Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-20-1966 City Council Minutes SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL SUMMARY OF MINUTES TIME: Wednesdays April 30, 1966 . 7:30 P. M. PLACE: Saratoga City Council Chamberss 13777 Fruitvale Avenues Saratogas Calif, TYPE: Regular Meetin~ I ORGANIZATION Mayor Ole,~non called the meettn~ to order at 7:35 P, M, A. ROLL CALL Present: Councilmen Glennon, Drakes Har~mans Tyler, Burry Absent: None B, MINUTES It was moved by Councilman Burrys seconded by Councilman Tyler and unanimously carried to dispense with the'reading end approve the minutes of the May 4, 1966meetings as written, C. PRESENTATION OF POLICE APPRECIATION PLAQUE Mr. George Argall~ District Deputy Grand Master of District 20 of the Police Independent Order of Odd Fellows of Rebekah Assembly, presented e Appreciation plaque to the Mayor on behalf of the I.O.O.F. Home and the Santa Clara Plaque County Police Chiefs Association in appreciation of the daily work of the men and woman of the Santa Clara County Sheriff~s Departmen~ toward the protection of lives and property within the City of Saratoga. Mr. Argall then introduced Lt. Curtis, representin~ the sheriffss Offices and representatives of the Odd Fellows Home in Saratoga. Mayor Glennon expressed the Countlisa Eratitude for this presentation av~ added his concurrence with all elferrs in support of the law enforcement services provided the City by the Sherifles Department. II 1966 GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION A. CANVASS OF VOTES OF APRIL i2i 1966 GENERAL MUNICIPAL. ELECTION Canvdss After. review of ~he tally sh&ets ~nd ResolUtion No..323, it was moved of Votes by Councilman Drakes seconded by Councilman Burrys end unanimously 1966 Election carried to adopt Resolution No, 323, beinE a resolution canvassing the vote.of. the April 12,.1966 General Municipal EleCtion and resolvin~ that William Z~ Glennen, k~n~eth R, Ha~t~an~ and Sa[nGel L. Tyler ~ere re-elected to the City Council for the {our year terms ending April, 1970, B. OATH OF OFFICE FOR RE-ELECTEDMEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL Oaths of Office The City Clerk admi~.istered the oath Of office to each of the three re-elected officials and ~resented themwith certificates of election. C. ELECTION OF MAYOR At~DMAYOR PRO TEMPORE Election Mayor Glennon resigned as Mayors in accordance with the policy of the of Mayor Saratoga City Council for the Mayor to resign whenever there is a change &Mayor in the Council~ and turned the gavel over to City Clerks William C. pro tem. Hanley. Mr. Henley called for nominations for Mayor and it was moved by Council- man Burrys seconded by Councilman Hartmane to nominate William E. Glennon as Mayor. Councilman Tyler moved~ seconded by Councilman Drake to close the nominations; motion carried unanimously, ~illiamE. Glennon was elected Mayor by unanimous vote on a motion presented by Councilman Hartman and seconded by Councilman Tyler. SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MINb~ES - APRIL 20, 1966 Mayor Glennon resumed the Chair and called for nominations for Mayor pro tempore. It was moved by Councilman Hartman, seconded by Councilmen Tyler~ to nominate Richard V. Drake as Mayor pro tempers and nominations were closed on a motion by Councilman Burry and seconded by Councilman Tyler. Mayor Glennon directed the record to indicate that Richard V. Drake was elected Mayor pro tempers by unanimous vote. III BIDS AND CONTRACTS A. AMENDMENT TOAGREEF~NTWITH LOS GATOS SCAVENGER COMPANY The Council discussed a proposed amendment to the agreement with the Los Cares Los Gates Scavenger Company and it was noted that the reconnnendations Scavenger of the Management Committees as presented at the last meetings had Co. Amend. been incorporated into the a~reement but that the rate schedule was to Agree. in error, With no objection~ Mayor Glennon directed this item to the next regular meeting and instructed the staff to draft the agreement in accordance with the rate schedule previously agreed upon, B. OPEN-SPACE PROJECTS Mr. Ranley called the attentinn.of the Council to a letter~ dated Open-Space April 12s 1966s from the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Projects advising that the Cityss application for open-space funds for the Hakone tentative and Wildwood Park properties has been tentatively approved and that approval the City can proceed with the purchase of these sites without jeopardi- zing any federal grants which may subsequently be approved. After brief discussions during which Mayor Glennon ahd C0uncllman Park sites- Drake indicated that they will be unable to attend the Nay 4 C6uncil Options meeting and