Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-05-1973 City Council Minutes MINUTES SARATOGA iCITY COUNCIL TIME: Wednesday, September 5, 1973--.7:3Q P.M. · - PLACE: Saratoga City Council Chambers, 13777~ Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, Calif.' TYPE: · Regular Meeting I. ,ORGANIZATION A. ROLL CALL Present: Councilmen Smith, Dwyer, Bridges, Diridon and Kraus Absent: None B. MINUTES Correction:. Page,3, Paragraph.l, Item III-B (Mille~ Avenue Stop Signs at Melinda Circle and Somerville Drive) - Eliminate the word "period ically""and indicat~ that installation of step signs be delayed until traffic surveys have been complete~.- - It was moved by Councilman Bridges and seconded by Councilman bwyer that the mxnutes of August 15, 1973 be approved as amended. The motion was carried. II. BIDS AND CONTRACTS A. BAY ~LURRY SEAL COMPANY -.-SEAL COATING AND OVERLAYING OF CERTAIN CITY STREETS It was moved by Councilman Dwyer and seconded by Councilman Dfridon that the work on this project be accepted a'nd the Notice of Completion filed. The B. AUTHORIZATION TOGO TO BID FOR PARKS DEPARTMENT ONE-TON DUMP TRUCK It was moved by Cohncilman Dwyer and seconded by Councilman Diridon that the staff be authorized to advertise for bids. The motion was carried. III.' PETITIONS, ORDINANCES AND FORMAL RESOtUTIONS A. RESOLUTION NO. 674 - Resolution AuthoEizing Acquisition.of Addition to Azule Park It was moved by Counc~Iman Bridges and seconded by Councilman Diridon that ResOlution No. 674 b~Tadopted. The motion was carried. B. RESOLUTION MV-7j -~Est~b.lishing "No P~rki~g" on Portions of Fourth Street It was moved by Councilman.Kraus and seconded by Councilman Dwyer that Resolution MV-73 be adopted.'. The motion was carried. ,,L C. RESOLUTION MV-74 - Prohibiting Left Turns and "U" Turns at Specified Locations ~ on Saratoga Avenue The City Manager requested this matter% be coot inued to the next regular meeting. by the Council. .D. RESOLUTION NO. 675 - Authorizing Condemnation of Storm Drain Easement It was moved by Councilman Bridges andsseconded by Councilman Diridon that Resolution No. 6~ be adopted~. The motion was carried. E. ORDINANCE NS-3-ZC-72 Ordinance Amending Ordinance NS-3, th~ Zoning Ordinance, ·by Amending the Zoning Map - Osterlund Enterprises. It was moved by Councilman Dwyer and seconded by Councilman Kraus that.Ordinance NS-~-ZC-72, changing.the zoning on the southern 4.35-acre portion of the pro- posed development on Allendale and Fruitvale A~enue from R-i-40,000 to R-i-20,000, be ~dopted. The motion was carried.- IV. SUBDIVISIONS, BUILDING SITES AND ZONING REQUESTS A. SDRi1034 JOHN ~IRKPATR!C~, PiKE ROAN (Co~t'd. from 6/20, 8/1, 8/7 &'8/15/73) The City M~nager reviewed the questions which had been presented at the previous meeting concerning this ~atter;thos~ being: 1) What would be the ant.icipated cost Cfor.'cons~ructing ~the r~tai~i~g wall if constructed? 2) What portion of the.property 'would be lost. through the desig- · nation of this retaining wall~. 3) Whether'or n'ot the staff has 'any additional recommendation's,in terms of alternatives. He further stated the estim~eed cost ~for improving Pike Road as per,the con- ditions which are being appealed, II-~, H, and K, is approximately $16,500, and this cost is based on 'the assumption that a retaining wall would be used to preserve the maximum 'lot~ area.~ He indicated that this cost could be reduced approximately $6,200 by .use o~f extensive fill' in lieu of the retaining wall. He explained that the existing. property area is 26,000 square feet, and the present net area, excluding the existing Pike Road improvement is 23,000 square feet. 'The useable!area, by utilizing the retaining wall would be 18,000 square feet; however, if no retaining~ wall is used the net area would be re- duced to 13,200 square feet. The City Manager commented that~.he felt there was the issue of existing policy concerning Pike Road, and these conditions have been .imposed on the basis of that polieyo He further commented that'if these improvements are not required as a part of this SDR, it could be ~Ssumed that the City would be required to make these improvements ~t some futur~ time. However, he indicated there are a number of alterna[ives which could be considered if the Council wanted to modify the