Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-15-1966 City Council Minutes SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL SIPgt/LRY OF I.YINL'fES T!;~E: Uednes<hy, June 15, 1966 - 7:30 P. M. PLACE': Saratoga City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, Calif. TYPE: Regular Meeting I ORCANIZATION Mayor Glennon called the meeting to order at 7:35 P. A. ROLL CALL Present: Councilmen Glennon, Burry, Drake, Martman, Tyler Absent: None E. MINUTES It was moved by Councilman Burry, seconded by Councilman Hartman and Minutes carried unanimously to dispense with the readinF~ and approve the minutes of the June 1, 1966 meetinZ, as written, II BIDS AND CONTP~CTS A. REQDT~ST FOR AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE FOR BIDS ON VESSING ROAD IT:-iPRO%vE_'iENTS Vessing Road Bids The Director of Public Works reported that the City is callin~ the bond £or Improve. for street improvements required in connection with SDP-. 373 and that the Bonding Company has a~reed to Day the cost of the improvements, estimated at $5~0G0. The Bonding Attorney has authorized the C~ty to advertise for bids for the work and has aoreed to pay in accordance with the low bid for the work. It was moved by Councilman Drake, seconded by Councilman L'artmau and unanimously carried to authorize the staff to advertise for bids on Yessing Road improvements as outlined above. B'0 REQ. L"EST FOR AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE FOR BIDS ON ~AKO}~ ACCESS ROAD AND ELECTRICAL IMPROV~DPET:TS. Mr. Hanley reported that the Plan~tng Committee ha.d reviewed the improve- Bids - meats proposed for Hakone Gardens and have recormehded that the City Hakone go to bid on the access road and electrical. improvements but ha~e re- Improve- ferred the matter of the parking lay-out to a landscape architect. It men~s was moved by Councilman Tyler, seconded by Councilman Burry and unani- mously carried ta authorize the staff to advertise for bids on l~akone Garden improvements, C. FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF CIVIC CENTER LANDSCAPING Mr. Hanley reported that the Civic Center landscaping work has been Civic Center inspected by the Landscape Architect and that he recommends final accept- Landscaping ante of the work. It was moved by Councilman Hartman, seconded by final Councilman Drake and unanimously carried to accept the work as recom- acceptance mended and authorize filing of the final notice of completion. D. CHANGE ORDER NO. I - AZULE HOMESITES II~PROVEMENT PROJECT Mr. Hanley reported that the Public Welfare Committee reviewed the matter Change of providing footbridges acroS, s Rodeo Creek on Seagull Ua~ as an extra Order ~l on the Azule Improvement project and, with slight modification of the Azule design, recommends approval of Change Order No. 1 providin~ for these footbridges at an estimated cost of $1591.60. It was moved by Councilman Tyler, seconded by Councilman Hart,an and unanimously carried to approve Change Order No. 1 for Azule ltomesites Improvement Project as recommended. E. CONTRACT WITH DEPT. OF I!OUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT FOR GR. ANT FOR URBAN BEAUTIFICATION A~ID I~fPROVE.~.TI"NS Urban The Clerk outlined the provisions o~' a cantract betx~een the City and Beauti- the Dept. of Housing and Urban DevelOpment for Urban Beauttfication fication Contract SARATOGA CITY COUNCI'L I,.G'NI,r~S - June 15s 1966 funds and the City Attorney explained that this is the standard form prepared by the Federal government for this purpose, It ~yas moved by · Councilman llart_man, seconded by Councilman Tyler and unanimously carried to adopt Resolution No, 332s authorizing the execution of the contract, Ill PETi'~IONS, FORr{~L KESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES A. P~SOLUTION AUTHORIZING TRANSFER A~ONG AND/OR BETWEEN ACCO~rr~ Transfers Mr. Hanley reported that this item had been placed on the a..~enda to of funds cover any transfers between accounts which mi~_ht be needed prior to the elld of the fiscal year but that it ~ill not be needed ands ~rlth no objec- tions -~ayor Glennon'ordered the item removed from the agenda, B. RESO. I.Tj"rlON lqO, 333 - AUI~dOI{IZINC E~IINENT DO~IN PROCEEDINGS FOR 5,85 ACRES OF IL SEAGRAVES PROPERTY ON FRUITVALE AVENUE ReS,333 The Clerk reported that this restitution, authorfzin~ eminent domain F~Inent proc~adin,~s for the Seap. r~.ves prope~:ty adjacent to the Fruitvale Schools Domain - had b~_en dream in respov_~e ~o Connail action at the last meetinn reo~ard- Seagraves inn this property. Since that meeting, L'r, ttanley continued, he and the property Di~a~or of Public l~orks discussed ~he proposed acquisition again x.~ith Hr, Seagraves who indfc.~l:ed ~hat he was not interested in selling only a portion of the entire 23 acre parcel unless it was at a premium price, ~fr, SeagL'aves expressed interest in selling the entire 23 acres and would ao-ree to 10 year terms with principal payment to be withheld for sev.