, but leave out parcel specific information and resubmit explaining why we didn't include the requested information. 14 2. Abandon the "Mixed Use" concept and identify one, two, or three commercial or quasi-public facilities pazcels that could accommodate the mandated housing. 3. As HCD has required the City to identify particular pazcels to accommodate low and moderate housing the City Council could select lands shown on the General Plan for Residential uses as sites for higher density without violating Measure G. 4. Accept the Non-Compliance status and any subsequent (yet to be determined) fiscal impacts. Councilmember Bogosian asked to what level of specificity in identifying pazcel is HCD requiring. Responding to Councilmember Bogosian's question, Director Sullivan stated that a map with additional information listing the pazcel number, and explaining the future and existing use would be sufficient. Councilmember Bogosian asked if Council directed staff to identify particulaz parcels, would the property owner be notified. Director Sullivan responded that if that were Council's direction then staff would notify parcel owners. Councilmember Baker asked if the City has a noncompliant status what would be the fiscal impacts. Director Sullivan explained that that if the Dunn Bill passed, fines could be up to one million dollazs, 60% of the gas tax could beheld (and would not get it back until in compliance), and the City would be responsible to pay court costs for all plaintiffs. Mayor Mehaffey opened the public hearing at 9:45 p.m. and invited public comments. Gregory Gates, 13226 Montrose Street, noted that he would not appreciate his property information being submitted without his consent. Mr. Gates stated that he feels that if his property was identified, it would lower the value of the property value. Muriel Mahrer, 13577 Myren Drive, noted that she has been following these issues for many years and thanked the City Council and staff for completing the draft Housing Element. 15 Councilmember Bogosian asked Ms. Mahrer if her neighbors would support a change in the zoning code to allow duplexes in her neighborhood. Ms. Mahrer responded that she would support duplexes in her neighborhood. William Guthrie, 20422 Seagull Way, noted that the City of Saratoga has a difficult problem that all of the land is built out. Mr. Gutherie noted that he disagrees with the State mandating cities to provide low-income housing. Betty Feldhym, 20184 Franklin Avenue, noted that she has lived in the City of Saratoga for a long time and has noticed that the City is losing public service employees because they cannot afford to live here. Marjory Bunyard/President, League of Women Voters, 12625 Miller Avenue, noted that Monte Sereno had their first public hearing and met their requirements with secondary units. Marjorie Ottenberg, 12881 Foothill Lane, noted that she supports legalizing existing secondary units. Jack Mallory, 12258 Kirkdale Place, suggested the City try to work with surrounding cities on low-income housing projects. In regards to financial ramifications, Mr. Mallory noted he would be willing to pay more taxes in order to preserve the character of the City of Saratoga. Lisa Liu, 20241 Merrick Drive, referred to Mr. Mallory's comment and stated she is not willing to pay more taxes. Ms. Liu noted low income means teachers, police officer, government employees, etc. Lisa Kurasch, Planning Commission, 18665 Ravenwood Drive, noted that she supports inclusionary zoning. In regards to identifying parcels, Commissioner Kurasch noted that property owners should be made aware of the process and suggested that the City promote public awazeness, education and cooperation. Mayor Mehaffey closed the public hearing at 10:25 p.m. Mayor Mehaffey noted that he would like to address some of the public comments. In regards to concerns about the overlay, Mayor Mehaffey explained that the overlay scenario the City is contemplating is on top of commercial properties. If property is identified, the owner can choose whether or not to participate in the program. Mayor Mehaffey reminded everyone that this is a state mandated program and all cities have to comply. 