Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-11-1974 City Council Minutes MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL .TIME: Tuesday, June 11, 1974 - 7:30 P.M~ PLACE: Crisp Conference Room, City Ha11,'13777 Fruitvale Ave., .Saratoga, California TYPE: Adjourned Regular Meeting and Committee of the Whole I. ORGANIZATION A. .ROLL CALL' Present: Councilmen Diridon, B~igham, Kraus and Smith Absent: Councilman Bridges IIo RESOLUTION NO. 698 Resolution Authorizing Additional E~penditure of Funds The:City Manager made a brief_presedtation-regardin~'the'Hifference in the amount of f~nds_that.wg~l~ be' ~i~ss~d. There was no discussion regarding this ma~ter; therefore, it was moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded by Councilman Bridges to app~ov~ Be~qru~ion No. 698, author±zihg additional ~xppnditure of tunds for the Kocher/Tyler property assessment Sblit~fo{ a~.amgunt n~t to exe~d ~j~700. The motion was carried. IIZ. APPROVAL'O~ ¢ARRANT,L'IST.7- TWO WARRANTS Cd~'~6~TFROM JUNE 5TH MEETING - It was moved by Councilman Diridon ~nd seconded by Councilman Kraus to approve the list of disbursements,~i thru i~466~, and authorize the opening of escrow for the purchase of the Kocher/Tyler property. The motiod was carried. IV. ADJOURNMENT ' It was moved by Councilman Brigham and seconded by Councilman Diridon the meeting be adjourned. The motion was carried. The meeting was adjourned at 8:00 P.M. Respectfully submitted, R MINUTE S SARATOGA CIT~ COUNCIL TIME: Tuesday, June 5, 1974 - 7:30 P.M. PLACE: Saratoga~City Coun'cil Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, Cafifornia TYPE: Regular Meeting I. ORGANIZATION A. ROLL CALL Present: Councilmen Bridges, Brigham, Kraus, Diridon and Smith None: None B. MINUTES It was moved by Councilma~ BrighEm and seconded by Councilman Kraus that the minutes of May 1, May 15, and May 21, 1974 be approved. The motion was carried. II. BIDS AND CONTRACTS A. VIA RONCOLE BIKE PATH AND WALKWAY It was moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded _by Councilman Bridges the Council accept the single bid from. M.C. SlackCCo. in the amount of _$5,785~.25 and award the contract,'.per the .recommendation of the Director _of. Public Works. The motion was carried. III. PETITIONS, ORDINANCES AND FORMAL RESOLUTIONS A. RESOLUTION NO. 696 VILLAGE PARKING DISTRICT NO. 2 (Controd. ~rom 5/15/74) A Resolution Determining to Undertake Proceedings Pursuant to Special Assessment and Assessment Bond Acts for the-Acquisition and Construction of Improvements Without Proceedings' under Division 4 of the Streets and High.ways Code. 1) RESOLUTION NO. 696-A A Resolution Appointing Attorne'ys 2) - RESOLUTION NO. 696-B A Resolution ADDointin~ Engineer and AuthorizinK Execution of A~reement for Engineering Work-in Connection with Village Parking District No. 2. 3)' RESOLUTION NO. 696-C A Resolution of Intention to AcQuire and Construct Improvements and to Form Village Parking .District N6.2 Maintenance District. Mayor Smith explained that the adoption of these resolutiops would initiate this.-project and provide for the engineering of the proposed work; however., the~ Councils would have the option o~ discontinuing the project or making any changes at a later date, if they so !de'sired. He further explaided the matter has been continued in order that the Councfl might review the planning. consultant/s proposed plan for the Village area, and this was done at a special meetihg with f~emb~ ~f'~h~?Pl=a~Hi[~gj Commission on Wednesday, May 29th. VILLAGE PARKING DISTRICT NO. 2 (Cgnt'd].) The City Manager advised that a le[ter had been received pertinent to'this matter from Mason Shaw, Shaw International Theatres, opposed to the proposed Village Farking District. Mr. Gene Zambetti, 14575 Oak Street, owner of LotlO outside of the proposed boundaries of the District, addressed 6he Council, requesting that approxi- mately tWelve.feet on the~nOrthly end Of Lot 10 be included in the boundaries of the proposed District for the purpose of allowing ingress and egress onto Third.Street from this property. ~e further indicated that if it is in the public interest, he would later apply for Professional zoning for Lot 10. Mr. Mason Shaw addressed the'Council, stating that the total square footage on the Tyler-Dempsey-Kocher 'land is 108,450!