HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-15-1974 City Council Minutes ' MINUTES
.SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
TIME: Wednesday, May 15, 1974- 7:30 P.M.
PLACE: Saratoga City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, California
TYPE: Regular Meeting
I. ORGANIZATION
A. ROLL CALL
Present: Councilmen Bridges, Brigham~ Kraus~an~'Smi~i ~' ~ 'j'
Absent: Councilman Diridon (arrived later) ....
B. MINUTES
It wa~ moved by Councilman Bridges and seconded by Councilman Kraus that the
minutes of April 17, 1974 be approved~ The motion was carried.
C. SPECIAL PRESENTATION: QUITO SCHOOL TkAFFIC SURVEY
The City Manager introduced Fir. Goth,~teacher at Quito Elementary School,'
who, in turn introduced four 6th grad~ students in his class Who have partici-
pated in a ten-hour survey at the intersection of Quito and McCoy.
Students Mike Mahoney, Richard Dorich~ Donna Witherspoon and Dianne Boudreault
individually voiced their comments in support of ~"~tr~ffic ~ig~l~
intersection ~s~_w_~_~S~ rea'sons why they felt a crossing gu~d was not an'
adequate means of controlling this traffic.
FollOwing a discussion by the Council, it was recommended by Mayor Smith that
~ me~ti~g Of the ?[hr~e j~ri~d~dklons" i~lved '(Count~ <g~ 'ssa~a~ ~a~ TM City
q~a~'~.~5~e a~T~ ~f ~aratog~ 'a~ang~'~ meeting ko'd~ne
ofinstallin~ ~"~ligna~ at this intersection. The students indicated they would
be making their presentation to the City of San Jose on May g8th. The Mayor
advised that the City would meet withi the County and City of San Jose following
the May 28th presentatiqn. and report back to the Council the results of this
meeting.
II. BIDS AND CONTRACTS
~? A. OSTERLUND ENTERPRISES, ALLENDALE AVE.~- TRACT 4768
Agreement between the City of Saratoga and Osterlund Enterprises, Inc. for
~.nstallation of Landscaping, Landscaping Improvements, etc.
Upon the recommendation of the Directzor of Public Works and the City Attorney,
it was moved by Councilman Bridges and seconded by'Councilman Brigham that
the Mayor be authorized to execute the Landscaping Agreement with Osterlund
Enterprises and to receive and record' the ~Offer of:Dedlcation. The motion was
carried.
III. PETITIONS, ORDINANCES AND =FpRMAL R~SOLUTIONS' '
A. RESOLUTION NO. 693
A ResoiutiSn of the Cit~Council of ~he City of SaratoKa Commending the
ADDlied Material Bears SoccerTeam.
It was moved by Mayo~ Smith and seconded by Councilman Kraus that Resolution
693 be adopted. The motion was carried.
B, RESOLUTION NO. 677-1. (Cont'd. 4/17~/74)
A Resolution of the City C~.uncil of~'the City of Saratoga Amending ResolutiOn
No. 677 Applying for IEligibilitZ of. Said City .to' qualify for Federal Flood
Insurance.under fhe National Flood Insurance Act of 1968.
The City Manager indicated that the.question came up at the April 17th meeting
regarding the affect thiS re~Qlutioh might have on ~hose people obtaining home
loans, and also, the affect this wo~ld have on other types of insurance~ He
advised that after checking with a number of banks in the area, it has been
found, generally speaking, that the'~ are requiring flood insurance for con-
struction in flood prone areas.
The City Manager advised 'that the Flood Disaster Pro~ection Act of 1973 has been
signed ihto law, and after July 1, ~975, participation in this program will be
mandatory.
It was moved by Councilman Kraus and. secondedby Councilman Brigham that
Resolution 677-1 be adopted. The motion was carried.
C. RESOLUTION/~NO'.694
A Resolution Changing street Name of. Arbolado Court to Wood Dell Court
It was moved by CouncilmEn Bridges~and seconded, by Councilman Kraus that
- Resolution 694 b~ ~adOpted. .The motiOn'was darried'.-·
D. PETITION FOR GOVERNI~G BODy OF THE~CITY TO PASS AN ORDINANCE REQUIRING ADEQUATE
FENCING PROTECTION AROUND SWIMMING POOLS WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS
The City Managed refer~n~ed~a ietter,~d~.'_~'the. Planning Department from
Mrs. Thomas E. BuCkl~y,'15300 E1 CaminO Gr~de, perta~n£ng to this issue. He
indicated it would be his'recommendation.this matter be referred to the staff
~'~'. for review, with a report back to the Council within thirty days.
The question was asked if an ordinande i~c<~=dlr whether or not it would be
made retroactive to those residents ~ith e~{st~~ pools or be applicable only
new swimming pools.
The Mayor felt the matter should be referred to the staff for review 'and a
report to follow in thirty days. The Council concurred with this recommendation.
RESOLUTION NO. 695'
Resolution Adopting the General Plan 'and Sphere of Influence Plan
The City Manager explained that it is recommended this resolution be~o~t~dne~
to' the first City Council Meeting in June, due to some technical proSle~'~i~h
have been encountered in the drafting!of this resolution.
Mr. Miles Rankin addressed'the Council, representing the Board of Directors of
The Good Government Group, sta~ing he'would like to call to the Council's attention
,I~m~r2~ Pa~i~f'G[~irPl~nYObj~Yi~as~Pgl~ci~dtigns~do~[~d'~the
~ '~ounc~l =~ting gf~' Ma~ 1, i~7~7' ~He ~hg~t~d' ~[a' ~e' a~prg~i~e~ '~o~di~g
might be: "Provide architectural design review for 'all commercial development
in Saratoga and on all other development a~ required, ~o the g~eatest legal
exten~ possible."