-~'al years but that if this did not meet with Council approval he ~uld prefer that the matter be settled by legal procedure, After discussion of the possibilities of acquisition of property across the creek from the Civic Center Site and the necessity for the School District to have a decision at this time regarding the proposed exchange of school property with the Seagraves property, it was moved by Council- man Burry, seconded by Councilman Drake and carried unanimously to adopt Resolution No, 333, initiating eminent domain proceedings for the Seagraves property, The question of the possible acquisition of the entire 23 acre Searraves parcel was deferred until after recess, C, RESOLUTIONS PERTAInlING TO PROPOSED FORNATIO}I OF STREET ASSESS}lENT DISTRICT - SARATOGA HILLS ROAD Saratoga 1, RESOLUTION NO. 334 - RESOLUTION OF iNTENTION TO ACQUIRE & CONSTRUCT Hills Road I}~ROVE~ENTS ASsessment 2i RESOLUTION NO~ 335 - RESOLIYrlON APPOINTING ENGINEER A~.vD ATTORNEYS District 3~ RESOLUTION, NO, 336 - RESOLUTION DETERM. INING ~0 UNDERTAI{E PROCEEDINGS. Resolutions No,3~4 Mr, Henley fndi.cated that the resolutions as listed on the aEe~da sheuld J35 & ~36 he considered in reverse order, with the resolution determinfn~ to under- take proceedings to be considered first, followed .by the resolution appofhtfng engineer and attorneys and then by the resolution of intention to ~cqufre: and Construct improvements, Mr. Henley explained t~at a~ petition, signed' by o~ners of slightly over 60~ of the area affected, ~as p~esented for the formation of a street improvement assessment district on the s0utherly leg of Sardtoga Hills RS~d and that if this district should be formed and the work done it ~.xonld connect Pike Road to Saratoga Hills Road and therefore provide an alternate access from Pierce Road to Highway 8~. Proceedin~s were previously initiated for the improvement of Pike Road by assessment district, and the resolutions presented to the Council at this time would authorize the preliminary steps to provide the necessary information for conducting a public hear- lug on the proposed district. Hr. Henley stated that, in connection with previous interest fn the for- marion of an assessment district for this area, a letter was received from Hr, liarburton and that Mr; garburton was therefore notified that the matter mould ha considered 'by the Council at this time, The Director of Public l~orks displayed a map of the area, indicating the area-which was initially proposed and the area which fs currently pro- posed,. Some modification was made, excluding those properties which mere not contiguous .to the proposed improvements, l~r. Huff explained. SARATOGA CItY COUNCIL r41~UTgS - 3une 15, 1966 ~[r, I~arburton~ representing members of the Saratoga Rills Road Improve- ment Associac~.~n ~ho are obJectin~ to the proposed assessment district, spoke in oppc~ition to the initiation of proceedings and stated that his clients uant to preserve the current nature of the neighborhood and wish to continue to maintain Saratoga Hills Road as a orivate road,' ~.:arburton questioned the exclusion of the Cox property from the proposed d~.strict and also expressed the opinion that the district boundaries had been dream to exclude the protestants for the benefit of a few people who have acquired some parcels on the south loop of the street, t4r, f~arburton cancluded his remarks by citing the potential traffic ~aratoga Hills Road den get he feels will result from opening up this road to public through Assessment use, ~Ir, Joseph Riddot, President of the Saratoga Rills Road Association, District spoke next in opposition to the formation of the district and amplified the ar~-unen~s presented by ~r, l~arbnrtml, Hr, Donald Stellings 213~5 Saratoga Eills Road also spoke in opposition to t~,e formation of the district and stated that the members of the Saratoga Hills Road lmprove~aent Association are willing to help others in the area who have the acreage ~,d are desirous of improving standards but I~'hat they want orderly develoFm~nt and do not approve this type procedure for street improvements to benefit those ~ho wish to develop and ~ubdivide their proper~.y, Hr, Ceorge Stathakis Spokq in support of the proposed district and stated that the key issue is whether or not the road needs widening and the most feasible method of improving it. Mr, Stathakis indicated that the propov. en~.v of the district also ~ould like to preserve the rural nature as .much as practicable and still achieve needed improveturns, Of the nine owners on the portion of the road in question, Hr, Stathakis reported, five have signed the petition requesting the district, No one else from the audience wished to speak regarding this matter and the COuncil, staff and bonding attorney discussed the proposed district and the request from the opponents that no further action be taken ;regard- ihg its formation, The Couecil conchfred that both the opponents sad proppnents should be given equal opportunity to be heard and, also, that the matter should be explore~ in the light of access to a fire hazardous area~ traffic patterns, etC~ The question of boundaries, it was pointed out, will he resolved at t~e t!m~ of public hearing on the b~is of benefits to the properties involved, Resolutions It ~ss moved by Councilman Drake, seconded by Councilman llar_~m~n and 3~6, 335 unanimously, carried to adopt the following resglutions, individually & 334 and in the followring order: (1) Resolution No~ 336,: Resolution Determin- ing to Undertake