Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-17-1968 City Council Minutes CI~ OF S~d~AT(M~A S~,gLa~RY OF }{1MUTES T1}~: l~dnesday, April 17~ 1968 - 7:30 P. M. PLACE: Saratoga City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Ave, SaratOga, Calif. TYPE: Regular ~{eeting I ORGAMIZATIOH · ~, ~ayor Pro Tempore Hartman called the meeting to order at 7:35 P. M. A. ROLL CALL Present: Councilman wartman, Tyler, Robbins, Smith Absent: Mayor Glennon B, ~NUTES It was moved by Councib~an Robbing, seconded by Cou=cilman Tyler, and carried to dispense with. the reading oiLthe minu~cs of the April 3, 1968 regularmeeting and approve them as ~rttten. {deleome Cotmcl~ Mayor Pro Tem Hartman introduced Jerome A. Smith and welcomed him man Smith as the successful candidate for the Council seat previously held by Ralph Burry. II BIDS AI~ CONTRACTS A, Santa Clara County Floo~ Control and Water District - Wildcat Creek Bridge, Mr. Huff noted that this item was discussed at the last meeting and Fruitvale- referred to the Planning Committee for study of the effect the Wildcat Creek proposed Fruitvale Avenue wildcat Creek bridge alignment ~y0uld Bridge have on the trees alone the adjacent reaches of Wildcat Creek. Councilman Tyler reported that the Planning ~ouuuittee met with representatives of the Flood Control Dtstric~ and concluded that optimum preservation of the natural watercourse could be achieved by following the flood plain concept proposed. It was moved by Councilman Tyler, sec~ded by Co~ncilman Robbins,.and unanimously carried to approve the proposed bridge aligmment and a~thorize the }~yor to execute the agreement with Flood Control District. Mayor Pro Tem Hartman commented that the recent discusslods with FloSd .Control District ~epresentatives indicated that conSIderable mishnders~anding had existed between the District and the City concerhing objectives of creek channel development. -He explained tha~ .the possible alternatives, as clarified by the Dtstri~t, were: (1) Flood plain concept requires reserving channel right-of-way width adequate to protect the flood platnLof the creek but retains the natural creekside environment. (2) Minimum channel right-of- way width requires replacing the natural Creek area with barren earth o~ concrete channel construction to accomodate flood f~ows in the narrower rlght-of~ay. Y~tth this cl~rlfication, Councilman Hartman added, the Planning Cqmmittee favored the flood plain concept, not only for Wildcat Creek, but for other creeks in the City where it would b~.posslble to develSp in t~ts manner and retain the natural creekside environment. B. CHANGE ORDER No. 2 ~ Village Parking District ~o~ 1 Change Order The City Clerk reported that underground x~ater problems had developed ~2 Village in the process of construction of Village Parking District No. 1. Parking Dist, ~1 This problem, he stated resulted from a spring condition existing on Fourth Sty, approximately 150' from its intersection with Big Basin Way and could not have been foreseen by the engineers of work. SUT._9~ARY OF COUNCIL MII,FO~ES - April 17, 1968 Upou Izhe staff recommendation that the $410. cost quote,~ by Cooenhaver Construction Company to correct this nroblem ~,as a JuStifiable expanse, it was moved by Councilman ~obbins to a~uthor~ze the Mayor to execute Village Parking District No. i Change Order No. 2. Councilman Tyler seconded the motion which carried unanimously. C. AGREEMENT BETI,~EN CITY AND FLORENCE B. A~IDERSON R~LATIVE TO ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACES - VILI~GE PARKING DISTRICT rIO. 1 Mr. Huff explained that the a~reement would formalize the fact that, in consideration of relief from the assessment levied a~ainst Mrs. Agreement re Add'l Parking Anderson, as o~naer of certain property within Village Parking District Village Parking No. l, the fix,rear agrees to provide the land and constuct at least Dtst. #1 26 off-street parking spaces ~ot constructed as part of the assessment Anderson district cGntract. Future development of the property to be served by the additional parking spa~as is contln~ent upon the provision of these spaces, ~fr. !Iuff indicated. It was moved by Councilman Robbins, seconded by Councilman }!artman, and carried unanimously to authorize the Mayor to execute the agreemap. t, as drafted by the Bond- ing Attorneys and reviewed by the City Attorney. III PETIT!O.