~s~uare feet for which the monthly .cos~ would be $310, and his lot area is only 13,200 square feet, for which he would be paying $395 monthly, or 43% of the cost of the Wh~ ~arking district. · Mr. Shaw further stated he felt there would be pl~en~y~of lan~.with which to form this district% H t i oludi g his land. the effect this encroachment would have on the Brown property, which is located behind the theatre building,' indicating that cars would be running within five to six feet of their apartment. Mr. Shaw further indicated he would be willing t~p!p!~an_l~re~ ~!~ve__w~t_o~jE~ .Str~;_~y~y~, i~.~uld have to be ~protectedifOrcwat~ri~{n~g~2~d,~'~ _ ~ j~e~ cf ~~ In c'onclusion, Mr. Shaw s~a~ed that if the City proceeds with this Parking Assessment DiStrict'he would ask to be excluded. He felt the Village presently has an excess of. parking.and~ the City should np~ .inyolve itself with this parking district. " · ', ~ ~ Mayor Smith pointed o~t to ~. Sha~ that th~jadopti~ 0f these resolutions would only.~nitiate ~he pre'iimina~ step~ ~in this prbject and it ~ uld not determine where the improvements w0u~d be constructed. He further indicated th.is project c8~1~ still' b~ revoked at a later tim~ if not satisfactory to the Council. ' ~"' ~ '~ ~' ~ ~ : Councilman ~aUs co~ented that'he felt it was imperative that the C~ty move . ahead on this Parking District, and the boundaries should be modified to include 12! feet on the northerly end of Lot 10. Itswas moved by Councilman Bridges and seconded by CoUncilman Brigham the CoUncil approve the 12! foot inclusion on Lot 10 and adopt'Resolutions 696, 696-A, 696-B, and 696-C. The motion was carried~ ~ B. RESOLdION NO.-697, THO~S & ~T~EEN~DEN, CH~ET L~ ~;~A Resolution Aband6ning a Portion Of Public Utility Easement~ Lot 27, '~Tract 3034 The City Manager indicated that it.is thestaff's recommendation that the five-foot ~e~['~of~ th{s~-~Sr'tion 7of ~the prop~gljappr0~e~And the abandonment ~"[~e~Blic"~il{[~ ~enf b%' re~ih~'~"~ 'w~i~'&learance easement, per therequest o~ P.G.&E. It was moved ~ Councilman-Diridon'and seconded by Councilmah Brigham that Resolution No. 697 be adopted. ~e motion was carried. A. SDR-1022 JACK ~ER, S~ATOGA-LOS GATOS RO~ - 1 LOT It was moved by Councilman Diridon and seconded by Councilman ~aus that Resol'ution SDR-lO22-1,~-granting Final Building Site Approval, be adopted. The Motion'was carried. _ 2¸_ B. SDR-1071 WILLIAM PAUL WALTER, FOOTHILL LANE~ 1 LOT It was moved by Councilman Diridon and seconded by Councilman Kraus that Resolution SDR-1071-1 beadopted.! The motion was carried. C. SDR-1035 ORVILLE GLASS, SQUIRRELSHOLLOW LANE It' was moved by Councilman Diridon and seconded by CoUncilman Kraus that the Council accept improvements 'f6r constructsion 0nly. The motion was carried. D. SDR-1081 JAMES .DYER~ VESSING ROA~. The City Manager advised that this applicant has not me't all the conditions of Building Site Approval, particularly the recordation of the Record of Survey Map.' It was moved by Counc'ilman Bridge~ and seconded by Councilman Kra~s that: (1) C6nditional Building Site Approva~ be granted, adopting Resolution SDR-1081-1, and Building Site Approval become'unconditional upon recordation of the parcel ma~;r~a~)'~a'~yo~'~horiZed to execute a Deferred ~mprovement Agree~ menfT..~Th~ m~tioh~'was carried.