wtsheds at this time~ to express!their approval exercieir~ the options for~the purchase of these properties, it was a~reed by the Council to authori~e the Clerk to draw warrants for the first payments on the Hakone amd Wildwood Park sites for presenta- tion and approval at the neXt meeting. IV PETITIONS, ORDINANCES AND FORK~L RESOLUTIONS A. RESOLUTION NO. 322 Res. 322 Mr. Hanley reported that bids had been awarded and work conmmnsed on Azule - the Azule Homosites Improvement project and that this resolution Bids on will call for bids for the sale of bonds for the local residents one- Bonds third share of the total cost of the project; with the bids to be opened May 4th and awarded at the Council meetin~ that night. It was moved by Councilman Tylers seconded by Councilmen Burry, and unanimously carried to adopt Resolution 322. V SUBDIVISIONS, BUILDING SITES AND ZONING REQUESTS A. C-93 - JOHN B. JESSUP C-93 Jessup The City Clerk reviewed the discussion regarding this item at the last Withdrawal meeting at which time the Planning Conmission recommended denial~ without prejudice, of the application to fezone from R-M-4sOOO-X to R-M-3~0OO-P-C approximetely 20 acres located on the north side of Big Basin Way west of Sixth Street. At that time the City Attorney advised that if the Planning Conmission recommendation was followed the applicant would be required to wait a year before refiling an application for this property unless the applicant requesteds and was granted~ a withdrawal of the present application. Since that times Mr. Hanley con~inueds a request has been received from Howard J, ~ite, Inc.~ r~presenting the applicants for withdrawal of the application C-93,' With no obJection~ Mayer Glennon ordered the record to indicate that the application was withdrawn, SARATOGA CiTY COUI~CIL tIINUTES - APRIL 20, 1966 B. SDR-5~7 - MIJO CORPORATION Mr. Hanley 'stated that bonds have been posted, fees paid and conditions met as required by the Planning Counission for Parcels I and 3, as shown on the record of survey map for SDR-577s except for receipt of the recorded survey map and the encroachment permit from the State Division of Highways, ~he Planning Oirector discussed, with Councilman SDR-577 Hartman, the requirement of the Flood Control District with respect MiJo to this site and Hr, Walker indicated that the Flood Control District Corporation has been Cooperative with the City in working out an agreeable treat- ment of the creek adjacent to the site. Councilman Hartman-stated that he only wished to make sure that this is not one of the areas where the Flood Control District clears off the trees or othez~ise goes against the City~s wishes regarding retaining natural creek channels, whenever possibles and Hr, Walker indicated that he thought the treatment in this case would be a practical solution to the area consistent with City objectives, Councilman Hartman also questioned whether or not the Councfl might not be circtnnbenting the ultimate uses which may be recounended for the area by the consultant who has been employed to study this area ands as an example, referred to Condition "~ which requires the dedication and improvement of a 30~ service road, 1~, Walker and lit, Hanley stated that the applicant is aware of the studies but is anxious to proceed and that the staff can ~ee no basis for delaying the o~mer*s application for site approval, It was pointed out that the applicant has a lor~ range program~ich will not be detrimental to future action the Council may vlsh to take Kith r~spect to this area and thats specifically, the service road will not be developed until it is determined whether or not it will be needed in the light of the completed study, Mr. lienard, Architect representing the applicants stated that the o~ner is willing to cooperate with the City to achieve the best use for this area and agrees that the present study is important Co the site. It was moved by Councilman Hart.man, seconded. by C9.uncilman Burry. to approve SDR-577-i, subject to receipt of the recoraed survey map and State encroachment permit. At the suggestion of .the City Attorney Councilman Hartman corrected his motion and Councilman Burry corrected his second to include the condition that final site approval is subject to correction of unsatisfactory grading conditions and approval of the to th, satiSfaction.of the irectO of .P blic Worksi Hr~st~t~a that ho building permit will be issued until the conditions of Council approval of this site have been moil mation carried unanimausly, C, .RESOLUTION NO. 32~ Res, 32~ Mr. Hanley read resolution no, 32~ prohibiting pedestrian and other Lawrence uses of the La~r~ence Expressway between Prospect Avenue and quito