Mr. Rankin further questioned the designation'of "PD" (residential). on page
7 of the document and indicated he didn't feel the Plan should_consider anything
other.than "Single-Famiiy Residential
wise. ~e'~d [~ee ~dgd'~b~ernment :b'~o~Lfs~r[i~l~rly
~ ll~__r~as~l ~re~t~'~n~t~l ~nd~ eas~ %f_~a_rato~~ s~Ro~d ~ De~T'~t~e .r~road,~
i traCks..and~x AvenU~
-2 -
With regard to Mr. Rankin!s suggestion concerning the final sentence on
Page 1' of the General Plan Objectiv~s~,-.Policies, Actions~.~ayor Smith commented
that this is intended as ~generall'st~t~ment ahd as a resUl[ of a compromise.
He. didn't feel it would be interpreted in the way Mr. R~kin had indicated,
.requiring design review On all residential developments.
Mr. Rowe, Acting Plannlng Director, stated.the Planning Commission had viewed
those parcels designated "PD" (residehtial) as an opportunity to bring in more
creative uses.
The City Attorney~tated he was unsur~ if it was the inteht of the Council'~ij~
repeal the 1968 General Plan .and adopt the Plan as presehted by Willjams and
Mocine in its plac~ or to treat the n~w plan as a modification to the 1968
General Plan. He further staked the 1968 General Plan had certain elements
which were to bede~eloped over a ten-year or twenty five-year span, and
?~l~n, .i~ may we~P.be~repe~ling sg~ t~in~s~o~nClf%~n~'t~f~7 There~
f'ore, ~"~as' ~is'~d~e'~'ti0~'[h~the Flanning ConSultan[ be asked to compare
the 1968 General Plan with the proposed Plan and pinpoint any discrepancies.
The MayOr agreed Willjams and Mocine ~hould be delegated'this responsibility
and indicated this matter would be continued to the regular City Council Meeting
on June. 5th.
F. PETITION FROM RESIDENTS ON LOMITA AVE. PROTESTING THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF
A TWO-STORY DWELLINGON LOMITA AVENUE~
Mayor Smith explained that this petition~I~e~uests the Planning Commission to
refuse granting Mr. Robert Miller permission 't~'c6~s~tra"t~o~s~B~ ~elling
behind the residence of Mr. Richard S~dholt on Lomita Avenue, for reasons as
follows:
1) Residents greatly prize the rural atmosphere of th'is neighborhood
and feel a. two~story structur~ would not be harmonious.with the
existing homes in the area.
2) A twoSstory structure would cause material.damage to the property
of Mr. Richard Sudholt, 20610'Lomita Ave. and Mrs. Virginia Kerr,
20620 Lomita Ave. by the undue-loss of privacy and view.
The Mayor asked for a staff report setting-out'Ithe sequence of events relative
to this application.
The City Manager advised that at the first of the year the new Two-Story
O~dinance went into effect. He then ~xplained the .concept of this ordinance
and what it accomplishe~: 1) The. procedure to be followed when a resident
wishes totadd a second story or another level to his already existing home; and
2) how to deal with new two-story structures on undeveloped.lots.
He explained that' Mr. M{ller applied for a use permit in February, 1974 to build__.
a two-story structL~re, and was'told this would not be required.I~ince [iS' b~iidin~l
~s~'~id~8~co~lied ,w~e~_~.'~fr~j~e~6~ of the Zoning Or~i~a~e~lIl~il
aS'the'Two-S~y Ordinance. He then read that-section of the Two-Story Ordinance
which applied'to Mr. Miller~s~situation and indicated on the basis of this, the'
staff had concluded that Mr. Miller could proceed t'o. obtain his building permit.
~itl~as at ~h~s time that a number of. residents appealed the ap~lfcati~n ~ th~refgre,
the staff withheld the issuance of the building permit and.-su~es'ted thai ~ecaus~
of the ambiguity, Mr. Miller should p6ssibly request a yariance and consult the
City Attorney for an opinion in this matter.
He explained that M~. Miller applied ~or the variance and this was set for a
public'hearing.before. the Planning Commission on May 8, 1974. The petition~s_~
~ ~i Ve~- ~he '~ty :Ion~M~ 6, 1974 ~f~dj~he ~Ci~[~ey's opinion was received
on ~[~s~d~'~nd 8~the basis o~ the Cit~ Atf~rney's recommendations, the
Planning Con~nission determined th~ta.variance wouid nbt be required. Therefore,
Mr. Miller'would be permitted to obtain a Building permit.. However,. the
following afternoon three residentS'approached the'City Manager regarding this
matterr and submitted a petition to the City Council. Therefore, the Building
Official was again requested to withhold issuance of the building permit, and
it was indicated the matter would be considered by the City Council.
The City At~6rney commented that the Ordinance states that when it is iocated
next to a multi-story structure an individual can build a multi-story, but if
located next to a two-story, hecan~t build a multi-story; however, it doesn't
take int~2considerati0n where there i's a single-story on one side and a multi-
story on the other. He indicated.whenthis matter.originally came up on a staff
level the Ordinance was interpreted as meaning that the applicant could build,
and then, apparently, there was some doubt. Mr. Johnston felt that if there
was any problem involved, he felt the Council should consider changing the
Ordinance; however, he didn't feel they should change the interpretation and
it should be left ~ favor of the per.son who wants to build.
