Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-20-1974 City Council Minutes MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL TIME: Wednesday, February 20, 1974 - 7:30 ~.Mo PLACE: Saratoga City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, California TYPE: RegUlar Meeting I. ~RGANIZATION A. ROLL CALL Present: (~ounci~men 'S~ith., D~Jer~ Bridges, Diridon and Kraus Absent: None B. MINUTES It was moved by Councilman Dwyer and seconded by Councilman Kraus that the minutes of February 6, 1974, be approved. The motion was carried. II. BIDS AND CONTRACTS A. AGREEMENT WITH LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT FOR DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OF BROOKGLEN MINI-PARKAND SARATOGA-SUNNYVALE ROAD MEDIAN. It was moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded by Councilman Owyer that the Mayor be authorized to execute this contract, subject to review and approval by the City Attorney. The motion was carried. B. PIERCE ROAD SLIDE REPAIR The C~ty Manager indicated there were five bids submitted for this project, ranging, from $7,150 to $9,580. The Engineer's.estimate was for $6,500. It was moved by Councilman D_wyer and seconded by Councilman Bridges that the contract be awarded to P &-Z Co., Inc. for the low bid submitted in the amount of $7,150. The motion was carried. · C. BUCKNALL AVE. STORM DRAIN . Four bids have been submitted for this prgject, ranging from $58,250 to ,$65,613. The Engineer's estimate was $54,000.' It was'moved by Councilman Bridges .and seconded by Councilman Kraus that the contract be awarded to Apez Con.struction for the low bid of $58,2~0. The motion was carried. ~ - IIIo PETITIONS, ORDINANCES, AND FORMAL RESOLUTIONS`~ ' A. ORDINANCE NO. 38.56 d ~f the Saratoga City Ordinance of the City'~ofiLSaraf6ga~A~aen ing Chapter 9 Code2and Providing for Truck Traffic Routes thru the City and Prohibiting Certain Overnight Parking of Certain Commercial Vehicles in Residential Zoning Districts. Mayor Smith explained that the CounCil would like to receive testimony regarding this ordinance this evening, and followingf~j~.~'~;i'~6~n~ could be introduced and set for public, hearing at a future date. The City Manager summarized the con~ents of the ordinance and indicate~ that basically the ordinance establishes truck routes in the City of Saratoga, and these may be used by ~ehicles whose gross weight exceeds three tons. It would also include stopping and,parking of the vehicle, as well as the driving and operating of said vehicle. The gross weight in excess of three tons would mean to include t~e weight of the vehicle itself, unloaded, as well as the loaded weight of the vehicle. It would also include any major component part of the ve~icle combSnation, which when combined would exceed three tons. He indicated that the street proposed f6r the truck route is primarily Saratoga Avenue, from the intersection of State Highway 9 ~nd State Highway 85 to the City Limits ;~~~a_wf~enc4'~ Exp~essw~i_.~ Q~'S~Ave.~ and City LimitS~ate Hf~hway to Saratoga Ave.; State Highway 9 from City Limits at Pierce Road to City Limits at Austin Way. He ~xplained that basically the trucks would be limited to those three ~f) to come into Saratoga and, exit Saratoga; however, there were exceptions in making various types:of deliveries and pickups. He indicated there were different types of destinations described and he elaborated on d d these various types of destinationSpoints. ~I~d~ r~s'~ct~'ion pertaining t~ HUse of Designated Restricted Streets'~ ~hich~Cl{['~'~ control over use of certain designated restricted ~treets for a particular activity for a limited period of time, He indicated there is a section pertaining to "Weighing of Trucks" and a section on "Parking of Certain Commercial Vehicles on ReSidential Streets". Mayor Smith asked for clarification on the section pertaining to parking or leave standing a vehicle upon any street in a residentially zoned area, or abutting any residentially zone'd property, between the hours of 2:00 A.M. and 6:00 A.M. (Section 9-77). The~ City Attorney explained that the City of San Jose does not say "in a residentially zoned area"; they only say "abutting". He explained that "abutting" would mean where the residential zone would stop at the street line. He indicated this doesn't catch some- one parking on an individual's property. and that there is an ordinance which covers this specifically. Mr. John Hoffman of Ravenwood Drive asked if this item is on the