Proceedings (2) Resolution Ro~ 335 - Resolution appoint- ing engineer 'hd attorneys (3) Res~ldtiou Ro, ~3~ - Hesslotion of intention to a~quire an~ Construct Improvements, D, RESOLUTIOI~ ~O; 337 - RESOLUTI(tl AUIlt0RIZINC EXECUTION OF HOLDING ACREm4E~rr ~ RAKO~m CARVEUS The City Ait8rney explained that when Rakone Cardens initial paymerit Res. 33? ~as made, title ~ras conveyed to Valley Title Company for couveniedce Holding in handling ~he purchase from the several ~ners tawsired and that, at Agreement o Ehat time, ,the standard form li iding agreement excluding the title ltakone from ilabiii~y ~as inadvertently omitted and the title company has asked Gardens ~hat the Counc iI aUtho~ize execution of this agreement at this time. It was moved by Councilman Tyler, seconded by Councilman Hartman sad unani- mously carried to adopt Resolution No. 337, as presented. Hr. Henley reported that he had been informed by Hr. Joseph Cresham that the owners of Hakone Cardlns might be interested in extending a 5~ discount if the City yore interestdd in paying off the purchase price in advance and, with no objection, Hayor Clennom referred this matter to the Hanage- ment,Comaittee for study and recommendation. SARATOGA CITY COIJNCIL }rf}llrrES - June 15, 1966 E, RESOLUTION NO, 85-5 - SETTING SALARY P~IGES FOR OFFICE AND SPECIALTY EFIPLOYEES OF 17/E CITY OF SARATOGA Hr, Henley presented Resolution No, 85-5 and explained that it incor- porates the recommendations of the}lanq~ement Committee that salaries Ras, 85-5 for the next fiscal year be increased by 5I for all classes, except Salary that the Director of Public l.lorks, Planning Director and Chief Build- ing Inspector*s salaries be increased by ? 1/2~, The resolution also ranges - City would authorize an increase of $1.56 per employee as the Cityws share employees of health and hospitalization insurance benefits, bringing the total amount of City participation to $11.86 per month per employee. Council- man Burry noted that the President has suggested that, to help curb inflation, annual increases be based on a guide line of 3.2~, Coucil- man Drake pointed out that Saratoga granted a fex~ selected increases last year and that the 5Z increase recomended does not reflect an annual practice of the City, In this case, Councilmah Drake indicated, it is part of a continuing effort to establish salaries and benefits for City employees within a reasonably good competitive range of other agencies and that the reconnended increases would, for the most parts accomplish this purpose, It was moved by Councilmon Drake, seconded by Councilman Tyler and unanimously carried to adopt Resolution No, 85-5, as presented, F, SDR-347 and ORDINANCE NS-3-ZC-8 Hr, Henley reported that several extensions of the rezoning and tentative SDRo347 map for the ~tedical Village of Saratoga have been granted in conformity Ord,NS-3-ZC-8 with the original understanding that the development would take place extension over a number of years and read a report from Dr, Abrams relative to the Hedical progress since the initial approval and the anticipated development to Village be completed within the next fiscal year. Dr, Abrams requested an of Saratoga additional extension of one year from the current June 6, 1966 expiration date and it was moved by Councilman Tyler, seconded by Councilman Burry and ananimously carried to extend the expiration date on both the tentative map for SDR-347 and; the conditional rezoning Ordinance No, NS-3-ZC-8, until June 6; 1967,. IV SUBDIVISIONSs BUILDING SITES AND ZONING REQUkSTS SDR-6i5 -1~. C. GARCIA SDR-615 .: ; Garcia The Clerk announced that the applicant's attorney. :has requested defertel defer, of this; item until the meeting of July 20, 1966 and, ~ith no objections Hayor Glennon so ordered. B, TRACT 4102-A Tr, 4102-A , r~version r~r. llanley explained that the developer becam~ ~lsetiSfied ~ith the to acreage layout of the~ original .tract ~o. 4102 and submitted a new ma~ .to the Planning Commission for consideraryan. The P.lannin~ Co~issioh, upon review of the new tentative map~ agreed that the new proposal ~as pre- ferable andapproved reversion to acreage of Tract 4102 and, a~ the sam~ time, ~approved a ne~ tentative map for ~he area ~hlch will be sub- mitted for COUncil conside~atlon under Item C~ Tract 4200 final map approval. In connection ~i~h the reversion to acreage, indicated as Reso Tract 4102-A, it ~yas moved by Council~an Har~qn, seconded by Councilman SD-478-2(a) Drake and unanimously carried to adopt Resolution No. SD-478-2(a), Improvement Authorizing release of the improvement bonds posted for the construction Bond of improvements .