Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-18-1963 City Council Minutes SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL SUPUqARY OF MINUTES TIME: Wednesday, September 18, 1963 - 7:30 P. M. PLACE: Saratoga High School, Herciman Avenue & !{i~hx~ay 9, Saratoga, Call{. TYPE: Regular Meeting I ORGANIZATION Mayor Glennon called the meeting to order at 7:30 P. M. A, ROLL CALL Present: Councilmen Glennon, Brazil, Drake, Hardnan, Tyler Absent: None B. Minutes Councilman Brazil moved, seconded by Councilman Tyler, to dispense with the reading and approve the minutes of the September 4, 1963 meeting, as distributed. ~otfon carried unanimously. II BIDS AND CONTRACTS A. BIN-TYPE RETAINING ~ALL - BOHL1~}I ROAD City AdmihiStrator reported that three bids had been received for the Bohlman Rd. construction of a retaining wall on Bohlman Road: (1) W. D. Henkel & Retaining Associates - $19,866.20 (2) Gradall Construction Co. - $24,334.00 Wall Bids (3) Oscar C. llalmes, Inc. - $3!,794. After noting that the EEgineer's estimate for this work was $23,049.50, it was moved by Councilman Harman, seconded by Councilman Brazil, and adopted to authorize the Mayor to execute a contract with the low bidder, W. D. Henkel and Associates, for the construction of a bin-type retaining wall on a portion of Bohlman Road. B. BIDS ON PRINTING COPIES OF SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE City Administrator reported that three fnfonnal bids had been received Subdivision for the printing of 200 copies of the Subdivision Ordinance and he Ordinance reco, mended that the 1~ bid of $554.89 from Nordic Letter Shop be Printing approved. Bids Councilman Drake moved, seconded by Councilman Brazil to authorize the City Administrator to employ Nordic Letter Shop to print the Subdivision Ordinance copies at the price quoted. Motion carried. Maxmar Mayor Glennon announced for the benefit of those who were present because Invest. of interest in Item IV-A, Maxmar-Investment Co. rezoning application, C~O that this item will be held over to the next meeting at the request of the applicant. III PETITIONS, ORDINAlICES AND FORMAL RESOLUTIONS A. RESOLUTION NO. 164 Res.164 City Administrator submitted a report on the annexation of Tracts Azule 3392 and 3439 to the Azule Lighting District and Resolution No. 164, Ltghtfng being a resolution of intention to annex these tracts to the Azule District Lighting District. He explained that this annexation has been proposed Annexation to provide street light facilities.which were approved as a part of No. I ' the partial underground facilities system in the Rodri~ues subdivision. He also indicated that the annexation would result fn reducing the tax levy for existing property owners in the Azule Lighting District for the 1964-65 Fiscal year. Councilman Brazil moved, seconded by Councilman Drake, to adopt Resolution No. 164 as presented. Motion carried unanimously. B. RESOLUTION NO. 164-A Res. 164-A Councilman Brazil moved, seconded by Councilman Hartman, to adopt Hearing on Resolution No. 164-A, fixing time and place for hearing under the Azule Light. Street Lighting Act of 1919 for the Azule Lighting District. Dfst. Annex. Annexation No. 1. Motion carried unanimously. -1- C. PETITION FOR THE I~PROVEFIENT OF CHESTER AVENbZ City Administrator explained that the engineering firm of I~astin and Kingston had presented a petition from Chester Avenue property ovmers for an assessment district for the improvement of Chester Avenue and that the resolutions pertaining to this matter had been listed on the agenda for council consideration only if it should decide to act favorably on the petition for improvement. Chester Mr. Jim Mastin indicated, on a large map, the area of approximately Avenue 100 acres between Allendale Avenue and Sobey Road that would derive Improvement access from the proposed Chester Avenue improvement. He stated that Petition. the only two property owners who were not interested in Joining the district have frontage on Allendale Avenue but that the district would provide access to the rear portions of their property and that they would not be charged for 267* of assessments along Chester Avenue that could have access frem Allendale without using Chester Avenue. bfr. Mastin explained that a street improvement assessment district would allow development of the area by the imdividual property onwers and that it was felt that ~ir. Butbrier and 14r. Bellicotti, as the o~mers of property ironring on Allendale, would benefit by the district ff and wfien they decided to develop the rear portions of their property. Mr. Bellieottf and .