Mr. Richard Sudholt, 20610 ~omita Avenue, addressed the COuncil, stating that
he and the surrounding residents in this area are going tO be faced with something
which will be the height Of a three-story building. He felt that it would seem
to him the person-whose home is not yet built'would be'less hurt than the~ghbors
~'~6 ~%~'S~e~i~g~sE~ ~?~h~s two-story home. '
Mr. Stanley Bogosian, 20630 Lomita Avenue, commented he didn't feel there was
ambiguity in the Ordinance, but that the decision hinges on the interpretation
of "contiguous".
The'City Attorney.commented that it may be good planning to have an ordinance
that provided that the'contiguity'would relate to the-structure as distinguished
from the site; however, this is not the way the ordinance currently reads.
Mr. Robert Miller addressed the Council and indicated that there are two
neighbors, lot 4 and lot 30, .who do not object ~i[~ the proposed two-story
house. 'Mr.'Miller further 'pointed out that the V~rianCe'C0mmitteeCi~d ~a~e'~an
on-site inspection of this proposed Bhilding, and it Was determined that a
variance on this proposed two-Story structure would not be negessary.
Fir. Miller. further pointed out this two-story house would ~eet the setback
requirementsas set out in the Two-Stgry Ordinance, and also, this-was on a
"fla"
g lot. In addition, Mr. Miller.stated he didn't feei the house would be
Obstructing the views of the Sudholt!a;or the Kerr's.
SUdholt was of the pini0n this two-story home would violate ?
lp~graph-of the Two-Story Ordinance in that it would invade privacy,:~idterfere
with the viewe and have an adverse impact on the aesthetic character of'the
neighborhood.
Due' to the fact the Planning CommissiOn was willing to provide a variance in
. this ' situation,~an~d"~ L~he opinion of~ the City Attorney, the Ordinance w~ujd. no~
be applicable in this situation, the Council was of the consensus that 'jj could
take no action.and that a building permit should be issued to Mr. Miller.
G. RESOLUTION NO. 696 - ~iLLAGE PARKING DISTRICT NO.'2 (Includes Res. 696 Series)
A Resolution AppOinting Engineers and]Authorizing Execution of Contract for
Engineering Services 'I "
The City Manager indicated the City Cguncil is in receipt of a petition forthe
formation of a parking assessment district. He explained that the area under
consideration is adjacent'~o Big Basin Way-between Thfrd Street and Fifty Street.
He .indicated that approximately 73% of the ~ro~erty owners within the proposed
district boundaries signed the petiti6n. He stated that in the case of three of
the areas, there are requirements,whiCh h~ve been imposed by the Planning ....
Commission on proposed develop~ents in the area that they participate in a
Parking ~Ssessment District. He stated the information before the Council
this evening is the first step in the' intent to proceed with some of the pre-
liminary work which has to be done by~e~'~fl=~t~f~nd engineers, and the
adoption of these resolutions would set~i~B[f0n ~ preliminary steps com-
-pleted prior to commencing-with the public hearings.
Mr. Shaw, owner of the Saratoga Theatre~ addressed the Council and requested
that if the Parking Assessment Distrfct is approved, the theatre be excluded
from the plans. Mr. Shaw indicated that the theatre already has an allotted
parking area for customers, as well as tenants in this build ing, and his
income would be substantially reduced! if he-had to pay th~ maintenance costs
connected.with the Parking-Assessment! District.
Ma'yor Smith was of the feeling the theatre business would benefit' with the
Assessment District; however, Mrj Sh~w did not agree.
Mr. Tom Brown~ speaking .on behal'f of his mother who owns a home in the proposed
' Assessment District, requested<t~q'~_u~l approve a change of zoning on this
property from~"~4&'ntial"' to "Co~e;cial", due to the potential decrease in
property value as a re~ultof the proposed parking.f'lot next to this property.
The Mayor explained that if the Council adopts these resolutions this evening
i~ would initiate the actions only anH they could be abandoned at any time.
The City Manager indicated _a ~oint me~ting with the Planning Commission .could
be scheduled to review the Village Pl*an and the proposed boundaries, and the
matter could be re-~gendized for'acti'on at the regular City Council Meeting on
June 5th. This suggestion was acceptsable to the Council; therefore a joint
meeting.will be scheduled a6d the mat.ter'will be continued to the next regular
City Council Meeting for action.
IV. SUBDIVISIONS, BUILDING SI-TES ~ ZONING ~Q~STS
' A. SDR-1099 JO~ LO~Y, P~OMINO WAY - 1 LOT
Itiwas moved by Councilman ~aus and seconded by Councilman Bridges that
Resolution No. SDR-1099-1, granting Final Building Site Approval, be adopted.
The motion was carried.
Bi SD-1110 ~IVIDE~ INDUSTRIES, S~TOGA-LOS GATOS RO~
~ Appeal by Santa Clara County ~cheological Society of Planning .Director's
Determination and Filing of a Negative Declaration
The City Manager indicated that an ap'peal has been received from Mr. Robert
Bergthold of the Santa~Clara 'County ~chaeological Society regarding the decision
of the ~ting Planning~Director to file a hegative ~eclaration for'tentative map
approval on a fifteen-lot subdivisions.off Saratoga-Los'Gatos Road.
Mr. Bergthold advised thai the ArchaeOlogical Society behame involved in a pre-
permit archaeological ~urvey of all pbtential building sites in Saratoga approxi-
mately one year ago, primarily for the purpose of facilitating the City.~in
determining whether or not there are: archaeological remains on the site.
'Mr. Bergthold indicated'in this particular instance remains of flake and mortar
were found on the property; therefore, they are asking that an impact study be
conducted.