~ I E. SDR-897 MRS. EARLE A. PICKERING ~ITH, VESSING AT'~QUITO ROAD The Cit~ Manager advised that thetone-year improvement period has passed on this site and iris' reported that all defic~ncies have been corrected. It was moved by'Councilman Kraus'and seconde~"by Councilman Brigham that ~. Final AcCeptance-be granted and t~ek~t-'~f~ be ~uthorized to release the bond. The motion was'carried. F. SDR-897 MAURICE L. MART~N, QUITO!ROAD It'was.moved by Councilman Dirido~ and seconded by Councilman Bridges that the request for extension of Building Site ApproVal be denied, per the staff's recommendation. The motion was carried. G. SDR-1042 BETH DAVID SYNAGOGUE, PROSPECT AVE. -.1 LOT It was moved by CoUnCilman Kraus'~nd seconded by Councilman Brigham that Resolution SDR-1042-1, granting Final Building site Approval, be adopted. The motion'was carried. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. AVCO COMMUNITY DEVELOPERS (Conrad. from 5/15/74) An Appeal of the Planning~Commission Decision to Den~ the Application of Avco Comm~i'ty Developers for Teneative Map Approval of an 18-Lot Subdivision on Cox Avenue~ Summerplace Unit 2~ City of SaratoMa Mayor Smith commented that at the~previou~ City CoUncil Meeting the Council had indicated its ~h~Sf to gr~nt~this'appea~; ~0wever, there were concerns which were set oue~l~peC~fically,~"(1) p~e~erving the' pedestrian/bicycle/equestrian pathway through the subdivision to connect to Kevin Moran Park, to make use the entire freewa~ righ~-of~way fo~ ;pedestriap an~ bigycle traffic; (2) ~6~l~oon~-z for emergency acdess; (3). engineering of a berm;and (4) requirement of~19~ foot setback between the back property line and the'public street right-of-way. He indicated a report has beenTsuBmitted back to .the'Council from the Acting Planning Director regarding implementation of these conditions, with recommended conditions of development to include: (1) Prohibiting parking on the north side of the street adjacent to the pathway; (2) Lot 18 be of a rectangular configuration; (3).Depict a'minimum landscaped area between Tract 5233 and AVCO COMMUNITY DEVELOPERS (Cont'd.) the pathway of 8 feet and enter into a Maintenance Agreement for the land- -scaped area; (4) Submit pathway plans and indicate construction material type· to the Design Review Committee; and (5) Revise Condition II-B to read: "Street improvements on 52.5 foot right-of-way to be 32 feet wide as it enters from Cox Avenue, and taper,to 26 feet wide at Lot 4 and continue 26 feet through to Lot 18.'! The Mayor then re-opeped the publiC hearing and asked for any comments from the appellant. , !~j Mr. Richard Cecchi, representing MacKay and Somps, Civil Engineers, stated that under Item "J" of the. origina~~ conditiOns, it'states, "Subject.t~, additional requirements' oflth~ 'Pla[ni~g CommisSiOn and~or_Dep~gn_geyiew Committee." Mr. Cecchi ~jtate~ ~e would like.to add, "per.P~an~ng Department memorandum, ldaeed May~ 31', 19~l"'l"id addition~,,h~' stated he would l~ke suggest Condition 2 o'f Ehe May 31s~ memorandum o~tlining the recommendations of the Subdivision Committee be modified to read, '%ot 18 be of a rectangular configuration, ifpo ' le~7,,~as they would have no control over this condition ss~b at the present time~ since it is i~definite whether or not they will be · acquiring this parcel. Mayor Smith asked ~f.the latest comments from the Planning Staff·~eflect those concerns discussed at.the previous meeting, such as engineering of the 'berm and the pedestrian footpath. Mr. Rowe, Acting Planning Director, responded that these are included in the ExhibitI attached to the s'taff reports and information packet per%taining to this matter. Mr. Rowe further pointed out that the engineer has ,submitted a revised map on this development. Mr. Cecchi pointed out on the revised map that the line ~long the northerly portion of the street represents the ~_b~line' of the propose~ parkway and also repr.esentp the 25~ feet from ~the base of the' curb to the property line to the north. Mr. Cecchi indicated they have maintained that all along the . double frontage-lots to th~ north,1 and then they have transitioned back into the normal ~treet section, '~ndi~t~h~'o~'~=~,[h~fr~e_~go~"~c~ ,~ ",, · to the 32-foot section is to pr6v{de '~i~g in f~ont o£ [~se Mayor Smith asked Mr. Rowe if he was satisfied that this'map, plus the noted