Loading...
CC 08-16-61 402 10321 SO. SARATOGA-SUNNYVALE ROAD At 2-4505 ~- þ¡\~ C~ ~.. t:ì~ C I T Y 0 Feu PER TIN 0 CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL - August 16, 1961 (Adjourned from August 12, 1961). PLACE: TIME: 10321 So, Saratoga--Sunnyvale Road 7: 30 P.M. ROLL CALL: Councilmen Present: Benetti, Jewett, Saich and Lazaneo Pelosi City Attorney, City Engineer and City Clerk Adamo, Fitch, Leonard, Rampy Snyder and Small Bagar Councilmen Absent: Staff Present: Commissioners Present: Commissioners Absent: I Agreement between County, State and City of Cupertino for payment of costs of right-of-way acquisition for State Highway Route 114, Highway 9, The Mayor opened the meeting by announcing the subject and acknowledging the presence of the County Executive Howard W, Campen. He referred to a letter of the City Attorney dated August 15, in which several questions were asked of the County Executive, as follows: (1) Is the County agreeable to executing the agreement of March 19, 1961, without reference to the County bond moneys and in spite of prohibition in Article 11, Section 18 of the State Consti tut10Il? Howard Campen: Yes, He explained that other cities including Sunnyvale and San Jose have executed such agreements as well as the City of Saratoga, He presented a copy of the agreement between the County and the City of Saratoga. Councilman Saich pointed out what he considered an inequity involving improvement of streets which have been strip annexed by neighboring cities, (2) If the answer to question No, 1 is yes, is the County willing to extend the repayment period from 10 years to 15 years? The County Executive said that he could not answer because such a change in the contract would have to be submitted to the Board of Supervisors, He referred to a formal letter written to the City Manager on the subject of the contract, (3) If the answer to question No, 1 is no, is the issue before the council simply that of reallocating county bond moneys from Stevens Creek Boulevard to Highway 9 based upon the County Counsel's opinion? If this is the case, the Council requests that the County Counsel prepare a new agreement covering this. The County Executive answered that the Saratoga contract does pertain to the use of County trafficways bond money, but this is a decision for the City Council to make, (4) Is it correct that February 15, 1962 is the deadline date for acquisition of possession and March 15, 1962 is the dead- line date for clearing the right-of-way for all construction? (sic) (of all obstructions?), The County Executive answered in the affirmative. However, he said that the County has previously fixed January 1, 1962 as the date for completion of property acquisitions and that the remaining six weeks, to February 15, 1962, as stated in the question and as given in the County letter of August 7, is being used as a sort of safety valve and constitutes the absolute dead- line. -1- 403 The City Atto~nèY a~kèd ~hèthê~ the County would be willing to bring an eminent domain action against all of the property owners on Highway 9 and obtain an order for immediate possession of properties abutting Highway 9 within the City limits of the City of Cupertino, Mr, Anderson also asked how soon this might occue and what price the County is prepared to pay for the property. Mr. Campen said that this is a tough question to answer inasmuch as he does not lcnow at the moment the exact number of parcels involved, The County Public Works Department is proceeding to secure the preliminary reports and descriptions of all the affected properties. This is being done as rapidly as possible with the personnel available. He said that if it is the intention of the City of Cupertino to handle the legal matters it might be feasible, but he pointed out the necessity to clear the right-of- way by March 15, referring to many obstructions .in the SO-foot right-of-way. He offered no objections to allowing Cupertino to handle the litigation so long as the deadline is met, Councilman Benetti aslced the County Executive how Cupertino will actually put up the bond money as collateral, whether by making yearly installments or some other means, The City Attorney referred to a question which he had already posed to the County Executive stating that the City consents to having the County amend its expressway policy resolution so that the Cupertino bond apportionment in the amount of $343,000,00 may be applied to the Highway 9 acquisition program in an amount to be reimbursed by the City to the County for the road program in the vicinity of Cupertino, The County Executive stated that all or any part of the $343,000,00 may be used on Highway 9, This is a matter to be determined by the City Council. If the City of Cupertino agrees to some of the bond money in the vicinity of Cupertino rather than on Stevens Creek Boulevard in exchange for County agreement to use money on Highway 9 the program cannot proceed, in which case Cuper- tino would get the Highway 9 widening in lieu of Stevens Creek Boulevard improvement which was