~n Trac,,t 4102. Release C, TRACT 4200 Tract Hr. ttanley reported that all fees have been paid, bonds oosted and 6200 conditions met ~ith respect to final mep approval of Tract 4200, a ~ Final lot subdivision located on Ten Oak l. lay, and bein~ the san~ area ~hich map was reverted to acreage as Tract ~102-A, It was moved by Councilman Burry, seconded by Councilman Hartmen and unanimously carried to adopt Resolutiun No. SD-628-1, approving the final map of Tract 4200. SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - June 15, 1966 D. C-90 - TOUN AND COUNTRY REALTY Mr. Henley explained that this i~em has been continued several times during the course of the last few months at the request of the applicant. C-90 Mr. Maurice '~enkin, attorney representing the applican~ reviewed the Town and history of Mr, Seagraves ownership of the property at!Saratoga and Cox Country Avenues and explained that about four years ago Mr. ]Seagraves sold the Realty property to Dr. Abrams, reserving the comer section for his o~n use. Subsequently the Abrams property was rezoned for PrdfeaSional-Administra- rive use and when ~!r. Seagraves recently applied for reZoning Of the comer parcel to P-A the Planning Conmission recommended denia~ on the basis that it was unable to fipd a need for additional P-A zoning. [~yor Glennon explained the procedure relative to Council action when the Planning Commission recommends denial of a rezoning application and advised Mr. Rankin that public hearings are not automatically set for these items unless someone chooses to contest the recommendation of the Planning Commission. Therefore, no public hearing had been set for consideration of this particular item and the Mayor indicated that the Council is not in a position to hear arguments relative to the matter until notification of public hearing has been published. ~Yr. Rankin stated that he was unaware of this procedure and asked that a public hearing be set so tha~ the ~mtter can be reviewed in detail. With Council approval, Mayor Glennon directed the Clerk to set the time and place for hearing of C-90 for the ageode of July 6, 1966. V PUBLIC 11EARINGS - 8:00 P. M. A. UP-103 - b~NUEL LOZANO Mayor Glennon stated that this is an appeal from the Planning Commission denial of a use permit for a car wash on Prospect Road at the Lawrence UP-103 Expressway. The minutes of the Planning Conmission, the Mayor stated, Manuel do not indicate denial of the Use Permit but, rather, deferral of deci- Lozano sion until Mr. l~sley, who was recently granted a use permit for a car Appeal wash adjacent to the Lozano site, decides if he wishes to proceed with his proposed bUsi~ess. The. ~yor then announced a recess to ~ive the City Attorney time to determine if such a deferral gives rise to an appeal under the code. Recess: 9:30 P. M. neconvened: 9:45 P. M. The City Attbfney explained that the Planning CommissiOn action was to hold in ab~nca~ for one year, the application fo~ a use permit to see if another use permit application is carried through ~ithin Chat one year time. The wording of the ordinance does specify that an appeal may be filed only in cases of granting or denial buts Mr. 3ohnston continued, it was his opinion that holding a decision in abeyance for as long as a year is tantamount to denial and hearing should be held on the premise that the Planning Commission action constitutes denial of UP-103. The Clerk read the report of the Planning Commission dated May 23, 1966 and stated that a letter of appeal from the Plannin~ Commission decision was fileds by Mr. Crists representing the applicants and that proper notice was Fgiven of the public hearing which was set for this agenda. With no objection, ~yor Glennon opened the public hearing at 9:50 P. M. and directed the Planning Commission file and all subsequent correspondence introduced in evidence. Mr. Frank Crist, on behalf of the applicant, reviewed the history of the application and the Plannin~ Co.mmission action regardinz it in its relation to the application of }tr. Wesley for a use permit for the same use on adjacent property. ~ir. Grist stated that although }It. Lozano's application for a car wash use permit was filed prior to that of Mr. Wesley's, action on Lozano's application was delayed pending rezoning -5- SA~ATOCA CITY COUNCIL MINb~E8 - June 15, 1966 Of the property and that analysis of the business pqtential by Mr. Lozano indicated that two car washes at that location could be supported and that, in any event, he did not feel that the City should withhold a use permit on the basis of economics, that this question is one ~hich should be left to the o~.mers and that Mr. Lozano is willin~ to take a chance UP-103 as he feels it would be a successful investment. In answer to question- Lozano ing by the Mayors Mr, Crist ·stated that Mr. Lozano raised no objection Appeal at the hearing on the ~lesley use permit because economic consideration was not given to that application although it was a known fact that Mr. Lozano also planned a car wash on the adjacent property as soon as his rezoning application was completed and the use permit application could proceed. Had Mr. Lozano kno~m that the Planning dommission would subsequently base its decision on the basis of economics, it was · Crist's contention that objections would have been presented to the Planning Commission during its consideration of }!r. l~sley's application. }lr, Crist commented that ~ir. Lozano had, from the beginning, stated that he intended to have a car wash and that they would have argued the merits of the two applications had this question been brought up at the time of the Plannln~ Commission hearing of Mr. Wesley's applica- tion, Mr. Robert Moore, owner of the property adJoinin~ the Cox property, objected to allowing two car washes at the same location and stated that he felt that, from a basis of economics and