conditions, provides for the mult{-purpose pathway and specifies that the ~ccess is to parkSlands within th~ City of Saratoga. Mr. Rowe indicated that the exten~ of the overall configuration has been maximized and widening the pathwa~ further would bring the lot below the required 12,500 square feet. Mr. Cecchi pointed out that on the section w~ich shows the parkway there is a 52.5 foot right-of-way, and the.reason for this is they would like to keep one lot vacant. He indicated tha~ the total parkway sh6uld run 25! feet. Mr. Rowe explained to satisfy those concerns expressed by the Council, it would be recommended that the Council adopt the Planning Commission Staff Report, dated April 24, 1974, in addition to those,conditions incorporated in the memo, dated May 31, 1974. the design quality of the pathway~ and Condition 3 makes reference to the buffering which would occur in th~ pathway easement. Mayor Smith suggested adding language to Condition~A~ to state: "Provide pedestrian/bicycle/equ~ri~p pa~way and submit pathway plans, and indicate construction materia~'typ~·~p~thejDesign Review Committee." Councilman Diridon asked if the emergency access questioR ~is covered -- the additional width and the requirement to move the chimney to the other side. Mr. Rowe indicated that Condition "C" of the Staff Report, dated April 24, 1974, would have reference to the~emergency access. - 4 - ~VCO COMMUNITY DEVELOPERS (Cont'd0) Mr. Cecchi advised that the developer has asked him to describe what the Maintenance Agreement would encompass. The City Manager explained that basically what'the Maintenance Agreement does is that it puts the burden of maintaining. this property on the developer, who, in turn may carry the obligation to the homeowners by formulating a homeowners associat'ion. The City Attorney added that if either the developer or the homeowners .should fall down on this job, it permits the City to go in and keep up the maintenance and lien the lots which are involved. He pointed out that this would not necessarily require the developer to establish a~homeowners association, Mr. Rowe asked Mr. Cecchi if the question of the fireplace in relation to the emergency access is.depicted on the revised map. Mr. Cecchi replied that the map indicates that the fireplace will be removed. Mayor Smith indicated the Council has to decide whether to leave the config-' uratinn of Lot 18 as a condition or to leave this at the discretion of the developer. Mr. Cecchi explained that at this ~point in time the reason they have not acquired the Ditz-Crane parcel is because they felt. they had enough problems with the'18 lots. He indicated that assuming Oitz-Crane~s response is similar to that which was given Ipreviously!with regard to the selling price for the parcel which would connect With Lot 18, they would consider acquisition of this property; however~ he indicated he was reluctant to have this as a definitive condition, as Ditz-C~ane may assume they would have two finished lots at no cost to,them. Therefore, purchase of this parcel would depend upon what Dit~-Crane would ask as ~ selling price. CommisSioner Martin addressed the Council, stating that at the last Planning Commission Meeting there was an indicat~b~ that the berm was to be removed; however, in looking at the map tonight, it shows the berm to be approximately ~five fe~t, andit also shows that ~ads Will go below. It was his recollection When this subdivision was approved, the_re was not a berm at this particular place, and he felt it would have an unsightly appearance. Councilman Diridon commented that it seems most of the berm has been leveled outby backward landscaping of the, homes. Also, another major chunk of the berm would be removed w~th the construction of the pathway; therefore, he felt the berm iS not ~s~ big a problem.as it might have been before the Council asked for the p~thw~y. Mr. Cecchi advised that if t~ey are n~t abl'e to ~emovle a portion qf the berm at some future time, they woul'd p ~vid landscaping