Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-02-1965 City Council Minutes e~./1ATOGA CITY COUNCIL SU~Y OF MINlvTES TI}4E: Wednesday, June 2, 1965 - 7:30 P.M. ~CE: S~atoga Ci~ Co~eil thebeTs, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, S~ctoga, Califor~ia ~E: Regula- Mee~i~ I OR~I~TION M~or ~o T~ ~e called the ~e=tng to order at 7:30 A. ROLL ~L ~esent: Cou~il~n Dr~e, H~m~, ~lers Bur~ Absent: Counc~lm Gle~on B. ~S ~nutes It was moved by Councilm~ Bu~; seconded by Co~cilm~ ~lers ~d un~- ~usly c~'ted to w~ve the teeing ~d appr~e the m~nutes of the ~y 19, 1965 ~ett~ as w~tten~ subjec~ to co~ection of a ty~htcal e~or in the first p~aph on P~e 4. II BIDS ~D CO~CTS A. ~PORT OF BIDS - S~ET S~ACING PROG~ ~. H~ley re,fred that f~ve blds were received on the Street Surfacl~ Stree~ Pro~ for th~s ye~ ~d that the bids r~ged fr~ $16~043.76 to $23,952.35 Surfacing and that the Stdf rec~nds ~ha~ the contract be aw~ded to the lowest Bids res~nu~ble bidders Bay Slu~ Se~ Co~y. He explained that approx{mntely 1~300~000 square feet of s~eet surfaci~ ~11 be done at this t{m- ~ the first of ~o an~cipated se~ents of work to be done th~.s ye~. I~ was roved by Counc~ln Har~ seconded by Counci]mnn ~lers ~d un~imusly c~r~ed, to awed the b~d ~o Bay Slur~ Seal Comply for $16~043.76 ~d authorize the ~yor to execute the contract for the ~rk. B. ~PORT OF B~S - T}~ A~ ~ ASSESS~ DIS~ICT Mr. ~ley reported that seven b~ds ~re received for the ~el~ Avenue ~eln ~ea ~r~nts ~d that the bids r~ed fr~ a h~gh of $113s93~.46 to Avenue a low of $89~951.70. ~. H~ley fur[he= reported that the low bid from B~ds ~attis ConstructLon C~p~y is ~out 10~ under the engi~er~s estimate of the Job. ~th no objec=ion~ Mayor pro t~ ~e deferred ~t~on on this ~t~ ~til after the public he~i~ on the ~pr~ement d~trict, ~hich is schedul~ for 8:00 P.M. III PETITIONS~ O~I~CES ~ FO~ ~SOLUTIONS A. O~I~CE 38.6 ~d. 38.6 It was ~ed by Cou~ilmnn Bur=y~ seconded by Councilre-- ~ler ~d un~- Rejected musly appr~ed to ~op~ ~din~ce 38.6~ defini~ rejected mtio~ as ~t~ons constitu~n~ denialss as introd~ed at the last B. ~SOL~ION NO. 252 Res. Co~c~l~ Bu~ ~ed for approval of Resolution No. 252 , au=horizi~ the 252 ~yor to execute ~ ~re~nt with the State Division of Highways for m~te- State n~ce of State highways ~d the p~tic~pat~on by the City in a shoe of the H~ghways costs of the s~gnal to be installed at Bl~ey Plaza. After ~estio~ by ~nt. Cou~l~ ~ ~d ~ef d~scussion Councilm~ Bur~ ~thdrew h~s rotion A~ree. ~d the totter w~ deferred ~ the ~yor, ~th Council appr~ until the next regul~ ~eC~. C. RESOLUTION NO. 253 Res. It was roved by Co~e~lm-~ H~n~ seconded by Council~ ~ler ~ un~i~ ~3 musly c~ to adopt Resolution No. 253s ~opt~.n~ alternate procedure for Alt. L~ ~d Collecti~ assessments on ad valor~ bas~s due proce r District ~d A~le L~ghti~ DistrLct. t~es D. RESOLUTION NO, 36-B-62 Res, 36-B-62 It was moved by Councilman Burry, seconded by Councilman Hez~man and T.~'act unanimously carried to adopt Resolution No. 36-B-62 acceptin~ the dedica- D28 tion of streets and releasing the bond for Tract 1928. E, RESOLUTION NO, 36-B-63 Res, 36-B-63 It ~as moved by Councilman Hartmnns seconded by Councilman Tyler and Tract unanimously carrieds to adopt Resolution No, 36-B-63s acceptin~ the 1963 dedication of streets and releesin8 the bond in Tract 1963s Allendale Oaks. F, R~SOLUTION NO, 36-B-64 Res, 36-B-64 Motion was made by Councilman Tylers seconded by Councilman Burry and T~act unanimously carrieds to adopt Resolution No, 36-B-64, accepttn~ the dedi- 2835 cation of streets and releasir~ the bond i.n Tract 2835, G, RESOLUTION NO, 239 - CHANGING STREET NAME ETHEL ANN NAY TO CODY lles, 239 Mr, Hanley stated that this item was deferred for one month at the request Street of lq~, Cottre11~ attorney for Mr, Polentzs and Mr. Hanley then read Nn-~ Mr. Cottrellis letter settin~ forth reasons for objectin~ to the proposed Change- ~ chan~e, Ethel Ann Nay to Mayor Pro ten Drake announced that although it is not a public hearings Cody the Council