~2S_~ O~DIDr-~]C]]S At]D A. VERDE VISTA IMPROVEMENT P~OJECT 1) The City Clerk reported that a petition had been filed, certified as haviug been si%ned By O~.rners representing in excess of 60% of Verde Vista the area proposed for inclusion within an assessment district Project for improvement to the south half of Verde Vista Lane. Council- man Robbins asked the percentage of petitioners by o~.n~er and was told that of the four property holdings involved, two o~.Fners had signed the petition, Councilman Robbins expressed concern that one of the property o~ners was reported as not having been contacted and the P%ayor Pro Tempore observed that the petition filed would but initiate assessment district proceedings and asked the City Attorney for assuIance of this understanding. Mr. Johnston advised that filin~ a petition, certified as to accuracy, and adoption of resolutions authorizin~ insti~ating proceedings, would in no way preclude any property o~mer's right to object to formation of an assessment district. Ample oDportun- ity to be heard would., Mr, Johnston added, be given when prelimin- ary reports. are available and public hea~ing scheduled before the Council. On this basis, Councilman Robbins stated that he ~.youtd offer no further objection at this time but that he was of the opinion that all property m.mers within a proposed assessment district should be contacted prior to Council consideration of a request to initiate prqceedings. Replying to a query from ~_~ayor Pro Tern Hartman, the CitV Clerk stated that efforts to contact the fourth property owner may have been dropped ~.~hen signatures on the petition exceeded the 60% of area olmership required to initiate proceedtngs~ ~.~ith the knowledge that adequate time would be provided~ at a later time, for any protests. As a matter of policy, Councilmen Tyler and Hartman a~reed with Councilman Robbins that contact of all owners ~'ithin proposed assessment district boundaries be accomplished prior to any Council action. With no objection, Mayor Pro Tern ~1artman directed the staff to proceed as soon as possible to contact the other o~mer in the matter under question and to follow the above stated policy in all future transactions relative to assessment district proceedings. -2- SUI4MAP, Y OF COUNCIL MiN~JTES - April 17, 1968 2) RESOLUTION NO. 415 Determine to It was moved by Councilman Tyler, seconded by Councilman Robbins, Undertake Proceed- and unanimously carried to adopt Resolution No. 415, determinin~ ings to undertake proceedings pursuant to special assessment and assessment bond acts. 3) RESOLUTION NO. 416 Appoint Councilman Robbins moved, seconded by Councilman Smith, to adopt Engineers & Resolution No. 416, appointing engineers and attorneys; motion Attorneys carried unanimously. 4) RESOLUTION NO. 417 Amending ~r. Huff explained that this resolution amends Resolution No. 344 Resolution 344 to include the south half of Verde Vista Lane, as well as the North half, within the resolution of intention to acquire and construct improvements. Ile stated that this ~could not increase assessment charges against the owners of property on the north half of the street but might lo~,~r assessments slightly. It was moved by Councilman Tyler. seconded by Councilman ~obbins and carried unanimously to adopt Resolution No. 417. B. RESOLbTION ~0. 425 Mr. Huff reported that the bonding attorneys had reviewed this P.T.&. T. resolution and agreement since it was presented lust prior to the Agreement Saratogalast meeting and deferred to this time~ The atton~eys recommended Campus Assessment adoption of F~solution No. 425, authorizin~ the Mayor to execute an Dist. agreement with Pacific Telephone Canpauy for the installation. maintenance, and operationof UnderFround Telephone facilities within the Uest Valley College Saratoga Campus Assessment District. It was moved by Councilman Robbins, seconded by Councilman Smith, and unanimously carried to adopt Resolution ~o. 425. C. RESCLUTICN NO. 427 ~fr. Iluff reported that the City is required to file a quadrennial Quadrennial Street Deficiency street deficiency report with the State Division of HighWays listing deficiencies which are expected to need repair and on whidh the City Report would .utilize Gas Tm: allocations. Co, ncilman Ro~bins asked the deficiencies were calculated and Mr. HUff stated that the amounts ware based on estimates of the cost to bring each street up to the city's current standard. On motion of Councilman Tyler. seconded by Councilman Robbins the Council unanimously adopted Resolution 427. D. RESOLUTION NO. 428 The City Clezk reported that P.G.& E. had begun the construction of Glen Brae Drive north of the railroad and adjacent to the expanded Public P.G.& E. substation. He exnlained that P.G.& E. had been required Utilities ' ' to construct surface improvcments from the north end of the existtn~ Co~missio~ pavement adjacent to Congress Springs School and that the city was Application - to provide the crossing protection the Council asked the estimated Glen Brae RR cost of the required protection and was advised that it would approx- Xing imate $10,000. Councilman Robbins asked how the city became obligated to participate in the signal cost and was advised that this obligation w~s assumed in the buildin~ site approval process. The Mayor directed the staff to check the history of the city's obligation in regard to the proposed crossing. Councilman Tyler moved for adoption of Resolution 428 authorizing the City Administrator to apply to the California Public Utilities Commission for a RR grade crossing on Glen Brae