exis'ting policy. : Mr. John Kirkpatrick, the owner' of this property, indicated that it is his understanding that this is a legal no~-conf~rming lot, and the problem which is now confronting him is that he finds it necessary to sell the lot. He indicated there is a problem in selling the lot,in that the value of the lot is not nearly as great on the market as the cost of.this work. Mr, Kirkpatrick stated that he would be willing to accept 'an equitable share of the'expense for the improvement of Pike Road, even though he could no[ use it. This, he slated, would be to the 'extent of $3,000 to. $4,000; however, ~e felt'an amount such as. $16,000 was ridiculous. Mr. Kirkp~trick%indicated he would have only one other recourse, and that would be to abandonsthe lot ~;' Mr. Kirkpatrick commented that he didn't know why the widening of Pike Road had to come off.on his side, and' he ,fe~t i~ w6uld be almost ~s difficult to build a barricade as it would be to dig into the cliff on the other side. A third concern of Mr. Kirkpatrick was tha~' he didn't know how the road could be widened without destroying ~he oakstrees. He further commented that at the time he purchased.this lot it was his under- standing that any improvement would b~ pro-rated amongthe:property owners, regardless 'of the amount of frontage along Pike Road, and it was indicated in the Site ApprOval which he obtained in 1965, which was subject to hook-up sanitary sewers; however the option was to comply with.the conditions as indi- cated in .th'is appro~al'o~participate in the Pike Road improvements. Mr. Stanley Walker, Director of Plan~ing, commented that there approximately ten (10) undeveloped sites on Pike Road which are contemplated for development · ih the near future, and there are approximately teh('10).to fifteen (15) in addition to this. Mayor-Smith was of the feeling that ~t might be beneficial to c6ntinue this matter, allowing forthe staff to re'work.an acceptable formula and, at the same tim~ get the Planning Co~missio~'s input and report this at a future meeting. . The City Manager also felt this might be treated as a special case by the Planning Commission since it is at the intersection and it is not being used by this owner to the extent of some of .the neighbors who have access. Mayor Smith asked Mr. Kirkpatrick if;it would be acceptable to him to refer this to a Committee of the Whole Meeting in!~anaatt~mDt~to~b~d some of the policies which have been establishedion Pike Road. Mr. Kirkpatrick indicated this would meet with his approval. It was, therefore, the suggestion of Mayor Smith, with the concurrence ofthe Council, that thi~ matter be scheduled for a Committee'of the Whele Meetingzand re-agendized for~___= ~· ~g~i ~n October. -. ~ · · B. SDR-1053 ANATOL ROMANOF~ FOOTHILh LANE It was moved ~y Councilman Kraus andlseconded by Councilman Diridon that Resolution SDR-1053-1, granting Conditional Building Site Approval, be adopted. The motion was carried. C. SDR-1065 GEORGE KOCHER &.SAMUEL TYLER, BIG BASIN WAY & FIFTH STREET The City Manager explained that this is a request for reconsideration of conditions~or'~_~dfngFSite Approval, specifically condition II-I.(1.) .~hich requires that a storm sewer be installed on Big Basin Way to connect with the existing storm drain on Fourth ~treet and Big Basin Way, and that the owner provide all the off-site improvement. Mr. Samuel Tyler indicated that what:they are faced with here is the con- dition to install a twenty-four-inch~pipe sufficient to drain the area on Big.Basin Way from Fourth Street to Sixth Street~ as well as the entire length of Fifth Street., and it was his feeling the City should participate in the cost of this improvement since ~it~j~_'7~s_~__r~.ye~.~aT~j~g Rb 5 ert Shook, Director of Public Wor~s, p6inted outsthat when reimbursement fdr~this~improvement is discussed, xt should be noted that the owner would be reimbursed for the-total pipe connection and not only that portion which is considered to 'be off-site. Following ~a disc&ssion by the Councii and the staff, it was.moved by Councilman Smith and seconded by Councilman Dir{don that this matter be continued to the next regular City Council Meeting. D. SDR-764 SARATOGA FOOTHILLS DEVELOPMENT CORP., SARATOGA AVE. AT LA PALOMA It was moved by Councilman Kraus and .seconded by Councilman Diridon that Final Construction AcceptanCe be granted and the release of improvement bond be authorize~.