agenda as a result of the petition which was submitted approximately two months ago with regard to the Quito-Ravenwood area. Mayor Smith replied that it et is probably a combination of the p ~tion, plus it is something the City Manager has been wanting to do £or some time about commercial vehicles. Mr. Hoffmann asked if consideration was going to be given to off-street parking on residential propertyP ~Mayor Smith indicated it was his feeling Section 9-77 of this ordinance would cover this, in conjunction with the existing ordinance. Mr. Johnston, City Attorney, clar{fied this by stating that the proposed ordinance has nothing to do with anything which isn't under public control. tgowe~ndicated that in Section 3.14 of the Zoning Ordinance there are provxs~ons concerning the parking of vehicles on a persongs property. He further indicated that this does not prohibit a person from owningots vehicle and parking it on his property if he parks it in accord~_nE~Vj~_~it the Zoning Ordinance. He stated that if the Council wanted to do this, it would have to be treated as a zoning ordinance; therefore, it would require public hearings at the Planning COmmission and City Council level, and it would take an entirely different proceeding. Mrs. Barry, a resident in the areg of Quito and M~rshall Lane, commented a neighbor in this area conducts a business of servicing cabs on large trucks, and they use this street ~s a turn around. She asked if there was anything that could be done to remedy this situation. Mayor Smith explained that the ordinance before the Council at this time would not really govern the back and forth activity and would not govern -2- parking of a vehicle off the public thoroughfare. He indicated that if a vehicle was parked not in accordahce with the Zoning Ordinance, the City could take action. He further indicated it might fall within this ordinance if the vehicle were parked off the pavement but on the right-of- way. Mr. Don Gerth, a resident of Saratoga, addressed the Council and stated he was extremely curious if the City~s definition of a "commercial vehicle" was the same as the State's=definition. He indicated that a pick-up truck is considered as a commercial vehicle by the State of California. He asked Cit ' if it is the y s intent to limi~ such vehicles such as Recreational Vehicles, pick-ups, etc. or are they shooting for the situation where an individual parks a semi-truck along the residential street. The City Attorhey indicated that m~st cities prohibit trucks and commercial vehicles, except on truck routes, and he stated this ordinance only relates to trucks with a gross weight of over three tons. However, commercial vehicles that don't weigh three to~s or more are not prohibited at all, except for ~vernight parking in a residential district. Mrs. Walker, a resident of San Mar6os Road, stated she would like to see some type of enforcement concerning truck regulations.. Mayor Smith advised that this evening is the first time the Council has considered the ordinance. Mr. Mark Smith of Ravenwood Drive i~dicated it was his belief that the petition mentioned earlier was submitted in hopes that there might be an ordinance which would restric~t~parking of these large vehicles on private property. The City Attorney explained that approximately three years ago, the City adopted the Zoning Ordinance it pr.esently has, as a comprdmise of the interests of those people who owned trucks, boats, etc.. This ordinance prohibited_~j~parking in the required front and side or rear yards, but permitted the parking if there 'was someplace other than those locations on the property. Mr. Richard Riordan of Fruitvale Ave., complained that on the way to the meeting tonight, he noted a large bulldozer which occupies the house off Quito Road on either Paseo Flores or Paseo Olivos, and he pointed out that it creates aterrific hazard to t~affic navigation. The City Manager advised that he would ask the Ci~yy'~ Co'de]~hforcement Officer to investigate this situation. Mayor Smith then made the motion to introduce Ordinance 38.56 at this time, waiving the reading of same, and seti~th~matter for public hearing at the next regular City Council Meeting. In addition, he suggested two reports be prepared by the staff regarding: 1) distinction.of vehicles and 2) appro- pri&te procedure to address the problem of commercial vehicles parked on private property. Councilman Bridges seconded the motion, and it was carried. B. ORDINANCE NO. 38.57 Ordinance of the City of Saratoga Amending Chapter 9 of the Saratoga City Code, Increasing the Speed Limit on Fruitvale Avenue to 40 M.P.H. The City Manager explained this o~dinance is not being honsidered because the staff feels there should be higher speed limits in Saratoga. Rather, it is a matter of complying with a state law if we are going to have traffic enforcememt in the community. He indicated that prior to passage of AB-C~ in the last session of the Legislature, the City qouL~ use r~r on any street in a residential area~~~f~f~o~/~he passage of AB-744,!