esthetics, only one should be allowed for'the benefit of the residents of the City. Joe Assenza and Sam Hernandez asked questions relative to clarification of traffic flow and stated intent of the Lozano application and were informed that these matters were considered by the Plannin~ Commission prior to its recoumendation to the Council. There being no one else who wished to speak regarding this matter, it was moved by Councilman Drake, seconded by Council.man Hartman and car- ried unanimously to close the public hearing at 10~10 P~ }f. Councilman Tyler stated that he could see no adverse effect on the city to have two car wRshes at this location and that he felt that if two people wished to go into competitive business in an area which is suited to that type of business, they and not the city, should determine wh~ther or not they wished to take the economic risk. Council~an Drake agreed with CoUncilman Tyler and added that, exdept in the'~most extreme ~asep, he woul~ be ~ore i~elihed td~eonPider esthetics t~a~ economics, On the basis of e~b~ties, c0u~ilfi~h Drake ~Ontinded, he fel~ thdt two washes side by ~ide w0uid be more desirable than in separate locatiohS. Councilman Hartman indicated that he did not think the council could ignore the economic aspect and that although he did think there was merit in Councilmen Tyler and Drake's viewpoint, he was of the Qpinion that the City should concern itself with the possibility of 'one of the businesses becoming defunct; especially in such a specialized field of business as a car wash. Planning Commissioner Crisp, who was asked to comment, stated that he could add nothing to the Planning Commission report and that a use permit is always considered on the basis of a specialized use as it is set up as a controlled, conditional use for the area in question. The Council discussed at length the question of economics as a factor to be considered in the' granting df use permits and the T. Yayor pointed out that the Council never takes a Planning Commission recommendation lightly and tha~,although he is loath to overrule a Planning Commission decision, he feels that this is a unique situation in which the Council must resolve a policy question and that the decision is a difficult one. Mayor Glennon also indicated that he felt the timing of the two applica- tions was a matter of consideration inasmuch as it appeared possible that, had not Mr. Lozano had to await comple.tion of rezoning proceedings, his use permit would have been considered D~ior to that of ~{r. Wesley's. On ~is basis, the Mayor questioned whether or not it would be fair to de~y applications because of a combination of.economics and timing. · -6- SARATOGA CITYCOUNCIL ~N~TES - June 15, 1966 The City Attorney advised that~ on a~peal, if the Council reverses tbe Planning Conmission decision it then must impose whatever conditions it wishes with regard to the application but that, although the decision is the Jurisdiction of the Council and the necessary findings must be determined by the Council, the Council can send the matter back to the UP-103 Planning Conmission for recommendation as to the conditions which should Lozano be imposed. Appeal Mayor Glennon stated that he didnot feel the Council uas qualified to make the necessary findings precedent to the conditianin2 of a use permit and it would be his thought that, ff the Council decides to overrule the Planning Commission and grant the use permit, it be referred to the Planning Commission for recommendation as to conditions to be imposed. It was moved by Councilman Drake, and seconded by Councilman Tyler that the decision of the Planning Conmission on behalf of UP-103, Manuel Lozano, be reversed and the use permit be granted to all~ an automatic car wash ~fth the understanding that the matter is referred back to the Planning Conmission for reconmendation of appropriate conditions with respect to the use permit and that further action be taken by the Council at its next regularly scheduled meeting and that, at that time, the applicant be given the opportunity to discuss these conditions prior to the Council's action on them. The Mayor called for the question and the motion carried on the follo~ing vote: AYES: Councilmen Drake, Tyler, Glennon; NOES: Councilmen Burry and Hartman, with Councilman Burry stating that his no vote was based entirely on appearance, not on eCOnOmiCS. B. C-96 - JOSEPH J. PON Mr. Hanley reported that the Plannin~ Conmission, at its meeting of C-96 April 25, 1966, adopted its Committee report recommending denial of Pon ~r. Pons application for a change of zoning from R-I-40,000 to R-1-40,000-P-D and that, at the request of the applicant's attorney, this matter had been set for public hearing at this time. Mayor Glennon declared the public hearing opened at 10:48 P. M. and directed that the Planning Conmission file and all Correspondence be introduced in evidence. The Planning Director described the area, approximately 1i acres on the west end of Verde Vista Lane with the surrounding area zoned R-1-40,0OO-P-D and R-1-12,500. ~lr. l~lker reported that the Planning Conmission felt that this area was not qualified for P-D zoning as it did not abut a railroad right of way or similar type of planning situation where P-D