- 'The motion was carried. E. TRACT NO: 5161 RODERICK KOBARA & JOSEPH BATTAGLIA, CHESTER AVENUE It was moved .by Councilman Kraus andiseconded by Councilman Bridges that the' Council authorize acceptance of improvements for construction. The motion was carried. F. SDR-988 W. LOCKWOOD HAIGHT, GATEHOUSE CONDOMINIUMS Mr. Walker, Director of Planning, explained that the landscaping for this condominium is around the perimeter 6n Springer and alvery'narrow~portion along Fourth Street. He explained that the original deveioper didn't put in the landscaping required, but the new owner had agreed to do this. The City Manager indicated theepathway easement is iocate~ going downstream 'toward Fourth Street and comes through the gates and on the left side of the utility box, which on the inside of the fence which borders along the creek; therefore, if this is deyeloped it would have the ~and~capiBg requirement. The question arose as to 'whose responsibility it wquld be to maintain this pathway easement. MayOr. S~ith indicated a'discUssi'on o~ the whole-issue of trails and pathways would be forthc0~ing at the 'September 25th Committee of the Whole Meeting and felt this matter should be continued unti'l after that discussion. It wa~, ehe~fo~e,' ag~d to re-a~endize~t~i~ item for the first regularly-scheduled~City Counqil Meeting'in october.~ v. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. LYNGSO GARDEN MATERIALS, INC. (Infor~ational.fHearing - Cont'd. from 8/15/73) The Mayor opened the public hearing at 8:29 P.M. He indicated there have been a number. of ,rit~en communications received on thip matter. He explained that one of the reasons the Council had agreed to delay this matter was to take into further consideration the testimony from the Lyngso interest. He then asked if there was someone in the audience to represent Mr. Lyngso. 'Mr. Richard Gardella, attorney,f~r M~. Lyngso, asked if f~rther complaints from the neighbors present in the audienc~ should first be received ~nd he could re- spond to these complaints. Mayor Smi'th advised Mr. Cardella, however, that the reason this matter was continued to this evening was so Mr. Lyngso's counsel would have an opportunity to give tes!timony. Mr. Gardella proceeded with his testimony and advised that Mr.'Lyngso had re- tained the services of a sound consultant and had asked them to prepare material of these studies for presentation. Mr. Edward Pack of Edward L. Pack Associates, Inc., 2940 Scott Boulevard, · Santa Clara, indicated.that in an effort to determine the acoustical environ- ment of Mr. Lyngso's facility, his fi~m had conducted continuous sound re- cordings at selected points aloDg the residentialiproperty line to the west of the Lyngso yard. He indicated the measuring microphone was installed between the rear of the material bins and the'six-foot high redwood fence so the micro- phone was within approximately fifteeh (15)feet of the Tatar property, and .within approximately four (4) feet of!the Lyngs~property. Mr. Pack indicated at Location 1, thehighes~ level of s~und reported was at 55 db, and this was during late afternoon, between_3~00'~a~ 5:30 P~,M. Mayor Smith inquired if there was any. loading or unloading activity which took · pla~e in the yard utilizing the largerdouble-type vehicle. Mr. Pack replied that this did not occur during the time the survey was being conducted. To .corrulate the' information Mr. PackShad gathered with the Saratoga Noise Ordinance, he indicated ~hat the Ordinance states that "at no time shields.the outdoor ambient level exceed 45 db"~hgwever, for a commercial activity one can -4 - exceed 45 db. by 8'db, so one wouldI be allowed the total of 53 db at the property line. He thereYore concl~uded this would amount to approximately · 2 db excess; however, he indicated no accounting is made f~r the instrumen- tation inaccuracy. Mayor Smith asked Mr. Pack what d'~te these sound readings had been con- ducted. Mr. Pack replied, "August i16". Mayor Smithinquired what the highest singl~ incidence reported. Mr. Pack replied this was with the ~nloadi~g of two-inch diameter rock and this came up to 87 db. .Mr. Pack stated that% because of this type of activity~ it would be one. of his recommendations tO e!limfnate all the material bin~ along the residential.property~and to includ'e an acoustical barrier along the property line. Mr. Pack advised that a second measurement was taken about fifty feet of the P.G.