Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-17-1965 City Council Minutes SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL S~MARY OF MINUTES TIPS: Wednesday, November 17, 1965 - 7:30 P. M. PLACE: Saratoga City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga TYPE: Regular Meeting I ORGANIZATION Mayor Glennon called the meeting to order at 7:30 P. M. A. ROLL CALL Present: Councilmen Glennon, Drake, Tyler, Burry Absent: Councilman Hartman B. MINUTES Minutes The Clerk pointed out that Item VII. D. (6) should read "SDR-534 en Douglas Lane°." instead of "..Live Oak Lane.." and with this correction it was moved by Councilman Tyler, seconded by Councilman Burry and unanimously carried to dispense with the reading and approve the November 3, 1965 minutes as written. II BIDS AND CONTRACTS None III PETITIONS,ORDINANCES AND FOR}~L RESOLUTIONS A. ORDINANCE 38.8 After determining from the Clerk that the minor revisions which the Management Committee suggested had been checked by the City Attorney for legality and included in Ordinance 38.8 as introduced at the last meeting, Councilman Drake stated that this ordinance has been Business carefully drafted after years of study and that he was ready to License proceed with adoption. Ordinance 38.8 Councilman Burry raised questions as to the inclusion of joint ventures, the definition of fixed place of business~ the requirement for exhibiting a license~ the exemptions for insurance agencies and sale of agricultural products and the possible costs of enforcement of the ordinance. The City Attorney stated that insurance companies are automatically excluded by State law and specifically excluded in the ordinance and that a farmer selling his own produce is in Inter-State Commerce and cannot be licensed. Mr. Johnston also indicated that no attempt is made to more specifically define "engaged in business" because this is a definition that can only be spelled out by court decisions, case by case. Councilman Drake pointed out that the cost of administration can be controlled by simply ejecting not to spend mere than the fee structure would cover and that it was the Committee~s feeling that the proposed fee schedule be tried for awhile and the Council can determine at a later date whether or not any adjustments should be made. Council- man Drake further stated that although the ordinance is not a revenue producing ordinance it is not intended that the City will lose money by administering Councilman Hartman~ who arrived and took his seat on the Council during the discussion referred to above, asked for an explanation of the reasons why this ordinance was proposed and Councilman Drake explained that for many years residents have complained about solicitors and peddlers in the City and, additionally, that problems have been encountered with many businesses~ both old and new, which are sub standard as far as fire proteetion and safety standards are concerned and that the need exists for some equitable manner of solving the problem of businesses which are downgrading the City. SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - November 17~ 1965 Mayor Glennon pointed out that for some time the City has been the only one in the State which has not had some type of business licensing and regulatory law and that this ordinance is proposed to protect both the home owners and those businessmen whose facilities meet all building and planning cod~ requirements. Business License Councilman Tyler added that another reason for the ordinance is Ordinance to provide a means of determining if the place of business is within 38.8 the proper zone for the use and that the building meets the City code. Councilman Hartman indicated that he felt the ordinance to be ambiguous and all inclusive and that although he was in favor of the general objectives of the ordinance he was reticent to approve such overall regulatory procedures for the City of Saratoga. ~]e City Attorney stated that it was felt that it was better to classify "all businesses" and then make specific exceptions rather than attempt to draw a list of all the possible types of businesses. He also pointed out that the ordinance can not discriminate unfairly by excluding one type of business, such as old versus new, but that it is possible to differentiate as to the amount of money to be charged for licensing any particular type of business. The ordinance is'all inclusive, the City Attorney continued, because it is neces- sary in order for it to be legal and enforceable. Councilman Tyler pointed out that, as previously stated by Mr. Henley, this ordinance differs from any other in that it provides for a one time license for the life of a business under the ownership and in the same location and Councilman I~artman agreed that this provision is a good one and that if this ordinance is the only means of obtaining needed protection he would approve it but would prefer some other method of accomplishing this. Councilman Drake agreed with Councilman Hartman's observation and stated that this problem has been studied for years and he is convinced ~hat this ordinance provides the only solution to the problem and that he feels it should be t~ied and adjusted later on if necessary. Councilman Drake therefore moved, seconded