-it was re-defined under what conditions electronic devices may be used for detection of speeders. In that process, prior to using radar' on any residential street, an engineering and traffic survey must be made within the last five years to determine what the realistic'speed is for that strip of roadway. He indicated that on Highway 85 and Highway 9 speed studies have been conducted withi~ the last five years and the speeds ~ ve been verified by the State.to continue the .use of radar. Th{s has not been done, however, in recent years fo~ the local streets, and it is necessary if the City intends to use radar.' He indicated that as a result of this requirement, the staff has started on a program for developing this infor- mation. On the basis of this study, the recommendation is that the speed limit be increased ~M.P,H. on Fruitvale Avenue. He indicated that the Sheriff's Department will n6t/be ~bre to enfB~Ce radar unless they have a record tha~ suchudyskudyhhas Been. done. Mayor Smith asked Mr. Shook, bire~tor of Public Works, to ~utline som~ of the specifics of this speed Stddy. Mr. Shook indicated that the recommendation to increase the speed limit from 35 M.P.H. to 40 M.P.H. is ba~ed on data collected both as to the volume of traffic along the street and the physical character of the street. He Stated that according to the measurements taken during the past six months.~long FruitSale Ave., the Bulk of the traffic exceeds the present speed and is right at 40 M~F.H. :Mr. Shook commented that the studies also reveal ~the accident rate along Fruitvale Ave. is.extremely low. Councilman Dwyer commented that the study indicated the same speed as +being safe on the two-lane part that is uphill from the intersection of San Marcos as theldividedifour-lade part. It was his feeling that this two-lane portion of the road iS n~t ~afe to drive at 40 M.P.H. He asked if the staff has considered i6wering the speed to 35 M.P.H. in this two- lane section. Mr. Shook ~eplied that this section was given consideration and it was found the speed along this strip was generally the same as in the wider areas.. Councilman Dirfdon indicated his. Rrimary concern was that if the limit is raised to 40 ~.~.H. and people~continue to exceed the limit by 5 M.P.H., it would raise the Spe~d to 45!M..P.H.. Councilman Dwyer asked if with the enforcement of the 40 M.P.H. speed limit~ the City could rigidly ehforce it at 41 or 42 M.P.H. Mr. Shook stated he felt this could be done. He indicated that the problem in the past has been .if thelcoUrt~ do no~ acknowledge a particular sp~ed on a local street as being re~ they do not back up the enforcement officer;~ therefore, the officer becomes discouraged and goes elsewhere to patrol. Judy Johnson, who ~esides in the neighborhood of Valley Vista and Three Oaks Drive, commented that she'doesn't see why the City has to compromise its law to meet the demandSof radar. ~ She felt also that an increase such as this would mean that traffic along' Fruitvale would be travelling at 40 - 45 M.P.H. Mr. Pitman, a Saratoga resident, stated his main concern in raising the speed limit would be for the children who walk to school along this road ~ach day, as they are not familiar with the dips in the road, especially along the two-lane strip~~e,?~o~h! not see fast approaching traffic. Mr. John Fast, 19611 Versailles Way, indicated his opposition to raising the speed limit. He felt consideration.