Expressway Road and reported that the Board of Supe~visors has passed a similar prohibitions resolution for other portions of the Lawrence Expressway and that this action is recommended by the Director of Public Works, It was moved by Councilman Bu~ry, seconded by Councilman Hartman and unanimously carried to adopt Resolution 325° VI PUBLIC HEARI~6S A. C-95 - I~NUEL LOZANO C-95 The City Clerk reported that this is ~he time and place set for public Lozano hearing on the application of Nanuel Lozano to fezone from R-l-10~000 Rezoning to Conditional C-N the parcel of land located on the southeast corner of the intersection of Prospect Road and the La~.r~ence Expressway, Hanley read the resolution of the Planning Comnhtssion recommending that straight C-N zoning be granted for this property. No connunications were received in response to notice of public hearing, SABAI~GA CItY C0U~CIL HINUTES - APRTL 20, 1966 With no objection, 14ayor Cleunon opened the public hearing at 8:25 P. and directed the file C-95 introduced as evLdence. He then asked if anyone present wished to address the Council regarding this application, ~r, Curley~ representing the applicant, spoke in favor of the rezoning application and ~r, Joe Assenza asked if it were true that the proposed use of the property was for a car wash, l~ayor Clennon replied that the question before the Council is ~estricted to the rezoning issue and that the use of the area ~0uld be considered by the Planning Commission~ if the rezoning is approved~ in the light of the uses. permitted in Neighborhood Counercial zones, There being no one else who ~rished to speak to the Council regarding this application~ it was moved by Councilman Har~nn, seconded by Councilman Tyler and unanimously passed to close the public hearing at 8:30 P. 1~. Tn answer to a question from CounCilman Hartman~ I~. ltanley explained that the difference het~een C-N zoning and Conditional C-N Zoning is that any of the uses designated for C-N zones by the Zonin~ Ordinance my be permitted unless the area is conditionally zoned to limit the uses to one or more of the total list of uses which wuld be permitted in that zone, The Planning Director reported that H~. Lozano had applied for Conditional C-N for the specific use of a car wash and parts store but that the Planning Cor~n~ssion felt that this area should logically be rezoned C-N as the adjacent areas are zoned for general C-N and that t~e question of a car wash and parts store will be con- sidered at a later date under a use permit type of use, Under the C-N regularinns, Er. Walker explained, a car wash is allowed only ~d_th a use permit. After discussion, the Council agreed that the only appropriate zoning for this area would be connnercial zoningi and the ~ayor, with no obJeetion~ directed the record to show that Chcdinance NS-3-ZC-33, rezoning the property to general C-N~ Was iutrodneed. E. 0RDINA~CE 38,11 t4r. 'Henley reported that this is the time and piace fo~ public hearing on the amendment to the City Code ~hich would adopt the 1966 Ord. 38,11 Uniform Building C~de, the 196~ Uniform Plumbing Code~ !the 1965 Uniform Uniform Ele~trical Code~ and the 196~ Heating and Con~O~t .Cooling Code, with Bulldtng~ modifications. It ~as explained that a public hearing is required Plumbing, when other cddeS, Or portions of them~ are to be adopted by reference. Electrical ~tr. ~Hanley s~ated that the ordinance, in its final form, after the Codes incorporation of the reco~eudations of the PuBli~ Welfare Committee ~ho reviewed lit .in .detail, ~as introduced by t~e Council~ the 1ast meeting~ and ~hat nbti~e of public hearing ~as published according to la~, and that no communi~ations had been re~eived in respdnse to this notice. Ftayor Gleanon declared the public hearing opened at 8:~0 P. H. and asked if anyone present ~ished to speak with respect to this ordinance. There being no one who responded to this invitation, it was moved by Couneilm~n Tyler, seconded by Councilman Hartman and unanimously carried to waive thereadir~ of Ordinance ~o. 38.11. l~ayor Glennon advised those present that copies of the ordinance were availa- ble for their inspection should they wish to see It .was moved by Councilman Ha~tman~ seconded by Councilman and unaot~usly carried to close the public hearin~ at 8:~5 After brief discussion it ~as moved by Co,~tlman Burry, seconded by Councilman Hart~ and carried unanimously to adopt Ordinance No, 38.11, Recess: 8:~6 P, ~. Reconvened: 9:00 1~. ~I. SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL NINIIT~S - APRIL 20s 1966 VII ADltlNISTRATIVEHATTERS A. NAYOR (1) biayor Glennon reported that he had received a letter from Super- Board of visor Quinn advising that the