by Councilman Tyler, to adopt Ordinance No. 38.8. Motion carried on the following vote: AYES: Councilmen Drake, Hartman, Tyler, Glennon NOES: Councilman Burry. B. ORDINANCE NS-3-ZC-31 - H~MILTON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Ordinance NS-3-ZC-31 Mayor Glennon announced that public hearing was held at the last Hamilton meeting and Ordinance NS-3-ZC-31 introduced on this application to Development rezone from R-I-40,000 to R-1-40,000-P-C approximately 80 acres Corporation located northwest of the intersection of Pierce Road and Surrey Lane. It was moved by Councilman Burry and seconded by Councilman Hartman to adopt the conditional r ezoning ordinance as recommended by the Planning Commission. Councilman Drake asked if the General Plan had been changed to designate this type of zoning for this area and stated that it was his understanding that it would be a change contrary to the General Plan. Mayor Glennon said it was his opinion that the General Plan represents the planners best estimate of what an area would yield in the way of density and use, not a precise zoning of an area and that, to his knowledge, the only question which has been raised regarding this point was from ~'o Robert Walker who lives in the area of the proposed development and who contends that part of the development would yield a greater density tha~ indicated on the General Plan. -2- SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - November 17, 1965 Councilman Drake stated that he did not necessarily oppose this particular proposed zoning but that he did very strongly oppose any change of zoning which has not been specifically indicated on the General Plane if, after review of the needs of the City, it is determined ~:hat Planned Community zoning should be allowed, then it was Councilman Drake's contention that the General Plan shonld be revised to that effect prior to any action on a specific change of zoning application. Councilman Burry pointed out that the Planning Commission endorsed this proposed change after careful consideration in the light of the studies conducted by Lackey and Associates, who were authorized by the City Council to reeommenda suitable development plan for this particular hillside area, Mayor Glennon and Councilman Hartman expressed the oFinion that the proposed zoning does not constitute any deviation from the General Plan and that it reflects very closely Lawrence Livingston's estimate of the density for the total area. Mr. Hanley noted that the Planned Community concept was adopted by both the Planning Commission and the City Council as a different way of developing a piece of land within the general zoning and the framework of the General Plan without altering the overall density or use of the parcel of land involved. Councilman Drake indicated that it ~as his belief that the Planned Community type development represents a different type of development than originally proposed and that this new concept should first be reviewed on a total planning basis rather than on the basis ~f this individual development aud that it is proper~y a matter which should first be considered as a possible revision tO the General Plan. T~e Planning Director stated that although acomplete hillside development plan would probably accomplish most of these objectives, it was his belief that precise plans would still be necessary for the proper development of individual parcels. Ordinance Mayor Glennon noted that a motion had been made by Councilman Burry NS~3~ZC-31 and seconded by Councilman Hartman for the adoption of Ordinance NS-3-ZC-31 and called for a roll call vote on the question. Motion carried for the adoption of the rezoning ordinance on the Aye votes of Councilmen Glennon, Hartman, Tyler and Burry, with Councilman Drake dissenting. C. ORDINANCE NS-3-ZC-25-B - CLARENCE NEALE - C-80 Mr. Henley read the synopsiss dated November 17, 1965~ of the C-80 action regarding this fezchinE to date and indicated that the m~st Clarence recent action was the recommenaation from the Planning Commission that Neale - four additional uses be approved for the previously conditionally Additional fezcried site belonging to Mr. Clarence Neale. uses & time extension In answer to a question from Mayor Glannon~ the Clerk stated that there is no possibility of further expansion of the commercial zoning for the area without in essence spot zoning further north on Highway No. 9 and the Director of ~bltc Works indicated that the grades have been changed since the original fezchinE application and that the parcel is now more on a level with the acceFs road and is more conducive to parking. The Planning Director reported that it was his belief that the Planning Commission had recommended approval ef the additional pro- posed uses because they felt that the uses would be compatible with the art and antique shnp use there and that, in the case of the proposed beauty shop it wculd simply be a reIocation of an existing shop in the village area. SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - NoVember 17, 1965 After discussion, it was moved by Councilman Bnrry and seconded by Councilman Tyler to adopt Ordinance NS-3~ZC-25-B, adding permitted uses under the conditional rezoning for Mro Neale~s property on