~should.possibly be given to lowering the present limit to 30 M.P.H. Mrs. Walker, who resides on San M~rcos Road off Fruitvale, stated she does not allow her~children to even cross this road, and she indicated it was her feeling the present speed limit shbuld continue~ Mayor Smith felt that possibly the City could develop its own test in determining what the realistic spe~d is along this road by presenting the testimony heard this evening to the Sheriff's Department as evidence. Kate Fischer of the Saratoga You~ Commission stated she felt more con- sideration to the human lives involved in this issue should be given. She expressed opposition to raising the speed limit. Dr. J. Hughes expressed two points: 1) When traffic is headed south on Fruitvale and when the road cuts down to two lanes, the lane which is lost becomes the passing lane. He felt that perhaps a "No Passing" zone could be created here. 2) The bicycle p~th shoul~ be extended to the end of the road to allow crossing at the signEl. Mr. Richard Rierden, 15061 Fruitvale Ave., stated he would like to second the motion by Mr. Fast to reduce the Speed rather than raise it. ....... Mr. Don~l~ Gerth s~a'ted'~h~ all the' considerations he ha~ heard t~is evening are directed toward the issue of vehicles. He asked if any consideration has been given to children coming to and from schoolS-either walking or on bicycles--pets, or e~en athletes running along this road. Mr. Shook advised that there is a walkway the entire l~ngth of this street which is designed for pedestrian use. Glenda Morlick who lives off of Fruitvale Ave., asked if any of these surveys were conducted at night. Mr. Sh~o~ replied they were not. Mrs. Morlick indicated it was a lot different to drive at night along this road than during daylight hours, as it is very difficult to see street signs and poles, etc. Mr. Shook explained that one of th~ recommendations included in the speed study is for installation of advanced street signs o~ a large size tb-warn the motorists. In addition to this, there are recommendations to: 1) install a street light (~arning lightI on the vertical side, south of Farwell; 2) emphasize the pathway crossing at Three Oaks Way by appropriate street signs; 3) provide a new pedestrianlcrossing at Douglass Lane; and 4) add new paint to crosswalks and provide sideline stripe to delineate the pavement. Dr. Isaac Abrams asked if the C0un~il ~ight consider another possibility in this Speed study . to postpone the study for another several month~ and, in the meantime, post a 7speed rlimit at 30 M.P.H., clocking vehicles at 35 M.P.H. Councilman Dw~r stated that his understanding of our enforcement experience is~that we are not getting citations enforced in court now at the existing speed limit. After hearing testimony from the audience, it was moved by Mayor Smith and seconded by Councilman Diridon that this matter be scheduled for a Committee of the Whole Meeting in March, and the staff prepare a report with any new recommendations they might have on how the study might be re-designed or supplemented, based on the suggestions presented this evening. The motion was carried. C. ORDINANCE NO. 15-~ An Ordinance of the City of Saratoga Amending Ordinance No. 15 Thereof and Establishing the Salar~ of the =City Manager. It was moved by Councilman Bridges and seconded byCouncilman Kraus that Ordinance No. 15-0, establishing t~e salary of the City Manager at the rate of $2,291.00 per month, be adopted. The motion was carried. IV. SUBDIVISIONS, BUILDING SITES AND ZONING REQUESTS A. TRACT 5007 GEORGE DAY, TOLL GATE RO~D It was moved by Councilman Dwyer and seconded by Councilman Kraus that improvements on this tract be accepted for construction only. The motion was carried.~ V. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. JAMES A. RODRIGUES (Cont'd. from Feb. 6, 1974) De novo Hearing to Consider an Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision to Deny Design Review Approval for a New Single-Family Re~ dence on Woodbank Way. Mayor Smith explained that this item was continued at the last regular meeting of the Council in order that the Council could go out and view the proposed site. The City Manager presented three additional letters which had been received relevant to this appeal, as follows: Patricia Nalton 6682~L~l~n~Dr~D~i~740 Sobey Road 14840 Sobey Road Mayor Smith asked if Mr. Rowe,. Acting Planning Director, would outline some of the proceedings with regard to this matter and some of the recommendations which have been made. Mr. Rowe summarized the previous ~c~ions in connection with this appeal, as follows: 1) Mr. Rodriguez introduced in ~ugust, 1973 a submittal for building site approval for the purpose of constructing a residential structure in an "R=l-40,000" district on Woodbank Way. Development would occur on a sloping lot with an overall estimated grade of 15 - 20%. He indicated that the land currently supports a number of tress. He outlined the character of the total area as being low-density, low- profile, single-story, split-level homes on generally siRRing land- Med~t~erahea~os~yle~ho~ea~ontthis property. 