~r. Butbrier stated that they did not plan to develop their property and objected to being assessed for improvements they do not want or plan to use. Mr. Assaf, of ~lflson, Harzfeld, Jones & Morton, explained that only those. properties that will benefit from the district ~an be assessed and that if, fn the future, the propQrtfes of r~r. Butbrier and Mr. Bellfcottl were developed, they would benefit from the imp~bvement and should therefore be included on the assessment ro11. The Council discussed with ~fr. -~iastin and Hr. Assaf the possibility of using an alternate route as access to the area and the Hayor, with Council approval, referred the matter to the Public ~orks Committee for consultation with the Subdivision Cou,nfttee of the Planning Commission and any of the interested parties and requested that the Committee submit its reco~uendatfon back to the Council. Items III- C. ~ D., and E were set over until such time that the Council has acted on the petition for improvement of Chester Avenue. RESOLUTION. NO. 36-B-~6 Res.36-B-~6 Councilman Brazil moved, seconded by Councilman Harman, to Tract adopt Resolution No. 36-B-46, accepting the dedication of streets 1791 in Tract 1791, Qufto Rancho. Motion carried unanimously. IV SUBDIVISIONS AND BUILDING SITES SDR-437 A. SDR-437 - PHILLIP COLLINS Collins Councilman Brazil moved, seconded by Councilman Drake, to adopt Resolution No. SDR-437-1, granting building site approval to Phillip Collins for one lot on Palomino l~ay. Motion carried unanimously. B. TRACT 2720 - SARATOGA FOREST Tr.2720 Const. Councihnan Brazil moved, seconded by Councilman Drake, to accept the Accept. improvements in Tract 2720 for construction only, as recoannended by the Director of Public lJorks. l~otion carried unanimously. C, SDR-307 -l!~t, C. A. CARLSON SDR-307 Bond It was moved by Cooncilman Drake, seconded by C~uncilman Brazil, and Release adopted to authorize the release of the $900. cash bond posted by t~r. ~n. C. A. Carlson to guarantee completion of improvements required as a condition of building site approval. -2- D. SD-439 -~. C. GARCIA City Administrator and Plannin~ Director explained that the Planning C~muisslon had required the installation of underground facilities as a condition of tentative approval of Mr. Garciats subdivision; t~at Mr. Garcia had asked for deletion of this condition and the Planning SD-439 Co~lssion, after a special investigation, had reco~u.ended that the Garcia - Cf~y Council modify the condition to require "Stremnlfne" electrical Condition facilities rather than full underground. Mr. Patrick Creegan, EngiDeer deletion for the applicant, and Mr. Joe Rogers, representing Mr. Garcia, request requested the Council to eliminate the requirement for full underground facilities but not to require "Streanlfne" facilities as recommended by the Planning Cuumission. They based their request on the hardship of added develo~en~ costs ~ich ~hey felt ~ould be difficul~ to offee= ~d on the basis ~hat adjacent developed areas have overhead facilities. After discussion, Mayor Clenn~ directed, .fth Council approval, ~hat =he mat=er be referred Co the Planning C~i~ee with ~he reques~ ~ha~ they confer ~i=h the Subdivision C~m~l~ee, ~he Developer's represen~a~i~s, P. G. & E. representatives and a private electrica} contractor, and repOr~ their reconendaCfons a= ~he next Council meeting. V PUBLIC HE~INGS'AND HEARINGS ON ~P~L A. A-114 - EICHLER H~S, INC. ~e b~yor.declared ~he hearing open On ~he appeal by Efchler H~es, Inc. fr~ ~he decision of ~he Planning C~.,ission ~o deny Design Revte~ Approval and requested the City Administrator ~o outline the history of ~his application for design review approval. Mr. Hanley reported that the application had been reviewed' by the Design Revef~ C~.