Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-16-2002 City Council MinutesMINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCII. JANUARY 16, 2002 The City Council of the City of Saratoga met in Closed Session, Administrative Conference Room. 13777 Fruitvale Avenue at 6:00 p.m. Public Employee Performance Evaluation (Gov't Code 54957) Title: City Attorney Initiation of litigation (Gov't Code section 54956.9(c): (1 potential case). Consideration of Liability Claims (Gov't Code 54957): Claimant: Patrick Leung Agency claimed against: City of Saratoga Conference With Legal Counsel -Existing Litigation: (Government Code section 54956.9(a)) Name of case: Sazatoga Fire Protection District v. City of Sazatoga (Santa Clara County Superior Court No. CV-803540) MAYOR'S REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION- 7:00 p.m. Mayor Streit reported there was Council discussion but no action was taken. Mayor Streit called the Regular City Council meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and requested Dave Anderson, City Manager, to lead the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers Stan Bogosian, John Mehaffey Ann Waltonsmith, Vice Mayor Evan Baker, Mayor Nick Streit ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: Dave Anderson, City Manager Lorie Tinfow, Assistant City Manager Richard Taylor, City Attorney Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk Jesse Baloca, Administrative Services Director John Cherbone, Director of Public Works Danielle Surdin, Economic Development Coordinator City Council Minutes 1 January 16, 2002 REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA FOR JANUARY 16. 2002 Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk, reported that pursuant to Crovernment Code Section 54954.2, the agenda for the meeting of January 16, 2002 was properly posted on January 11, 2002. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS & PUBLIC ORAL COMMUNICATIONS The following people requested to speak at tonight's meeting: Mel Rabedeau, 18631 Harleigh Drive, requested the City Council agendize Measure E. Mr. Rabedeau explained that this proposed measure would impact the residents of Saratoga. Mr. Rabedeau requested that the Council have a discussion and take a position on Measure E. Mr. Rabedeau noted that he is aware of the fact that the City has always been opposed to a stadium at West Valley College and pointed out that this bond measure has a provision for $5.5 million for a stadium. Mr. Rabedeau noted that the bond would increase the number of classes and enrollment by 40%, which in turn would increase property taxes and traffic significantly. Mr. Rabedeau stated that he feels this is a valid subject for discussion by the Council. Jay Burke, 19960 Angus Court, noted that he has been trying since December to gather information on the lawsuit filed by West Valley College. To date he has not been very successful in obtaining any information. Mr. Burke requested that the City agendize this issue and provide the public with a status report on the lawsuit. COMMUNICATIONS FROM BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None COUNCIL DII2ECTION TO STAFF Councilmember Waltonsmith noted she would like to have a discussion to decide if the City wants to take a stand on Measure E and also provide the public with a status report regarding the lawsuit. Councilmember Mehaffey supported Councilmember Waltonsmith's request. Mayor Streit directed staff to agendize Measure E at the next meeting. CEREMONIAL ITEMS None City Council Minutes 2 January 16, 2002 CONSENT CALENDAR lA. APPROVE COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES REGULAR MEETING -NOVEMBER 7, 2001 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve minutes. BAKER/MEHAFFEY MOVED TO APPROVE COUNCII, MEETING MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 7, 2001. MOTION PASSED 4-0-1 WITH STREIT ABSTAINING. 1B. APPROVE COUNCIL, MEETING MINUTES ADJOURNED MEETING -DECEMBER 11, 2001 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve minutes. Councilmember Waltonsmith requested that Item 1B be pulled from the Consent Calendar. Councilmember Waltonsmith requested that the following be added to her comment on page 2, "Councilmember Waltonsmith thanked her fellow colleagues for their continued support and noted that she was looking forward to supporting Mayor Streit's list of projects ". WALTONSMITH/BAKERMQVED TO APPROVE COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF DECEMBER 11, 2001 AS AMENDED. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 1C. APPROVE COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES REGULAR MEETING -DECEMBER 19, 2001 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve minutes. Councilmember Baker requested that Item 1C be pulled from the Consent Calendar. Councilmember Baker requested that the following be added to his comment on page 10, "Vice Mayor Baker referred to several articles he recently read in Western Cities Magazine -December 2001, regarding housing and housing needs. Vice Mayor Baker suggested that his colleagues read them if they have not already done so". BAKER/BOGOSIAN MOVED TO APPROVE COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF DECEMBER 19, 2001 AS AMENDED. MOTION PASSED 4-0-I WITH BOGOSIAN ABSTAINING. City Council Minutes 3 January 16, 2002 1D. APPROVE COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES REGULAR MEETING -JANUARY 2, 2002 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve minutes. Councilmember Waltonsmith requested that Item 1B be pulled from the Consent Calendar. Councilmember Waltonsmith requested that the following be added to her comments on page 8, "Councilmember Waltonsmith expressed her concern with the excessive speeding through the Village. Councilmember Waltonsmith requested that the Public Safety Commission investigate this issue and asked if staff leas addressed Dr. Cordon's concerns". WALTONSMITH/MEHAFFEY MOVED TO APPROVE COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 2, 2002 AS AMENDED. MOTION PASSED 5-0. Vice Mayor Baker requested that staff try and submit minutes to the Council within sixty days of the meeting. lE. REVIEW OF CHECK REGISTER STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve check register. BAKER/MEHAFFEY MOVED TO APPROVE THE CHECK REGISTER. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 1F. REVIEW PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MINUTES - JANUARY 9, 2002 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Note and file. BAKER/MEHAFFEY MOVED TO APPROVE ACTION MINUTES OF JANUARY 9, 2002 MOTION PASSED 5-0. 