16 Mayor Mehaffey noted that the City has to provide 641ow-income units. Mayor Mehaffey noted that the City is trying to promote secondary units and grandfather in existing secondary units as low-income units. Councilmember Bogosian asked if the state has denied existing secondary units that are already being used as secondary units. Director Sullivan explained that secondary units that meet building and health codes are excluded from the City's inventory but the illegal units that could be brought up to code are counted by the state. Councilmember Waltonsmith stated that the reason the City of Sazatoga is having trouble meeting the states requirements is that the City received a very high number of units to comply with. Councilmember Bogosian noted that he agrees with Commissioner Kurasch that the residents of the City do not know what the City is doing in regards to pinpointing particular properties in order to comply with the state. Councilmember Balser noted that one approach is to create a housing fund that would provide the City the ability to supplement low-income people with the resources to buy properties that aze all ready existing in the economy. Councilmember Baker noted that the City has to come up with a reasonable plan to maintain the character of the city without setting aside specific properties designated as low-income housing. Councilmember Baker stated that he supports an overlay of the commercial district. A discussion took place amongst the City Council in regards to their concerns identifying properties without the owners being aware of it. Vice Mayor Streit stated that the bottom line is the City needs to identify properties if the City Housing Element is going to be approved. Vice Mayor Streit noted he thinks the Council should instruct staff to identify properties and continue the public hearing to December 11, 2001. Councilmember Bogosian noted for the record that he feels more public discussion needs to take place with the citizens of Saratoga and stated that he is opposed to Vice Mayor Streit's suggested directions to staff. Councilmember Bogosian noted that the Housing Element is being rushed through the process. Councilmember Baker asked if the Element is not submitted to the state by the end of the month would the city have to request an extension. Director Sullivan responded yes. 17 Mayor Mehaffey asked what the consequences would be if the City asked for an extension. Director Sullivan responded that it would depend on the amount of time the City is noncompliant. Councilmember Bogosian suggested that four months should be a reasonable amount of time to inform the citizens of Saratoga and hold more public hearings. Consensus of the City Council to direct staff to ask the state for a three month extension in order for the City to hold more public heazings and to do the required analysis ofHCD's comments. Mayor Mehaffey noted that the public heazing would continue on 7anuary 2, 2002. OLD BUSINESS 6. DRIVEWAY ALIGNMENT ON LOTS 4 AND 5 CARNELIAN GLEN SUBDIVISION STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report and direct staff accordingly. Tom Sullivan, Community Development Director, presented staff report. Director Sullivan explained that in November and December of 2000, the City Council heazd an appeal of a Planning Commission decision that the driveway alignment be redesigned so that it had a dogleg or jog so that the driveway entered Carnelian Glen Court angling away from the Lee's front door. The Council also required landscaping screening to block auto lights as they were exiting lots 4 and 5. Director Sullivan noted when construction began on the project, the driveway's alignment was rough cut and one tree was removed to accommodate the driveway. Mrs. Lee contacted City Council and City Staff about the concern that the driveway did not have the approved alignment. At this point staffput a hold on the issuance of any building permits for lots 4 and 5. Staff did this because of the driveway issue and because the developer had not submitted the required landscape screening plan. Director Sullivan noted that and Director Cherbone met with Mrs. Lee and discussed the possibility of putting the driveway between the two oaks instead of removing an additional oak tree to accommodate the driveway alignment. After meeting with Mrs. Lee to discuss options, Director Sullivan noted that the oak tree was removed without a permit. 18 Director Sullivan explained that on November 26, 2001, the Mayor, City Manager, Public Works Director, Mrs. Lee and himself met on Carnelian Glen, laid out the driveway new alignment, and delineated how it would enter Carnelian Glen Court. It was clearly demonstrated that the driveway points toward the Lee's northerly property and Caznelian Glen Court to block the head lights of existing vehicles. Helen Lee, 14653 Carnelian Glen Court, explained the entire history of the project noting that the developers were arrogant and lacked any regard to the City Council and Planning Commission directions. Mrs. Lee noted that she counted on the City to enforce the decisions in regazds to this project. In summary, Mrs. Lee stated the driveway at the flag lot still faces her driveway. Councilmember Bogosian noted he hopes the City makes sure that the developer plants the appropriate trees and the gutter is cut correctly. Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that from the beginning the flag lot driveway was going to be for lot 4 and lot 5. Councilmember Waltonsmith asked if that the mature vegetation the developer soon would be planting would alleviate the glare from the headlights onto Mrs. Lee's property. Director Sullivan responded yes Mayor Mehaffey noted his concern is that this developer cut down trees without permits. Mayor Mehaffey noted that the City has to send a message to the development community that illegally cutting down trees is unacceptable to the City. Consensus of the City Council to direct staff to inform the developer to plant fully mature bushes and install a watering system. Mrs. Lee strongly stated that if the utility box is not moved the driveway would not change in any direction. Mr. Lee accused the City Council of being in cahoots with the developers. Mayor Mehaffey noted that the City Council no longer wishes to continue this discussion. Councilmember Waltonsmith tried to explain to Mrs. Lee that sometimes residents do not always get what they want with developments neaz their property. Councilmember Baker called for point of order or adjourn the meeting. Consensus of the City Council to move onto Item 8 with the exception of Councilmember Waltonsmith opposing. 19 7. SARATOGA CREEK SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT -STATUS REPORT STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Informational only. Consensus of the City Council to continue this item to December 19, 2001. NEW BUSINESS MR LEE/THE INN AT SARATOGA -REQUEST TO EXCHANGE 17 PARKING SPACES WITH THE CITY OF SARATOGA STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report and direct staff accordingly. Tom Sullivan, Community Development Director, presented staff report. Director Sullivan reported that Mr. Lee of The Inn at Sazatoga has approached the City requesting that he and the City trade 17 parking spaces. Director Sullivan noted that the parking lot for the Inn is contiguous to the City's pazking lot near Saratoga Creek and Wildwood Park. Mr. Lee has indicated that the general public uses his pazking because it is closer to Wildwood Park. Mr. Lee and the City have cooperated in signage and the spaces that belong to the Inn are clearly mazked. Director Sullivan noted that staff needs to have policy direction from the City Council before expending additional time and resources processing the request. Director Sullivan briefly explained some issues related to the proposed trade. Councilmember Balser asked if the current parking spaces owned by the City serve the businesses above the lot and in the proposal the spaces would provide access for the users of Wildwood Park. Director Sullivan responded yes. Vice Mayor Streit asked if the City Council decides to move forward with this proposal would all store owners need to be noticed. City Attorney Taylor responded that everyone who has paid into Pazking District #1 would have to be noticed. 20 Jack Hickling, General Manager/The Inn of Sazatoga, noted that the parking space exchange is a good deal for the City and Mr. Lee. Mr. Hickling noted that in terms of City parking spaces the exchange would consolidate the exit and entrance into one area. Kwan Lee, Owner/The Inn of Saratoga, noted that he has been the owner for nine years and the parking problems have gotten worse over the last couple of years. Mr. Lee explained that the public parks in his spaces, which inconvenience his guests. Councilmember Waltonsmith expressed her concern regazding the inconveniences imposed on the businesses owners with the proposed reazrangement of parking spaces. Mayor Mehaffey noted that he could support this proposal because it would help the flow of traffic and he does not think it would affect any other business except the coffee shop. Councilmember Baker stated that he concurred with Mayor Mehaffey and noted that he would like to visit the site with Mr. Lee's proposal. Councilmember Baker noted that as long as the City is not giving up spaces that belong to Parking District #1 he does not have any objections to the proposal. Consensus of the City Council to direct staff to investigate this proposal further, talk to the business owners and pazk users, and report back to the City Council at a future time. 9. SEWER LATERAL ORDINANCE & ABATEMENT OPTIONS FOR BELOW-GRADE SEPTIC SYSTEMS STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report and direct staff accordingly. Consensus of the City Council to continue this item to December 19, 2001. 