Mr. Richard Oliver ~f~Divid~nd Industries'advised he' had talked with the repre-
sentative from the ArchaeOlogical Society, and at Chat time, he had indicated
finding flake remains oh the'propertg', but had not m~Htioned finding mortar. It
was his feeling[~i~i ~!~l~'~n' f~und in th'e c~eekSide. It was Mr. Oliver's
- 5 -
feeling, however, that.any extractions could be taken from this property
within the next ninety days so as not~ to place an unnecessary burden on the
~QW~'.~'~his property, as well as th~ developer.
Mr. Oliver indicated it would be his recommendation the Council authorize a
professional arChaeologistl to go out on this site and excavate within the next
two to three weeks, and if s6mething ofsubstan~ial interest is found, bring it
,to the attention of the Planning Commission or the Council at a future meeting.
The Council indicated ins interest to have an archae0~ogist donduct a study of
this property and continue the matter!to an AdjourneD Regular Meeting next
Tuesday, May 21st. It was therefore mo~ed by Councilman Kraus and seconded
by Councilman Bridges the matter be c0ntin~ed to an Adjourned.Regular Meeting
on May 21st. The motion was carried.i
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. AVCO COMMUNITY DEVELOPERS .
An'~peal of the Plannin~ Commission Decision to Deny the Application of
Avco Community D~velopers for Tentative Ma~ Approval of an 18-Lot Subdivision
on Cox Avenue~ Summerplace Unit 2~ City of Saratoga
The City Manager outlined the informaeion which has been received by the City
Council relatingto this appeal. He ~ndicated there is a letter from Mr.
Cecchi of MacKay and Somps requestingzthis appeal, as well as a letter from
William McLean,/Attb[~y~C~p~esenting Avco Community Developers, requesting
the City Council to adopt a.resolutio~ which would authorize'opening the pro-
posed street within the subdivision sO that it could be'constructed within the
freeway right-of-way.
Mr. Rowe, Acting Director 'of Planning, advised that this a'prpposal for anl8-
lot subdivision off Cox Avenue. Mr. Rowe indicated there were a number of
discrepancies in this tentative mapjW~ich were noted in'the staff report,
'r a h i' e ign of an lg-let ubdi ision along astraight-shot subdivision;
the length is in excess 6f~ City~rpolicy, 12 lots 'bein~the usual length.
~) Lack of emergency access. Access is provided between two house lots on a
graph barrier type 9f arFangement..,' However, it is 'felt this would be somewhat
awkwardbecause~of the~re~ati~nshippfthe ~oad~opposite this access and, also,
there is only a seven-foot clearance given to the wall which does not ease the
street circulatio~ ~rob!em. 3)~The project double-fronts the lots which face
Soland Drive. Mr. Rowe indicated. it~was-for the ~ov~i'reasons the Planning
Commission voted for.denial of'~hi~ tentative map.
Mr. Beyer, City M nager, added that t ere is'
four feet which would be designated as. a walking area'and 12~ feet ~s ~"l~dsca~e
buffer.
Mayor Smith commented that he felt'it was necessary to provide an adeqhate link
between so~e of the potential parcels]if the City<i~j~'to %~medaX~acquire some of'
this state land for public use.-He f~rther indicat~d'h~ w6~'.~ike to see the
public!lands'which are in this right-ef-way connected in some meaningful wayl.and
felt this would necessitate the development of private lands in such a fashipn
that it would lend itself to developmept of future park'lands.
Councilman Kraus as'ked how the emergency access was acquired. Mr. Rowe replied
it was his understanding it was acquired through an arrangement with the property
owner on lot'26.
Councilman Kraus indicated~he was somewhat disturbed about the 1200 foot cul-de-sac
-and wondered what' the situation would be if lot 27 weren't there.
The Mayor opened. the ~ublfc hearing at 10:10 p.m.
Mr. Richard Cedchi of. MacKay and Somps addressed the Council, stating that
in an i~vestigation of the lot configurations, etc., it was his feeling this
development would fall within the R-l-12 500 PD zone. He stated their propos~
,,i~[o'lpu[~his-st~eet in a compatible position and has been consented to by th~
de~l~p~.~' ~fdb=~e~ard to utilities !and services, the developer has gone to
considerable expense to p~ovide the.necessary easements, add the thirty-foot
paved section has been unofficially approved by the Department of Public Works.
Mayor Smith ,asked Mr. Cecchi~if he felt his client would be willing to increase
this paved section even more. ~Mr. o Cecchi replied they'could retain 12,500 square
foot lot~areas ifthe street is moved into the lots by 2.5 feet. The parkway
from the curb on'that.~ide~'would b~ about 19! feet. Mar~'Cecchi stated they could
accommodate appro~imately,~'Bi~ycle:p'ath-pedestrianwafkway combination, and they
'would .fully intend to provide linkage. He indicated the landscaping would provide
Mayor Smith asked if the trail iinkag~ at the cul-de-sac end of the street be
continuous with the City park. Mr. Cecchi replied that there ~ould b~2a'slight
separatkon; therefore, you cou~dh't ~uite make the connection.
Mr. Cecchi indicated that this proposed street has been categorized as a
"cul~de-sac". He indicated that in lboking at this-on the map, it appears
'there are some lines which represent ~ possible expansion of this street in the
future. Mr. Cecchi indicated there are a number of ways to~go~&fid it would
depend on the the City~s use of the p'~blic land or land owned by the State.