1 G. COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORDS STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept records. BAKER/IVIEHAFFEY MOVED TO APPROVE COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORDS. MOTION PASSED 5-0. City Council Minutes 4 January 16, 2002 IH. ADOPT RESOLUTION SUPPORTING "YES ON 42" STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution. Councilmember Bogosian requested that Item 1H be pulled from the Consent Calendar. Councilmember Bogosian asked how this item got placed on the agenda. Mayor Streit responded that it was his request. Councilmember Bogosian stated that it is his understating that currently gas tax money goes into the general fund to be put anywhere the legislation wants it. Councilmember Bogosian stated that currently the City get 20% of the tax to fix streets. Councilmember Bogosian asked how the allocation process would change if Proposition 42 passed. City Manager Anderson responded that a large portion of the gasoline tax goes to transportation issues. Furthermore, City Manager Anderson stated that in recent years there have been debates on whether the money goes to streets, highways, or mass transit. Over the last four or five years most of the money has gone to transportation. BOGOSIAN/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION SUPPORTING "YES ON 42". MOTION PASSED 5-0. IL CLAIM OF SARATOGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT; CLAIM NO. GL-053408 STAFF RECOMMENDATION; Reject claim. BAKER/MEHAFFEY MOVED TO REJECT CLAIM OF SARATOGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 1J. FINANCIAL REPORTS FOR THE MONTHS ENDING DECEMBER 2001 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept reports. BAKER/MEHAFFEY MOVED TO ACCEPT FINANCIAL REPORTS FOR THE MONTHS ENDING DECEMBER 2001. MOTION PASSED 5-0. City Council Minutes 5 January 16, 2002 1K. CONSIDER JOINING AMICUS BRIEF IN CHAPTER COMMUNICATION V. COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ, C99-1874 WHA (N.D. CAL.) REGARDING ATTORNEYS FEE AWARDS STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve request to join amicus brief. BAKER/MEHAFFEY MOVED TO APPROVE REQUEST TO JOIN AMICUS BRIEF. MOTION PASSED 5-0. Mayor Streit noted that it was not the appropriate time to begin the Public Hearings and requested to move to Item 4. Consensus of the Council to move to Item 4. OLD BUSINESS CLAIM OF PATRICK LEUNG; CLAIM NO. GL-0053005 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Reject claim. Tom Sullivan, Community Development Director, presented staff report. Director Sullivan reported that on April 30, 2001, a former assistant planner approved the submittal of a single story, 3,361 square foot dwelling to be submitted for building permits without being subjected to Administrative Design Review. The existing dwelling is 2,980 square feet on a 13,873 square foot lot. According to the Saratoga Municipal Code the proposed project needed Administrative Review. Director Sullivan noted that it was the former staff s interpretation that if a replacement house was less than 50% greater in size than the original dwelling that it was exempt from Design Review. Director Sullivan noted that he facilitated a meeting between the applicant, the designer and the concerned neighbors. Minor adjustments to the proposed dwelling were agreed to and these changers were memorialized via letters to all interested parties. The $680.00 of increased costs are not City fees, but charges Mr. Leung's architect is charging him. Director Sullivan noted on August 20, 2001 the claimant presented a claim for damages regarding his project. As a result of the demands of the City the claimant asserts he incurred additional planning and copy charges totaling $680.00, Mayor Streit asked if in most cases when a project goes through the design review process there are changes in the plans. City Council Minutes 6 January 16, 2002 Director Sullivan responded that most of the time there are changes after the design review process. Mayor Streit asked if once staff found the error was extra effort made to get this project through the process properly. Director Sullivan responded yes. Councilmember Mehaffey publicly apologized for all the problems the City has had over the past two years with errors the Planning Department has made prior to the hiring of Director Sullivan. BAKER/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO REJECT CLAIM OF PATRICK LEUNG. MOTION PASSES 5-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS APPEAL OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION TO REQUIIiE SOUND MITIGATION DR. JOHN OLIVER, PROPERTY OWNER 12240-12250 SARATOGA-SUNNYVALE ROAD STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Open public hearing; close public hearing; deny the appeal and uphold Resolution 91-03. Director Sullivan explained that the appellant requests that the Council rescind Resolution 91-03 adopted on January 16, 1991. Resolution 91-03 requires the construction of an eight-foot masonry wall along the rear property line between the subject commercial property and the adjoining residential district. The subject property is occupied by several businesses. Director Sullivan explained that in 1991 the Planning Director's decision to require the masonry wall at the subject commercial property was appealed to the City Council by the property owner. The City Council upheld the decision and adopted the resolution. Director Sullivan explained that in 2001, the appellant approached him and requested that he review the requirement. After reviewing the project, Director Sullivan stated that he upheld the Planning Commission's decision that the sound wall is necessary to mitigate the noise generated by the businesses. Director Sullivan noted that an acoustical analysis of the noise generated by barking dogs, was performed by Edward L. Pack and Associates on November 7, 2000 and included in the staff report. The results of the acoustical analysis revealed that noise levels generated at the property exceeds the limits of the noise ordinance. To achieve compliance with the City's Noise Ordinance, the following noise mitigation measure was recommended: Construct an eight-foot high acoustical-effective barrier along the property line contiguous with the residences to the east. City Council Minutes 7 January 16, 2002 Mayor Streit opened the public hearing at 7:30 p.m. 7olie Huston, Berliner Cohen, 10 Almaden Blvd. San Jose, CA, noted she represented Dr. Oliver. Ms. Huston explained that her client hoped he would have settled this matter without coming before the City Council. Ms. Huston noted that her client is willing to build a wood barrier but when they submitted the proposal to the neighbor he offered a counter proposal of a fence that is more expensive than a masonry wall. Ms. Huston noted that the need for a noise barrier has been greatly reduced. Ms. Huston noted that the nuisance activity that was there 10 years ago no longer exists at the property, a masonry wall is no longer necessary. Ms. Huston noted that in the past ten years Dr. Oliver has done a lot to mitigate some of the nuisance activity at the property. Ms. Huston noted that Dr. Oliver has evicted several tenants and installed enclosed trash containers. Ms. Huston noted that her client is willing to extend the existing fence, but feels a masonry wall is overkill at this time. Vice Mayor Baker and Councilmember Waltonsmith both asked why the City