to Soften the affect. Mr. Cecchi then asked'what the~ ~ouncil intended to dO with regard to Condition 2 of the May 31st memorandum, which pertains to the rectangular lot. Councilman Diridon commented that he is not really concerned about accomplishing this rectangular piece. Mayor ~mith s6ggested the words "a~ reasonably possible"bbe added to Condition No. 2. It was then movedby Mayor Smith a~d seconded by ~ouncilman K~aus. that the public hearing be closed. The motion was carried~ The public hearing was closed at 9:55 p.m. - 5 ~ AVCO COMMUNITY DEVELOPERS (Cone 'd. ) .. CoUncilman Kraus commented that he does not object to the subdivision and th~ amendments which have been suggested this evening to those conditions outlined in the Planning Department! staf~ reports. However, it was his feeling the Council would have an opportunity to eliminate a 1200.foot cul- de-sac, which is not allowed in any other area, taking care of Lot 26, as he felt this house should not be removed. It'was then moved by CounCilman Bridges and seconded by Councilman Diridon that the tentative map, as revised, known as Exhibit "F", and the conditions set out in the staff report, dated .April 24, 1974, as 'well as the additional five conditions (as revised) in the staff report, dated May 31, 1974, be approved. (Revised conditions: (2!) Lot 18 be of a rectangular configuration, .if reasonably possible. (4) Provide a pedestrian/bicycle/equestrian pattern along the internal street and submit pathway plans and indicate construction material type to the Design Review ,Committee.) The motion was carried, 4 to 1 in favor; Councilman Kraus opposed.~ B. GERALD D. BUTLER, WALNUT AVENUE An Appeal of the Planning CommisSion De'cision to~Deny the Application of <G~lH?b?~BUtle~fo~STehtative Map .Approval on a 6~Lot Subdivision on Wai~t~-AvehU~:I. ~--~! . . Mr. Rowe, Acting Planning Director, was asked to present a brief history 'pertinent to this. aR~li~ationLand indicat~ why the 'Planning Commission has recommended denialof the tentative map.' Mr. Rowe st'ated this ~?o~e~a~'~d '~al0ng ~istory of applications for subdivision approval, ~d'{t'h~"r~cently worked its way through the problems of negotiatiating engineering requirements in terms of Water District requirements~ ['~anki~g~a~di~i~ing. Mr. Rowe'indicated that the exhibit before the Council represents six lots, which, after a review, was denied by the Planning Commission for the following reasons: (1) Lot ~l'cannot meet lot-depth requirements (120 feet), and a variance as to frontyard location would be necessary. (2) Because of the full-s~reet requiremen~ of a six-lot subdivision the situation is created whereby the existing house ~relates~ the roadway in which only a three-foot distance is. allowed (3) On Lot No. 3 a considerable amount of fill is introduced into the lot to make 'it desirable ~nd also~_e~e~r~es the~Water'.Di~t~ict'~ requirements, The question becomes a poii~'A~t~ Wher~the measure- ment is madeCdn~fhe"i0tS.~ Mr. Rowe stated that he iS advised by Public Works that traditionally the Water District has asked for the top of the bank, p~us I5 feet. However, he stated a letter from Malcolm Burns of the Water District advises that'~his would not be the case, ~and if the City did not want to see the property line from the dimensions recommended by the Water District, this would ~be~'_~p~_~p~.~a~e depth. ~(4) The property land~ocks~wi~th the W. Pe~k property across the street. - Mr. ROwe.commented that Mr. Peck is unwilling'to negotiate to make this proper~y relate to .the land division as proposed. He further advised that~a. Ne~ative-Dedla~ation was filed on this project over a year ago, ~nd the dev~10~r~"h~e' met On frequent 'occasions with the Sub- division Committee in .an attempt to resolve some'of the problems in connection 'w~th~this sUbdiVision. It was felt that the sum of circumstances was such that it was bad land division and 'nOt one which the City should endorse. - 6 - GERALD D. BUTLER APPEAL (Cont'd.) Mr. Rowe