Drive. Councilman Robbins seconded the motion which carried unanimously. -3- SD~PJARY OF COUNCIL ~IIMUTES - April 17, 1968 IV SUBDIVISIOM~ BUILDING SITES A~ ZONING REOUESTS A. SDR 683 SDR-683 The Clerk reported that all conditions had been met for final Final building site approval for two lots at .Ouito Road and Avon Lane Site and it was moved by Councilman Robbins, seconded by Councilman approval Smith, and carried unanimously to adopt Resolution No~ 683-1, granting final building site approval for the t~o lots. B. SDR 708 - RICHFIELD SERVICE STATION SDR-708 Richfield Mr. Huff stated that the owner of the Richfield station at Cox and Service Paseo Presada had requested final building site approval to construct final . a new station at Ouito ShopDin~ Center ogposite the site of the site present station. Final design approval had been granted, he added~ approval- m~d the plans were reviewed by the Council. ~.fr. ~uff liste~ four Conditional conditions of tentative a~proval that had not yet been met and the Planning Director explained that the applicant had thought tkat apprcval of a sign for the station was a prerequsite to final site approval. ~{r. T~alpas, representin~ t]~e applicant, stated that they were.noW ready to proceed with construction of the new station and demolition of the old one. It was moved bv Councilman Robbins, seconded by Councilman Smith and carried unanimously to %rant final building site approval, subject to payment of the storm drainage and inspection fees, execution of the buiiding site approval agree- ment and clearance from Sanitation District No. 4. V. PUBLIC A. GE~IRAL PLAN REVISION - Continued from April 3, 1968 meeting. The Council reviewed Revision ~o. I 6f the General Plan Co~ittee General report requested by the Council several weeks ago. The Plannin~ Plan Director described the items ~hich the Council had referred back to 1968 the Planning Commission for clarification &nd pointed out the areas referred to in the Planning Commisssion revised report dated 8 April, 1968. ~ayor Pro Tom ttartman declared the public hearing reopened at 8:30 P.~{. and the Planning Director explained the recommendations of the Plannine Commission after its restudy. Briefly, the Plannin~ Commission recommended the following changes from the 1968 General Plan as recommended by Livingston and Blaney, Plannin~ Consultants: I. RESIDEN'fIAL: Retain the low density shown on the present General Plan for the parcel of land East of Quito Road and immediately North and South of Pollard Road. II. APAR~IENTS: ~{acDonald, P!axmar and Kosich properties to reflect existing zoning, III. COL~RCIAL: (1) Saratoga Inn property, which Lawrence Livingston recommends for Visitor-Commercial zoning, to be designated P-A per existinF zoninF. (2) The Plannin~ Commission also made a stron$ policy statement that adequate parking will be mandatory in any future commercial development. (3) it also pointed out that an amendment to the zoning ordinance would be required to designate permitted uses, conditional uses and development controls for Visitor- Co~,ercial use. IV. PARKS: The Planning Commission recommended that the Council appoint a Park Commission to recommend sites, sequence of development, timing of land acquisition, usage and facilities to be established at each park site. ·-4- SD'~MARY OF COUNCIL MI~U3TES - April 17, 1968 V. TRAFFICWAYS: (1) Postpone widening of Saratoga Avenue from Herriman Avenue to the village until the need has been established in the future. (2) Extend Herriman Avenue from Saratoga Avenue to intersect Fruitvale at the intersection of Fruitvale and Allendale Avenues, ~orth of Redwood School. (3) Connect Russell Lane as proposed in the previous General Plan revisions with construction to be provided by subdividers as a requirement of development at the existing road width° (4) Improve Verde Vista Lane to city street standards. 1968 General VI. CAPITAL I[.~ROV~,{EET PIAN: That the staff and pertinent Plan committees continue to actively pursue development and implementation of the Capital Improvement Plan. VII. ANNEF~TION: That the City immediately begin a program of annexation of lands to the South and l~st of present city limits, and that the General Plan be modified to show ultimate annexation of the I~stbrook area. VIII. FIHALLY, that the 1968 report. tables and maps be chan~ed appropriately to reflect the revised reconmendations of the Planning Commission. Councilman Tyler, asked what chan~e from the Livingston report, other than the method of financing. was reco~mended by the Planning Commission for Russell Lane ~nd was told that the Consultant reco~ended development with 36' to 40' paving on 50' to 60' right of ~ay, whereas the Planning Commission recommended that the connection be made at the extstinZ width of 50' right of way and 32' of paving. Mr. Murray, Portos Drive, asked what the Plannin~ Co~ission had decided regarding acquisition of a piece of property o~.