Council's direction was not carried out 11 years ago. Ms. Huston responded that Dr. Oliver tried to mitigate the problems himself. Dr. John Oliver, PO Box 729, Mendocino, CA, briefly described the history of the property regarding the tenants and his noise mitigation efforts. In response to Vice Mayor Baker and Councilmember Waltonsmith's question, Dr. Oliver noted that he knew he had plans on mitigating the noise himself and felt the concrete barrier was not necessary after the sound engineers report was completed. Dr. Oliver also commented that a masonry wall was very expensive so he felt it would be cheaper to remove the problems on his property rather than build the wall. Vice Mayor Baker reiterated the fact that Dr. Oliver decided to ignore the Council's direction eleven yeazs ago and take the matter in his own hands and not build the wall. Vice Mayor Baker asked Dr. Oliver why he did not discuss other options to abate the noise with the City Council eleven years ago instead of building a masonry wall. Dr. Oliver responded he did not remember what happened eleven years ago. Dr. Oliver noted that spending $15,000 on a masonry wall would have been a waste of money because he knew he was taking steps to eliminate the noise himself, Dr. Oliver stated that currently he has been trying to work with Mr. Mallory to build an esthetically pleasing wall, but unfortunately Mr. Mallory is insisting on a masonry wall. Mayor Streit stated that it took Dr. Oliver 3-5 years to remove all the tenants that caused the noise problems after the Council directed the construction of the wall. Jeff Walker, 20451 Seagull Way, stated his property abuts commercial property and noted that he supports masonry walls because of safety hazards and the effective noise mitigation. City Council Minutes $ January 16, 2002 John Mallory, 12258 Kirkdale Drive, noted that he has lived at this address since 1967 and during this time he has had many problems with Dr. Oliver's property such as: • Security problems • Large trucks • Dead trees • Poorly maintained landscaping • Stacked material along fence, which in turn is destroying the fence Mr. Mallory noted that Dr. Oliver is not a good neighbor and requested that the Council uphold the 1991 resolution requiring Dr. Oliver to build a masonry wall. Mr. Mallory noted that a masomy wall along the entire length of their property would match the other neighbor's walls. Sue Mallory, 12258 Kirkdale Drive, requested that the City Council uphold the 1991 resolution and require Dr. Olive to build a masonry wall. Ms. Huston noted that she contacted City staff and was only told that there have only been three complaints in the last ten years at this property. Dr. Oliver is willing to continue the existing barrier. Responding to Mr. Mallory's concerns on the security of the property, Dr. Oliver stated that there has only been one occasion when the police was called to his property for a domestic violence situation. Dr. Oliver noted that Mr. Mallory's property has never been in danger. Dr. Oliver noted that in response to the trees, he has them cut regularly, Councilmember Mehaffey noted that he puts some of the blame on the City for not following up Council's decision eleven years ago. Councilmember Mehaffey noted that he supports the construction of a concrete masonry wall. Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that as she drove along Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road she noticed that at Azule Crossing the barrier between the businesses and the houses was a masonry wall. Director Sullivan noted that a masonry wall is now a standard improvement with new projects, which also includes landscaping. Councilmember Waltonsmith asked what guarantee does the Council have that the wall will be built in a timely manner. Director Sullivan responded that the City's Code Enforcement Officers would make sure the wall is constructed in the agreed amount of time, if the wall does not get built it could be declared a nuisance. Mayor Streit closed the public hearing at 8:00 p.m. City Council Minutes 9 January 16, 2002 Councilmember Bogosian noted that he sympathizes with Dr. Oliver on the expense he has to incur, but the wall should have been built 10 yeazs ago. Councilmember Bogosian noted that he supports denial of the appeal. Councilmember Bogosian requested that the City enforce the construction of the wall in a timely manner. Vice Mayor Baker noted that any decision made by the City Council or the Planning Commission should not be ignored by an applicant and then try to come back ten years later and ask the Council to rescind the original resolution. Vice Mayor Baker stated that he supports denial of the appeal. Mayor Streit stated that he concurred with his colleagues and added that there are even more reasons to build a masonry wall today. BAKER/1VffiHAFFEY MOVED TO DENY THE APPEAL AND UPHOLD RESOLUTION 91-03. MOTION PASSES 5-0. USE OF CITY PARKS FOR RECREATIONAL SPORTING EVENTS: DRAFT PARKS AND RECREATION ORDINANCE STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Conduct public hearing; waive the second reading; approve ordinance. TITLE OF ORDINANCE: 202 ORDINANCE OF THE SARATOGA CITY CODE CONCERNING PARKS AND RECREATION Richard Taylor, City Attorney, presented staff report. City Attorney Taylor explained that on December 19, 2001 the Council approved the first reading of the ordinance to (1) prohibit objects from being hit or thrown into public rights of way near City parks, (2) clarify the City's authority to enter into season-long agreements with AYSO, Little League Baseball, and other groups, subject to conditions imposed by the Director ofParks, and (3) make several technical "clean-up" amendments to the Code. City Attorney Taylor reminded the City Council that at the first reading the Council revised the ordinance to state that the group permit requirement applies to any "publicly advertised" assemblage rather than a "pre-advertised" assemblage. The Council also directed that the City Parks and Recreation Commission consider the ordinance. The Commission considered the ordinance at its meeting of January 7, 2002 and proposed no changes to the ordinance. Mayor Streit opened the public hearing at 8:10 p.m. and invited any public comments. City Council Minutes 1 p January 16, 2002 Mayor Streit closed the public hearing at 8:11 p.m. BAKER/BOGOSIAN MOVED TO WAIVE THE 2ND READING OF THE ORDNANCE. MOTION PASSED 5-0. BAKER/BOGOSIAN MOVED TO APPROVE PARKS AND RECREATION ORDINANCE. MOTION PASSED 5-0. Mayor Streit declared a 5 minute break at 8:15 p.m. Mayor Streit reconvened the meeting at 8:20 p.m. NEW BUSINESS CONGRESS SPRINGS PARK -APPROVAL OF USER AGREEMENTS AND DISCUSSION OF USER FEE5 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution and authorize City Manager to execute agreements. John Cherbone, Public Works Director, presented staff report. Director Cherbone explained that currently organized youth sports groups pay a lump sum User Fee of $1,500 a year for the use of Congress Springs Park. The proposal