indicated the alternatives raised by the Planning Commission Chairman were: (1) At least one'variance would be required; (2) The . developer could provide a minimum access road, which would bring-all lots ±nto conformity and eliminate the 3-foo't discrepancy in the sideyard situation (Condition 3)J- "" - Th~_Magor_.gpened the public hearing at 9:20 p.m. G ne Fink .. t rney for_.the-a plicant, iddressea_t e ' ou ?i- - and atat d-' tonigh~ la'th~irs~"~i~ he~h'~s ~ir~'~some of' ~'~ec~m~d~t{~ m~%oned by Mr. Rowe. H~ indicated he has discussed the conditions as outlined on the Staff Report, dated April 24, ~974 with his client and it ~as his feeling most of these conditions could be met, except that of the lot depth require- ment.' Mr. Fink advised it is the feeling of his client Condition 3 pertaining to the illegal sideyard situation no longer exists, as ~e~h~'engi~e~r wen'e ~t ~d measured this and determined that this was legal~ .......... "~:- "' With regard to the problem of land~o~k, Mr. Fink indicated that the adjoining parcel is across the creek, and a bridge.could be' constructed; therefore, this. de~elGpment would not landlock the. property. Mr. Fink stated he would have to be in agreement with Mr. Ro~ [hat they would have a pFoblem with Lot No. 1. He indicated that this is a large parcel which has twice the actual amount of land required for a lot in this district; however, the problem is b~9~u~Jnof~the frontage, you c~nnot~the 120-foot .depth-requirement. Mr. Find indicated he would like the 'Council to take into consideration the fact.that the actual property line for this developmenE does cross the creek bank in some areas, and the creek bed has moved into this property and ~roded~sd~eo6ft[~'e~d~V~[~phblepp~9~Fyj He further pointed out that this land is iow~'than the ~o~rty s~rroGnding it. He also ~rt ~a~t~jl~ri~as~,Lev~h~t~k{~do~ta~a~e[ethe 120~f~t' d~p[H +~qukr~efit, ~h~rspirite~f the ~otrwo~t~ c6mpfy% ~{eh the requi~m~nts'Of 'the Sdbdivision Ordiha~ce. ' ' - - Mr. Clifford Beck, Civil Engineer, stated he agreed they could overcome most of the problems outlined, except for Lot 1; however, he felt they could make it work as far as the 120-foot depth requiremen~ is concerned. He also mentioned it was indicated there was a concern with the depth requirement for Lot 3. He stated they were not given the opportunity at the Subdivision Co~ittee Meeting no discuss this problem. ~. Beck indicated he felt the problem on Lot 3 could be resolved by some channel re-alignment. Mr. Beck indicated it would be difficult to extend this application any longer. He indicated that he felt this property has been penalized very heavily because of ~he extent of creek frontage, and he felt this should be taken into consideration . Eurthermore, he felt this would involve no loss in area or site clearance to the residents who live xn this area. Councilman ~aus-asked Mr. Beck how much fill wouId be required in Lot 3. Mr. Beck replied they haven't yet made a detailed estimate; however, he would roughly estimate 700' to 800 cubic yards.in. material.' ~. ~aus asked if this was a steep bank. Mr. Beck replied that it is not. Mayor Smith asked if-~his was the Old cree~ bed which is being considered to be filled. Mr. ~eck replied that it is not 'the old creek bed. He further stated that the water has eroded into the soils which are loosly placed, zhus resulting in this erosion problem. Mayor Smith indicated it appeared to him that w~at they are t~lking about is the old stream bed. However, Mr. Beck indicated that this is just a failure in the bank, and it is not the old stream bed. He indicated that approxi- mately 50 years ago, the center of. the stream was the property line, and the stream has actually meandered to its present position. - 7 - GERALD D. BUTLER APPEAL (Cont'd.) Councilman Brigham asked what the extent of the improvements around the creek would be and if they were planning to alter the creek in any way. Mr. Beck ~replied that they were not planning to alter