&E. right-of-way along thel residential property line. He indicated during'this second reading, the train passed by, and for about 45 seconds durat'iOn, and this.was measured atI 65 db. Mr. Pack indicated that this was taken around 5:00 P.M., and shortly after 5:00, there was a 2% decrease in the readingJdue to the' decreased amount of traffic at this time. He stated [hat the re~ing taken out of the P.G.&E. right-of-way, and this location was somewhat noisier and measured apprbximately a 4% increase, or 60 db. He felt that this cur~e resulted almost entirely from Saratoga Avenue traffic, however. ' ~ He related.to the council the tests of the two loader units within the yard, and stated the Noise O~dinance makes a~_p.~_o~li~ibn whereby equipment measured at a 25-foot aistance would be lair6wed ·jp'~C~o70 db, and these units were measured at 64 db and 7~d~f Councilman"KraUs '~0mmeh~ed that he'~elt the readings were made relatively late in the d.ay..and.wondered if th%s was a representative time. Mr. Pack replied that the measu~ments'were{made-~t' his..~eonVenience and felt there was no real kgn'~icance in the'time.~-) Mac. Gardella stated that when he a~peared before the Council in June, he heard a number of objecti6ns expressed, and it was his feeling Mr. Lyngs? has demonstrated a real effort to ~esolvethese problems. He indicated that the use Of tillo has ceased on this property, sprinklers have been installed and oiling has taken p%aCe to bring the.~dust problem under con- trol. Mr. Gardella indicated they have o~Iy'had one meeting with M~. Tatar,. and at that time, he had advised that co~6~p~m~Se was not "in the book" and he would only be satisfied with ,the co"~pi~t~'elimination of this business. ', M~. Gardella stated Mr. Lyngso would continue to make'these improvements. and consider the recommendations of the noise consultant. Mr. Cardella stated 'that he is not~entirely sure of what the zoning is for this property, but he is acceptingi for the time being, the opinion of the City A~torney that xt was rezoned as ~j~tqr~Commercial. In his observations of the Zoning Ordinance'~ M~. Gardeila inai~ated he had come to ~he conclusion tha~"~a?d~nfo'V~i~g? use in a commercial neighborhood there is no eliminatiod provision. He stated Chat as he reads the Zoning Ordinance, he finds the interpretation of."non-c6nforming use", and it states that a non- conforming use in a Commercial neighborhood has no factor for elimination, except if the assessed ~alue of~ all the structures on the property is under $500. Mr.'Gardella indicated it iS obvious that this is not the case in hhis situation, and one. would have to look at the tax roles to see that this is true. Mr. Gardella stated it was not his desire to get into a legal confrontation with the City because he felt the'neighbors, as well as the City, would lose because of the loose interpretatiqn of the Ordinance. He therefore asked that the Council help to keep the'channels of communi.cation open and allow them to keep working on this. M~yor Smith asked if there were additional comments from the'audience. One citizen, Mr. Boris, stated he!felt this location was very ~onvenient for purchasing garden needs and felt it would be unfortunate if Saratogans would.have to drive to sur~qunding communities to purchase these needs. Mr. Donald Sifferman, 12400~m__ee~do'~wLane, indicated he was speaking on behalf of the homeowners present this evening. Mr. Sifferman stated a repre- sentative of the homeowners has b~en present at the past five City Council meetings. t° teseify on'this matte~, and in these presentations they fully described the true nature of the Lyng~o operation, the incompatibility of that operation with the city at large in a residential neighborhood, and also, the many violations of laws'!in the City. Mr. Sifferman indicated the legal ~situ~tion has been clearly stated by City Attorney Mr. JOhnston in his %letter of July 16, 1973. In this letter he states'the Lyngso operation has] been~a non-conforming use in a Visitor- Commercial district since 1968 andj can be closed out after the thr~e-year amOrt-~ation period, or in 1971.' He stated that since 1971, there has been no legal basis for the continued existance of this'o~eration in Saratoga. Mr.' Sifferman continued bystating that at the City Council Meeting of August 1, 1973, Mayor Smith had indicated he felt the City should consider two alternatives to solve thi~ pro~blem: ~1) Direct the City Attorney. to take action on a non.conforming use; 2)State its intention to persue the non- conforming use and ~uthorize the City Attorney to initiate a phase-out period ~s with the Cox Garage.