before the Council is to change the current structure into two separate fees, a maintenance fee and a use fee. Director Cherbone noted that representatives from AYSO, Saratoga Little League, and Saratoga Pony League participated in two public meetings with the Pazks and Recreation Commission to discuss the amount of the User Fee. Director Cherbone explained that the maintenance fee is based on the additional park maintenance that will be needed to keep the park well maintained given the high annual use it receives, and will be reviewed on an annual basis. AYSO and Little League each have different needs and place different demands on the park's infrastructure, thus they have different maintenance fees. The fee for AYSO and Little League are $12,306 and $8, 11. The maintenance fee for Saratoga Pony League is included in the Little League's fee. Director Cherbone explained the Parks and Recreation Commission recommends a use fee for the use of the park in the amount of $15.00 per person (resident) and $25.00(non-resident). Director Cherbone noted that staff has identified the following options: 1. Council could waive payment of both fees for Saratoga Little League and Saratoga Pony League for a period of three years in consideration of their donations to the Saratoga Youth Sport Fund. Saratoga Little League has donated $156,700 and Pony League has donated $60,000. 2. Since the Pazks and Recreation Commission will be working on a comprehensive examination of all pazks and Recreation fees in conjunction City Council Minutes 11 January 16, 2002 with the FY 02-03 budget, Council could revisit the use fee at that time. 3. Develop a sinking fund for each sports group based on the amount each group donated to the Saratoga Youth Sports Fund. The sinking fund would then be withdrawn annually against the amount of fees chazged. Director Cherbone also noted that staffis requesting that Council approve the two user agreements between the City of Saratoga, Saratoga Little league and Sazatoga Pony League. Once the agreements are executed they would give the two groups the rights to use the park. Councilmember Waltonsmith requested clarification between what maintenance fees and use fees are. Director Cherbone explained that maintenance fees cover additional cost beyond the normal use of the park and use fees aze paid to rent out a city owned facility. Director Cherbone noted that the user groups support the maintenance fee, but as far as the use fee there aze still some questions on the dollar amount. The Parks and Recreation Commission have looked at the issues, held two public meetings, and are recommending a $15 dollar pet head use fee. Councilmember Bogosian asked if the fees collected go back into the City's General Fund unrestricted. Director Cherbone responded that the money goes back into the General Fund unrestricted, but could be restricted if directed by Council to do so. Elaine Clabeaux, Chair/Parks and Recreation Commission, 12357 Saraglen Drive, noted that Council directed the Parks and Recreation Commission to examine all use fees throughout the City. The Parks and Recreation Commission started with Congress Springs Park because of the need to get signed user agreements. Chair Clabeaux explained that tonight she would like to read a letter which was unanimously approved by the Parks and Recreation Commission explaining the history behind the renovation of Congress Springs Park and the process they used to come to a consensus on the use and maintenance fees. Chair Clabeaux explained that a year ago the Parks and Recreation Commission was tasked with the problem of with field quality and the safety at Congress Springs Park. The Parks and Recreation Commission knew if something was not done at Congress Springs Park the City could face possible liability issues. After the Parks and Recreation Commission and others reviewed Congress Springs Park, it was determined that a complete renovation was needed. The Parks and Recreation Commission then committed $600,000 of Park Development funds towards the project. A Task Force was formed to address the details, which included three members from the Parks and Recreation Commission, John Cherbone, Cary Bloomquist, Nick Streit, representatives from AYSO, CYSA, Pony, Little League, and any interested citizens. City Council Minu[es 12 January 16, 2002 Chair Clabeuax sited the following facts in regards to the steps taken to develop Congress Springs Park: • Ideas for the park ranged from a showcase facility only to be used on weekends or a turf overhaul. • Due to the general lack of facilities and the interest of the user groups, it was agreed the field should be able to handle high stressed use six days a week. • An agronomist was contracted to advise on the project. The recommendations from the agronomist included a specific type of turf that would be able to withstand this type of heavy usage. • This turf is not used anywhere else in the City so new equipment has to be purchased to maintain the fields. • Tennis and the basketball courts were to be moved to other facilities in order to make room for more fields. • Determined that a fulltime maintenance worker had to be hired to maintain the field and also to help police the usage. • A Landscape Architect was hired to design a park for the specific usage • Bids went out and the cost came back twice as high as the budgeted amount, approximately $2 million. • Council allocated $1.2 million ofparks and general funds to the project. The remaining amount was to be funded by donations from the user groups. • A donation brochure was developed and a small number of donations were received. • After several pleas the user groups finally donated funds. Chair Clabeuax noted that Congress Springs Park is almost completed and the next task the Parks and Recreation Commission had to address was the use and maintenance fee. The Parks And Recreation Commission deliberated two issues: 1) should there be a fee at a112) what the unit of measure would be. Chair Clabeuax noted that use fees are not new to the City. Chair Clabeuax explained that if someone wants to rent any City owned facility they have to pay three fees 1) $25 processing fee, 2) $300 refundable security deposit to cover possible damage to the facility 3) a rental fee determined on the facility being rented. After reviewing all the rental fees the City charges it was determined that the average is about $1.00 an hour. Chair Clabeuax asked the question why charge a use fee. Chair Clabeuax stated that a use fee generates funds that could be used to complete the renovation according to the Master Plan, help pay for future renovations, help pay for the maintenance of the park, and replenish park development funds. Chair Clabeuax noted that use fees should be obtained from the people benefiting from the park, which is about 6% of the population. Chair Clabeuax noted that the Parks and Recreation Commission wanted to charge a fair method that represented the amount of time and the wear and tear on the City Council Minutes 13 