He stated that if they do consider this as a cul-de-sac~ it must be considered
what mitigation has to be taken by the developer. He stated theyha~e ~dd~?Tan
investigation, and' asa result~ made a proposal to the owner of lot 23
adjacent tract. Mr. Cecctiistated their intention was to purchase a small' piece
of this property; bowever, the price went up considerably. He stated in a
further inveseigation they found the ~cully Avenue right-of-way is under the
ownership of Valley Title Co. and isbeing utilized for park purposes.
Mr. Cecchi indicated that the primary concern in this purchase of land was
that they would b~,disturbing the,existing park facilities; and also, when
they evaluated the economics it was aivery substantial investment. Another
consideration wa~:"What Wodld hhe reaction be of the. people on Scully?" It
was felt this would not be fav0rable;,therefore, it was felt this was not the'
way to mitigate a secondary access to this street. The developer looked at
the feasibility of moving structuresand,this was unfavorable. Therefore,
Avco went to lot 26 to negotiate ~ith:the owner for the entire purchase of the
lot. The result of this negotiation is that the developer has provided secondary
emergency ingress-egress connection tO the street, and this has the full 18-foot
.improved street section. Mr. Ceechi s~ated this section is Cl~a~e~:'~%?hrn a
20-foot right-of-way, and the distanc~ between the edge of thee pfvd~e~t 'to'the .... '.
fireplace is 7 feet. He stated they would go a step further and remove Che fire-
place, and therefore, .felt they have,~rovided reasonable mitigation for this
lenthy street which.terminates'temporarily. Mr. Cecchi further stated that the.
landscape buffer of approximately 19~ feet would allow for good turning and there
is no reason why this should haveto ~ine up with the street. Mr. Cecchi indicated
that the setback requirement on homes of this type is normally 10 feet; however,
this would be 27 feet.
Mr. Cecchi stated'the other mitigating factor is that they provide an intermediate
turn-around, and he felt 1200 feet would be adequate to make this turn. Mr.,
Cecchi felt that the 18 lots are mitigated by the emergency access, and stated
he felt thi~ conforms with the General Plan Objectives, under Circulation,~i[e72:':,
~in~p!o__~iding 'for a secondary emergency access. '
Mr. Cecchi indicated that he feel~ the precedent of subdividing Route 85 has
been set, and there are t~w~q~ever~pments by American Savings and Loan which
they are currently in the pro~ss of developing. Mr. Cecchi indicated further
' that it was his understanding these t~o lots did not go through approval by
the appropriate committee, as required by the State. Furthermore, at the time
these developments were approved, the,stature which they refer to in recent
correspondence,Ohas been in existencesfor 10 years, and since these two develop-
ments were approved, he felt this should be. allOwed approval.
Mr. Pete-Anderson, General Manager of~'Avco, addressed the Council and stated
there are two problems in connect~on~with the rear portion of lot 23. He
indicated there is a largeLbe~m. along, the portion~of'this lot which would abut
the f~eeway right-of-way, and on top 6f this berm there is a 6-foo~ fence,~
making for a uniquely. ~solated back y~rd. Also,,in the middle of this back %~r~d,
· the owner has const~Rcted a. ~imming. pool. Fir. Anderson stated that the~'price '-';
for this loss of privacy wodld"b~'sub~ea~tial, as the own~'s thinking is .i~ t~he'I
area of $3.00 to ~4.00 per square foot for this property.' Therefore, ~it was
felt the purchase of this property would be economically unfeasible. Fir.
Anderson indicated {~eterm~aof~ ~o~'n~ect.~l~-~ he felt the State has authorized
another use-for this'fighE~of:~ay ~d~has no intention of acquiring this parcel.
Councilman Kraus asked Mr. Cecchi to' go over the grading of this development.
Mr'.'Cecchi explained that they are proposing relatively general padding of
approximately.l% slope and then a step pad of approximately 1 to 3 feet, and
the.house would be designed to accommodate a 3-foot'split.
Mayor Smith asked if the CLty approve~ this application and uses this land for
.park or trail purposes, th~ existenceof the berm on lot 23 could present a
difficult situation for .~he 'oFaer. Mr. Cecchi commented in this particular area
there is no reason why it couldn't be contiguous to the curbing and possibly
widened out.
Councilman Kraus asked if the developer had indicated he would negotiate with
the homeowner in lot 26.
Mr. Andersen explained that in their effort to try and resolve the secondary
access, they have made e~ery effort to provide s~me~foE~.~f'~mer~ency access.
At that t'ime they learned that lot 26was on th~'~k'~t. 'M~"A~derson stated
the owner is a former Avco employee, and at this point he does not know that
Avco has'plans to purchase this house~ Mr. Andersen ~ndicated Avco has an
option to purchase this house; however, ~h__ey .m~st close by June 9th; therefore,
it was their hope that.favorable acti~n'~o~l~hbe:taken tonight which would
enable them to purchase ~his house.
CSuncilman Kraus asked ~[at ~vco's in[entionwould be after purchasing the house
on lot 26. Fir. Anderson replied that their proposal for lot 26 would be to
create the easement along the sideyard and then construct the emergency access.
,The house would then be sold to someone of the general public.
Mr. John Hanna, Attorney representing Avco, indicated he felt it was important
the Council recall the reason for this difficult configuration, this being that
when the map was first presented, the. developer'was required to omit this piece
from the plans becauseof the mistake~ impression the Cit~ had that the State
intended to buy this corridor for the!freeway. Mr. Hanna indicated that the only
.real problem the Planning Commission and staff seem to have has to de with the
400 feet length, and this would seem to be a matter of interpretation. He stated
that Mr. Cecchi has already made the point that this is neither a dead-end street
nor a cul-de-sac, but may at some time become a through street. However, it was
his feeling the Council could use its discretion in approving or disapproving
-a street ~00 feet in l~ngth.