2) The application for building site approval first came to the attention of the City Planning Commission on September 12, 1973, and on September 24, 1973,.~_t. he aRplicant was granted tentative building site -6- 3) At the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission, the applican~ c~me before the Commission to obtain final Design Review. The matter was continued 4) The item appeared again at.the next Planning Commission Meeting of October 23, 1973, and it was again continued back to Design RevieW. 5), On November 12, 1973, a staff report was introduced recommending approval, subject to the following condition: "The eastern side yard shall be increased from the proposed 25 feet to 50 feet,~ ehe purpose of which is to preserve the aesthetic quality of the neighboring residences, especially that property to the east of the applicant. Al~o that the'extension of the subject setback be considered in light of the proposed two-story ordinance." However, the Commission~s action was that the applicant submit to the City elevation plans for the proposed house. 6) At the December 10, 1973 Planning Commission Meeting, the applicaht did submit plans verified by an engineer; however the Design RevieW. Committee had not had the opportunity to review this cross section. Therefore, the matter was again continued. 7) At the January 9, 1974 meeting of the Planning Commission, Mr. Rodrigues' request for final Design Review was denied. He is now appealing that denial to the City Council. ~he_Mayor~pe~-~e~pub~c~.hearling~(~0':~0~\~d~ndlicated that the Planning (C'o~ssion.file~on this-ma~teri~o~l~Z~mad~ a,p~rt of~[h~ record, including prevl~'~s corre~d~'~i~W~"B~h~m~s~{~'~d~Clty Council. Mr. Rodrigues addressed the Council and stated that the previous co~ents Felevant to this matter were basically correct, except his 9r~ginal p~oposal was for a two-story split-level house, and not just a two-stor~ h~use. Mr. Rodrigues explained that from the period October 5th to October 30th, he was out of the countzy, and he had understood the matter was to be continued. During that time, there was some discussion about changing the side yard to a 50-foot'rear yard setback~;h~ever, it was f~und it would not be legal to do t~is. He stated that particular attention w~s paid to the neighbors to the east (Follendorf); however, they didn't p~y attention to the neighbors to the west. Mr. Rodrigues explained that when you go down the hill 50 feet,~ you take the w~sterly spot on the house t6 within 25 feet of the westerly boundary..He indicat~also b~ d~ng this,. l~se their "privacy". Mr. RodrigueS ~r~[~~f~h~f~e~on of this plan, he had proposed the reduction in the elevation of the house,~as they ~~ ~hRd' RrS~osed~ everthing to consider that this was the last building site in Ch~area ~nd there were several neighbors -- not just one. M~. Rodrigues stated h~ has personnally gone to the surrounding neighbors explaining his proposal, and it was his understanding there were 15 letters s6bmit'ted to the City expressing no opposition to this proposal. C6uncilman Diridon asked if there was another site tn the south of ~. Rodrigues' layout. ~. Rodrigues r~plied that the George Day subdivision with 16 lots~s to the south, and there is a particular building i~ediately s~uth of Follendorf where the roof-line does protrude into his line of sight. With regard to elevation, Mr.. Rodrigues explained that the actual house foundation Varies 58 inches from the highestlportion to the lowest portion. C~uncilman Kraus asked how far it was from the Follendorf' house to his house. M~. Rodrigues it would be approximately 79 feet. Councilman ~yer asked how much more in terms of vertical feet a 25-foot yard setback would lower the ho~se. Mr. Rodrigues replied that it would lower the house approximately 4-1/2.fmet more; however, this w~uld make -7- him lose a portion of his view, and also, it would bring him within 25 feet of the westerly boundary, where there would be two people affected., In addition, Mr. Rodrigues pointed out they are in an equestrian zone, and this would invalidate their capability of having a corral on this property. Councilman Kraus asked Mr. Rowe if. this house was being denied under the provisions of the Two-Story Ordinance. Mr. Ro~e replied that it was not. Councilman Dwyer asked what direction the garage would be facing. Mr. Rodrigues indicated the