January 16, 2002 facility. The only unit of measurement that met this criterion was a fee per player. Chair Clabeuax stated that 40 cities were polled and half of those chazged a fee. The average chazge per head was $20.00. The Pazks and Recreation Commission held two public meetings to discuss the use fee. After the second public input meeting and after a lot of deliberations the use fee was set at $15.00 and non- residentuse $25.00. Chair Clabeuax noted that the Parks and Recreation Commission also discussed the proposed deferment of the use fees based on capital improvement donations by the user groups. Chair Clabeuax sited the specific donations made to capital improvements not for sports specific items. Chair Clabeuax noted the Parks and Recreation Commission was recommending to off set the use fees equal to the amount of the contributions donated to the City for capital improvements. Chair Clabeaux expressed that a user fee needs to be determined tonight in order to credit the user groups for money contributed. The Parks and Recreation Commission would agree with deferring the fees up to three years, but encourage the Council to set the use fee tonight. Councilmember Waltonsmith asked when all the use fees aze reviewed would the Parks And Recreation Commission go back and review Congress Springs Park. Chair Clabeaux responded if Council desires them to do so they would review the fees for Congress Springs Park. Councilmember Cherbone asked what specialty equipment would need to be purchased for Congress Springs Park. Director Cherbone explained that specialty equipment to maintain the grass needed to be purchased, which totaled approximately $120,000. Mayor Streit noted that Sazatoga Little League donated $156,000 and Pony contributed $60,000. Mark Linsky, President/AYSO, 14240 Barksdale Court, noted that he struggled with the need of a user fee, but came to the conclusion that the fees should exist. Mr. Linsky noted that in most cities one or the other fee is charged not both. Mr. Linsky briefly described the beliefs and practices of AYSO. Mr. Linsky stated that Saratoga soccer provides a great service to the City and brings increased values to every homeowner in Saratoga. Mr. Linsky noted that it seems incongruous to charge Saratogans who use Saratoga parks in such a valued way that does not cost the City any more because of the maintenance fees. City Council Minutes 14 January 16, 2002 Councilmember Mehaffey stated that prior to this year, AYSO paid $1500 for approximately 1000 players, would the additional fees be passed on to the players. Mr. Linsky responded that the fees would not be passed on to the players; it is in their budget. Councilmember Mehaffey asked what the cost for a youth to participate in AYSO. Mr. Linsky responded that the registration fee is $100.00. Early registration is $50 -$75. Keith Simon, President/Saratoga Little League & Board member/Pony League, 20450 Montalvo Lane, noted that this agreement should have been discussed prior to the park renovations. Mr. Simon noted that Little League fees would go from $1,500 to $15,000 for the use of Congress Springs Park. Mr. Simon requested that the Council defer the fees for three years. Mr. Simon noted that lack of maintenance was one of the factors that caused the deterioration of Congress Springs Park. Mr. Simon noted that when the donations were not coming in as strong as they hoped Pony and Little League stepped up and donated $220,000. Mr. Simon personally thanked Director John Cherbone for all his help during this project. Mr. Simon requested that the City Council consider deferment of the fees for three years. Mr. Simon commented that their registration is down this year from 470 to 420. Tony Marsh, 13676 Bonnie Way, noted that he has lived in Saratoga for 23 years, has four kids, and have all participated in organized sports. Mr. Marsh noted that he feels City parks are the greatest benefits we have as a community. Mr. Marsh noted that he does not support charging a fee to use City parks. Tom Soukup, 12340 Goleta Avenue, noted that his concern is the ongoing maintenance of Congress Springs Park. Mr. Soukup stated that it is his understanding that the annual maintenance for this park is going to be roughly $100,000. Mr. Soukup pointed out that he doesn't feel the maintenance fee is high enough to cover costs and requested that the Council restrict the funds to be spent only on Congress Springs Park. Mayor Streit asked if the Council decides to waive the fees for three years is it necessazy to set the use fee tonight. Director Cherbone responded that the fees would not matter if the Council does not base the deferral on a specific number or a sinking fund. Councilmember Mehaffey noted that there has been a good discussion on this item and appreciated the interested parties for coming to tonight's meeting. Councilmember Mehaffey stated that Congress Springs Park is not a general use pazk; it was designed for specific uses. Councilmember Meahffey noted that he supports the maintenance fee and suggested the user fee be $10.00 and the money received be restricted to provide amenities for Congress Springs Park and not be put back into the General Fund. Councilmember Mehaffey noted that he supports City Council Minutes 15 January 16, 2002 waiving the use fees for three years for the groups who contributed money to the park, but noted that the maintenance fee should be chazged from the beginning. Councilmember Waltonsmith concurred with Councilmember Mehaffey that Congress Springs Park is a specialty use park. Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that she feels $15.00 is a reasonable use fee. Councilmember Bogosian noted that Congress Springs Park is for a specific use. Councilmember Bogosian noted that he agrees with the speaker who stated that organized sports benefit the community. Councilmember Bogosian noted that he thinks the $15.00 user fee could be negotiated downward and stated he supports deferring the user fees for three yeazs, implement the maintenance fee from the beginning and restrict the money for uses only for uses for Congress Springs Park Vice Mayor Baker noted that the Parks and Recreation Commission has worked diligently to give the Council their best recommendation for a user fee of $15 and noted that he supports their recommendation. Vice Mayor Baker noted that he also supports deferring payment of the user fee for three years based on the contributions made by AYSO, Pony League, and Saratoga Little League. Vice Mayor Baker concurred with Councilmember Waltonsmith's suggestion that the Parks and Recreation Commission revisit the fees set for Congress Springs Park after they have completed their review of all the City use fees. Mayor Streit noted that he does not agree that the user fee should be set tonight if the City waives the fee for three years. Mayor Streit noted that the fee should be set after the Parks and Recreation Commission has completed their study. Mayor Streit commented that both the user and the maintenance fees should be