- 8-
With regard to the 12-lot pOlicy, Mr. Hanna felt the'Updated General Plan should
state that streets with more than 15,lots should require a primary, plus a
secondary access.
.Mr. Hanna stated that the'double frontage lot questionShas been raised, and
it was his understanding there Would'be a.17 to 19 foot buffer between the rear
of these lots. . ~
Mr. Hanna pointed out that the General Plan ind{cates the possible acquisition
of this entire area for'parks, and if this is not feasible, AVco has indicated
it would provide linkagelforlbicycles, pedestrians, etc., and he ~elt this
-,17 to 19 foot easement would he moreSthan adequate for this purpose. He further
indicated that if the City.cho6ses not to allow the developer to go forward,with
-this developmentz/.based on the assumption thej~requirements of the ordinance,
thxs/ pould be an unreasonable restriction on the rights of the property owner.
Mr. Hanna stated/thi~v~tvoper doesn't want litigation or inverse condemnation'
to occur -- they '~i like to sa~ "This is tk~p~ plan they can come up
with." He stated that if the Council has any~'gg~e~modifications to
impSave on these planS, they would be willing to consider these suggestions.
Mr. Marshall, Planning Commissioner, 7connnented that as a member of the Con~nission
and SubdiVision Cemmittee,'he would like to point out that one factor has been
omitted in this discussion, and this is that the indivudu~l who worked for Avco
prior to Mr. Cecchi made an error in ~he~a~ignment of Scully. Mr. Marshall
indicated th~ Commission had outlined three possible alternatives to the
problem: 1) consider moving the lot iline on lot 26;,2) take action to connect
with Scully Ave.; or 3) sho~.some other means of .connection .to Scully. How-
ever, the developer didn't provide another means, of access which should have
been there.
It was moved by Councilman Bridges an~ seconded by Councilman ~aus the public
hearing .be closed. The '~l~a~r,e~'.~l'Th~' ~bii~ hearing was closed at
12:02 a'm. ~'~ ....... ~' ' ...... '~
Mayor Smith commented that he would like to see the public-lands in this right-
of-way connected in .some meaningful w~y, and this would necessitate the develop-
ment of private lands in such a fashibn that it would lend itself to development
of future Rark~lands. He felt the 17~ foot right-ofrway would provide the necessary
pa~4B~i~?~T~i~ayordidn'tfee'l it, was fair,~however, to deny this appli-
c~tibn 8niy'becau~it is an unu'sual-~haped piece of property.
Councilman Bridges questioned if the ~andscaping provides an adequate buffer
~e~bYgl.frg~a~egsituatiom. ~
Mayor Smith asked ,about ~e possibility of lessening 'the requirements of t~e .....
pavement~ creating a half-street. Mr~. Shook, Director of ~blic WOrks, ~fe![ /
i~ it were assumed this was going:to pea cul~de-sac, the reduction in width
might present a pr~bf'em~ ~
Councilman KrauS,dommente,d tha~ hiS..f~eling.would be ~ this is all publ~ic land,
that is how he WoUld liketo keep it.~ He felt the logical solution'wOuld be to
open this street dp so the emergency access requirements are met.
The City ~torney ~dyi~ed that, th~Cohncil could ~, a~Ji~m_or modify in
any way the Planning Commission's determinations. ~s~[R~7 h0we~ E~e~ange
~[~P~'~=~i i ' determination~'~ould accompff~h' nothihgT" " '
CoUncilman Diridon felt the appropriate conditions would be: 1) emergency access
be provided; 2) t9~ 'setbac~'requiremeDt between back property line of Solana and
the beginning of the public street right-of-way; and 3)negotiate with lot 26 to
obtain access to the park.
Mayor Smith s~ggested the Council refer this back to the Planning Commission
to rework to a point Which is agreeable. It was his~ recommendation the Council
approve the conditions as outlined on the Planning Commission StaffsReport,
~§ee~il 24;i~4'~h~'wwe~ dgndition "w" be added to state that the developer
be ~quired~tg'se~d"de~i~'dte t~ the City a portion of Lot 26, Summerplace,
-.Unit ~1, which would complete the full connection of the lands of Saratoga to the
lands to the north and west in Summperplace, Unit ~2.
Councilman Bridges felt the matter s~ould be continued to the next regular meeting
of June 5, 1974, and request any further comments from the Planning Commission
with regard to recommendations discussed this evening. This was acceptable to
the other Council members; the matter will therefore be agendized for June 5, .1974.
B. PROPOSED DEMONSTRATION BICYCLE ROUTE SYSTEM, PHASE I (Cont'd. 3/20/74)
Mayor Smith explained this hearing is continued from March 20, 1974, and since
that time, the Council has met with the Bicycle Committee to discuss their
propesal for the Demonstration Bicycle Route System, Phase I. The Council has
asked for costs of the various proposals and alternatives, with the idea that
the staff would come back with a revised map and approximate costs for the high
priority projects in the Phase I implementation.
The City Manager advised there is a memorandum from the Director of Public Works,
outlinihg'the proposed changes to theiBicycle Committee's recommendations. Also
included is a summary by street of the comments from the April 23rd Committee of
· ~ the Whole Meeting and the cost for deletion or addition of items.