-~ He stated. that using the Cox'Garage as a point of comparison, Lyngso should be closed immediately. He commented that the Lyngso operation is-an eyesore and heavy industrial operation has no place in this ~ity, eapecial. ly at one of the principal entrances. He felt that if the City should grant.a phas~-o'ut period, a brief period would seem appropriate because of the gros's i%ncompatibility of the operation with the residential nature of the cityDand~ because of the many violations of the' city's laws, over and above the no~-conforming use. Mr. Sifferman stated that the Saratoga Manor Homeowne~sf Association would strongly urge the Council to terminate the operation~ and to revert the property to R-i zoning in conformance with the General Plan. Mr. Sifferman indicated that noise readings have been previously documented on this property which conflicts with that testimony made this evening. He then presented for the Council's listening.tapes which had been made by Mrs. Tatar in her back yard on Saturday,'August 25th. Mr. Sifferman further commented that for .any length of time that~Mr. Lyngso remains on this property, hewill be in violation of the Zoning Ordinance, as thi~ requires. a thirty-foo~t setback .on.the property line, a condition which Mr. Lyngs~o~has fail!ed to'~Fl.y wi~h.~! Mr. Sifferman commented that while Mr. L~ngso's efforts to eliminat~ the dust problem have!.been commendabie,~ t~ey'have not 'eliminated the dust as required in the Zoning~ Ordinance. !Another conc&rn i~ the large amount of black oil that is being t~acked onto the residential streets. Mr. Sifferman indicated he has ~on~ an anylysis.on t~e volume of business in this operation o~er the past three ~ears, it was found the business had increased approximately $42,000 each year. This would conflict with that information presented at the previous City Council Meeting by Mr. Higham. - 6 - With regard to traffic! sa~fet~ Mr.' SifferMan commeneed that the heavy trucks continue to us~the M~no~ DriVe access. He Etated in-1966 Mr. Lyngso had agreed in writing that all large trucks would use only direct access to Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, and the Manor Drive access would be used only by automobiles and t~ucks. Mr. Si£ferman commented on zoning: ~e stated the proper~y is and always has been R-1 on the General Plan. In 1962, Lyngso had requested a Commercial Service zoningland thi~'was denied. Later they were granted a conditional Commercial Service zoning, one of these conditions b~ing that the only commercial use to which the property would be put was for a nursery and garde9 supply stor~. !Th~ property was rezoned Visitor-Commercial 'in 1968 as part of the'general reZoning; however, the ordinance which changed the zoning said nothing about theDconditions of use, and this zoning still stands. T~erefore, when the Lyngso operation ceases, no commercial operation is allowed and the property reverts to R~i zoning. Mayor Smith asked the City Manage~ if he had done'~rese~rch to obtain records of building permits for this Operation. The City Manager replied that there have been four permits isshed in 6he past ten yearS, one of these being a building permit, issued in August:1967 for a new wall in the office and plan room, Mr. lBas.anes~,, 19313 Athos',~ ~e~re~enting the Good Government Group of Saratoga, indicated at their last!board meeting, considerable time'Was spent discussing the Lypgso matter. He then proceeded to read a letter drafted by Col. Mayfield, Pr~sideqt of the Good Government Group. This letter is included under WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS. There being no additio'n~l Comment .from the audience, it was moved by Councilman Bridges and seconded by