will hear from anyone who wishes to speak regardin~ this matter, Lane Mr, Or~allas reviewed the history of the street and further supported the propon~:.lts~ request for changin~ the street n_~3,e to honor Mr, Cody. He stated that the petition represented 100% of the residents of Ethel Ann Nay. Mr. Polentz stated that he o~ns property on Ethel Ann Nay and is presently constructin~ a house ~nich he expects to move into within the next month or t~o and that he had ori~inally developed the street. Mr, Polentz ex- pressed concern that chan~in~ this street name now would establish a precedent in the City, No one responded to the Mayor pro temss invitation to counnent regardin~ any ne~ observations other than those presented at a previous moetin~ and the Mayor pro tern stated that he shared Mayor Gleunons s previously expressed viex~point of general disfavor of chan~ing the street name because of the precedent situation, Councilman Tyler stated that he did not think this particular street name chan~e ~ould establish a precedent and that he ~as in favor of the requested chsn~e because all of the present residents supported Councilman Hartman indicated that he supperted the name chan~e for the reasons set forth by the petitioners and those expressed by him at a previous meeting, Councilman Burry also supported the proposed chan~es statir~ that he did not feel the oppunentss arguments wore sufficient to override the chan~e of this particular street name to honor Mr, Cody and that he did not feel the circumstances of this matter would apply to other ~ ehan~e requests, and therefore would establish no precedent, It was moved by Councilm~, Burry and seconded by Councilman Hartman to adopt Resolution No. 239s chan~in~ the street nmne Ethel Ann Nay to Cody Lane, Marion carried by the followin~ roll call vote: AYES: Councilman Burrys Her~nnns Tyler NOES: Councilman Drake ABSENT: Councilman Glennon Res, H. RESOLUTION NO, 254 - AUTHORIZING TRANSFER OF FUNDS FROM GENERAL FUND 254 RESERVE TO STREET IMPROVEMENT FLeD Tr-nnfer Mr. Henley explained that the Street improvement Fund consists only of those of funds funds which are transferred to it from the General Fund and that this trans- fer is neteasel7 to cover the costs of expanses incurred in connection with the Saratoga~Cox Avenue improvement project until assessment districts -. F.A.S,~ and County Trafficways Funds are evaliable, It was moved by Coun- cilman Burry, seconded by Councilman Tyler and unanimously carried to adopt Resolution No. 254 as presented, IV S~BDIVISIONS AND BUILDING SITES A, SDR-460-2 - DR, WYOSNICK Mr. Hanley reported that all conditions have been met and fees paid in SDR-460-2 connection with Dr, Wyosnickts building site off Sobey Road, Mr, Hanley Wyosnick indicated that the site will have access to Chester Avenue. It was moved by Councilman Tyler, seconded by Councilrash Burry and unanimoxmly approved to adopt Resolution No. SDR-460-2, approving the building site. B. SDR-550-1 - V~LLIAI~ B. ~ Nr. Hnnley indicated that all conditions have been met, fees paid end bonds SDR-550-1 posted and it was moved by Councilman Hartm~n, seconded by Counci]m~n Tyler Garland and unanimously carried to adopt Resolution No. 550-1, granting building site approval to William D. Garland for one lot on Via Regina. C. SD-499 - TRACT 3812, COLONY HEIGHTS In answer to a question from CounCilman Hart~n~n, Planning Director Stanley Walker stated that the applicant is required to improve Saratoga Avenue for 32* from the cnnterline with a 45* right of way. Nr. Walker indicated that this corresponds with the improvements required of the subdivider to the west. Councilman H~rtmen strongly questioned the lack of established plan lines for Saratoga Avenue end other major streets and stated that he felt it imperative that these plan lines be established with no further delay. SD-499 TraCt 1{~. Hanley indicated that the engineering department*s work load has pre- 3812 vented completion of the plan lines end that he felt it would be necessary Colony to employ consultant help to accomplish the' job. Nayor pro tom, with Heights Council approval, directed the Staff to investigate .the matter and submit recommendations regarding the most effective Way of completing the plan , line program. ~ir. Hanley reported that conditions have been met, fees paid and bonds .