Ordinance Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and extending the time limit for constructing NS-3-ZC-25-B uses on the preperty. Motion failed on the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmen Burry and Tyler NOES: Councilmen Glennon, Drake and Hartman. Mr. Neale was present and told the Council that he felt its decision was unfair, particularly in view of the studies and recommendation of the Planning Commission regarding this application. IV SUBDIVISIONS, BUILDING SITES AND ZONING REQUESTS A. SDR-230 - NOP~RNA~ PATRICIA KOEPERNIK SDR-230 It was moved by Councilman Hartman, seconded by Councilman Tyler Eoepernik and unanimously carried to authorize release of the improvement Bond bond posted by Mr. and Mrs. Koepernik to guarantee completion of release improvements required as a condition of building site approval for one building site on Via Regina. B. SDR-344 - OUR LADY OF FATIMA VILLA SD~.344 Councilman Drake moved, seconded by Councilman Hartman to authorize Lady of release of the improvement bo~d posted to guarantee conditions of Fatima approval for one building site on Saratoga-Los Gatos Road owned by Bend release Our Lady of Fatima Villa; motion carried unanimously. C. C-90 - TOP~AND COUNTRY REALTY COMPANY C-90 Mr. Hanley read a request from the office of Mr. Thike Papalias that Toxin and the application of Town and Country Realty Company to fezone from Cormtry A to P~-A the parcel of land located at the intersection of Saratoga Realty and Cox Avenues be continued until the meeting of December 1, 1965 because of Mr. Papalias's illness. With no objection, b~yor Glenncn directed the matter to be placed on the agenda of the next regular meeting as requested. D. SDR-594 - ROBERT COX, JR. SDR-594 Mr. Henley reported that all conditions have been met and fees paid R.C6x,Jr~ in Connection with Dr. Robert Cox application for building site approval for the parcel Cn which the Pike estate guest house is now located and it was moved by Councilman Drake, seconded by Councilman Tyler and unanimously carried to adopt Resolution No. SDR-594-1, granting building site approval on the lot. E. SAPSTOGA UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT Mr. Henley stated that this request to withhold acceptance of the Saratoga street improvement~ in Tract 2844, Arroyo de Saratoga Unit No. 3 School was deferred from the last meeting at the request of Mr. Wade Hover, District - attorney for the Saratoga School District. In the interim, Mr. Arroyo de Henley reported, the matter was referred to the City Attorney's Saratoga office for review and analysis. Additionally, the Clerk reported Improvements that he had just received copies of a letter from Doan and Lane, dated November 17, 1965, with a copy of the agreement between the Developer and the School District attachcd. The City Attorney reported that as he understood the facts, this is a subdivision which has had tentative and final nmp approval and on which the improvements have been accepted for construction only and that the maintenance period will be up November 18~ 1965 and there- after would be ready for acceptance by the City if no deficiencies exist. Mr~ Johnston stated that under the conditions of tentative approval there was apparently a subdivision road contemplated and the Planning Commission required that improvements be made to provide for a standard half street and to require improvement of SAP~TOGA CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - November 17, 1965 the other half street if the developer obtained title to the other half which was proposed as part of the school district site. At the time the map came to the City Council for final approval, the County Engineer llotified the City by letter that the developer had not obtained title to the other half street and the development plans were therefore changed to delete the requirement for improvement of the half street oa the school site. At this time, the City entered an agreement with the developer for tract improvements in accordance with the improvement plans and subsequently the School District, through its attorney Wade Hover, contended that the Developer had breached a contract which was entered between the Developer and the Saratoga School District and requested that the City l~ithhold acceptance of School the tract improvements till such time as their dispute has been District- settled by litigation. In the absence of any evidence of fraud Arroyo de concerning the contract between the City and the Developer, the Saratoga City Attorney advised that he could see no reason for the City to Improvements withhold acceptapce of the improvements for maintenance if the Director of Public Works reports that any deficiencies have been corrected when the maintenance period expires. To withhold such acceptance would, the City Attorney indicated, be dangerous on the part of the City. Mr. Wade Hover ~$ubmieted arguments in support Of his contention that the Develope~ did no~ try to Obtain the right ~f way, that the right of way could have been acquired and that the failure on the part of the Developers, Doan and Lane, to gain title and improve the half street in question constituted fraud and misrepresentation to the City Engineer at the time the improvement