~ed by George Day as access to Gardiner Park and was advised that the Planning Co~nission had not specifically studied that site but that .it was included as a part of the general recommendation relative to parks and park sites within the city. Mr. Walker indicated that the General Plan shows access to the park from Portos Drive. %{r. ]~ff added that the Council action at its last meeting, was to direct that Mr. Day be asked not be build on the lot in question until the General Plan study had been dompleted. The Mayo~ asked Mr~ 5~rray whether that ha~ been his understanding of the council action and ~%r. ~Iurray replied that i~ was not but tha~ ~e had not artended that douncil meeting. Mr. Murray then asked that the lot be developed as a home site and that the protests of the neighbors in this regard be properly noticed. John J. Hayes, Jr., an attorney representing Dr. Oliver, submitted arguments to support his request that the proposed Visitor-Commercial zoning not be designated to replace the current C-S zone in which Dr. Oliver's property is located. Under V-C zoning, Mr. Hayes stated, businesses presently conducted by Dr. Oliver's tenants would be subject to termination if the present tenants vacated the premises for a period of 90 days. This, he stated, was in his mind, unconstitutional and would possibly result in future legal suite against the city. The Planning Director reported that the Planning Consultant strongly recommended that the old uses in the C-S zone be replaced by new Visitor-C~mnercial uses as soon as practicable and that new C-S zone uses be prohibited in order to expedite desirable development of the area, Present C-S uses would become legally non-conforming uses under the proposed V-C zonin~ and would be permitted only as long as the present use was continuously maintained under the same o~.mershtp, The requirement for abering legal non-conform_lug uses l-~ould not be changed from the procedure under the current zonin~.ordinance, ~r, !.Talker stated, -5- 8~t~,llY OF COUNCIL MINUTES - April i7m 1968 Mr. Hayes ~intained that if the Council aDproved the Planning Commisstml racomnendation and created non-conforminF, uses, with no provision for Dr. OliVer's buildings, it was his opinion that such action could well be unconstitutional and that it was his primary purpose to point this out to the Coucnil at this time. The City Attorney was asked to clarify the question and stated that although the General Plan hearing really had no bearing on the zoning ordinance, he understood that a rough draft of an ordinance establishing a proposed new V-C zone was under con- sideration and that Public hearings would probably be held on it in the future but that, to his knowledge, no change in existing provisions relative to non conforming uses had been contemplated or suggested. Non-conforming uses are always created by Council 1968 action, ~!r. Johnston noted, and that he would therefore assume General that Nr. Hayes was urging that more leniency be granted in Plan permitting non--conforming use2. The time for consideration of such matters would, }Tr. Johnston added, be whenever a public hear- ing might be scheduled on a proposed zoning ordinance chm~ge, not at the public hearing on the general plan. Bill Hawkings stated that a large group of persons appeared before the Planning Commission last February to protest any proposals for extending Herrimm~ Avenue and believed that their protests had been effective. Since that time, he continued, the Saratoga School Board requested the extension and the Planning Commission changed its original recommendation to ally7 the nroposed extension in the General Plan. ~Ir0 Hawkings objected that the audience had no opportunity to speak to the Planning Cormnission at that time. The proposed extension, Mr. Mawklngs stated, ~ould serve only as a convenience to the school district and would not be needed to serve the traffic nesds within the city. Nr. Fryer, stated that ha had brought to the attention of the Planning Director an apparent inconsistency in the location of a dividing line between medium density and low density development in the Reid Lane~ Trinity, Saratoga Hills Road area but that when he attempted to discuss the matter with the Planning Coi~m~ission he was not permitted to do so. The Plannin~ Director explained that Mr. F~yer's request that this density line be altered had been reCeiVed after the Planning Commission had concluded public hear- ings on the prop6sed General Plan and at ehe time the Planning Con~nission was considering only those items which had been referred back to it by the City Council. The Planning Commission could Mr. Walker said~ take any action without further direction from the City Council. Mayor Pro Tam Hartman observed that the Planning Director had asked the Planning Consultant for clarification regarding this density line but had received no reply to date. Mr. ~alker indicated that he would again contact ~r. Livingston in this regard and report back to the Council at the next meeting. Mr. B. T. Galeb