~ posted in connection with final map approval of Tract 3812, but that the staff reconnnends approval subject to the modification of the improvement plans to provide for an alternate storm drainage connection which would be mere effective and which was not possible previously because the adjoining land had not been developed. It was moved by Councilman Hartman, seconded by Councilman Tyler, and un- an~r~usly carried to adopt Resolution No. SD-499-1, approvin8 the final map of Tract 3812 for a 15 lot subdivision on Sarato8a Avenue, subject to the provision of the alternate storm drainage connection as suggested. D. SDR-566 - HEL~UT WANEA Mr. Hanley indicated that all fees have been paid, bonds posted and coedi- SDR-566 tions met and it was moved by Councilman Burry, seconded by Councilman Wanka Tyler and unanimously carried to adopt Resolution No. 566-1, granting building site approval to Helmet Wanka for one lot on Nadrone Hill Road. V PUBLIC HEARINGS - 8:00 P.14. A. THELNA AVENUE AttEA ASSESSNENT DISTRICT (1) PUBLIC HEARINC Nayor pro tom Drake opened the public hearing on the Thelma Avenue Assessment District at 8:51 P.~l. end Nr. Hanley read the written protests which had been filed with him regarding this proposed im- Thelma provement end stated that these protests are the only written protests Ave. received at any stage of the proceedings: (1) letter dated Nay 12, 1965, from Robert H. Finney (2) letter dated February 15, 1965 from Gertrude A. Nutter and (3) letters dated October 22, 196/~ and Febr- uary 15, 1965 from l~ontgomery W. Hawks. Mr. Huff indicated that these protestants represent assessments Numbers 16, 68~ 72 and Parcels 24, 85 end 89, respectively. ~lr. Hanley then read a letter from Vernon Tremble supporting the proposed improvement. F~yor pro tom Drake directed the file to be introduced as evidence. A. THELMA AVENUE ARFA ASSESSMENT DISTRICT - PUBLIC HEARING (tout.) Mr. Huff explained the nature of the project and the m~nner in which the assessment is spread and in answer to a question from Councilman Tyler regarding ~.ots 63 and 64 on Saratoga Vista Avenue, which are in single ownership but assessed as two lots, FAr. Assaf, representing the bonding attorneys, stated that the assessments are spread on the basis Of benefit to the land itself, not necessarily the" present use, and that parcels ~hich could be developed as two sites~ if the treesent use ~re abandoned, are assessed on the basis of possible future benefit. Councilman Tyler reported that Col. Bricker, who owes property at the comer of HnmmOnS and Thelma Avenues, is unable t~ be present at this meeting and has expressed concern about the exclusion of sidewalks from the proposed improvement. Mr. Huff indicated that there had been in- sufficient positive response to justify the inclusion of sidewalks and that although he did not think sidewalks could now be added to this specific project; he did think that if suff~dient interest exists, some estimate of 'the work and costs involved could be worked out ~qith the Contractor. Thelma Mr. Montgomery Ha~s asked if Saratoga Vista Avenue from Herriman to Ave. to Saratoga Vista Court would be excluded from the improvement if the Assess. majority of the property owners requested it and Mayor pro tern indicated Dist. that the suummry of support prepared by the Director of Public ~qorks indicates that 13 of the 23 affected lots potitioned for the improve.