Mr. Shoo~ then outlined on a map prepared by the staff as a result 6f the Committee
of the Whole Meeting the'propoS~~ rouke for the Bicycle Route System. He pointed
out on the cost'S~ma~y' sheet the indlviddal streets I'and the proposed modified cost
for improvements.'in e~C~ ar~a, with'~ estimated total of $64,000. Also reflected
on this cost summary sheet are the Bicycle Committee~s recommendations for each
street, the proposed modifications 'and 9ost differential for making these modi-
fications. ' - ~
Mr. Ralph Ramona, co=~w~e~',of the saratoga= Gatewa~ Buildingat 12901 Saratoga
.~y~nu~._ indicated he ~as sorry he hadn't a[tended the previous work session.~ '~
'He ipdicated it-Was'difficult for him to understand, after several meetings,'~'~
why the COUncil was not receptive toward the alternatives which he, as well as
other owners of'property in the area'of Saratoga and Cox Avenues, had offered
in lieu of eliminating parking in this area. He further indicated it seemed to
him the letters which had been previously submitted now appear to have been
dismissed.
-.
Mr. Shook explained it was his understanding that the Council~s instruction at
'the April 23rd~iCommittep of the Whole'Meeting that parking should be disallowed ~n
those areas where it would take upthe entire bicycle lane. He further commented
that this is a difficult area because immediately on the inside curb there is a
median curb.
Mr. 'Ramona felt that two 14-foot lanes in this area seemed exorbitant; also, it
had been his understanding the Counci~ had.gone along with the proposal for pro-
viding a path behind the curb. .
Councilman Bridges stated that it had been his concern that a parked car would
not let a bicycle pass in this area.
'Mayor Smith recollected that he had made the suggestion that the Council act on
the'approval of the proposal, but particularly study the area from Herriman to the
Village, and if any problems result, bring in citizen comment. The City Manager
indicated if this is where the Council is, we could proceed in this direction and
come back with red'~R~tio~s o~ spesi~fc~cations.
Dr. Isaa~ Abrams indicated he had observed the follqWing:
1) Qn Highway 85 the route on the east side goes next to power poles,
~e'~felt some precaution should be taken in this area.
2) There are grates in the road When crossing Highway 9 to the Village
and asked if this would be taken care of.
3) Tr~es would have to be trimmed in certain locations.
!Dr. Abrams inquired'if the Council i~ talking about 9rossing S~ratoga-Los Gatos
Road and continuing the path on the Opposite side, indicating he would rather
continue on the north side and take his chances.
Mayor Smith commented =,~a~ttler~tg~~8~d b~[o-improve the path on both
sides as far as we can~ .... T~ .... ~"~'~'~ ~ ...... ~ ,'
,' Dr. Abrams further inquired if the Council would be talking about flatening of
curbs. Mayo~ Smith replied the curbs would be ramped or curved.
Mr. Shook commented it was his understanding the grates which Dr. ~rams refers
to had been taken into conside~ationin the original cost figures.
Mr. Sho~k advised that one of the suggestions that came out of the Committee of
the ~ole Meeting ..was that the pathway system on Highway 85 go%up to Cox/Wardell,
rather than an' alternate route going ~up Cox Avenue to Regan.
Mr. Charles Huff, 12725 Miller Avenue', indicated he-would like to make a~few
comments:
Mr. Huff fe'lt there is ,a need to 7i~prove communications between City
~vernment and the citizens. He 'indicated he had not received. ample
notice of the phbtic hearing~this~-evening. -
He commented that there doesn't seem to be any significant criteria to
determine whether or not we can shccessfully go-to Phase II. He stated
there would h~ve to,be-~rit~ria-~'c~n~U~termined how much
money we are~golngto'spend. It-~aS_ Mr~j'p~f~!?~f~eling the City is going
to have tq face a tax increase inZ order to implement this system.
Mr. Huff felt education shoul~l~'an,impbrta~t.~art and there should be
funds set aside for this purpose.. He felt there should be individuals
ass{gned to work'with the various~s~hools in~thetc.gmmunity. He also felt
enfor~ment sh~uld be stresSed~
He commented' with regard to maintenance, indicating that his estimate
for maintenance'would be approximately $9,500, or $18,000 per year. It
was his feeling also 'that the City produce a master plan which tells the
citizens exactly what the system is going to cost.
.~ne Cox, student at West Valley College, asked if the bi~cle path north of ~.~
Allendale and Saratoga Avenue would be striped. Mr. Shook replied there would
be=a bike lane striped at the side o~the road.
Mr..Cox felt the Council should implement the path in this location on a trial
basis toward the end of the-semester ~his year. Councilman Brigham agreed with
this and felt the Council should d~velopsome timetabl~ssto get this path in
toward the end of the summer. %
The City Manager pointed out that one.year ago th'ere was $30,000 which~d V
reverted to Gas Tax reserve, and thi~ icould be pulled out at any time. ~=Me~
stated. the 1974-75 Budget is going to~be presented in the next 30 days, and
he is recommending th~ inclusion o~ a~ additional $20,000 for the purpose of
maintenance of these paths. :
11 -
Councilman Kraus indicated he would have a problem accepting the$64,000 figure;
however, he would favor tentatively ~pproving the modified plan, with the ex-
cept ion of items
Councilman Diridon disagreed with the exclusion of item 2, sub-item 2, indicatihg
he would support a total committment. in the ~ase I program of approximately
$50,000. It w~s therefore moved by Councilman Diridon and seconded by Councilman
Brigham tha~ the ~ase I modified plan be tentatively approved, with the exception
of item 2, sub-item 4(Pathway - Wal~ott to Blauer - $9,300) and item 3, sub-item
1 ("No Parking" signs - $4,600) and request filing of a Negative Declaration on
this project as proposed. The motion was carried, 4 to 1 in favor, Councilman
~aus opposed.