=,i~tee of ~he Plannin~ Cun~lssion over an extended A-114 perf~ of time at several meetings during ~he course of x.xhich a Eichler n~ber of changes requested by the C~it~ee had been made by ~he H~es, Inc. applic~t. However, on A~us~ 12 a~ i~s fomal meeting on =his Appeal subject, ~he Design Revie~ C~i~tee coqcluded ~hat in f~s vie~ ~he proposed subdivision would not confom ~i~h Article 1, Sec~fon 1.1 (a) and Article 13, Section 13.1 of ~he City of Saratoga Zonin~ ~dfn~ce NS-3.and rec~ended ~o ~he Plannf~ C~,,lssion that i~ deny design revie~ approval. Upon receipt of the Design Review C~i~ee report the Planning C~lssion appointed three fndependen~ architectural consultants to revie~ the plans, sketches, designs, elevations, and ~ber ~hfbics su~it~ed by ~he a~plfcan~ and =o su~i~ ~hefr~ opinion as to ~e~her or. not ~he proposed subdivision was'in keeping ~f~h the objectives of ~he Zoning Ordi~nce as se~ ou~ in ~he sections enmera~ed above. The Administrator reported ~ha~ ~hese findings were su~f~ed ~o the Planning Co~hissfon on August 26 by t~ of the architec~s; ~he ~hfrd had disqualified himself. Both of the architectural consultants indicated ~ha~ fn ~hefr opinion ~he design and lay-ou~ of ~hfs subdivision did conion ~o the obJec~i~s set ou~ in the Zoning Ordinance. At t~s meetin~ of Augus~ 26, 1963, however, the Planni~ C~fssion adop=ed the report of the Design Revie~ C~i~ee by a vo~e of 4 ~o 3 and rejected ~he application of Eichler H~es, Inc. The City Administrator concluded the history of ~he application by reportin~ ~ha= Eichler H~es, Inc. ~d submitted an appeal fr~ this decision on Sep~ber j, 1963 and ~hat this was ~he time for hearfn~ required by the ordinance. The Hayor indicated ~ha~ ~here ~re serious legal questions involved ~d asked ~he City A~tomey to repor~ on his analysis of the questions raised by ~his appeal~ ~e City Attorney first indicated that the hearing being conducted ~as no~ a hearing de novo and that ~he purpose ~herefore ~as for the Council ~o review ~he evidence that had been before ~he Planning C~fssion to detemfne if there was or ~as no~ sufficien~ evidence upon which ~he Pla~ing Ceission could have based i~s decision. He indica~ed further tha~ he had been requested by the City Co~cil to revfe~ ~his ma~ter and Cha~ havin~ reviewed the file i~ was his opinion ~ the Planning C~isis~ should be reversed for two -3- reasons: (1) That all the expert testimony presented to the Planning Cuilmzission supported the view that the plans of Eichler Homes, Inc, conplied with the purposes of Section 13,1 of the Zoning Ordinance, ThUs it was the City ~ttorney's opinion that on those grounds alone' that if the matter were taken to court the court would find in lihe. with the City's o~u expert witnesses. (2) More importantly, the City Attorney stated that the Planning C~.~ission had used the objectives set. out in Section 1.1 (a) and 13.1 of the Zoning Ordinance as standards against which to Judge the applicants design plans. It was therefore his opinion that the Planning Conunission had by so doing exceeded its Jurisdiction by erroneously applying the purposes and 9bJectives of the ordinance as standards. The Mayor then asked the City Attorney what the position of an individual councilman would be if the City Council disregarded the City Attorneyts advice and upheld the ~ction of the Planning Commission. The City Attorney reported that the Council could be held accountable for any expenses incurred as a result of a subsequent ~aw suit on the issue both as a council and individually. At this point the Mayor directed that the record should show that the entire record of this application has been entered in evidence, including the exhibits submitted to the Planning Commission, the letters of the architectural