waived for three yeazs because of the substantial funds these three major user groups have donated. Mayor Streit noted that although a lot of money was spent for specialty uses but he disagrees that it is a specialty park because of the great picnic areas, flat grass, and all the other added amenities. Councilmember Mehaffey commented that he agrees wit Mayor Streit that setting the price for the use fee should be postponed until after the Parks and Recreation Commission completed their study. Councilmember Mehaffey made the motion to approve the maintenance fee and waive any use fees for three years and direct the Parks and Recreation Commission to come up with a unified fee structure for Saratoga. Vice Mayor Baker noted he could support that motion. Councilmember Bogosian and Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that they cannot support Councilmember Mehaffey's motion because they feel that the use fee should be set tonight. City Council Minutes 1( January 16, 2002 City Attorney Taylor noted that tonight the only issues Council can vote on is the maintenance fee and the use fee for the agreements before them tonight, not for along-term fee schedule, City Attorney Taylor explained that if the City Council decides to waive either the maintenance or use fee, Section 4 of the proposed agreement should read as follows " In recognition of donations that have been made, no maintenance or use fee be charge for the duration of the agreement". City Attorney Taylor noted that adding this statement makes it clear that there are such fees, but are not chazged this year. A discussion took place amongst the City Council in regards to expiration date for the contract. City Attorney Taylor noted that for planning purposes it would help the user groups if the use fee were set tonight so they can plan their budgets. Councilmember Mehaffey withdrew his previous motion. Mayor Streit noted that he strongly supports waiving both fees for three yeazs and also execute the contracts for three years. Councilmember Mehaffey noted that he could support athree-year agreement but disagrees with waiving the maintenance fee. Councilmember Mehaffey noted that the donations that have been collected have been spent on amenities for the three user groups, public funds should not be going to the maintenance of this park, the user groups should be paying for it. Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that the Council should accept the agreements with the proviso that the maintenance fee is charged, execute the agreement for three years, accept the user fee at $15, and waive the use fee for three years. Councilmember Bogosain noted that he concurred with Councilmember Waltonsmith and strongly stated that he is not willing to drop the maintenance fees. BAKER/BOGOSIAN MOVED TO APPROVE THE USER AGREEMENTS WITH PONY LEAGUE AND SARATOGA LITTLE LEAGUE FOR THREE YEARS. APPROVE THE MAINTENANCE AND USER FEES RECOMMENDED BY THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION, WAIVE THE USER FEE FOR THREE YEARS AND DIRECT THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION TO REEXAMINE THE FEE WHEN FEES. MOTION PASSED 4-I WITH STREIT OPPOSING. City Council Minutes 1'7 January 16, 2002 6. APPROVAL OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE SERVICES WITH MPA DESIGN IN CONNECTION WITH THE AZULE PARK IlVIPROVEMENT PROJECT STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize City Manager to execute agreement. Cary Bloomquist, Administrative Analyst, presented staff report. Analyst Bloomquist reported that Request for Proposals were sent out in November to landscape architects for professional planning and design services for the development of Azule Park. Interviews of the five qualified firms were held on January 2, 2002. Analyst Bloomquist noted that MAP Design and Amphion, Inc. were the top candidates. Analyst Bloomquist reported that after references were checked and after speaking to each firms' Principal, MPA Design was clearly more motivated to take on the project and made an unsolicited offer to reduce their fees by $5,000.00. Staff then asked if they would lower their offer by an additional $8,700.00 for a final cost proposal of $67,000. Analyst Bloomquist noted that the Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed MPA Design's proposal and chose them as the top candidate for the Azule Park Improvement Project. Thomas Soukup, 12340 Goleta Avenue, encouraged Council to move forward with this contract. Mr. Soukup noted that he and his wife had the opportunity to review the material provided by MPA Design and after reviewing the documents were quite impressed with them. BAKER/MEHAFFEY MOVED TO APPROVE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE SERVICES WITH MPA DESIGN IN CONNECTION WITH THE AZULE PARK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NOT TO EXCEED $69,500. MOTION PASSED 5-0. CONSIDERATION OF INITIATING A STUDY TO CREATE A SINGLE STORY ZONING OVERLAY REQUHtEMENT FOR THE BROOKVIEW AND SARATOGA WOODS NEIGHBORHOODS STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 02-003 & 02-004 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL INITIATING PROCEEDINGS TO AMEND THE ZONING CODE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA City Council Minutes 1 g January 16, 2002 Tom Sullivan, Community Development Director, presented staff report Director Sullivan reminded the City Council that last spring the Planning Commission considered an application to allow a second story addition to a dwelling in the Brookview neighborhood. This application was granted by the Planning Commission and then appealed to the City Council. The City Council overturned the Planning Commission's approval. The appeal process brought out large numbers of property owners of the area. Staff has had discussions with the neighbors who filed the appeal with regazds to how to change the zoning so that they did not need to be so vigilant. The concept of a single story overlay restriction was suggested. Director Sullivan noted that Vice Mayor Baker has also discussed this issue with staff. Through those discussions it was determined that this has been an ongoing issue in both the Brookview and Sazatoga Woods neighborhoods. Director Sullivan explained that both of these neighborhoods are predominately single story dwellings. Staff has attached copies of maps indicating where two story structures exist to the proposed resolutions. The maps distinguish between original construction and newer additions. The Brookview neighborhood had three original 2-story dwellings and has had 13, second story additions constructed over the years. There are a total of 323 dwellings in the Brookview neighborhood. In Saratoga Woods, there were 26, original 2-story homes, this includes three that finished attics above the garages. In Saratoga Woods, there have been seven- second story additions. There are 394 dwellings in the Saratoga Woods neighborhood. Director Sullivan added that during the appeal hearing of the Polumbo's proposed second story addition