10. AUTHORIZATION TO CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH ATI ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS FOR PUBLIC SAFETY CENTER DESIGN CONCEPT STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize agreement and adopt resolution. Dave Anderson, City Manager, presented staff report. City Manager Anderson reported that at its July 10, 2001 meeting the City Council 21 authorized the Mayor to appoint an AdHoc Committee comprised of stakeholders and residents with an interest in a new Public Safety Center for the City of Sazatoga. The committee was charged with determining the feasibility of constructing such a center located on the southeastern corner of Highway 9 and Saratoga Avenue. City Manager Anderson explained that at its August 15a' meeting, at the request of the AdHoc Committee, the City Council authorized the appropriation of $25,000 for a Public Safety Center conceptual design study. This new center is envisioned to include a new West Valley Sheriffls Substation, a new Fire Station and a new retail center for the Post Office, along with adequate parking. City Manager Anderson stated that in October 2001, the City of Saratoga solicited Proposals and Statements of Qualifications from 56 Bay Area firms to piovide Architectural services to develop site layout options for proposed Public Safety Center. The scope of the project was limited to potential site plans, conceptual drawings and estimated cost of the various options, and does not include building design or other more detailed aspects of architectural services. The City would like to have site plans prepared based upon three different options for a Public Safety Center. The first option assumes a Public Safety Center without use of Federated Church property for parking. The second option assumes the use of Federated Church property for shared parking and the third option assumes that one agency will move off site. City Manager reported that in early November 2001, the City received eight proposals from qualified firms for providing architectural services to develop site layout and the estimated costs for a Public Safety Center. The AdHoc Committee met to review the RFP's after the initial submittals narrowing the field of architects to three firms. The three firms were: ATI Architects and Engineers, Knoll & Tam Architects, George Miers and Associates. City Manager Anderson reported that at a subsequent meeting all three firms were invited to make presentations before the AdHoc Committee. After the presentations the Committee voted to recommend to the Council ATI Architects and Engineers. The vote for ATI Architects and Engineers was nearly unanimous. The Committee felt their technical capabilities were superior to the other two firms and felt that the principal involved showed a familiarity and understanding of the Committee's needs and concerns a great deal more than the other two firms. In light of the recent lawsuit filed by the Saratoga Fire Protection District, consensus of the City Council to direct staff to contact the Fire District and ask if they would still be interested in participating in the Ad Hoc Committee and continue this item to December 11, 2001. 11. GREEN VALLEY DISPOSAL COMPANY RECYCLING CONTRACT EXTENSION PROPOSAL AND RECOMMENDATIONS 22 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report and provide a recommendation to the West Valley Solid Waste Management Authority. Cary Bloomquist, Administrative Analyst, presented staff report. Analyst Bloomquist reported that on June 21, 2001 the West Valley Solid Waste Management Authority discussed the three recycling agreements with Green Valley Disposal Company, (Recycling Services, Residential Yard Waste Services and Commercial Mixed Paper Recycling) which terminate on February 28, 2002. Analyst Bloomquist explained that at this meeting, various options were discussed for continuing recycling services following the recycling agreements expiration. Scott Hobson, the Executive Director of the Authority, was directed to negotiate a 4-year extension to the recycling agreements with Green Valley and bring this information forward to the next Authority meeting on September 20, 2001. Analyst Bloomquist reported that Mr. Hobson was able to negotiate a preliminary contract, including several enhancements to the contract. Analyst Bloomquist briefly described each proposed contract enhancement: 1. Expand the current residential curbside program to include all plastic containers #1-7 and all plastic film, such as grocery bags, at no additional cost to the Authority or its ratepayers. 2. Collect household dry cell batteries in special plastic bags from single- family residences at the curbside as part of the curbside-recycling program for an additional fee of $.11 cents per household per month. 3. Provide periodic e-scrap (electronic scrap including televisions, radios, computer, computer accessories, and other electronic devises) drop-off collection events for residences and businesses at an estimated cost of $19,200.00 per event. 