asked that the Council have a committee reconsider his earlier request for ~altip!e zoning of his property adjacent to the Southern Pacific railroad near the C-S zone as he felt it would be the best use for the area. ~rge Carlson objected that home owners livin~ within 500' of the Gardiner Park had not been notified specifically of the clty's intent to change a residential area to park use. It was Mrs. Carlsen's contention that none of the children in the area would u~e the park and that the residents preferred their own yards so that she believed that only outsiders would use the park and create traffic and police problems. This, she stated, would be unfair to the present property ~mers ~ho would be endangered by by insufficient police protection for the isolated park. On this -6- SU~ARY OF CiTY COUNCIL MINUTES ~ April 17, 1968 basis, she stated that she thought the property o~mers within 500' of the area should be the ones to determine whether they want the park or not. She asked if the Council uould consider sellin~ the property, ~hy it acquired a park without accems and whether the usa would revert back to residential if it was not used as a park, ~ayor Pro Tam Hartman e~plained that the property was donated to the city afte~ most of the ares had been developed. ~r. T~urray expressed the opinion that the land was donated because the o~.~aer had been unable to obtain city approval of a variance for proper development 1968 of the area as a home site. General P1 an Dr. Abrams stated that he had not been able to attend the meeting at which the Council referred the question of the Ouito Shoppin~ area back to the Planning Con~ission and therefore he requested the opporttnity to meet with an appropriate c~nmit~ee to discuss this. The M~yor indicated that studies had progressed beyond the cor~ntttee stage but that Dr. Abrams was welcome to discuss this proposal with the Council at this or subsequent continuations of the General Plan public hearing. Dr. Abrams outlined his proposal that the Quito Sho~Ding Center be expanded to better serve the city and develop the adjacent area. He noted that while the Planning Co~ission had recommended continued study along this line he thought a more positive expression of support for expansion of the center should be provided. The ~'~ayor Pro Tem asked Dr, Abrams if he could prepare briefs for presentation of his proposal to the Council at the continuation of the public hearing on !~ay 1 and Dr. Abrams indicated that he would try to do this, ~lr. Ualker of Portos Drive asked whcther Gerdiner Park could be eliminated from the General Plan on the basis of the nrotests from the residents of the adjacent area and Mayor Pro Tem Hartman Stated that the Council could take such action if it so wished and that the objections would be considered before the Council made its dealsion. Mr. Walker asked if the protestants could be notified w~en the Council planned to act on this item and was advised that he could be assured of hearing any Council discussion relative to the matter by attending all the continued hearings on the general Plan. ~-Ir. Ruth Owen stated that she had friends who live on ~yren Drive ~.yho have advised her that they were circulating a petition in favor of developing the Gardiner property as a neighborhood park. She pointed out that while some residents of the area might have sufficient playground equipment in their yards for their children others were not so fortunate and would like the park. She urged that the council consider the matter carefully before acting on the protests of some of the area residents. }It. Huff 'announced that several written communications had been received relative to the Gardiner Park site and that they urged careful study of parking. and access facilities and ~enerally opposed construction of a parking lot in connection with the park develop- ment. The communications noted were from Patricia M, Axtman and Eleanor and Otho Lawrence, 5 residents of the area. He also noted receipt of a card from L. R. Alton opposing multtptle zoning of the ' four acres near Ted Avenue. Robert Le~.rls, Dolphin Drive, asked whether the George Day lot was proposed for use as a parking lot and was advised~that no park development plans had yet been developed but that all items brought before the Council would be considered before any park design would be dra~nl, -7- SUM~RY OF COD~qCIL MII~JTES - April 17, 1968 Mr. Murray described a petition which had been submitted to the Council 2 weeks ago protesting use of the lot in question as access to the park site. The Mayor stated that unless some point which had not heretofore been discussed was submitted, he felt that the question of the Gardiner Park site had been thoroughly heard by the Council. Recess: 9:55 P. M. Reconvened: 10:10 P. M. Mayor Pro Tem Hartman invited anyone present to speak reqarding any phase of the General Plan review if they had not been heard earlier at this meeting or at a previous hearing on the General