is needed to make an orderly transition from small to larger lots. The Council and staff discussed the topography, reviewed the proposed development map which accompanied the application and questioned whether or not, in the future, the one oversized lot at the top of the hill might be further subdivided, thus circumventing the intent of the P-D zoning for the entire area. The City Attorney pointed out that it might be possible to create another lot and still be within the balance required in the zoning ordinance. However, Johnston noted, it would not be possible for the applicant to cut the subdivision to belo~ the minimum average lot size required for the area. Individual computation of the lot in question would have to be made to determine this question positively. During this discussion, the Plann- ing Director was~sked to determine whether or not there was a possibility that the Bell-Scott developmen~ could ever reduce their lot sizes by further subdivision. Mr. Marcel Poche, attorney for the applicant stated that it is Mr. Pon*s purpose and in~ent to build on ~he large lot and that the possibility of circumventing the statutes has not been considered by the Pon's. It is the subdivider's intent, rather, to build his own home on the large lot on top of the;hill, construct 9 other homes ~ithout too much scarring of the,area and se~l them and that Planned DevelOpment allows coordination with the existing neighborhood and blends ~ith the topography. Mr. Poche argued that, if it is the policy to allow planned development zoning -7- SARATOGA CIrf COUNCIL l_~INb~lES - Juno 15, 1966 only when it is in an area abutting a railroad, etc., then, in all fair- .ness, it should be set forth in the ordinance so that gevelopers, engi- neers, etc. would know from the beginning of a proposed development whether or not it might be allo~-~d. Jim Kaiser, (engineer for the development) stated that cluster develop- ment had not been proposed due to the topography and sizo but that had propared a map under straight .40,000 square foot zoning to indicate could be done with the property, and that the map had'been prepared at the request of and as a courtesy to the staff. The Council discussed with the City Attorney methods wheraby the large lot could be controlled to prevent later reduction. There being no one else who wished to speak regarding this matter, it was moved by Councilman Harman, seconded by Councilman Tyler and unanimously carried to close the public hearing at 11:26 P. M. Commissioner Crisp indicated that planned development in this case would be downgrading and that, in his opinion, it would establish a precedent relative to planned development zoning of R-i-40,000 zones which are adjacent to 10,000 or 12,000 sq. ft. zones. In contrast, Comnissioner Crisp continued, the Rodriques development represented up-grading. After further discussion, during which Councilman Tyler indicated that it has been his impression that planned development is, in most cases, desirable, the Mayor, with no objection, directed the hearing re-opened at 11:35 and referred the matter to the Planning Committee for report at the next meeting, with the public hearing continued until that. time. Councilman Tyler agreed to sit in for Councilman Burry of the Planning Committee who will be out of town until efter the next meeting. Mr. Poche asked if he might be allo~md to attend the scheduled committee meeting and was informed that he may attend although the ~ommittee meeting will be held for the purpose of clarifying {he City's standards and intention an P-D zoning and not as it specifically applies to the Pan application. VI ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS A. }tAYOR Seagraves (i) ~ q~tidn ~ possible acquisition of the ~ntire Sea~raves property pardel ~jacen~ to ~he Fruitvale School was referred, by the Mayor, to the Policy CoF~nittee. Trafficways (2) Mayor Glennon expressed his concern regarding reports he has read Program - recently relative to the contemplated widening of Fruitvale and Quito & Quito roads as a part of the second phase of the trafficways program Fruitvale and questioned whether or not the City may be puttin~ itself in a Roads position of losing control over the status of these streets. Council- man Tyler, the City's representative on the Trafficways Committee reported that the County Staff has reported that all major construc- tion in Phase I will be completed by the end of this next fiscal year and that the Transportation Policy Committee is forwarding copies of the staff recommendations for Phase II to all Council members within the next few days and there will be two months in which to review the proposals and submit recommendations. B. FINANCE (1) It was moved by Councilman Drake, seconded by Councilman Hartman Bills and unanimously carried toapprove the disbursements on the list dated June 15, 1966 for a total amount of $18,200.65 and authorize that warrants be dra~.m in payment. Fillance ~(2) The City Clerk's report and Treasurer's reports for the month of Reporte '~'~y, 1966 were submitted and ~ccepted. -8- SARATOGA CI%~f COUNCIL MINUTES - Juno 15, 1966 C. COD~ICIL COBUIITTES Burry- (1) It was movod by Councilman Tyler, secondod by Councilman Drako and leave of unanimously