garage would be facing north, closest to his down-hill neighbor. Councilman Bridges asked if Mr. Rod~igues' figure of 25 feet to the westerly neighbors was accurate if'a 25-foot setback were required. Mr. Rodregues corrected this and indicated it would be 50 feet from the property line of the down-hill neighbor; however, it would invalid the corral and make the right-of-way c6me down further. Mayor Smith asked if there would/g~ any more cutting of trees if the house was lowered approximately five fee~. Mr. Rodrigues did~"~eeef it would involving any additional cuttingf~~_~_he felt this would lessen the view o~ithbse neighbors to the west. Mr. Stan Marshall, member of the Planning Commission, bpoke in opposition to this appeal, stating that from the property adjacent to the eastern property line, this house appears as a two-story structure and causes a visual impact. He also commented {egarding Mr. Rodrigues lack of cooperation in obtaining the required plans for this proposed structure and the extreme reluctance to cnnsider any design other than that which he is proposing. In addition, he felt the City Attorney should be consulted with respect to the legality of this structure in relation to the Two-Story Ordinance. Mayor Smith asked the City Attorney if he felt this would fall in the perview of the Ordinance since the .building permit has not been issued. Mr. Johnston, City Attorney was of'the opinion that it wou~d be affected by the Ordinance. He pointed out [hat at the time the CoUncil discussed where the cut-off point would be, and it was determinedl~that the cut-off point would be at the issuance of a building permit and the substantial expenditure of money, and at that time it was pointed out if the Council wanted to change this cut-off poiht, they should do this before adopting the Ordinance; h~ ever, it was not~changed. Therefore, it would have nothing to do with the timing of Mr.. Rodrigues' application, but ~hether or not he had a building permit. Mr. Johnston further pointed out that if the Council should grant this appeal, it would not be referred back to the Planning Commission, but it would stop with this action. After a review of the Two-Story Ordinance, the City Attorney indicated that hillside 18ts were exempted; thus, this application would not be af~e'6'~Fd'by that ord'inance. Following additional discussion concerning the Two-Story Ordinance and its affect on this appeal, it was moved by Councilman Dwyer, seconded by Councilman Kraus that the public hearing be closed. 'The public hearing closed at 10:40 P.M. ~h~ ~ouncil ~n~ividually discusseh !this .app~ai, '~nd it was generally felt the home could be compatible in this area. Councilman Bridges commen~ed, however, that the lowering of the house 4-1/2 feet would be a significant improvement for the adjacent property owners and minimize the visual impact . It was them moved by Councilman Dwyer and seconded by Councilman Kraus that the Planning Conm~ission's denlial of this appeal be reversed. The motion was carried, 4 to !l~in favor]. -8- B. GREEN VALLEY DISPOSAL CO. Consideration of Proposed Rate Increase for Residential Disposal Service by Green Valley Disposal Co., Los Gatos~ California. The City Manager advised that this proposal was considered at the last Committee of the Whole Meeting. He,indicated mhere ~s a staff'report giving an analysis of this increase, and it ls his-recommendation that the requested increase be granted and the effective date of same be subject to approval of the rates by the Town of LosGatos, the anticipated effective date being April 1, 1974. The public hearing was opened. (10:55 P.M.) There being no further comment regarding this request, it was moved by councilman Kraus and seconded by Councilman Diridon that the public hearing be closed. The motion was carried. It was moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded by Councilman Dwyer that the proposed rate of increase (first-can service from S1.75 to $2.00, mnd each additional can from $1.10 to $1~25) be approved, subject to approval by the Town of Los Gatos. The motibn was carried. VI. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS A. MAYOR B. FINANCE 1. Payment of Claims It was moved by Councilman Dwyer and seconded by Councilman Kraus that the list of disbursements be approved and the Mayor be authorized to sign the warrants. The motion was carried. 2. City Clerk's Financial Reports- Noted and filed. 