Plan. 1968 General 1,1r~ Reece, Vessing Road, questioned the Planning Conmission Plan rec~endation that the area north and south of Pollard and East of Quito Road be increased 'in density from one acre to 1/2 ~cre zoning° The Piamming Diredtor indicated that the Planning Conmisslon may have felt that the area was more con~atible with the 1/2 acre lots immediately north of that location° Clarence Neale asked what uses would be permitted in the proposed Visitor~Conmarcial zoning districts if apDroved, and asked that the merchants be consulted and invited to attend committee meetings scheduled to reco~end these uses. ~Ir. ~!eale indicated that after hearing Dr. Oliver's attorney protest changes in.existin~ uses, he feared that the merchants ~7ould have no opportunity to insure that any zone changes would reflect their wishes and needs. Mayor Pro Tem ]~artman assured Tlr. I~ale that any proposed zoning ~h~m~es would be carefully studied and noted that General Plan review did not affect the zoning ordinance, The Mayor also expressed disagreement with r{r. Neale's criticism regardin8 a!le~ed lack of communication with the business community. B. T. Galeb stated that although he agreed with ~Ir. ~!ealds' request that merchants wishes be considered in establishing new or changed zoning uses, he felt that the needs of the entire city ~mre the primary concern of the Council and that his o~,m or Mr. Neale's property, or any otl~er,specific property, should be disregarded in efforts to establish uses which would best serve the connnunity without oversaturatin~ any area economically. Dale McIntyre indicated that he felt the 1974-75 time schedule recommended for Prospect Road development should be Changed to a more immediate schedule and also asked that area resfdents be given opportunity to present suggestions for alte~ate plans prior to approval of any improverecur to six lames. The Director of Public Works observed that the City of San Jose and the County of Santa Clara also had Jurisdiction on portions of Prospect Road and Mr. l~ff noted that the project would also be an urban extension project eligible for F.A.S. funds and that any suggestions to speed up the project would be ~elcomed. The Plannin~ Director advised Councilman Robbins that the traffic count he had requested had been provided and was available for study. No one else responded to the Mayor's invitation to speak so, with no objection, at 10:30 P. !I., public hearing was declared continued to 8:00 P. M. at the May 1 regular meeting. -8- SUM3{ARY OF COUNCIL MI}RITES - April 17, 1968 VII AD~INISTRATIVE ~{ATTERS A, MAYOR Mayor Pro Tern Hartman announced that it was his pleasure to present R. Metcalf Admiral Ralph Metcalf for appointment to the unexpired term of Appointment Plm~ning Commissioner TicFall. It was moved by Councilman Robbins, to Planning seconded by Councilman Smith, and unanimously carried to appoint Conmission 'Admiral ~letcalf to the term vacated by E. A. ~cFall. The ~!ayor Pro Tem administered the oath of office to Admiral r~etcalf and introduced him to those present, FINANCE Bills (1) It was moved by Councilman Robbins, seconded by Councilman Tyler and carried unanimously to approve the list of disbursements dated April 17, 1968 and authorize that warranted be drawn in payment for a total amount of $23,572.01. Finance (2) The Treasurer's report and City Clerk's financial report for Reports the month of March 1968 ~re received with no conment or questions. C0 COUNCIL C~ilTTEE AND REPOP~S (1) Councilman Robbins reported~ on behalf of retired Chairman of the Management Committee Ralph Burry, that the Committee's Police study of police protection indicated that the current level Protection of protection was adequate to maintain the current favorable Study relationship between Sarato~a's crime rate and the crime rate of adjacent cities but that analysis of crime activity revealed that crime in Saratoga was increasing as it is in the entire nation. Therefore~ ~he Co~T!~.~tde felt that this trend should be met with a hi~her level of POliCe protection and that the emphasis of this protection should be placed not on traffic patrol but on crime control. It was the Comuittee recomaenda- tio~ that the city contract for one additional deputy sheriff to be assigned to criminal investi~atipn and suppression in the city~ effective July 1~ 1968. Additionally, ie was reported that the Sheriff's office had indicated that an increase in the contract cost for the 1968-69 year of 23¢ per patrol car hour would be charged. The total annual cost of the 164 hours per week (including the 40 additional hours recommended by the Cormnittee) at the increased ccntract cost would amount to $101,738. Councilman Smith asked whether the additional 8 hours of patrol service per day could be broken up into periods of lesser hours for the most effective coverage during peak crime burs. Councilman Robbins indicated that although the matter of peak crim~ burs had been discussed, the point raised