carriod to grant a loavo of absenco to Councilman Burry absence until August 8, 1966. (2) Councilman Hartman reported that the Planning Committee considered the question of long range policy of the City with rospect to develop- Big Basin meat of the area between Big Basin Way and Saratoga Creok in the Way By-Pass village as it might be affectod by a future Big Basin Way by-pass area route. Aftor review of the coPmeats roceivod from the Planning construction Engineers for the State Division of ttighways and aftor considerlap the Council's previous action with respoct to the village off-stroet ?arkinS district, it was the conclusion of the CoFmittee that both ~he possible future neod for such a by-pass and its ultlmata location If it eventually provod to be necessary are so indefinite and long- ,range in character that it woudl be unwise to prowont or rostrict development in this aroa of the village. The Committee therefore ::ecommended that the Planning Commission be roquostod to considor applications for devolopment of these properties in the normal nannet without regard to the ultimate possibility of a by-pass routo. Councilman llartman commented that he felt that somo consideration ,,~houId be given to the dovelopment of a chain park elfoct along the ~:reek from Big Basin Way north to Wildx,7ood Park aroa but that this was not a ~art of the Ccnlu~ittee recor~aendation. It ~as moved by Councilman Burry, seconded by Councilman Drake and carriod to adopt the above Committee report and ~ayor Glennon dirocted the record to indicate that Councilman Tyler abstained from votinF on this ~esolution. (3) Councilman Itartman roported that the Planning C~mmittee reviewed Landscaping the proposal of Green Valley Maintenances Ind. for a landscaping Mainteuan~e - maintenance program for Hakone Gardens and that the Committee Hakone c3ncluded that this proposal would make a very effective approach Gardens to be tried at least for a year. It was therefore recon~nended by t~he ~o~mittee that the ~.~ayor be authorized to execute an agreement w~[th Green Valley ~..1aintenance, Inc. on the basis outlined in their l...tter of May 23, 1966, as modified, for a total cost of $750. per month. It was moved by CounCilman Hartman~ seconded by Councilman B,~rry and carried unanimously to authorize the P~ayor to execute the a~;reem~it a~ outlined. (4) C{iu~cii~an Burry reported tha~ the Public Welfare Committee met at UildI.~od Pa~ ~o co~id~ the question of a !permanent location for Wildwood the old home being move~ from the Flanagan propert~ to Uild~obd Park site P~rk and that it was the conclusion of the Coi~ittee that the house for historical s~.,ould be located on that portion of the Wild~ood site frontinS on museum Wt ldwood l,~ay. This would not interfere with park development and use and would also provide a location for additional historical structures to be placed frontinS on Wildwood l~ay and wunld make it possible to eventual-ly develop this street in the,.manner of the period 1850 to 1860 with a series of typical structures Of that era facing the street. It was therefore the reconmendation of the Conmittee that this location be approved as a permanent site for tha museum structure. It was moved by Councilman Tyler, seconded by Councilman Burry and unanimously carried to adopt the Committee report and direct the st:tff to so advise Mr. P~ck. D. DEPARTMENT HEADS AND',OFFICERS (1) The! Director of Public,!Uorks outlined the plan for the pathway to Pathway - be constructed from the Plaza, on the east side of Highway 85, to Herriman to the northern limit of the first subdivision which was delayed by Plaza the hiShway construction. It was moved by Councilman Burry, seconded bid adv. by Councilman Tyler and unanimously carried to authorize the staff to advertise for bids for the construction of the pathway. (2) It was moved by Councilman Drake, seconded by Councilman Harrman and carried unanimously to accept, for construction only, the imp we- meats in Tract 3861, as recommended by the Director of Public Works. -9- SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - June 15, 1966 CATV (3) The City Attorney reported that the enabling CATV ordinance will enabling be presented to the Council for consideration at the next regular Ordinance meeting. E. CITY ADMINISTP~TOR (1) Mr. Hanley presented the preliminary annual budeet for the 1966-67 '-. fiscal year for review and indicated that it has been approved by 1966-67 the Management Committee. Councilmen Drake and Tyler reviewed the Preliminary operating budget and ~ayor Glennon sat in for Councilman Drake on Budget the review of the capital outlay budget. In Reneral the anticipated revenue for the next year is slightly above the rate for the current fiscal year and the same staff has been recommended except for the addition of a Junior Planner to assist Mr. Walker in the Planning Department. Capital and special projects have been budgeted at a level of approximately $500,000 less than the current fiscal year and basically 'reflects the unique expenditures for the Saratoga Avenue reconstruction project. Mr. Hanley outlined the capital improvements contemplated and indicated that he sees no problem at the present time in maintaining the present 10¢ property tax rate. The anticipated revenue, Mr. Hanley continued, is adequate to meet the level of services which have been decided on by the Council. Mr. Hanley indicated that there will be no serious concern regarding the current tax rate for the next several years unless there are some areas of further local services that may become desirable. The level of capital expenditure includes land acquisi- tion for parks and beginning construction improvement ,.