at 19208 Brookview Drive there was overwhelming sentiment to overturn the approval of the project. A poll needs to be taken to determine what the level of support there is to have the City adopt regulations restricting the neighborhoods to single stories. Staff suggests the use of mail-in post cards with a simple explanation of what is involved and an opportunity to vote, yea or nay. Unless there is substantial property owner support, it might not be wise to move forward with such a restriction. Director Sullivan stated that the existing two story dwellings should be specifically exempted from any provision limiting the area to single stories so as not to create non-conforming structures. This should also be explained in the information regazding the poll. Councilmember Bogosian asked Director Sullivan if he has ever seen this kind of request in his career. Director Sullivan responded that in a past position he has prepared a zoning overlay that prescribed the exact height per lot so that the surrounding neighbors' views of the ocean were not blocked. City Council Minutes 19 January 16, 2002 Councilmember Bogosian asked if this is a change in the General Plan. Director Sullivan explained to the Council this would be a zoning overlay that restricts the height to single story in those prescribed neighborhoods. Councilmember Bogosian asked Director Sullivan if a person bought a home in these particular neighborhoods with the hope of someday adding a second story and if this overlay passes, that property owner would not be allowed to do so. Director Sullivan explained the homeowner would be limited to a single story addition unless a future Council rescinds the resolution. Director Sullivan noted that this is why a poll of the neighborhood is extremely important. Councilmember Bogosian asked who was going to write the poll. Director Sullivan responded that he would be writing the poll explaining the proposed overlay. Director Sullivan noted that this is the only way the City Council would find out what homeowners want. Councilmember Mehaffey noted that Lolly Drive is predominately atwo-story neighborhood and suggested excluding this particular area from the overlay. Director Sullivan noted that it is his understanding that this subdivision was one of the last one constructed by J. Lohr and annexed into the neighborhood. Director Sullivan added that Council has the authority to direct staff to leave this area out. Vice Mayor Baker explained the history behind that particular area that Councilmember Mehaffey referred to. Vice Mayor Baker noted that there are 14 two-story homes out of 36 homes in the subdivision built by J. Lohr. None of the two-story homes back up against the original Saratoga Woods track. Vice Mayor Baker noted that there are five two-story homes out of 12 on Lolly Court, which is the most recent subdivision, built by Pinn Brothers. Pinn Brothers negotiated with the Saratoga Woods Homeowners Association on how many homes could be two- story. Vice Mayor Baker noted that there are a total of 394 homes in Saratoga Woods track which includes five original two-story homes, 14 two-story homes that were added in the J. Lohr track, five two-story homes added by Pinn Brothers, and seven remodels. Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that she would rather leave those areas in the poll. Their response card would tell the City if they are interested or not. Vice Mayor Baker noted that he would not recommend excluding those areas from the proposed overlay. Vice Mayor Baker noted that he believes there are six sets of CCR's in the Saratoga Woods neighborhoods. Vice Mayor Baker noted that he has never seen CCR's for the J. Lohr and Pinn Brothers subdivisions. All of the CCR's call for single story, ranch style homes. City Council Minutes 20 January 16, 2002 Mayor Streit asked if these overlays go forward and family needs change could the City consider relaxing the square footage covered on the first floor and rear setbacks. Director Sullivan noted that square footage coverage is somewhat relaxed already compared to some other areas in the City. Councilmember Mehaffey noted that he is uncomfortable including the J. Lohr and Pinn Brothers subdivision in the poll. Other than that he is for the overlay. Steven Blanton, 345 S. San Antonio Road, Los Altos, noted that he represented the Silicon Valley Association of Realtors and offered his assistance in this proposed overlay. BOGOSIAN/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION INITIATING A STUDY TO CREATE A SINGLE STORY ZONING OVERLAY REOUII2EMENT FOR THE BROOKVIEW AND SARATOGA WOODS NEIGHBORHOOD. MOTION PASSED 5-0. BOGOSIAN/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION INITIATING A STUDY TO CREATE A SINGLE STORY ZONING OVERLAY REOUHiEMENT FOR THE SARATOGA WOODS NEIGHBORHOOD. MOTION PASSED 5-0. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report and direct staff accordingly. Danielle Surdin, Economic Development Coordinator, presented staff report. Coordinator Surdin explained that on October 4, 2001 Council created an Economic Development Coordinator position in order to facilitate economic revitalization efforts in the City of Saratoga. In May 2001, Coordinator Surdin noted she was hired. Coordinator Surdin noted that in the last six months staff has been focusing economic efforts on business retention and promotion, developing personal relationships within the business community, and has been developing marketing materials to create basic promotional material. Coordinator Surdin explained that the Village Lighting project has been completed, the Village Streetscape Improvements are ready to present to the Saratoga Business Development Council (SBDC), and staff has been working with consultants on the Gateway Taskforce. At the request of the City Council, Coordinator Surdin noted that staff is presenting options for future economic development efforts and outlining the roles and function of several local economic development organizations to accomplish City Council Minutes 21 January 16, 2002 these tasks. Staff has provided Council a variety of economic development options under the three categories of new business attraction, local business retention, and promotion. Coordinator Surdin briefly presented options and strategies for new business attraction such as working with commercial real estate brokers and commercial builders to attract desirable businesses to the community and form a new business incentive program. Coordinator Surdin briefly presented options and strategies for local business retention such as disseminating information and alerting business to businesses assistance programs and creating a quarterly business newsletter highlighting marketing tips, sale techniques and other business related activities. Coordinator Surdin briefly presented promotional options and strategies for local businesses. She noted that through effective marketing materials, advertising, and special events the City could help make residents familiar with what our