4. Initiate single -stream commingled curbside recycling collections utilizing carts and fully automated collection vehicles in January 2003 with processing of collected material at Waste Management at a cost of $1.47 per household per month. 5. Recycle and market C & D material from drop boxes processed at the Guadalupe Landfill and Resource Recovery Facility at a rate no higher than the approved tipping fee. Analyst Bloomquist noted that after the Authority reviewed these proposed enhancements on September 20, 2001 they directed Mr. Hobson to bring the proposed contract back to the West Valley Solid Waste Management Authority Policy Advisory Board (PAC) at their meeting on October 5, 2001 to receive their recommendation. Next members from the PAC were to bring to their Council the recycling proposal for discussion and review and to share the recommendations of PAC. 23 Analyst Bloomquist noted that upon reviewing the proposed contract with the enhancements, the PAC accepted the recycling contract with the following recommendations: • Accept the "no additional cost enhancements" contract proposals numbers lands • Do not accept the enhancements with a cost to the ratepayers, numbers 2,3, and 4 Councilmember Bogosain noted that $.11 to recycle household batteries is worth the money because they are a potential danger if dumped in landfill and asked why the JPA did not include this option in the contract. Analyst Bloomquist responded that in Mr. Hobson's memorandum he states that household batteries are considered universal waste. Analyst Bloomquist added that the 7PA is not encouraging people to discard batteries in the landfill but there is nothing saying batteries cannot be tossed in the garbage and end up in landfill. Analyst Bloomquist continued that since it is not required and there are other ways to recycle batteries at hazardous waste sites, the JPA did not include this option. Analyst Bloomquist noted that Mr. Hobson felt that this option was not cost effective to incur the extra cost. Councilmember Bogosian noted that the City should be encouraging residents to recycle batteries and suggested that we urge the 7PA to include this option. Mayor Mehaffey concurred with Councilmember Bogosian. Vice Mayor Streit explained that the reason why the JPA chose not to include the option to collect household batteries and e-scrap was to avoid additional costs to customers. Vice Mayor Streit noted that he would take back the City's request to include the household battery recycle option. A discussion took place amongst the City Council regarding e-scrap recycling and suggested that the City initiate a Citywide program. Vice Mayor Streit noted that the City could start our own e-scrap recycling program in conjunction with the Spring Clean up program. Phil Couchee, General Manager/Green Valley Garbage, explained that the e-scrap program could be easily done by jurisdiction, perhaps using a specific drop off area. Councilmember Baker commented that e-scrap is becoming a major problem. Mayor Mehaffey noted that he supports including e-scrap in the Spring Clean Up 24 program. Vice Mayor Streit noted that on behalf of the City he would take back Items 1,2, and 5 to the next JPA meeting. 12. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report and direct staff accordingly. Consensus of the City Council to continue this item to December 19, 2001. 13. CONSIDER REQUESTS TO JOIN FRIENDS OF THE COURT BRIEFS IN BONANNO V. CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA TRANSIT AUTHORITY STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve requests to join amicus briefs. Consensus of the City Council to continue this item to December 19, 2001. AGENCY ASSIGNMENT REPORTS None CITY COUNCIL ITEMS Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that she received a letter from Saratoga Historical Foundation requesting a Council liaison. Councilmember Waltonsmith stated that AT& T shut down her Internet service for a week and now they want to raise the rates. Mayor Mehaffey noted he read an article in the newspaper suggesting cities remember this incident when franchise negotiations begin with this company. Vice Mayor Streit noted that the League of California Cities new Grassroots Coordinating Network Program would get measure on the ballot to stop the state from taking cities money that is rightfully ours. Vice Mayor Streit requested that the issues regarding tonight's discussions on cell sites be agendized. Councilmember Baker and Councilmember Bogosian concurred with Vice Mayor Streit. mTHER 25 None CITY MANAGER'S REPORT None ADJOURNMENT Mayor Mehaffey adjourned the meeting at 12:30 p.m. Respectfully s ed, C ~ _ Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk 26