plans were changed to delete the requirement that this portion of the street be improved. Mr. Desmond Xelley, Attorney representing Doan and Lane, referred to the letter and agreement between the Developer and the School District which was presented to the Clerk at the beginning of discussion re- garding this item, and described attempts made by the D~veloper to acquire the right of way. Mr. Kelley further stated that the Planning Conmission conditions placed no obligation on the Developer to take positive steps to acquire the property but that the Developer did, in fact, attempt to do so and had improved that portion of the school property which had been acquired by the District and dedicated to the City. The Developer, Mr. Kelley continued, was under no obligation to improve the half street, either by contract with the City or with the School District, unless the District acquired the property during the course of normal developF~nt of the tract By Doan and Lane. Doan and Lane, Mr. Kelley continued, has fulfilled its obligation and constructed improvements in accordance with the improvement plans and he therefore urged the City Council to accept the improvements at such time as the Director of Public I~orks recommends such acceptance. · After discussion, during which the City Attorney advised the Council that the City would have recourse at 8 later date if it should be determined that fraud has existed and during which it was pointed out that no evidence of fraud now exists, Mr. Hover asked if the Council would at least indicate that, as such time as it accepts the improvements, that it is doing so on the condition that it is not taking any action on the question of fraud and is reserving its right of action on that issue. It was moved by Councilman Drake, seconded by Councilman Burry and unanimously carried to deny the reque3t from the School District that the ~ity withhold acceptance of the improvements in Tract 2844 until the District resolves its dispute with the developer, without making any decision on the question of fraud and reserving any rights the City may have in the event any alleged fraud or misrepresentation is established. F. TF~ACT 3742 - CLAUDE T. LINDSAY Tract 3742 It was moved by Councilman ttartman, seconded by Councilman Burry and Improvement unanimously carried to accept the improvements in Tract 3742, for Acceptance construction only~ as recormmended by the Director of Public Works. SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL M~NUTES - November 17, 1965 Recess: 10:00 P. M. Reconvened: 10:20 P. M. V PUBLIC HEARINGS A. GENERAL PLAN Mayor Glennon announced that this is the time and place for public General hearing to consider recon~nendations of the Planning Commission Plan relative to the annual review of the General Plan for the City of Review Saratoga and Mrs. Diemer, Wardell Road~ asked if the Council would defer action on this matter until the next meeting and make additional efforts, other than the published notice of hearing, to notify the public of the time of hearing. No one present objected to such deferrment and Mayor Glennon opened the public hearing at 10:22 P. M. and with Council approval, continued the hearing to the meeting of December 1, 1965. Mayor Glennon sug- gested that the Planning Committee study the recon~nendations of the Planning Commission prior to the time of continued public hearing. VI NEW BUSINESS A. DIVISION OF HIGI~qAYS EXCESS PROPERTY Farwell Ave. Mr. Henley reported thatthe State Division of Highways proposes to Abandonment abandon a triangular shaped parcel of land which was a portion of Farwell Avenue that extends across on the south-west side of Saratoga- Los Gatos Road and has asked the City to abandon any interest, title or right of the City in the parcel. ~e Director of Public Works reported that the City does not maintain thi~ area~ that it is the jurisdiction of the State and that he ~e~S no reason for objecting to the abandonment and sale of the ~ope~ty to the adjacent property owners. It was moved by Councilman Hartman, seconded by Councilman Tyler and unanimously carried to accede to the State Division of Highways request for relinquishment of any title or interest the City may have in the property in question. VII ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS A. MAYOR No reports B. FINANCE Bills (1) It was moved by Councilman Drake~ seconded by Councilman Burry and unanimously carried to approve the disbursements on the list dated November 17, 1965 for a total amount of $13,371.33 and authorize that warrants be drawn in payment. Finance (2) The City Clerk's financial report and the Treasurer's report Reports for the month of October~ 1965 were presented and accepted. C. COUNCIL COMMITTESS (1) SDR-599 - Planning Committee report re David Franklin request SDR-599 for deletion of underground utility requirement for two lots Franklin on Hume Drive. % underground utility Councilman Hartman reported that ~fter cn site inspection and requirement review of this request the Planning Committee concluded that waiver of the requirement ~ould result in further aesthetic deterioration of the area and recommends that the requirement of the Planning Commission be upheld and the appeal be denied. Councilman Hartman therefore