by Councilman Smith had no~ nor had the question of attempting to enlist the services of one man to be assigned exclusively to Saratoga, Councilman Tyler asked whether or not a man assigned to Saratoga would be subject to call from other areas during his shift and Councilman Robbins and Mr. Huff stated that it was their understanding that Do~ice officers are subject to call from ~ny nearby areas should the need arise. Councilman Tyler observed that it was his thought that if Sarato~a's crime rate dropped~ as would be anttclpated~ by virtue of the increased patrol car service, then other areas whose protection had not been increased might be benefitlng by the availability of the additional Saratoga patrol. Councilman Robbins stated that none of the discussions had demonstrated the feasibility of the City establishin~ its police department and that details of the recommended additional service should be studied further. With no objection, ~layor -9- SUMMARY OF COUNCIL MINUTES - April 17, 1968 Pro Tom Hartman stated that he would refer the matter to the Public Welfare Comnittee for further study and clarification of specific items and report back to the Council. Council (2) Mayor Pro Tem Hartman submitted a list of Con~atttees suRgested Committee for appointment by Mayor Glennon. After discussion and with Appointments Council approval, the following CommitteEs were established: Management - Robbins, Chairman; Smith~ ~{ember; Planning - Hartman, Chairman; Tyler, ~mber; Public I~lfare - Smith, Chairman; Rgbbins, ~mber; Policy- Tyle*, Chairman; Hartman, ~mber. I.C.C. Glennon exoficio; Robbing alten~ate. ABAG Representative - Smith, Alternate Tyler. Transportation Policy Conunittee Tyler, alternate Smith; Sanitation District 4 - Glennon (exofficio) liarman, alternate. D. DEPARTMEI~ liEADS AND OFFICERS Tr. 4246 (1) Upon the recommendation of the Director Of Public lbrks, it was Construction moved by Councilman Robbing, seconded by Councilman Smith, and Acceptance carried unanimously to accept the improvements in Tract 4246 for construction only, With the one year maintenance period to begin immediately. (2) The Planning Director gave a progress ranoft of the Scenic Hig~.;ay application for Saratoga-Los Gatos Road and stated that Scenic the Scenic Highway Commission now asks that the General Plan Highway either be adopted in total, including the designation of the Designation scenic highway or that that portion of the Plan be adopted. He reported that they would meet April 22 and wished to consider the Joint application at that time. The City Attorney advised that portions of the General Plan could not be adopted until the public hearings had been concluded and, after discussion, the Planning Director was directed to advise the [{ighway Conmission of this and to reaffirm the Council's earlier minute resolution stattn~ its intent to designate the road as a scenic highway. E. CITY ADI. IINISTRATOR (1) }(r. I!uff reported that he had received a request from Tun~y Lanyon to extend the deadline for C.A.T.V. applications.for C.A.T.V. 60 days beyond the April 26 date advertised. Mr. Lanyon sooke Application in behalf of this request and indicated that he had been unable deadline to complete engineering feasibility studies for undergrounding extension C.A.T.V. facilities in the relatively short time advertised. He stated that his chief engineer had been recalled to the service and that was the primary reason he had been delayed but that he thought the time was insufficient in any event. Mr. Huff suggested that a delay until the next Council meeting would enable him to contact the other firms re~arding their reaction to an extension. It was moved by Councilman Robbins, seconded by Councilman Tyler, to extend the time limit for C.A.T.V. applications for 30 days beyond the April 26 deadline and directed the staff to so notify all prospective bidders, Motion carried with Councilman Smith abstaining as he had no opportunity to become familiar with this item of discussion, (2) The City Administrator reported that moving the larger Magnolia trees on Prospect would cost $920, instead of the originally Magnolia estimated $500. and that this cost was based on the city's Trees - providing barricades for the work. The contractor, it was Prospect reported, ind~a~ed that if, after moving om or two, the project Road did not seem feasible~e Y.;ould not attempt to move the rest of the trees. ~. Oskar Thurnher stated that conversations he had had with a school official indicated that the district was in favor of saving the trees but that the Board would have to act on the -10- SU~IARY OF COUNCIL MINUTES - April 17, 1968 revised estimate at its meeting a fe~.y days from now. It was moved by Councilman Robbinss seconded by Councilman Smith, and carried unanimeusly to attempt to negotiate an agreement ~.:ith the shcool district ~.:hereby the city shares the cost of movtn~ up to 6 ma~noi~.a trees at a cost not to exceed $2300, with the understanding that if