VI. ~MINISTRATIVE MATTE~
A. MAYOR
1. Re-appointment of 3 Parks and Recreation Commissioners.
It was moved by Councilman .Bridges and seconded by Councilman ~aus the
redappointment of Parks-and Recreation Co~issioners for'a new 2-year term,
as follows: Tom Wilberding, Sarah Jane Rose and Mildred Gordon. The motion
was carried.
2~' AppOintment of Trails and'Pathways Task Force.
Mayor Smithindicated these representatives would be officially appointed
at the next regular meeting.
B. F~C~' -
1. Payment of Claims
It was moved by Councilman ~aus,and ~econded by Councilman Diridon the
list of disbursements, 193~l, thr6ugh 19374, be, approved and the Mayor be
authorized ,t6 sign'the warra~ts:~ The motion,was carried.'
2. City Clerk's Fipancial'Report - ~oted and filed.
3. City Treasurer's R~port - Noted and filed.
C. CO~CIL ~ CO~ISSION REPORTS
1. Saratoga Youth Commission'- Request for Summe~ Concerts in Wildwood'~,~ark.
Council indicated their support Qf the summer concerts', emphasizing they
shohld be within the constraints~of the Parks Use Ordinance and NoiSe
Ordinance.
2.Saratoga Youth Commission - Recommendations Re: Sheriff Department "Ride-
Along" Program.
This was referred to the City Mahager for further consideration. Report
to be forthcoming'at a future City Council Meeting.
3. Planning Commission - Referral Re: Request for ,Clarification of Intent
of NS-3.37, Section 2, (Two-stor~ Ordinance).
Council indicated they would lik~ to hear staff recommendations on how the
Two-Story Ordin~n~e_~ig~Ij~ ~m~ded and slrengthened. It was, therefore,
continued to ~f~tUre meeting of~{[~lCity C~unC{f>
D. DEPARTMENT HEADS AND OFFICERS
1.Dept. of Public WorksI- Recommendation Re: Proposal for Pike Road
Improvements.
It-was moved by Councilman Krau~ and s~conded by Councilman Brigham that
the p~oposal for improvements to Pike Road be approved, per the Director
of Public Works"staff report, dated May 8, 1974, subject to receipt of
a Reimbursement Agreement. 'The!motion was c~rried.
2. Dept. of Public Works.- Deferred Improvement .Agreement, SDR-899, Edward
Oliver (Jack D. McCready), SaratOga Avenue.
It was moved by CounCilman Diridon and seconded by Councilman Kraus the
execution of the Deferred Improvement Agreement and release of cash bond.
The motion was carried.
E. CITY MANAGER
1. ReqUest to Blogk Off Saratoga Ave. from Herriman Ave. to Big Basin Way
.on June 30, 1974, for Fireman's Day Parade and Muster~ (between'9:30 a.m. & Noon)
It was.moVed by Councilman Diridpn and seconded by Councilman Kraus the
request be approved, subject to the provision. of necessary barriers and
traffic lights and appropriate directions for detouring. The motion was
carried.
2. Advised there,wouldl.be' ~n AdjoUrned Regular Meeting-on Tuesday, May 21st,
to:. 1) re~ie~'th&~bids on the Cermak Wai~/Walkw~y';'~) consideration of
the annual street r~surfacing project; and 3) AvCo tentative map.
VII. CO~4UNICATIONS
A. WRITTEN! ~ .
1. Maurice L. Martin, 245 Almendra Xve., Los Gatos, requesting an extension of
building.si~e approval for his lgt at 14633 Quito~Road. - Continued to
June 5th Meeting; referred to staff for a recommendation back to the Council
~=I 2. Alan A. Alameda, 12341 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, requesting the Council rescind
the Performance Bond requirement for improv.ements. - Kpproved request, subject
'to exchange of the bond for a Deferred Improvement Agreement. Public Works
- staff to follow Up. -
3. Donald M. Rains, Clerk, Board of Supervisors, requesting the City give its
· recommendation for'appointment tolthe County Library Commission. - No specific
recommendations.
4. Mrs. Bruce k. Black, 14170 Victor'Place, requesting the .Council give con-
sideration to landscapin~ the med{an strip between Verde Vista Lane and the
" Village. - Staff to.review and report back to the Council at future meeting.
5. Anthony Cocciardi, 22631 Mr. Eden~.Road, Re: Trust Deed to Sure~y Bond.
~=~ Continued to June 5th.Meeting; st~ff to review documents and obtain an opinion
from the City Attorney.
\
6. Daniel N. Hoffman, Attorney at Daw, 1825 De La Cruz Blvd., Santa Clara, /.~,~__,_~,~
· Calif., expr'essing appreciation for the installation of traffic lights and~ ~-_
le~trhan~-turn signal at intersection of Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road-and Cox ~'~-J
Avenue.-.Noted and filed.
7. T~wn of Los Gatos opposing expansion of Lexington Reservoir. - Noted and filed.
8. Alvin L. Spivak, 1913 Quebec Way,lSan Jose, favoring re-establishment of
railway service as an alternative to further highway expansion. - Supervisor
McCorquodale to speak at City Council Meeting on June 19, 1974.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT ~
It was moved by Mayo~ Smith and Second~dl by Councilman Diridon the meeting be adjourned
to an Adjourned Regular Meeting on Tuesd:ay, May 21st. The motion was carried. The
motion was carried. ~The meeting was adjourned at 2:10 a.m.
z. ~ ,' Respect ' 'ubmitted,
R