3. City Treasurer's Report - Noted and filed. C. COUNCIL AND COMMISSION REPORTS 1. Planning Commission - Report Re: Appeal of Land Development Committee Approval of Stanley R. Lee, McGill and Bohlman Roads. Mr. Rowe advised this is scheduled for hearing by the County Department of Public Works on February 21, 1974. 2. Planning Commission - Report Re: County Department of Public Works Referrals of Building Site Applications. a) William C. Vogel, Sanborn Road ( I Lot - 3.97 Acres) b) Richard Wirkkala, Rolling'Hills Road (1 Lot - 1.54 Acres) c) Michael Spanier, Quickert_rRoad (1 Lot - 5.39 Acres) d) Perry and Dorothy Glover, Prospect Road (1 Lot - 4.33 Acres) This has been referred back to the staff for further investigation and appeal if any decision of the~Land DevelOpment Committee is~inconsistent with City standards. 3. Councilman Bridges - Suggested that a study session be scheduled within the next month with the Planning COmmission re: Rapid Transit System (land use). D. DEPARTMENT HEADS AND OFFICERS : 1. Director of Public Works - Brought to the Council'Ls=attention Ordinance 74 of the Santa Clara Co. Valley Water District Defining Limits of Flood Control Responsibility . . . Repealing Ordinance 59-1. 2. Planning Director - Announced Objectives, Policies, Actions for the Saratoga G~neral Plan were adopted by the Planning Commission on Februray 13, 1974 and will come before the City C6uncil ~n March. E. CITY MANAGER 1. Order to Convene a Special Meeting for March 12, 1974, to Receive the Report of the City Clerk and to Receive the Canvass of the March 5, 1974 }~B~l~ots. It was moved by Councilman Diridon and seconded by Councilman Bridges to set the special meeting for~the requested time~for the purpose of rreceiving and canvassing the ballots of the Ma~ch 5th Municipal Election. The motion was carried. This will take place at 7:00 P.M. 2. Sanitary SeweryProject -~Sigal,Dri~e Reported that the Sanitation District approved the project for Mr. Constantine for service to'his property on g~-i~ewithout the requirement of an assessment district. 3. Announced decrease in gasoline allocation and indicated that arrangements have been made with four service stations to help compensate for this decrease.~j VII. COMMUNICATIONS A. WRITTEN 1. H. A. Beaudine, Beaudine-Loughran Realtors, 14481 Big Basin Way, requesting that Item D of Conditions for tentative map approval, requiring improving Pierce Road to provide for a 30-foot half-street, (SDR-1091) be deferred. - Referred to staff for recommendation back at March 6th regular meeting. 2. Barbara Barthwich, Fatricia Nalton, 14840 Sobey Road, indicating they would have no objections to the proposed multi-level two-story home proposed by Mr. Rodrigues. - City Manager to reply and advise action taken. 3. James Dj[er, 6687 Leyland Park ~rive, stating they have no objection to the home proposed by Mr. Rodrigues. - City Manager to reply and advise action taken. 4. Orbin C. Jones, 14740 Sobey R0~d, stating they have no objection to the home proposed by Mr. Rod~igues. - City Manager to reply and a~vise action taken. 5. Donald A. Perata, 10195 Parkwood Drive, Cupertino, California, requesting that the requirement to widen Pike Road in the 300-foot section with the retaining wall on one side and!a steep embankment on the other, be deleted. - Staff to review and report at March 6th regular meeting. -10- 6. Kenneth Zadwick, resident of Fruitvale Ave., objecting to th~ proposed increased speed limit on Fruityale Ave. - City Manager to reply and advise action. 7. Copy of letter from Geraldine'L. Barrett, 14050 Marilyn Lane, in favor' of one large library at.the Ciyic Center location and closure of the Quito Branch, as well as the Village Branch. - Noted and filed. Bo ORAL Lynn Belanger, member of the Saratoga Planning Commission, c'ommente~ that she felt the Zoning Ordinance was ambiguous in that portion which relates to the Planning Commission's control over matters pertaining to design review. She ~u~stionedr~'f~the Planning Commission.should continue the present policy~~~minations with regard to design review matters, such as the Rodrigues appe~f. - Mayor Smith commented that all ord'inances have their ambiguities and in many instances, it is just a m~tter of interpretation. Therefore, it was felt each~~should be considered on its own merits. ' VII. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Councilman Diridon and seconded by Councilma~<~r~dges that the meeting be adjourned. The motion was lcarried. The meet{ng. was~h~ourned at 11:40 P~M. ~L~ ~= spe~ull submitted, -11-