its first recommendation in the program, Authorization to expend bond money in the vicinity of Cupertino other than on Stevens Creek Boulevard would mean that Cupertino could not use the $343,000.00 as collateral for Highway 9 right-of-way. Councilman Jewett explained further the way in which the City is contemplating the financing and referred to the possibility of counting the $343,000,00 allocation as collateral in view of the UnknOlqn amount to be expended on Highway 9 and in the absence of any certainty as to the source of money the City of Cupertino has to payoff the acquisition obligation, The County Executive said he could not answer whether or not this Cupertino bond money could be used as collateral because at this point it is not known what the City wants to use if for. He conceded it might be possible, Another unknown involves the amount and date of the actual apportionments, At the present time it is not known how rapidly the Cupertino share will be made available out of the proceeds of the bond sales, As an example, he said it might be three years before Cupertino receives sufficient apportionment to make the improvement of Stevens Creek Boulevard a feasible program. The County Executive emphasized that agreement is needed with Cupertino for the overall use of the $343,000,00, He suggested that projects for the $343,000,00 might well be held in abeyance until the City knows what the Highway 9 program will cost, Councilman Benetti said that the collateral question appeared to be out and asked Mr, Campen just how the County can improve a City street, that is, what are the mechanics for accomplishing this, -2- 404 The County Executive said that the Co~nty and City would enter into a formal agreement and for example could declare Stevens Creek Boulevard within the City of Cupertino as a County highway. He added that the County cannot hand the City a check for $343,000,00 and let the City spend it on local City streets such as in subdivisions. The non-expressway cities such as Cupertino have the option of determining projects with their own apportionments. Non-expressway funds have a greater flexibility since a major road can be selected at the option of the City Council, whereas the roads named in the County Expressway program must have the fuhds expended directly on the named thoroughfares, Such an agreement would entail continued maintenance by the County but would not deprive or relieve the City of its policing function, establishing speed lími ts, etc. ¡.. ¡..~ r:: ...- t1.:; The City Engineer asked the County Executive in whose juris- diction ~ghway 9 would eventually lie if the County proceeds with the Highway 9 agreement, referring to the fact that the State would eventually declare Highway 9 a state route at such time as the Stevens Creek Freeway is opened, The County Executive answered that it would be a city street at that time, not a county road. Commissioner Leonard asked what happens if the cost of High- way 9 happens to be actually 2 or 3 times the current estimate, Who is going to pay for the difference inasmuch as Cupertino has a fixed amount, namely $343,OOO.00? Councilman Sa1ch aslced when the appraisals are expected to be completed, Mayor Lazaneo said he would like to see a firm appraisal given so that the City will know actually what its obligation is, The County Executive aclmowledged that his personnel are busy on the task and will complete it as soon as possible. The County has executed an agreement with the State of California and the County will not abrogate that agreement, he said, nor any other agreement, Therefore, the County will proceed to comply with the terms of the agreement with or without any agreement between the City of Cupertino and the County. Commissioner Leonard mentioned the possibility of placing a limit on the price the City will pay for property, Albert J. Ruffo, representing the Highway 9 Association, expressed the interest of his association members in the widening of the road, The County Executive stated he is not concerned with the source of Cupertino funds, whether they be sales tax moneys, real property taxes, motor vehicle taxes or bond money, Councilman Benetti said that it appears that the City need not tie down its $343,000.00 and, in fact, there is no need even to talk about the bond money. The City Attorney said that the present agreement prevents the City from using bond money. Councilman Saich rej.terated that the Highway 9 program has nothing to do with the bond money and that he does not believe the bond money should be used on Highway 9, that it is his contention that the traff1cways committee has adopted a report and given it to the public, which specifically names the expressways on which the money is to be used. He said that the committee, represent- ing the various City Councils and the County, went to the people with a bond issue and ballot which prescribed the way the money should be spent, He said the people voted for the money on that basis and that it did not include spending these moneys on Highway 9, Cupertino named Stevens