th~ creek in any way, and the protection that is indicated on the map is a minimum protection that is required by the Flood ControlDistrict to controi the bank and prevent. the continuing occurrence of erosion. - /~Cou~cilman Brigham asked if the material used is concretel Mr. Beck ~r~lied t~at it is.known~asI"rip-rap'' and is a sandy gravel mix which eventually becomes a part of the b'ank; however, it isn't'~hard material like doncrete or sheet piling. Councilman Kraus .asked how many tr~es would belost by this fill. Mr. Beck replied that no trees-would be lost and further indicated that this "rip-rap" would protect the trees from erosion. Councilman Diridon asked Mr. Beck if they have received permission from the Peck family to fill on their land.~ Mr. Beck replied they met with the Peck family last week, and they seemed ~uite happy something'Was being done about this. Mayor Smith asked if in using the present designations of Lots 1 through 6, the developer failed to build on LDt 3, wouldn't they be able to put a standard road along the top of the' bank through_to the Peck property. Mr. Beck replied this could be done. He further indicate would be similar to a flag.lot, and he felt ther~ would still be the require- m~nt to provide the fil.1. ,. Mayor S~ith asked if.the developer would consider the 4-lot alternative for this plan. Mr. BeC~p~ied~hlss~6~l~nvolve approximately $25~000 in improvement costs and~ai'd~'t'f~l the 4-lot alternative would be possible. The Mayor asked if anyone would like to speak in opposition to this appeal.' .Mr. C. W. Neale, owner 6f the 5 adjoining acres to this property, commented that this is a bad situation as fa~ as Flood Control is concerned, and they are concerned that ~hatever happens here will affect his property. Mrs. Neale ,indicated he felt there was a fire problem here~ as well as a problem with ingress and egress. Mr. Stan Hopper, 12361 Saratoga-Su~nyvale Road, indicated at the Subdivision Committee Meeting, Commissione~th mentioned the .fa6t that at one high- water time there was a bridge.washed out on the highway. He indicated he would hate to this situation repea~ed. Mary Wagner, adjacent property owne. rs, stated that they feel very strongly opposed to the development of this~subdivision. She indicated they are ~ery concerned about the increased traffic on Walnut A~enue, as there are a lot of children in ~his area. .MRS. Wagner further indicated they are concerned about what is going'to happen ~o~tb~ cr~ek,'hnd,,al/so, that there is a lot of wildlife in this area.6hey would¢not like~to se~'lo~t': She further Voiced her concern about the possible loss of old and beautiful trees, as well as the steep slope off which this subdivision wou~d be';situated. MRs. Mechanic~ 20410 Walnut AvenUe, indicated she felt the. primary<5_b~;~fje should be to uphqtd the Plannin~ Commission's decfsion.with regard~to th~s decision. Mrs. Mechanici~dicated.she is concerned wi~h the traffic pr6blem, as' well as that of egress into the property Fb~ch is ata very steep angle. .Mayor Smith asked MR. Robert Shook, DireCtor of Public Works, how wide Walnut Avenue is. Mr. Shook estimated that the right-of-way is approximately 40 feet · and improvements 20 to 24 feet'wide. GERALD D. BUTLER APPEAL (Cont~d.) Mr. Ray Paxton,S~Inirrel Hollow Lane, indicated they are not so concerned about the number'of hodses[~in this proposed subdivision, but rather, the creek and the wildlife. Mr. Paxton. stated they would be very reluctant to allow Flood Control come in and~Zput "ri ra" p- p ,all the way along this creek bank as he felt this would ~reatly affect the'wildlife. Mr. Richard Wineburger, who-resides adjacent to this property on Walnut Avenue, indicated he would like t~ endorse Mr. Paxtonls comments with regard to "rip-rap" and added that he thought it was very unsightly. He further indicated he was 'concerned about what would happen to some of the very old oak trees on his property. · Mr. Be~k indicat~d~'he Wourd l~ke tO clarify-a f~w Ithings: He conmented that the 15% grade as shown qn .