business community has to offer. Coordinator Surdin described various promotional ideas such as: • Marketing portfolio • Website tour of Sazatoga • Special events to draw residents into the commercial district Coordinator Surdin explained that the Economic Development program should focus and build civic-minded broad-based relationships with the local community's key players such as the Chamber of Commerce, West Valley College and the Sazatoga Business Development Council. Councilmember Bogosian commended Coordinator Surdin on a great presentation. Councilmember Bogosian commented on new business attraction and asked if using tax revenues would be a good indication if the City was successful in attracting new businesses. Coordinator Surdin responded that in the cities she has worked before, tax revenues were usually the first and foremost tool to judge the success of new business attraction. Councilmember Waltonsmith concurred with Councilmember Bogosian on the presentation and noted that she supported Coordinator Surdin's efforts in getting to know the business groups and supports the business retention and promotional options. In regards to business attraction, Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that the City has to look at this very judicially if the city goes after targeted businesses attraction. Councilmember Waltonsmith reminded Council Patrick James has worked only because it was a destination business, known outside of Saratoga, and because of the contract they had with the city, we were guaranteed to get our money back. City Council Minutes 22 January 16, 2002 Coordinator Surdin noted that brokers are her best contacts; it is in their best interest to work with the cities. Vice Mayor Baker stated that Saratoga has many real estate offices, which pay no sales tax. Councilmember Mehaffey suggested that Coordinator Surdin pinpoint her efforts on the areas where she could make the biggest difference. Councilmember Mehaffey noted that business attraction, retention, and promotion are all important but maybe not to the extent that is listed in the staff report. Coordinator Surdin responded that with Council direction she could come back with a proposal. Councilmember Bogosian concurred with Councilmember Mehaffey and added that he supports business attraction and suggested Coordinator Surdin identify the most effective use and role of the various key members in the community and suggested that their roles be clearly defined. Mayor Streit noted that he thinks Saratoga needs a better mix of businesses and not concentrate on how much sales tax a business could provide to the City. Mayor Streit stated that the City of Saratoga has several great assets to offer a visitor such as Hakone Gardens and Villa Montalvo and suggested that package tours might be away to raise the Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT). Councilmember Bogosian noted that the City cannot rely on the promotion of the existing businesses; the City has to consider bringing in new businesses and possibly a franchise as long as it fits the character of Saratoga. City Manager Anderson noted that the sales tax is relatively flat and TOT is down $100,000. City Manager Anderson noted that the hotel occupancy is down from 80% to 40%. City Manager Anderson noted that Coordinator Surdin could work with the travel agents to promote Saratoga as a destination city utilizing the City's spas, music venues, restaurants and hotels. 9. COMMISSION ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report and direct staff accordingly. Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk, presented staffreport. City Clerk Boyer explained that the City of Saratoga has never memorialized by resolution or by policy establishing eligibility requirements for the City's Commissions and/or Committees. City Clerk Boyer explained that in the past the City has requested that an applicant be a resident of the City of Sazatoga and at least 18 years old. The exception to the age requirement has been the Youth Commission and the exception to residency City Council Minutes 23 January 16, 2002 requirement has been that one member of the Library Commission is allowed to be from Monte Sereno. City Clerk Boyer noted that staff conducted a statewide survey requesting information regarding commission and committee eligibility requirements. Upon reviewing the information, staff has concluded that the following requirements were the most consistent requirements amongst the cities that responded to the request. Vice Mayor Baker noted that he strongly supports all of the recommendations listed in the staff report. Vice Mayor Baker noted that he would support a policy allowing Council to remove a commissioner if that person does not fulfill their obligation either by participation or attendance. Councilmember Bogosian noted he supports the requirements of being a registered voter and a resident of the City. Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that she does not support the limitation of the number of commissions a person may serve on. Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that she supports the requirement of being a registered voter. City Attorney Taylor noted that Council's direction tonight gives the City an opportunity to update the City's Municipal Code and bring this item back as an ordinance which can include eligibility and rules of procedure so all the commissions are operating under the same set of rules. Councilmember Bogosian requested that Council liaison rules also be addressed sometime in the future. Councilmember Bogosian noted that are no guidelines on how Councilmembers interact with the commissions Consensus of the City Council to direct staff to include the following requirements in a Commission eligibility requirements policy: • Register voter • Resident of the City of Saratoga • Applicant must attend a commission meeting prior to participation of the interview process COMMISSION ASSIGNMENT REPORTS Councilmember Mehaffey had no reportable information. Mayor Streit had no reportable information. Vice Mayor Baker noted that he attended his first Finance Commission meeting. Vice Mayor Baker reported that the Commission is working on developing Mission Objections and reviewing the Mid Year Budget. City Council Minutes 24 January 16, 2002 Councilmember Bogosian noted that the Heritage Preservation Commission was preparing for the Mustard Walk scheduled for February 10, 2002. Councilmember Waltonsmith noted the Arts Commission would hold its first meeting in February 2002. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS Councilmember Bogosian requested that staff prepare a summary of progress of the Construction Noise Ordinance that was passed last year. Councilmember Mehaffey requested that the projection screen be elevated higher so everyone could see it better. OTHER None CITY MANAGER'S REPORT None ADJOURNMENT Mayor Streit adjourned the meeting at 11:4$ p.m. spectfull b fitted, i t een Bo e CMC City Clerk City Council Minutes 2$ January 16, 2002