Creek Road as its number one priority, \Üth Stelling and Holfe Road next in order, -3- 405 Commissioner Leonard asked how the City Council can enter into, an agreement f'or an Uhlcno~m sum of money. The ~~yor agreed that appraisals along Highway 9 are needed in order to discuss the agreement further with the County Board of Supervisors, The City Attorney repeated that the figure used in the City Engineer's report is $1.00 per square foot, or $43,560,00 an acre, Otis Forge, from the audience, proposed that the City Council grant commmercial zoning to Highway 9 frontage from the north to the south city limits and thus eliminate time-consuming rezonings, spot zoning, and at the same time lower the price of commercial property so as to attract some good business in the City, He said further that this would prevent subdivisions from acquiring property and holding the Highway 9 frontage for commercial which would not be the ideal development from the City standpoint, The Mayor said that the City has proceeded very cautiously wi th rezonings on High~laY 9 as the record will ShOH. Mr, Ruffo, representing the Highway 9 Association, said that the people along Highway 9 will adopt some form of a program if the leadership exercised by the City provides the proper direction, The dedications, he said, will solve part of the problem. He added that the county bond money is not actually related to the Highway 9 widening, but the flexibility inherent in the program would allow use of the bond money for the state highway, The City Attorney asked Mr, Ruffo if his group would accept fifty cents per square foot. Mr. Ruffo said he did not know the answer to that, but he does know that they object to an assessment district because they feel that the entire county benefits from the use of the state highway and that the cost should be propor- tionate to the benefit. Therefore, sources of money reflectirg the county as a whole, should be used for the improvement and not place the burden solely on the abutting property o\mers, This would be inequitable since they do not derive a proportionate benefi t. The ~úyor announced the City Council would schedule a meeting with the Highway 9 Association, Paul Mariani stated that the Highway Board of Directors is not authorized to sell land, Charles Baer asked why the City did not call a bond issue to improve Highway 9 such as the city bond issue for the water works, He also aslced for notification of any meetings on the subject of Highway 9, The Mayor said that it was his intention to keep the property owners notified of Council meetings and actions with respect to Highway 9. Planning Commissioner Snyder asked what disadvantages there would be to having the County take some of the jurisdiction on Stevens Creek Boulevard, The Mayor replied that there would be advantages and he could see no disadvantages, In response to Mr, Baer's question, Councilmen Benetti answered that Highway 9 is a state highway and the City could not possibly propose a bond issue to improve it, Otis Forge asked if any buildings need to be moved to clear the additional 10 feet in order to make an 80' right-of-way, The County Executive said that time is of the essence and that the County is acting as agent of the State of California in acquir- ing the property rights, The County will have to start this week to secure the necessary right-of-way. He therefore requested adviCe as soon as possible if the City intends to sign the proposed agreement, -4- 406 !-* - , ~ ..... ~ The City Attorney said, with reference to the opinion of the County Cou.nse~ reiat:ive to e><penditure of' county bond money :for Highway 9, that the County Counsel has no way of ]mowing the financial position of Cupertino, He added that the Saratoga agreement does commit bond moneys, The County Executive stated that he would be "utterly astounded" at this late date to discover that the proposed agree- ment between the City, the County and the State for payment of costs of right-of-way acquisition for state highway route 114 is not a valid agreement for the City to execute, Councilman Benetti asJced whether November 1 is still the deadline for the City to secure the rights-of-way. The County Executive answered in the affirmative although the County is obligated to proceed with the agreement regardless of the developments in Cupertino, The ~~yor announced a meeting between the City Council and the Highuay 9 Association to be held August 22, 1961, at 8:00 P.M. at the City Hall. A meeting will be scheduled at a later date with the County Board of Supervisors, Councilman Benetti again asked the County Executive to do his best to l~.rnish the City with a firm figure of the cost, Mr, Campen said that he would do his best. Meet~ng recessed at 9:15 P,M, III Ketell Construction Co, - Assessment district for road improvements, Scratched from the agenda. II Planning Consultant contract. The Mayor convened the meeting in personnel session at 9:22 P,~1. APPROVED: /s/ Nick J. Lazaneo Mayor, City of Cupertino ATTEST: {/ ,"-' ì9...~c'-< « - V~ ,-C':-- City Clerk -5-