Councilman Diridon that the public hearing be closed. The motion was carried. Public hearing closed at 9:30 P.M. It was the general2feelingof thelCouncil that'a phase-out period should be ~eggtia~d, primarily due to the fact that this is a non-conforming use. It was, therefore., moved by Councilman Smith and seconded by Councilman Brid~es that the Council direct the City Attorney and the City Staff to proceed to abate this pre~exi~tin~ non-conforming use and that this action be stayed for .a period of sixty (60) days to allow the staff to meet with Mr~ Lyngso and the homeowners and Znegotiate a reasonable phase-out period. The City Attorney interjected that on the 61st day if no action is taken, he would file a suit for injunction. The motion was carried. ~RESOEUTION. 6~i -SANITARY SEWERAGE PROJECT 1973-2 (Cont'd. from 8/15/73) Mayor Smith reported the result of the latest Sanitation District 4. He stated that those people,who had p.resented testimony at the previous City Council Meeting had artended the District 4 Meeting, and he was given an indication of the irregula'rities aslpoidtedcout by these residents. He stated that one of these specific areas was the informal procedure, whereby the Sanitation District attempts to bu{ld up its record to see if there is appropriate interest. in a project.! He indicated there was a petition cir- culated which reflected 33% in favor of such project and also a post-card surveysWas 'conducted, and this suryey was conducted by one of the. proponents of'the project, raising the idea that one side is regulating the preference indicator. He explained that the iBoard went on record of approving the engineering survey. He indicated that a new post-card survey has been undergone; however,' the results of that survey have not yet been received. :-7- The Mayor explained that this is an information hearing, which is to talk. in terms of the pract-icabp~oblem~ and not those r~lated to the merits of the project. Councilman~Dwyer inquired if-the ~ew post-card survey is being conducted ~mong~.p~operty ownersq'and,.tolthei~ satisfacti0n.l.Mr. Steve Goodman, repre- senting Sanitation District No. 4 indicated that the survey was being con- ducted to include al. 1 those property owners who'would be assessed b~ such a project. Mayor Smith asked Mr. GOodman if h~e had the results of this second survey. Mr. Goodman replied that it is ima.ture in that the District has tp allow the property owners ample time to 'receive the post-cards and return ~hem, the normal time period being ten days to two weeks Mr. Goodman Stated that auth0rizat~ion for construction of the project is to be Closed out by September 7th,~ and he stated it would be his intent to present to the Board on the 13th, not only the results of the post-card survey, but also, the iR~i'u~on~f"%~tion to proceed. This resolution would start the as ~"~'~%'~[ich entail advertising for bids Bessmerit ro d.. and setting of the public hearing,]which has to be' thirty (30) days after the meeting.. He explained, however, that the Board could not adopt the Resolution of Intenfion until Such time as~t~is City adopts the Resolution Approving Form of Resolution of Intention, so!thel District really doesn't know if they have a project until the Board adopts the Resolution of Intention. Mr. Goodman indicated, however., that the Council could delay its consideration beyond .the time of the result of the po~t-card survey, and the Board could then push ahead its whole proceedings.for at~ f~ast a month. Mayor Smith commented t~at this would allow the Council to move this matter up two weeks for the next agenda, at ~hich time the results of the survey would be known. Mr. Robert Davis, repres~nting.E. Dyer,-owner of a portion of the property included in this project, stated t~at he would.urge the Council to give con~ sideration to delaying this matterI until the results of the survey are'.knOwn. He further commented that .the proposed boundaries of the project appear to have been changed as he noted that~two propertie~ formerly shown as being included under the pr. oject are notI now shown. Mr. Goodman pointed out that the p~st cards were sent out to all property. owners proposed to be assessed, plus the two that were in the original prl~- ject, and based on the heed for adoption of this resolution by