consultants, reports of the Design Review Cux~aittee~ and the Planning Cormnissfon and the City Attorney's letter of September ll, 1963~ all of which are on file iu the City A-114 Clerk*s office. Eichler Homes, Inc. There being a substantial nomber of people in attendance who ~ere Appeal interested in the .problem, the MayOr indicated that the Council would be willing to hear their cu~iu,ents even though they.could have no bearing on the legal position of the City. There followed au extended period of discussion by~varioUs members of the audi~uce. During the course of these discussions, Mr. E. R. ProCtor, Mrs. Walter Clark, Mr. Frank Chesnds, Mr. Richard Clement, Mr. R. D. Harding~ Mr. Joseph Mauley~ Mrs. Merkle, M~.\Jemes Sanders~ Mr. Leo John Fronzack~ Mr. George Coker, Mr. ~illianWatkins, Mr. Joe Sheridy, ~r. Walter Clark, Mr, Murray~ and others spoke in opposition to the Eichler applicetiou~ while Miss Louise Overacker, Mrs. Virginia Tofflemire, Mr. B. T. Galeb, Mrs. Bower, Mr. John Jotdon, Mr.'Jemes Allen spoke in favor of the application, 'as did Mr. Edward Eichler in his own behalf. During the course of these discussions, the Mayor and the City Attorney both stated that, within the frmnework of the existing la~ and cases interpretsting it, it would be illegal for the City to attempt to ~j~e~u~e certain styles of architecture solely upon the grounds of ' that the City would thus lose far more than the decision of an individual application. At the conclusion of the public discussion, it was moved by Councilman Brazil, seconded by Councilman Tyler and carried unanimously that the public hearing be closed at 10:30 P. H. Councilman Brazil then stated that the issue bad been clearly and unequivocally put by the City Attorney. If the Council confirms the Planning Connission then it would be exceeding its authority and would be subjecting itself to t~o risks: (1) the risk to each council- man of personal financial loss (2) The more serious risk that a court ruling in such a hearing would find that a fatal flaw existed in the entire idea of design reviei~. For these reasons, Councilman Brazil moved that the Planning Commission be overruled and Councilman Drake seconded on the grounds that he ~as unwilling to attempt to legislate as to the types 6f architecture suitable for Saratoga~ Hotion carried unanimously. IV NE~ BUSINESS A. C-60 HAX~AR INVESIt~NT CO. Application for change of zoning. A-60 Ha~anar Halter held over to the next meeting as requested by the applicant. Invest. B. C-61 - PALU~ G~ARDI~R C-61 City Achlnistrator read the report dated }eptember 10, 1963 from the Gardiner Subdivision Committee to the Planning Cv,Lauission ~d the c~unica~ion from ~he Planning C~issinn ~o the City Cb~cll advising ~ha~ the Subdivision Cuu.,lttee Repor~ had been adopted and ~he Planning C~ission reckends to the City Council ~ha~ ~he rezonin~ be denied. No.one present responded go the ~ayor"s invitation ~o spe~ for or agains~ ~his application. Co~cil~n Rattan moved, seconded by Councilman Brazil to accep~ ~he recu~enda~ion of the Planning Cor,~ission a~ deny the applicati~ of Paul Gardiner to fezone fr~ R-1-40,O00 to R-l-15,000 three lots of ~act 1963 on Allendale Avenue. Hotion carried ~animously. C. ~Q~ST F~M P~ING CO~ISSION FO~ ~ ORDINanCE ~G~TING .EXCAVATION ~ E~ MO~ Excava~io~ Ordinate City A&inis~or read ~he reques~ ~r~ ~he Plannin8 Cm~asion ~or an ordinance regula~in~ excavation and earth ~ovemen~ and reported ~ha~ ~h~ S~a~ is currently s~udyin~ ~bis ma~er. A~er discussion, Mayor directed ~his i~ ~o ~be Planni~ Cmi~ee ~o establish Wi~h ~he aid o~ ~he S~a~ and su~i~ ~heir repor~ ~o ~he Planning Cmission ~or rec~,enda~ion ~o ~he Co~cil. D. ~SOE~ION NO. Ees. 16S Co~ci~an Erazil moved, seconded by Co~cilman Tyler, ~o adop~ Fl~d~ Resolution No~. 