-., meat and this represents more th'an 5070 of the property owners. Mr. Hawks then stated that. he felt these people would reconsider now becr,.use o:'.U the loss of shade trees and Mr. Huff indicated-that ~here are no pl~s for removing any treeS. Joseph ConWay, JOhn Campbell, Richard Rouse, Verno~ Trimble and Tony Serfand spoke in favor of !the district "and Virginia Tofflem/re, Charlotte Meeker and Tony Serfand spoke in~favor of including side- walks in the project. Mayor pro tem asked for a show of hands regard. ing the installation of sidewalks and ll0 persons indicated approval~ with five persons opposed. Mr. Hanley verified Mrs. Meeker's state- ment that the Council had indicated sometime ago that it would parti-. tipate xon a 50/50 basis toward the construction of sidewalks on streets leading to Argonaut School and it was noted by Mr. Hartlay that this type project could not be financed by Gas Tax Funds, but 'weuld have to be appropriated from other City funds, if approved. , .?,i'~ John Preston, Vernon Trimble, John Campbell and Dan Lopez requested' the insta/lation of a stop sign at the intersection of Saratoga Vista Avenue and Saratoga Vista Court and Mayor pro ten Drake indicated that this matter was a separate issue from the proposed improvement and wnuld be considered separately after careful review by the Chief ~ of Police and Sheriffss department. With no objection, this matt'at was referred to Staff for investigation ~nd reconnnendation. There being no further comments from the floor, the public hearing was closed at 9:32 P.M. The Council and Staff discussed with Mr. Assaf the feasibility of add- ing sidewalks to the proposed improvement and concluded that the disruption of the assessment district at this time weuld not be ,~idewalks justified by the remote prospects of obtaining a favorable bid for the sidewalk improvements. In the light of this decision, Mayor pro tom, with Council appreval, refexTed to the Public lqelfare Coats!tree the sidewalk question with instructions to study the matter independ- ently of the assessment district, but to, if possible, take advantage of working through the contractor on the job. Mr. Assaf stated that the necessary enabling resolutions may be adbpted collectively with the excep~,ion of Resolution No. 256, making changes and modifications in the project, which is not needed for this p~Oject. A. THEv24A AVENUE AREA ~S.qES~.~'~:T DISTRICT (Cent) The following resolutions were adopted by unanimous vote of the Council on a motion made by Counci]mmn Hartman end seconded by Councilman Tyler: Theinn !1) Resolution No. 255 - Overruling protests against the Resolution Avenue of Intention to form an assessment district for the Improvement of Theline Avenue Area, (2) Resolution No. 257 - Ordering reduction of assessments, (3) Adopting engineering report confirming assessments and orderin~ work and acquisition. (4) Resolution No. 259 - Awarding contract for Theline Avenue Area Project to Wattis Construction Co. for the bid price of $89,951.70, (5) Resolution No. 260 - Designating Collection Officer for Illalma Avenue Area Improvements, P~ECESS: 9:50 P,M, RECONVENED: 10:05 P,Mo B. V-255 - JOSEPH & KIRSTEN R. KRAJESKA'. Mr. Henley read the appeal filed by Joseph and Kitsten KraJeska, dated V-255 May 19, 1965, from the Planning Commission denial of a variance to allow KraJeska less than the mininn, m front yard setback required for additions to an Appeal existing residence on Pierce Road. Mr. Healey then read the Variance Committee report which was adopted by the Planning Commiasion on May 10, 1965. Mayor pro tem Drake opened the public hearing at 10:17 Po M. and directed that the file V-255 be introduced as evidence. Mr. Ceorge Tobin, attorney representing the KraJeska's, outlined the general topography and geographical conditions of the property in question and questioned the evaluation of the mount of variance required beirg taken from the private right of way line rather than the property line and also questioned the definition of the proposed entry court as a structure. Mr. Tobin explained that the 60' easement was required under the old County ordinance which did not consider location and that under the City's present ordinance it is unlikely that any more than a 20' right of way would be required. After