Board of Supervisors had recently ~upervisors met with one of the City Councils of the County and that the meeting joint mtg, had resulted in progress toward the solution of long standin~ with Council and complex problems due to a better understandin~ of each agentyes position, The Board hess therelores declared its willin~ness to meet with other tityes Councils when the need may arise for discussion of matters of mutual interest. Mayor Glennon stated that~ at this times 'the only problemwhich he felt might warrant e meeting of this type was the matter of zoning in the hillside areas outside the City~s boundaries but that he did not kno~ if that was sufficient cause for a special meeting, Conncilman Hartman indicated that he felt that a brief joint meeting would be of benefits both from the .standpoint of clari- fying the Cityss objectives (particularly regarding hillside development) and in establishing a better relationship with the Board on those matters which vitally concern the City, Councilman Burry stated that he is opposed to any meeting unless it were to be for the purpose of resolving a definite problem, Councilman Tyler asked if any timetable has been established with respect to the City~s annexation policy and Mayor Glennon replied that the hillside annexation question lie the s01e pro- Ject of the Saratoga Thought and Analysis Group and that he expects a progress report from them in the very near future, After discussions the Council concurred that the Mayor express the Countries appreciation of the Board~s offer and advise them that the City expects to accept this offer and arrange a mutually s4tisfact0ry date for a joint discussion meeting in the near f~ture, B. FINANCE (1) The Council discUsSed the list of d~sbursements and Mr, Henley Council r~ported that the volume of use of the COdncil Chambers and the Chambers attendant idetailS of~intenences u~keep~.and arrangements for use and scheduling the use~ are consumin~ the time of a number of people services and contractual services and ~hat he p~ope~es ~O conduct a survey to determine whether or not the City might mere effectivelys both from the standpoint of cost and efficiencys designate one person to perform all the duties which are currently involving many persons. The Coancil indicated its approval of this propos~l and Henley indicated that he will proceed with this study, It was moved by Councilman Tyler~ seconded by Councilman Burry Bills and unani~ously carried to approve the disbursements on the list dated April 20, 1966s for a total amount of $8~649,90 and authorize that warrants be dream in payment, Finance (2) The City Clerk*s Financial Report and Treesuterus Report for Reports the month of Marchs 1966 were submitted and accepted, Budget (3) Copies of the third quarter budget report were distributed for Report Council study and information, COUNCIL COMMITTEES (1) Councilman Hartman reported thats as directed by the Council at its last meeting: the Planning Connnittee made an additional field S, Smith- study of the Stuart Smith property on Lomita Avenue ands in view Underground of the unusually difficult problems due to the fact that two Utilities separate trenches have to be prepared to serve the sites the Ce..~ttee recommends that the requirement be amended to retain the undergrouv~ service for telephone service but a11~ an over- head electrical service drop, SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 20, 1966 The Council and staff generally discussed criteria which has been or should be considered in determining whether or not individual sites should be relieved of the requirement to install underground Underground utilities. Councilman Hartman stated that many factors are Utility considered and that these factors vary in each case. Size of policy poles, addition of poles, development of adjacent sites, etc. criteria are among those factors considered and Councilman Hartman indi- cated that although the Connittee does not consider cost he feels that it does have an unconscious influence on the Committee~s investigations. Councilman Drake stated that he felt it hapoft- ant for the Council to establish reasonable but broad guide lines for consistent use in such situations and Councilman Burry indicated that he thought the Council should determine, by ordinance, whether or not underground utilities should be installed and that it should not be amatter of policywhich he feels is basically reduced to a matter of opinion. The City Attorney stated that from a legal standpoint, he felt the City should have an underground utility ordinance and that, if the Council so desires, an ordinance ten be drawn to provide flexibility in considering single lots. This