16~, au~horizin~ applica~ion ~or ~ergency ~lood Relie~ ~unds ~r~ S~a~e ~ran~s~ Motion carried ~an~ously. Director o~ F~ds PUblic Works reported ~ba~ ~be bin-~e re~ainer wal~ approved earlier ~his evening wou~d quali~y ~or ~hese ~ds, as would o~her ~rk plyned ~o ralie~ ~he d~a~e which occured durin~ ~he s~om o~ Febma~ 1. V~I O~ A. S~ JOSE WA~R Sa~ Jose Ci~F A~inia~ra~or reported ~ha~ ~his ~a~r bad bee~ de~erred ~wo Wa~er Works weeks ago ~nr clarification o~ ~egal ma~ers rela~in~ ~o ~h~ installation Agre~en~ o~ a wa~er. ma~n extension ~o serve ~he Civic Cen~e~ ~i~e a~d ~or wa~e~ s~udies ~ b~n~ rode o~ a procedure ~icb wouXd provide ~ha~ ~he ~in City be ~e~bursed ~or a portion o~ ~be ins~a~a~ion co~s by developers alon~ F~i~vale Avenue ~o ~he ~n~ ~ha~ ~be costs were ~ecap~ured ~der ~be re~mburs~en~ ~re~en~ ~h ~ha Company. Co~cilma. Erazil ~oved, ~econded by Council~n Herman, ~o ~u~borize ~be ~yor ~o execute ~he con~rac~ wi~b San Jose Y~Ya~er Works as ou~- lined by ~he Cl~y A~inis~a~or. Motion carried unan~ously. AD~N~ST~TI~ ~ES A. P~YOR Coun~y~ide (1) Mayor Clen~on ~epor~ad ~ha~ be had made a persn~al recmenda~io~ ~ree~ ~o County E~ecu~lve Howard C~pen, ~ha~ when d~a~in~ a resolution n~beri~ suppor~in~ ~he countywide s~ree~ n~beri~ ~lan ~o be enacted by ~he individ~l councils ~be ~ollowing be included: (~) Accept- ance predicated only on ~animous a~re~e~ by all Jurisd~c~ions (2) ~o be e~ec~ive Janua~ ~s~ o~ ~rd year ~ollowin~ by las~ city ~o ac~ a~d (~) apeciVic plan o~ n~beri~ ~o be de~emined by majority vo~e o~ Mayors ~nd Chaiman o~ ~he Flo~ (2) ~yor reported that the C~ittee for Flood Control Bonds had Control requested the Council to pass a resolution endorsing the bond Bonds election ~d Council agreed that its ~solution No. 163 adopted Sept~ber 4, 1963 would adequately express its s~port. B. FIN~CE Bills (1) Councilman Dr~e moved, seconded by Councilman Brazil to approve the disbursements on the list dated Sept~ber 18, 1963 for a total ~o~t of ~12,780.90 and authorize that warrants be dra~ in pa~ent, Motion called unan~ously. -5- Finance (2) City Clerk's Financial report was held over to the next meeting. Reports (3) Treasurer's report for the month of August, .1963 was submitted. 1962-63 (4) The annual audit for the 1962-63 fiscal year vas 'submitted for Audit Council information and review. COUNCIL COI~II!'rEES No reports D.DEPARTMENT HEADS AND OFFICERS No reports E.CITY ADMINISTP~TOR Underground City Admfnfstrator reported that the recently adopted policy regarding Facilities andergroand facilities had been mailed to all the engineering firms Policy and most of the developers in the area, as well as to the head offices of the Pacific Gas & Electric Company and the Pacific Telephone Co. IX COMMUNICATIONS A. WRITTEN (1) Councilman Drake moved, seconded by Councilman Harman, to approve Ross Hall the request from Ross Hall Corporation that it be allo,~ed to post Corp. a cash bond in lieu of completing improvements for Tract 3250 Bond ~/nich have been delayed by Highway 9 requirements. Motion carried unanimously. (2) Mr. Joseph Sweany of Ruth & coing, explained his ~rritten request Request 'that the "Agreement for Acquisition of Storm Drainage System" be for emeudment ~mended to provide for City payment upon completion of construction to Storm Drain instead of upon expiration of the maintenance period. System Agreement After discussion, it was moved by Councilman Drake, seconded by Councilman Brazil, and adopted thet the Director of Public Works be authorized to dotemine a bond amount adequate to insure the city during the one year maintenance period to see if the agreement could be emended to the mutual satisfaction of the City and the Dove1 oper s. Bo ORAL Mayor Glennon acknowledged, with pleasure, the presence of Planning Commissioner Johnson and the Planning Commission official representative, Dr. Norton. X ADJOBRNMENT Canvass The City Administrator reported that Mr. Assaf Of Wilson, Rarzfeld, Vote Jones and Morton had advised him that a special meeting to canvass the vote of the September 17 election would not be necessary and that the canvass could be made at the next regular meeting. Couecilman Brazil moved, seconded by Councilman Herman, to.adjourn the meeting. Motion carried unanimously 11:55 P. M. Respectfully submitted, WILLI/LM C. }tANLEy, CITY CLE~ -6-