moved~ seconded by Councilman Burry, that [{r. Franklin's request be denied. -6- SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - November 17, 1965 Mr. Franklin described the location of existing poles and lines on his property and adjacent properties and requested that, if the Council will not waive the requirement for underground utilities, an alternative be considered whereby he proposes to run his power lines along the south side and put in under- ground wiring to his home. The City Council discussed at length Mr. Franklin's objections to the policy being upheld regarding his sites and also dis- cussed the procedure by which the Planning Commission may, at its discretion, waive the requirement for underground utilities on individual sites before imposing conditions of tentative approval. As a normal procedure the Subdivision Committee of the Planning Commission recommends conditions of approval after on-site inspection. In each case the underground utilities requirement is considere~ in the light of the Council policy of requiring underground utilities in all cases but ~ith the provision that the requirement may be waived when imposition of such a condition would serve no purpose. When the Planning Commission has adopted its Subdivision Committee recommendation and imposed the policy as a condition of site approval and the applicant subsequeBtly appeals the condition to the City Council, the Planning Committee ~eviews the request with the background of knowing that the matter has been.analyzed by the Planning Commission to start with and that the request is in the nature of an appeal from the Planning Commission action. Therefore, it was pointed out, the P~anning Committee is reluctant to recommend that the Planning Commission action in imposing the condition be reversed. After further discussion with Mr. Franklin, Councilman Hartman withdrew his motion for denial of the request, Councilman Burry withdrew his second and the May~ , with no objection, ordered the matter enntinued to the next meeting with the Planning Committee to reinspoet the site in the light of Mr. Franklin's proposal for partially undergrounding utility installations. (2) Robert Plane - Tract 4091 - Douglas Lane - SDR-565 SDR-565 R. Plane Councilman Hartman reported that the Planning Committee reviewed curbs and with Mr. Plane, the Subdivision Committee and the staff, Mr. gutters Planets request for relief from the storm drain and curb and gutter requirements on his seven lot subdivision on Douglas Lane and reports the following findings: (1) With respect to the storm drain system the Committee sees no practical arrange- ment that can be substituted for the requirement of drainage in accordance with the Master Storm Drainage Plan. Although the cost'of the storm drainage facilities for this subdivision is high hecause it is the first to develop of several p~rcels that will ultimately be served by the system, the Ctty's policy is to enter into a reimbursement agreement under which Mr. Plane would be repaid a proportionate share of the system by the other parcel o~ners as they d~velop. (2) With respect to the curb and gutter the Committee recommends that either a rolled or vertical curb and gutter be required on Douglas Lane both to provide a positive drainage to storm drain inlets and to reduce the costs of street maintenance. An asphalt berm is not regarded as an adequate subs~itute because of susceptibility to deterioration. The Connnittee, }~. l~artman continued, recognizes the problems confronting the applicant in a situation such as this one but cannot see any alternative to requiring these conditions for the proper development of the area. It was moved by Councilman Hartman~ seconded by Councilman Burry and unanimously carried to deny Mr. Plane's request and uphold the requirements of the Planning Commission. -7- SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - November 17, 1965 McCormack (3) Councilman Hartman reported that the Planning Committee reviewed SDR~534 Mr. McCormack's request for deletion of curb and gutter require- curbs and ment for SDR-534 on Douglas Lane and determined that curb and gutters gutter is required to give positive control of storm water runoff and to reduce future street maintenauce costs and further, that the steep grade of the street in front of this building site would make curb and gutter essential in any event. Dr. Egglestons the intended buyer of the parcel, stated that the request is actually for defertel of the requirement and not dele~ tion of the requirement altogether. He explained that, from a financial standpoint, it is not feasible to install the curb and gutter prior to the development which will be needed in the future along Doulgas Lane for adjacent lots. Mr. McCormack, present owner of the property, confirmed Dr. Eggleston's statements, and with no objection, Mayor Glennon referred the matter back to the Planning Committee for further review of the request, as clarified. (4) Councilman Burry reported that the Public Welfare Committee b~llon Drive- reviewed the r~qpest.of Mr. Grifflth and Mr. Riotdan on behalf Saratoga Ave. of Mellon Drive residents for an opnning in the median on median Saratoga Avenue, opposite ~llon Drive. The opening was eliminated, Councilman