has been done in other cities, he reported, by framing the ordinance as a part of the zoning ordinance, with variance provisions, rather than the subdivision ordinance. Councilman hurry expressed the ol~lnion that in all cases requests for waivin~ underground requirements are based on cost and that he favored an inflexible ordinance requiring underground utilities for all'lots. Underground After further discussion, during which the City Attorney said Utility that o~e of the purpOseS of an ordinance is to put policy down Ordinance in.a written document so that people know what:to expect and that~ at this time, he has no guide lines for drafting such an ordinan~es the Mayor referred the question of a possible Under- ground utility ordinan~e to the Planning Committee for study and repor~ after consult~tion with the City Attorney. It ~as mo~ed by Councilman Drakes. seconded. by Councilman Tyle~ and carried unadimausly to adopt the Committee ~pcrt relative to the StUart Smith property and allow overhead electrical service drop but underground telephone service. (2) For the benefit of those present concerning communications relative to the crosswalk at Reid Iane and Highway 85, the Council approved postponement, until later on the ageadd, of the other itemo to be discussed under Administrative Matters Reid Lane and Mayor Glennon announced that the Reid Lane crosswalk & Highway 85 question will be considered at this time. Crosswalk VIII CO~JNICATIONS A. WRITTEN , and B. ORAL Mr. Allen Grout addressed the Council regarding the crosswalk at Reid Lane and Highway 85 where a Saratoga child was killed on April 8. Mr. Grout stated that it was his understanding that the Council has, in the past, requested of the State more adequate markin~ at this crosswalk and that his o~n observation indicates that the crosswalk Reid Lane is designated By numerous signs from both directions to the extent & Highway that a metorist~s attention would be so divided as to hamper his No. 85 actually seeing the crosswalk. Mr. Grout read a petition, which Crosswalk he intends to direct to Governor Brown requesting a signal light at this locatlon. Herepotted that the petition has been signed, as of the present time, by 1213 persons and that it has been endorsed by Reverend Strasberger of St. Andrews Episcopal Church, Dr. Frank Gillette of Saratoga High School, and the P.T.A. groups of Saratoga SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 20, 1966 High Schools Mr, Grout stated that his intent was to assure the Council of citizen support in any action which may prevent a similar tragedy from occurtng at this location, F/r, Grout outlined the reasons why the petitioners are requesting a signal light instead of nny other traffic control devices or signing; an overcrossing would restrict visibility and additional markings would, in his opinions serve nopurpose as there are already too many signs in both directionse -Mr, Joe Assenza questioned whether a signal would be the best solution and mentioned that many other streets crossing Highway 85 might have the same problems for safe crossing, Mrs, gads~qorth cited several re/sons why she thought the Reid Lane crossing is more dangerouss such as its proximity to the high school where a full recreational and swimming program is anticipated for the sn~nmer, and the use of Herriman Avenue as an access to the Presbyterian Church, St. Andrew, Church and Sacred Heart Church. It was Mrs. Wadsworth's suggestion that a safe crossing be provided at Reid Lane Highway 85 Reid Lane and that parental control must be relied upon to insure Crosswalk that the children use that crossing. Mayor Glennon pointed out that what the Council and the citizens all want is a solution to the problem and that the City should rely on the advice of experts in traffic safety and not Just provide what may seem to be the answer from a layman*s standpoint, Mayor Glennon asked Mrs. Wadsworth if it should be indicated, by the results of the current studies, that it cannot be made a safe place to cross, if the parents would instruct their childreu to cross somewhere else. Mrs. ~ladsworth stated that she did not Believe children could be prevented from using the line of least resistance arid crossing closest to the high school. In that event, she suggested, a crossing guard would be the solutioh. Mrs~ G~out and Helen Moyles c0-~-uted 6n the heavy use t~isi erOssi~ has fo Serve the ,nnny home~ whose main access is o~ef Reid Lane.. BUZ 0lean, ~tudent at Saratoga High School, reported that he has a petition signed by approximately 600 students ~ho are concerned about this crossing and are requesting a signal light to alleviate the problem as soon as possible, He indicated