the City of Saratoga, they have given approximate boundaries for these preliminary sur- veys and will later reduce this area down to the actual area which is' usable, based on a detailed survey. Heexblained that the elimination of the' two parcels was due to the fact that 1~ ~ lower than the elevation of the sewer which would require pumping;Z2) the other was because of a rock change in the sewer line. Analysis showeH that the amount of sewer line"wh~ch would have to be put in would exceed the amount of assessment. Edgar M. Hoover, member of the Board of the Saratoga H~ights Mutual Water~ Co., indicated he Would like to~read aloud a communication to the Mayor an~ the Council, requesting that the responsible legislative authority, pursuant to the municipal improvement factor, ~how in the Resolution of Intent'ioR that private utility damages be include~ in the assessment and that the report. contain their estimate of damage in the amount of $5,000. Mr. George Rush, property owner inTthe proposed project, requested that this matter not be agendized for the n~xt regular City Council Meeting and suggested that after official written communication has been received by City Hall re~ garding the outcome of the post-¢a~ survey, followed by proper newsp.aper notice, Resolution No. 671 should be heard. He commented.that t~e question- able procedures followed by Sanitation District No. 4 are enough reason to turn down the resolution; hoWeverl he stated he would like to present some new facts whi'ch have come to light within the past few days: Mr. Rush indi- cated the Sanitation District had~sent out a letter during the past week, dated August 27, 1973,. which completely mislead the property owners, and the information in the letter is not factual or true, and additionally, it mis- informed the property owners of their legal rights in this matter. Mr. Rush read the first paragraph of the letteL which stated, "Upon the apparent interest of the majority of the property owners in the proposed Bohlman and Norton Road area, outlined on the Attached maB for installation Of sanitary sewers, CoUnty Sanitation District commence preparation for the construction." Mr. RuSh indicated t~i["~n'~a"~f%~_as' there interest shown because, in spite' of the irregularitiei~'Ht"~tim~ of the voting deadline the interest was negative'. . . a vote of 56% "no" and 42%" es" y · ~. Rush stated that the second p~ragraph in the'letter indicated that "it had been requested by some of the,property owners in the project area that the Sanitation District conduct a~ informal new survey to determine the present interest of the property owners in the area." He stated that this also is incorrect, as there is not.hing in the record which shows that some of the property o~ers requested ~n informal survey, but rather, the property o~ers demanded that all proceedings should stop immediately and an ~vesti- gation should start concerning thd irregularity of the votes. Mr. Rush further commented that the letter of the 27th informs the property owners that the post-card survey is only an "informal survey", and the only oral protest must take place at th~ time the property owners appear at the -open public hearing. However, thi~ oral protest does not count, because according to a section of the City~ Code, it states that fiat any time during the hour set for heari'ng, any owner may present w~itte~?protest, and no other protests will be considered"i Mayor Smith pointed out to Mr. Rush that i~ is the Board's custom to recognize all protests. Following additional comments by the Council, Mr. Rush, and ~. Goodman, it was moved by Councilman Diridonland seconded by Councilman D~er that the hearing be continued until a~ter the designated communication from Sanitation District No. 4 has been received, and that this matter be re-agendized for the September 19th City Council Me~ting. The motion was carried. ~YOR 1. R.O.A.R. Program -,-Scheduled fqr'Co~mittee' of the' ~ole M~eting on ;~ept~mber 25, 1973. 2. Acoustics in Council Chambers - NeW'miCr6phones have been ordered- with better ~oundquality. 3. ~nounced I.C.d.' Meetin~ ~n Se~t~mber'6th; vot. ing prScedure t6 be discussed. 4. "Public Information" packet to ]be available for public review. 