explaining what the Krajeska's propose to do in the way of adding to the existing residences and the problems presented by the topography of the land, Mr. Tobin urged the Council to grant the variance. Mr. Tobin indicated that he did not feel that a variance would be inconsistent with the Zoning Ordinance and that he further did not feel that - variances in general establish precedent as each is Judged on its own merits. Planning Commissioner McFall reported that the Variance Committee had reviewed the site and studied the proposed plans inrelgtion to it and were of the opinion that the applicant could expand in accorddace with the ordinance. The City Attorney read the regulations pertaining to the findings which the Council must make to grant a variance and, as requested by the Mayor pro terns advised that Ordinance NS-3.4 requires that the set back line be measured from the right of way line instead of the property line and that the Zoning Ordinance defines a fence (~~. more than 6' in height as a structure so that the p~'oposad entry cour~ '~all. and gate would constitute a st~cture, Councilman Tyler questioned the need for a variance in the light of the wording of Section 15.5 relating to alterations and additions to non- conforming structures which provides that "no non-conforming structure shall be moved, altered, enlarged or recons. tructed so as to increase the discrepancy between existing conditions and the standards of coverage, front yard, side yards, ,,,,, prescribed in the regulations for the in which the structure is located,' Councilman Tyler stated that his understanding of this section would he Krajeska that if the fence were to be reduced in height so that it did not tonsil, Appeal tute a structure and the proposed addition was com tructed to the same set-back as the existing recidence it would not be increasing the existing discrepancy. After discussion, during ~hich the applicants indicated that they would agree to reducing the entry court wall tD 6' and to moving the proposed ear port back three feet to the existing 8' setback line, the Nayor pro tem, with Council approval, continued the public hearing until the next regular meeting and referred the matter to the Planning Conm~tttee and the City Attorney for study and rece~a~endatt~n. IV ADMINISTRATIVE~TTERS A. ~YOR No reports B. FINANCE It was moved by Councilman Tyler, seconded by Councilman Drake and Bills unanimously carried to approve the disbursements on the list dated June 1965 and authorize that warrants be drawn in payment for the total amount of $21,667.01. C. COUNCIL COt4MIi'A'~S (1) Councilman Burry reported that the Public Works Committee reviewed the cost analysis for the Saratoga Avenue improvements and is of the Saratoga opinion that the addition of conduit, etc. may not increase the cost Avenue of the assessment district over the original proposal to the project property owners and that, additionally, it is anticipated that ~he additions engineering and inspection fees may be reduced and that if the bids come in low enough the Committee recommends that the additions to the improvements remain. 1965-66 (2) Meyer pro tom called attention to the preliminary budget for the Budget 1965-66 fiscal year which was included in each council members folder for this meeting. D. DEPARTMENT READS AND OFFICERS (1) Planning Director Stanley Walker mquested Council authorization to Planning employ a special planning consultant to review the plann&d community Consultant- development proposed by Mr. Bonnet to be constructed on property on Lackey - Pierce Road. Mr. Walker explained that the Planning Commission has Planned unsuccessfully attempted for some tim to encourage a planned community Community development which would be an asset to the community but that, to Development date, none of the proposals presented by developers would have yielded~ very significant improvement over standard development of the land. Mr. Walker recommended that Mr. Lackey, Planning Consultant from San