that hewould give his petition to Mr. Grout for presentation to the Governor. Mrs. Mary Booth stated that she thought people would obey .a traffic light when they might disregard other warning devices and she asked what a light would cost and whether the Council would install a light if the State gave its consent. Mayor Glennon reported that the cost of a trafficlight would be about $15s000for installation but that, at this stage, the Council does not know what would be the safest means of protecting the intersection and its final action would rest on the recommendations of traffic safety experts after analysis of the problems involved. Mr. Robert Plane suggested that the safest solution would be to keep pedestrians off the highway surfaceby means of an overcrossing or undercrossing. Gouncilman Tyler pointed out that all available data indicates that such crossings dO not accomplish their purpose as the children will not use them. Councilman Burry cohented thats at this points his feeling is that the Coancil should concentrate on urging the State to complete its engineering safety study so the Councilcan make an early determination of.the best solution° Mr. Henley-reported that the staff contacted the traffic engineering section Of the Division of Highways last week with a report of the facts of the situation and asked for a study and report as soon as possible, Mr. Hanley estimated that preliminary results of the study, at least, should be availab~ in about two weeks. In Septembers SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 20s 1966 1964s biT. Henley continueds the State sent a traffic engineer do~rn to study this areas in response to a petition presented for a echoel crossin~ guards and that the engineer conducted a field survey of all the elements involveds including the location of the schools and the bussing schedules. In answer to a question from Councilman Drakes Mr. Henley stated that he felt that the report from the present study will be based on full knowledge of all the factors regardin~ this intersection. At the time of the 1964 study there was no discussion for a full traffic signal but Mr. Henley reported that the State did express willingness to the High School District to install a flashing yellow signal at that location if the district would share in the expense of the installation and maintenance but that the District did not feel that this light of itself would be of sufficient value to meet the problems so it was not installed. Councilmen Drake suggested that perhaps there was some way of installin~ a sign that would not be overlookeds such as an overhead banner. In reply to a suggestion from Councilmen Tyler that a portable sign be placed in the center of the streets the Director of Public Works indicated that he doubted that the State would approve any object standing in the crosswalk because of the dan~er of it being hit and Reid lane flipped or spun into a pedestrian. Highway 85 Crosswalk Vladimir Fabris suggested that, as an interim measure until the Statess studies are Completeds the City seek the cooperation of the High School toward the formation of a patrol service such as other schools have to guard the Reid lane crossin~ as well as any others in the vicinity which may need Mr. J~e Assenza expressed the opinion that a study ~f a permanent nature is more important than a Temporary control of a few weeks.and that he felt it is up to the parents to. guard the area 'in :the meantim~. He indicated that he did not believe people would want a traffic light there if jr'were to be proven that more accidents might occur because of Mrs. GroUt 0bJec~ed ~o using lligh school students as crossing guards as s~e felt it would be too dangerous and should be a job for adults only. ~. Grout had previously objected that althoughhe has frequently seen a Deputy Sheriff checking the area for speedinghe has neve~ seeu the Deputy assist a pedestrian, Mr, Henley commented that at the timeof the 1964. analysis it was noted that there is not a= high school in the bay areawhichhas a Crossing guard, However~ Mr, Henley also mentioned that data collected all over the country indicates that the safest Of all crossings on any highway are those which are controlled by school traffic patrol, Councilmen Tyler added that in this County there has never been an accident where a school safety guard was on duty but that this is not true of crossings where adult guards were posted, l{ayor Glennon repeated that the Council is vitally interested in providing wha~ will be the most effective control and tha~ the City and State are working on the problem and that the Council expeCtsa recor~endation by the next meeting. After thats bhyor Glennon con- cludeds the Council will be in position to take some action and.if it feels that the Statess recommendations are not the best, then the Council may consider referring the problem to a consulting traffic analysis firm. VII ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS C. COUNCIL COP~4ITTEES - continued (3) Councilmen Burry reported that the Puhlic ~.