the contractor determines that the move would not be successful, the money be refunded to the city. Parks & (3) ~..vith no objection, a letter from the City Attorney relative to Recreation the creation of a parks and recreation commission was referred Commission to the Policy Cor~mittee, (4) Mr. Huff called attention to copies efa memorandum to the City Recreation Attorney and his reply relative to recreation service areas Service within the city and the problems resulting from a district Areas that does not serve the entire city, Several methods of handling the problem ~ere suggested in the City Attorney~s reply. The matter was referred to the Policy Conmittee for further study. (5) The City Adminis~:rator requested avthorization to execute ~n agreement; with E.O.C. for the em_~loymcn'7: of Nell;on Amendment E.O.C. trainees and explained that the present contract expires April Nelson 30 and that the program has proven successful during the past Amendment year, }~r. !!uff outlined the scope of the work involved, the Agreement time required of the permanent staff, pay arrangements with the E,O.C., insurance, etc, Mayor Pro Tem Hartman recalled that it was the understanding of the Covncil that regular progress reports would be furnished them regarding this program and that they had not been provided on a regular basis. ~{r, ltuff stated that a report had just been filed and that it would be transmitted to the Council. It was moved by Councilman Tyler seconded by Co~uncilman Smith, and carried unanimously to authorize extension of the contract for the use of Nelson Amendment trainees, under the E.O.C. until April 30, 1969. VII CO~INICATIONS A. I~ITTEN (1) Hr, William L. ~lickel, ~1~naging Director for the Santa Clara Councy Safety Council, requested an allocation of $630. to that S.C.County organization from the City of Saratoga. This amount, he Safety indicated, ~as based on actual costs of services provided in Council the city during the past year and was less than the per capita Fund basis upon the Safety Council receives funds form other agencies. Request Mr. Nickel outlined the function of the Safety Council through- out the County and listed a number of services furnished in cooperation with Saratoga schools. With no objection, Mr. Mickel~s request was referred to the ~lanagement Committee for study and report back to the Council at the next meeting.' }~r. Huff indicated that he would ask ~-lr. Nickel to furnish the committee with a financial statement and additional data on the Safety Council's activities. Hvy. Connission (2) A letter was acknowledged from the California High~ay Conmission Park policy relative to park policy and high~ay project design, A.B.A.C. (3) A letter from the City of San Anselmo relative to the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors position re the Association of Bay Area Governments and a letter from City of San Anselmo urging opposition to the San Francisco Commuter tax ~ere noted with no comment. -11- St~RY OF COUNCIL MI~F~TES - April 17, 1968 A.C.A.30 (4) No action was taken regardin~ a letter, dated April 10, 1968 from the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors relative to Assembly Constitution Amendment No. 30, pertainin~ to local government. Rotary Club (5) A letter from Stanley M. Walker, General Chai~nan of the Art Show Saratoga Rotary Club llth annual arts and crafts festival was received, advising that the festival was scheduled to be hold in the Village Shopping Center on Sunday, rl~ay 5, 1968 and inviting all to attend. (6) The Council considered a request from Jens IIundseid for final SDR-745 bbilding site approval for one lot, to be granted simultaneously }Iunseid with tentative site approval by the Council. Mr. 1.7alker BSA Request explai~ed that normally the Planning Commission acts on a tentative nmp But that, due to the timing of ~Ir. }~undseid's coDtemplated travel schedule, he had asked the Council to perform this function as well as gxant final approval. Site approval for the lot in question was once granted and expired' in October, 1967, he added. Hr. Hnndseid spoke in behalf of his reqnest and was advised by the City Attorney that the. Council was prevented, by the provisions of its own subdivision ordinance, from acting in the capacity of the Planning Commission. On this basis, T'Iayor Pro Tern Hartman directed ~-r. !lundseid to apply to the Piannin% Commission for tentative site approval prior to requesting final approval from the Council. B. OIAL ~layor Pro Tern Hsrtman, once more welcomed Councilman Smith to the Council, .'~c:cno~le. dged, with pleasure, ths presence of Planning Commissioner Crisp and ne~.yly appointed Co~Fmissioner M~.tcalf and expressed appreciation to firs, Ruth 0won for sezving coffee on behalf of the Good Government Group, VIII ADJOURnS.lENT It was moved by Cottncilman Robbins, seconded by Councilman Tyler~ and carried unanimously to adjourn the meeting at 11:55 P, ~!, Respectfully submitte~, J. R. ~UFF CITY CLERK