Francisco be retained to work with the Planning Commission on this particular development as a guide to the Commission not only on this one development but in general as to the approach to use in future applications. Mr. Lackey, the Planning Director indicated, has submitted a proposal for his services and analysis at a cost not to exceed $3500. Mro Hanley explained that for some time the ~lanning Comm~Ssion has been looking for someone who has had successful experience in planning this type of development and that Mr. Lackey is considered bo be an expert in this field. Planning Commissioner McFall confirmed the Planning Commission's need for a consultant regarding planned community development and, after discussion, it was moved by Council- man Hartman, seconded by Councilman Tyler, and unanimously carried to authorize the Staff to proceed, in consultation with the Sub- division Committee of the Planning Ccn~issicn, to negotiate a contract in an amount appropriate to the task the Planning Commission has in mind but not to exceed the amount of $3500..and that the Nayor be authorized to execute whatever dcmument the ~ub. coromlttee recommends. Sara. Ave. (2) It was moved by Councilman Hartman, seconded by Council-n- Tyler and F.A.S. unanimously approved to authorize the City Administrator to advertise Bids for bids on the Saratoga Avenue urban extension project, UE-995-2, .with bids to be opened at ~'~0 P. M. June 23~ 1965, ~: o~ (3) Mr. Hartlay explained that delay in obtainin~ approval from the Southern Pacific Railway, State Division of Highways, and Public Utilities Commission for the Saratoga Avenue project has resulted in the necessity to defer opentn~ o£ assessment district bids until June 23° It was therefore moved by Councilman Hartman, seconded Reso 261 by Councilman Burry and unanimously approved to adept Resolutions Re,, 262 261 and 262, amending resolutions 242 and 246 by establishing the Bids on time for the openin~ of bids on the Saratoga and Cox Avenue Improver Sara-Cox ment Project and the Saratoga and Cox Avenue Storm DrainaSe and Avenue Sanitary Sewerage Project as 3:00 P. M. on June 23, 1965o ~he bids Project are to be considered at a meetin~ to be scheduled for 5:30 P. M. on June 24, 1965° 6/24/65 ~he City Attorney advised that the meeting of June 24ma~ simply Council be set by adJournir~ the regular meeting of June 16, 1965 until locating 5:30 on June Argonaut (4) With no objection, Mayor pro tem Drake referred to the Public Area Welfare CoEnnittee a petition for the improvement of Argonaut Drive Petition from Chateau Drive to Ragart Laneo County (5) Mro Henley reported that the request for a contribution to the Safety Safety Cauncil of Santa Clara County is still in C~ittee° Council VIII COMt41JNICATIONS A. WRI~TF~ (1) Letters from l~r. MacKay and Mr° Martin relative to fluoridation Fluoridation the San Jose Water Works ~ere noted by the Council and the Council San Jose expressed its feeling that any proposal for fluoridation of water Water should be a matter of individual choice but that the Council would Works take a position if it should develop that Saratoga residents bad no oppo~tunity to express their wishes in this regard. Mr. Hanley indicated that the Public Utilities Connission would be the a~ency with Jurisdiction over any other local agency with respect to this m~tter° B. ORAL (1) ~ayor pro tam Drake thanked Plannin~ Co~missioner McFall for his attendance as the Planning Commission representative at the meeting and expressed appreciation to the Good Government Croup representatives for servin~ coffee. Wilkinson (2) It was moved by Councilman Tyler, sewn dad by Councilman Hartman Bond and unanimously carried to authorize the release of the $1,500, Release Surety bond posted by Finis E. Wilkinson in connection with building ~DR-483 site approval SDR-483, 1X It was moved by Councilman Burry, seconded by Councilman Hartman and unanimously carried to adjourn the meetin~ at 11:40 P. ~.. Respectfully submitted, ~ILLIAM C. HAIqLEY, CITY CLERK