~elfare Committee met in the field to review a problem which was presented by the Staff hecause the construction of the Saratoga-Fruitvale Avenue inter- section might be completed before the problem could be referred through normal processes from the City Council. SARATOCA CITY CODI~ClL KENtrEES -, APRIL 20s 1966 Councilnmn Burry outlined this problem as follows: The present plans for the-Saratoga Avenue-Fruitwale Avenue intersection call for a divider strip runnin~ south of FruitVale Avenue from Sara~ toga AVenue to a point approximately 100 feet south (~ the driveway entrance to the'Kerwin ranc~ house. Because of the div~der'strip n0 left turns into or out of the driveway xould be possible, It was the conclusion of the Committees concurred in by the city staffs that'in its present use as a ranch there would be no significant traffic safety hazard involved in pro- 'Vidin~ for atemporary access through the divider strip with the clear understandin~ that upon development of the property for residential or other appropriate uses the full divider strip would have to be restored to provide for safe handling of the resulting increased traffic fl~,x, The Co..~,dttee therefore recommended that the Director of Public ~orks be authorized to amend the construction plans for this intersectinn accordir~ly, It was moved by Councilman Hartmans seconded by Councilman Drake and unanimously carried to authorize the Director of Public Works to proceed as recommended by the Public Welfare Co~mittee, (4) Mr, Henley reported~ at the request of ~lannin~ Committee Chairman Hattrain, .on the background of a problem with respect to the proposed channel treatment of San Tomes Creek which is bein~ required as a result of e large subidvision development in the City of Campbell i~ned~ately abuttin~ the easterly side of the creek alon~ g line where the center line of San Tomes Creek constitutes the cerm~nn boundary between Saratoga and Cmnpbe11, The Planning Co,hattee met in the .field to review thi~ problem and is interested in a~temptin~ to work out an alternative flood control soiution'that will-meet the ~hannel needs whiles a= the same times preserving as many.of the valuable trees.as possible~ The present treatments ~t was reporteds ~ould result in the destruction of a sig~ificant D~w, her of la~g~ oak, syc~ore~ and eucalyptus treeS, 'Mr, Hanley.eXp!ained that the. problem is complex and illustrateds on the tentati~e subdivision nmp which has been approve~ by ~he City of Campbell, alternatives which have ,been discussed, A.char~e in alignment which would preserve most of the trees could be achieved if (1) property belon~ing to I~r, Leeps the developers which would be left over on the west side of the creek is purchased at a cost of approximately $1~500, (2) Another piece. of property is purchased from Mr, Santore for flood control channel that would allow Mr, Leep to get the same lot y~eld, It was pointed out that Mr, Leep already has tentative mep approval and is willing to have his engineers redesign this portion of his subdivision only if the excess en~ineerir~ costs will be recovered and if he ultimately achieves the same lot ySeld as present plans indicate, The Council and staff discussed this problem in detail and the City Attorney submitted the follo~ing opinions relative to several aspects of the discussion: 1) Assessment Districts ~ may not be formed to acquire p~operty for the benefit of several private o~,mers. 2) The City can buy theproperty andS.under contract sale~ sell it,to the adjacent property owners' (3) The City has the legal pox~er but no duty to purchase the Santore parcel. The City Attorney also noted thats as the center line of the creek is the City boundary~ the City will eventually have to enter into a new boundary agreement to reflect the changes which the realignment of the creek will create, Mayor Glennon stated that he is reluctant to encumber any of the Cityis funds because of the p~ecedent ~hich ~qould be established and the Council agreed to this, It was.the general concensus of the Council that the 'only action open .to the Council is to: (1) try to minimize the areas involved for acquisition (2) negotiate with the Flood Control District in an effort to have them participate in the acquisition of part of the area, 9 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 