~ithln the parks can be scheduled ~.rithin tha budget and still retain $45,000 to $50,000 in unallocated funds. Councilman Drake concurred with Mr. Hanley~s comments and copies of the preliminary budget were presented to the Council for further review. (2) It was moved by Councilman llartman, seconded by Councilman Burry POT.& T, and carried unanimously ~o deny a claim. for damages for Pacific Claim fo= Telephone and TelegraphiComDan~ for aOprc~imetley $250. for damage damages aod~i to underground dtil~ti~s ~y a. contractor. oh the Saratoga A~enUe Job. Mr. liahiey (~aS requested to notify, the Ci~'s insurance carrier and the complainant of this ace~nl (3) Mr. Hanley reported that the final mad and improvement plans have been submitted, along with a contract for improvement of Tract 3943 Tract 3943 and that Mr. Jones, one of the developers, requests Council constdera- SD-537 tiun of conditional approval of the final map. It was explained Final Map that the necessary fees and bonds will be submitted prior to recorda- tion of the final map and ~.~r. Jones indicated that this request is predicated on the tentative map expiration date of June 25, 1966 and that the situation is uniquee. due in part to the problems to be resolved with the Cupertino Sanitary District. Mr. Johnston, one of the owner-developers, stated that the necessary fees and bonds will be posted by the bank if the owners can demonstrate that the final map has been approved by the City subject to the payment of the required fees prior to map release. As City Attorney, Mr. Johnston advised that the agreement states that the final map will be released when these conditions have all been completed. Council. man Drake questioned this procedure on the basis of precedence and the Clerk agreed that he would not recommend it as a regular procedure because of the staff work involved with the various elements of canditionaly approved final maps. After further discussion, it was moved by Councilman Drake, seconded by Councilman Tyler and carried unanimously to grant conditional final map approval for Tract 3943 (SD-537) subject to performance of all remainin~ condi- tions, payment of fees and posting of bonds prior to final map recordatian. -10- SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MI~RFfES - June 15, 1966 VII CO~i~NICATIONS A. I,rRI'~i~N (1) The Council considered a letters dated June 2, 1966 from the North- West Horncoroners Association requesting instal:l'ation, by the City, North-West of street lighting at the intersection of Highway 85 and Kirkmont · Homeowner, Drive. This letter of petition was signed by approximately 120 Association - signatures and Mr. t{anley indicated that he had replied to the ,request £o~ group to the effect that it has been the policy of the Council that intersection no street lights have been provided from City General Funds except street the Montalvo entrance light and that all lighting districtss at the lighting present times are paid for by assessment district and that the request raises a policy question for the Council. ~Ir. Frank Ziegle and t~o board members of the North West }{omeowners Association spoke in favor of the request and explained that there are approximately 100 homes affected' and that the dark intersection presents a hazardous situation. Mr. Zfegle and Mr. McConnell indicated that P.G. & E. Company has estimated that the two proposed lights would cost $85.20 per year and that this amount is not feasible for an assessment district procedure and that surroundin~ cities provide such lighting from general funds. After discussion, the Clerk was requested by the Mayor, vith Council approval, to contact the State Division of Highways to determine ¢nether or not they might, on some basis, provide lighting at this intersection and to inform f'lr. McConnell and Mr. Ziegle of the State's decision. Meanwhile, it was suggested that the petitioners try to find an alternative solution in the event the State disapproves participation. SDR fees & (2) A letter from Mr. and Mrs. Lassen relative to City fees and require- procedure ments of site development was acknowledged. Trash (3) Mr. Hanley was requested to advise Miss Ann Race of the policy of pickup - the Coun~ii regarding trash pickup in the City~ in response to her le~r o[ Co~lplaiht ab~t the current lei~el of service~ B. ORAL Mayor Glennon acknowledged, with pleasure~ the presence of Planning Commissioner Crisp, Mrs. Owens and Mrs. Wilberding of the Good Govern- ment Group and concluded his comments with greetings to Mr. and Mrs. Paul H. Gardiner, doners of the three acre park site. VII ADJOURN}~NT It was moved by Councilman Burry, seconded by Councilman Hartman and unani- mously carried to adjourn the meeting at 12:55 A. M. Respectfully submitted, ':i,i':'. ./ UILLIAM C. HANLEY, CITY CLERK / -!l-