Burry' reported, because the median Was reduced to only seven feet wide at this point because the County, in agreeing to saving the oak tree at Mellon Drive, had concurred on the condition that the northbound lanes be left in their permanent location and that the median be natrowed to provide the room required to curve the south-bound lanes around the tree. The natrowed median is considered unsafe to allow left turns or crossings where the median is of insufficient width to provide adequate protection for a vehicle at the mid-point of a turn or crossing. In the meantimes Councilman Burry continued, Mr. Griffith and Mr. Riotdan pointed out potentially dangerous U-turns that will probably have to be prohibited at Saratoga Glen Place and perhaps at Bucknail. It was moved by Councilman Burry, seconded by Councilman Hartman and unanimously carried to table the request. (5) Councilman Hartman reported that the Planning Committee has Ord.NS-5ol0 reviewed Ordinance NS-5.10s providing authority to the Planning Dual access Commission to require more than one access from a subdivision roads to public streets when, in the opinion of the Commission, it is required for public safety. The Committee recommends that the ordinance be adopted if approved by the Planning Commission. With no objection, Mayor Glennon ordered the ordinance deferred until the Planning Commission recommendation has been received. D. DEPARTMENT HEADS AND OFFICERS Saratoga (1) The Director of lhablic Works reported that bids on the storm Ave. storm drainage extension on Saratoga Avenue have been received and drain line recommended execution of a change order with the contractor~ Change Leo Fo Piazza Paving Company; this additional work having been order previously approved by the City Council at an estimated cost of $10,000 and the bid received being $8360 for the work. Thelma Ave. (2) It was moved by Councilman Hartman, seconded by Councilman Tyler Acceptance and unanimously carried to accept the improvements constructed of Improve. by Wattis Construction Cemppny for the Thelma Avenue area improve- ment Project, with the 35 day retention period to begin immediately. SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MINUTES ' November 17, 1965 SDR-5?8 (3) With no objection, Mayor Glennon referred a request from Underground Mr. Stuart Smith for deletion of underground utility require- Utility meats for e building site on Lomita Avenue to the Planning deletion Committees with the observation that if these requests request continue to be submitted es frequently as recently, he may consider alternating referrals to another committee. E. CITY ADMINISTRATOR No reports VIII CO~4UNICATIONS A. WRITTEN (1) Mr. Nanlay reviewed the action taken by the Policy Conmaittee, its report which was considered at the lest meeting and the Council's tied vote on the resolution to grant consent to the Cupertino Sanitary District for the formation ef an assessment Cuperttno district in the Calabazas Creek area. The Sanitation District Sanitary then submitted a request for reconsideration of the resolution District of consent and the n~tter was placed on the ageadd for considera- request for tion at this time. Mayor Glennon asked that the representatives consent to of the District and the opponents limit their arguments to Assessment ten minutes. District ~-~. John M. Burnerr, attorney representing Dr. Moore, Judge Hall and Mr. Pecsar, outlined State legislation pertainin9 to Sanitation Districts and the statutes requiring that the ~uper- tino Sanitary District request consent of the City to form an assessment district outside its boundaries. ~.~. Burnerr objected to the City granting consent to the District, questioned the legality of the District's request, end indicated that he felt it to be a violation of constitutional right to allow a District to approve boundaries and assess property o~mers who have no right to vote on matters pertaining to the District. Mr. Burnerr stated that his clients do not plan to subdivide their property, are removed from the proposed locationof the trunk line and would have to pay a considerable amount again if, in the future, they wished to connect to the line. Mr. Burnett concluded his presentation with the request that the City refuse consent unless the District first complies with the City's views as set forth in the Policy Committes's report. Mr. Bonney stated that he felt the District's boundaries shculd be re-dream to exclude the opponents and noted that there is no health problem motivating action for the formation of the assessment district. The present boundaries, Mr,. Bonney con- tended, are dream along section lines and have no relation to topography or drainage. For these reasons and for the hard- ship which the District would impose on the property owners who have objected~ Mr. Bonney asked that the Council no= grant consent to the formation of the proposed assessmer£ district. Mr. Jack Fleming~ representing the Sanitation District, stated that the District is interested only in providing sewerage facilities to an area that, while it is outside their District boundaries, is located withill their service area. Consent is required of the City, Mr. Fleming continued, primarily to assure that the City has no other