20, 1966 D. DEPARTMENT HEADS AND OFFICERS SDR-551 (1) It was moved by Councilman Drake, seconded by Councilman Burry Construction and unanimously carried to accept the improvement~, for construction Acceptance & only, for SDR-551, Iummnuel Lutheran Church, and release 90% of Release of the $13,000 Improvement bond; the 10% to be retained until the portion of ~nd of the one year maintenance period. Bond (2) It ~qas moved by CounCilman Burry, seconded by Councilman Tyler Tr.3822 and unanimously carried to accept, for construction only, ~he Construction improvements in Tract 3822, Saratoga Manors as recommended by the acceptance Director of Public Works; with the one year maintenance period to begin i~nediately. (3) It~ was mo~ed by Coun~ilman Drake, seconded by Cohncilman Hartman SDR-576 and unanimously carried to authorize release of $1,170. of the Release $1,500. bond posted by Walter Hileman to guarantee construction of bond of the u~[nimum access road for SDR-5?6. This action was in aCcordanCe with the recomendation of the Director of Public Works that the work has been completed satisfactorily and the ramainin~ $330, will remain to guarantee work required for Madtone Hill Road. Austin Way (4) With no objection, Mayor Glennon referred to the Public Welfare & Sara-L.G, C6mmittee, a proposal from the Director of Public Works regarding Road a .traffic problem at Austin Way and Saratoga-Los Catos Road, . (5) The DireCtor of Public. Works presented to the Council a proposed .. plan line for tha~ portion of Saratoga Avenue lying between Saratoga Fruitvale Avenue and the village. He pointed out that the four Avenue lane layout provides for the preservation of most of the large Plan line treess many of which would be retained in the media~ strip. The Council discu~sed the proposed plan line and, with Council approval, Mayor Gleanon referred it to the F~blic Welfare Coma{tree with the observation that establishment of plan lines did not the City to any improvement time table. E. CITY ADMINISTRATOR (1) Mr, Hanl~y announced that Mrs. Margaret San Filippo i~ leaving onMay i for a Job Which is better suited to her!fe~ly~s needs ACcountinE and that, in consid~rin~ a replacement, several factors indicate Services & that soma =e-orgahizatiOn would be to the City"s a~vAntage. Building Firsts ~he volume and complexity of the City's financial records Department has .Steadily increased~ due to changes and additions. in payroll re, organization dedUctidnS, fo~me~ion of antumber Of asSesSmen~ districts, Variations in Gas Tax ~unds, initiation of new projects and fundS~ etc. Secondly, the level of activity in the Building Department is suc~ that Mr. Henley concurs with Building Official Don Harris that the department could reduce its three man inspection crew to a two man crew if a person is present in the office to handle the counter work. With these factors in mind, the City Admini- strator reported that he has contacted a Certified Public Accountant ~hom he knows to be well qualified to perform the bookkeeping duties on a contractual basis. This would, Mr. Han!ey indicated, be what he believes to be the best mothod of obtaininE the services of a professional accountant at e cost which he estimates, at this time= to be under $~00. At the same time, Mr. Henley proposed to replace one of the building inspectors with a clerical employee to work in the Building Department and .release Mr. Harris for more field inspections. C.P.A. Contract- It ~as moved by Councilman Tyler, seconded by Councilman Burry, New clerical and unanimously carried to authorize the City Administrator to employee employ the new clerical employee and to authorize the Mayor to execute a contract for accounting services if satisfactory terms can be arranged with a qualified C.P.A. -10- SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MINUTES -APRIL 20~ 1966 Fms. San (2) Mr. Hanley stated that Mrs. San Fllippo has been a conscientious Filippo - and valuable employee and that her resignation is accepted With Resignation regret. It was agreed by the Council that the Fmyor be authorized to direct a letter of appreciation to Mrs. San Filippo for her past services.. IX ADJOURNMENT There being no one present who wished to address the Council at this. times Mayor Glennon acknowledged~ %rith pleasures the presence of Chamber of Commerce repmsentatives Frank Yore and Don Bushl GOod Government Group representative Dorothy Parkers who served coffee at the recess~ and extended his greetings to Mr. and Mrs. Paul Gardiner. It was ~ved by Councilman Drake, seconded by Councilman Burry and carried unan~-~usly to adjourn the meeting at ll:50 P. M. Respectfully submitted'~ WILLIAM C. HANLEY, CITY CLERK