5. Received a letter ~rom Phylis Butler, Chairman of the Santa Clara County Historical H~ritage society announcing meeting planned in the near future and indicating they would like to have.imput from the entire County.' - 9 - B. FINANCE 1;' Payment of Claims - It was moved by Councilman Dwyer and seconded by Counci%lman Diridon'that the list of disburse- ments be ~pproved and the Mayor be authorized to sign the Farrants. C. COUNCIL AND COMMISSION REPORTS 1. Councilman Dirido'n- Information and Referral Service: Organization for Saratoga will be the Saratoga Chamber of · Commerce. 2. Councilman Kraus - Hillside COmmittee: Comments should be directed to ~he Cit~ Manager in Mr. Kraus's absense and he, .in turn, will refer to Councilman Diridon for the next Hillside Subcommittee Meeting. D. DEPARTMENT HEADS AND OFFICERS : ' 1. Public Works Director -Announced resolution received from Santa Clara d6unt~' Floo~ Control'and Water District for t " ' '~consi~eration: Resolution Declaring Policy ' It wa~ moved by Councilman Dwyer and seconded by Councilman Kraus that the Council support the concepts of this resolution. The motion was c arr ie d. 2. Public Works Director'~ Highway 9 Walkway Project: It was agreed by the Council that if an agreement is not reached 'with ~r. Cermak by the time of the next regular' meeting, the Council would proceed with a resolUtion'of iminent domain. 3. Publi~ Works Director - Announced progress report was made by the Trans~ortat'i~n~:Commission concerning the distr~ct's transit system, and at a meeting on th~ 13th, the City's fixed route system will be reviewed. E. CITY MANAGER 1. Cox Garage Agreement: It was 'indicated that this has expired, and Mr. Cox has requested an extension to the agree- Follo~ipg discussion of this by the Council and members! in the audience, it was moved by Council- man Dwyer and seconded by Councilman Kraus tha~ the City Attorney and Staff be authorized to pro- ceed with the abatement of this operation and to allow a~ grace period to terminate the business and relocat~o The motion was carried. VIIi COMMUNICATIONS · A. WRITTEN 1. Charles H. Smith, 15270 Norton Road, Re: Sanitary Sewerage Project on Norton Road. - City Manager to~respond and advise action taken. 10 - 2. Herbert J. Fenolio, Owner, Park Avenue Pharmacy, 1700 Park Avenue,' San Jose, proposing that the ~ity of Saratoga purchase the existing Water Corporatio~ and combine~ it with the proposed sewer project in the Bohlman and Norton Road area. - City Manager to respond. 3. Ernest T. Barco, Jr., 18873 Dhndee Ave., Re: EqUestrian Trails - This topic will be discussed at a future Committee of the Whole Meeting. 4. Robert D. Whitted, Chairman, =People Centre Commission, requesting financial support from the City of Saratoga from $2,000 to $2,500 for the coming school year. - Referred to staff; this will be discussed at the next regular City CouncilMeeting. 5. Mr~ and Mrs. Joseph Caldwell,~ 15111 Park Drive, inquiring if the property on Lot 50, Tract.3946, in the City of Saratoga, could be purchased and a portion ofthe parcel dedicated to the City. -Referred.to staff; this will be discussed at the next regular meeting. 6. Mary K. Cornwell, 622 Torrington Drive, Sunnyvale, requesting per- mission to come before the Coluncil Re: R.O.~.R. Program. - Scheduled fo~ 'September 25th Committee ~of the Whole. 7. John and Lenore McCracken, Z0512 Manor Drive Re: Lyngso Garden Materials, Inc. - City Manage.r to respond and advise action taken. 8. E. D. KilbOurne, M.D. Re: Proposed Sanitary Sewerage Project on Bohlman and N~rton Roads. - City Manager to respond and. advise action. .9. Harr~ L. Mayfield, President,. The Good Government Group of Saratoga, Re: Lyngso Garden Materials, ~Inc. - City ManAger tO respond and advise action. B. ORAL 1. Mrs. Gordon E. Jensen ~equesting Building Site Approval on 1 lot (SDR-1049) on Quito Road. It Was moved by Councilman Dwyer and seconded by Councilman Kraus that Building Site Approval ~e granted, subjeer to conditions as out- lined in June'25, 1973 Staff.Report and subject to an agreement being reached between the property ~owners and the Flood Control District. The motion .was carried-. VIII. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Councilman Dwyer and ~econded by Councilman Kraus that the meeting be adjourned. The motion was~carried. The meeting was adjourned at 12:10 A.M. .~,~ F,~ 'RoB