plans for sewerage for the area and to ascertain the City's requirements for replacement of roads that must be cut into. Mr. Paul Lion, Jr., owner of a parcel of land off Pierce Road, spoke in favor of the proposed assessment district and stated that he thought the Sanitation District's operation of the other three assessment districts which have been formed within the City is adequate demonstration of its good faith,. SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - November 17, 1965 Mr. Otis Forge, Chairman of the Cupertino Sanitary District, spoke in support of the District's request. Consent to : Cupertino Councilman Drake stated that unless the City Attorney advises Sanitary that the District's request is illegal, he has heard no arguments District that would alter his views as expressed in the Policy Committee's Resolution report and he would therefore move for acceptance of the Conmaittee No. 305 report and adoption of the Resolution of Consent, Resolution No. 305. The City Attorney advised that the Distrlct's request is a legal procedure and is regulated and authorized by the Health and Safety Code. Councilman Tyler seconded Councilman Drake's motion and the motion carried on the following roll call vote: Ayes; Councilmen Drake, Tyler and Glennon Noes: Councilmen Burry and Hartman. Mayor Glennon noted that the vote was based solely on the attitude that the City starts with ~he assumption that the District is proceeding legally under a constitutional act and that the District is composed of men of good will who will exercise good judgment. The City's role~ the Mayor stated~ is in his opinion, primarily ministerial. SDR~454 (2) It was moved by Councilman Hartman, seconded by Councilman Ho Purcell Burry, and unanimousIycarr!ed to release the 'improvement bond bond release po~ed to guarantee improvements for SDR-454, Hugh Purcell. Tracts (3) Councilman Hartman moved t~ release the monument bond posted for 2835,2844 Tracts 2835, 2694 and 2844, Arroyo de Saratoga, Units 1, 2 and 2694 monument 3, as reco~ended by the Director of Public Works. Motion bond release seconded by Councilman Tyler and carried unanimously. Resolution (4) The Director of Public Works recommended that the improvement SDR-424-2 bond posted by Earl J. Peter for improvements in connection Accepting with SDR-424 be released and presented a resolution accepting offer of ded. the offer of dedication for this property and noted that the legal description must be changed to accept only that portion Bond release of the offer }?hich has actually been improved. It was moved by Councilman Tyler, seconded by Councilman Burry and unanimously carried to release the bond as recommended and to adopt Resolution No. SDR-424-2, subject to the corrected legal description. (5) Mr. Hanley presented a request from George Nolte, Civil Engineers, Boundary for de-annexation of approximately ~29 acres located on the change east side of the proposed realignment of San Tomas Creek. The property is in an area proposed for annexation to the City of Campbell. With no objection, Mayor Glennon referred the matter to the City Attorney. Lawrence (6) An invitation was extended to the members of the City Council Expressway to the Lawrence Expressway dedication ceremonies to be Dedication held November 23, 1965 at 2:30 P. M. at the Stevens Creek Boulevard overpass. Highway (7) Copies were distributed to the Council of a resolution adopted Beautification by the California State Highway Commission relative to highway beautification. Saratoga (8) The Council briefly discussed a letter from Mr. G~ynn Tennis describing efforts which b~ve been made by the Saratoga Club Tennis Club to correct the parking situation and the Mayor parking asked that a copy be transmitted to Mr. Roy Cameron and other interested residents in the area. SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MINUTES -'November 17, 1965 B. ORAL Sign (1) Mr. Sam Hernandez, representing the Council of Saratoga Service for Clubs, suggested that the Council consider erecting a sign for Service service club emblems at the Saratoga Avenue entrance to the Club City, possibly in the divider strip of the street~ and the Mayor Emblems suggested that Service Clubs submit a preposed design for Planning Commission review. C.Ne~le (2) Clarence Neale asked whether or not the question of his requested Ordinance extension of time in which to comply with conditions of rezoning NS-3~ZC-25-B had been answered and was advised by the Clerk that inasmuch as no action was taken to adopt Ordinance NS-3-ZC-25-B, the existing conditions remain and the time limit within the existing ordinance applies. General (3) Sam lternandez, indicated his approval of the Council's stated Plan intention to advertise the scheduled General Plan review hearing as much as possible. (4) Mayor Glennon acknowledged, with pleasure, the presence of Planning Commissioner Xellum, Chamber of Commerce representative Don Bush, Good Government Group representative Ruth Owens and Saratoga Council of Service Clubs representative Sam Hernandez. IX ADJOURnmeNT It was moved by Councilman Burry~ seconded by councilman Tyler and unanimously carried to adjourn the meeting at 12:45 A. M. Respectfully submitted, / ,,. WILLIAM C. HANLEY, CITY CLERK ' -11-