~he ~a~ doesn't represent the profile that will be developed; however, he sta~ed 1.5%!~s not aremarkabl~ slope. As far as site distance is concerned',LMr. BeCk 'indicated these~ requirements 'would be taken care of. He further stated the~ma~.imu~ height of the rip-rap would snl~ be approximately 12 fe~t!. ., Mayor Smit~ suggested t~at the phblic hearing be continued to the next regular meeting, and the Council go out and view this site and the conditions. He-further suggested that a representative o~ the Flood Control District be present at the next meeting to answer any questions with regard to the impact this plan will have on t~e characteristic of the flood plain, ehe ~fg~t~ have '%n ibis~ ~e~'~ ." "~" ' ~ ' ' ~' The City Manager, therefore, indicated he wouldschedulea time for the Council and any interested parties to o out and view this pro erty, and he would also see that a representative o~ Flood Control was notified prior to the ~Bext meeting.. .... It was then.,moved b~ Councilman Bridge~and seconded by Councilman Diridon the public hearing be Continued to the next regularly-scheduled City Council Meeting. The motion was carried. VI. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS ~. MAYOR 1. The Mayor announced the appointmeB~ ~ot~e Trails andpathways.Task Force Committee, a~ follows: John Terry, Delaplaine McD~niel, Kan Rose, Col. Ernest T. Barco, Mrs. Jean Woodward, R. E.~. Kaufmann, Joseph T. Hootman, Mrs. Ronald Knapp, Mrs. Terrance Kelly, and Louise Schaefer. He then verbalized the charge of this committee (outlined in a'~em~randum t~t'~ C~ty Council, dated MayT 31, 1~74. It was moved by Councilman Bridges and seconded by Councilman Kraus the membership and proposed charge' be approved, per the m~morandum, dated May 31, 1974. The motion was ~arried. 2. Announced Executive Session to! follow this meeting to discuss: 1) potential litigation; and 2) personnel m'atters. B. FINANCE' 1. Payment of Claims The City Manager ree~mYd~dthat the Council approve the list of disburse- ments, with the exception of 19465 and 19466~until after a discussion in the Executive Session'to follow this meeting. It was moved by Councilman Bridges and seconded by Councilman Diridon that disbursements 19375 through 19467, with the exception of 19465 and 19466, be approved. The motion was carried. - 9 - C. COUNCIL AND COMMISSION REPORTS 1. Library Commission - Recommendation Re: Financing of Branch Library Facility.. The City Manager recommended that the City Council plan a joint meeting with the Library Commission. This could be accomplished at a future Committee of the Whole Meeting, and set for Council action the first regular meeting in July. This was acceptable to the Council. D. DEPARTMENT HEADS AND OFFICERS 1. City Attorney - Report Re: Request of Anthony Cocciardi for Use of Trust Deed in Place of a Surety Bond on Proposed Subdivision. The City Attorney advised that according to the Federal Map Act, the City cannot accept a Cash Bond, Surety Bond or Letter of Credit for less than five lots. Therefore, he advised Mr. Cocciardi,w~u~d'.Fe"~,' ~akin~6therh~rrangements. 2. Director of Public Works - Report Re: Quito School Traffic Study. Mr. Shook advised that the students have met with the City of San Jose and the County. He indicated he would have a report for the Council at the next regular meeting. E. CITY MANAGER 1. Presentation of/1974-75 Fisca~ Year Budget. The City Manager indicated he would like to formally present the Proposed 1974-75 Fiscal Year Budget. Hp recon~nended this be s~heduled for a study session on Tuesday, June 11, and then scheduled for public hearing at the ~egular meeting on.J~ne 19. 2. Presentation of 1974-75 and1978-79 Capital Improvement Program. The City Manager recommend the' Council accept the 1974-75 and 1978-79 Capital Imp~evem~t Program,~n~ refer to the Planning Commission for It was moved by Councilman Diridon and Seconded by Councilman Kraus that the Council accept the 1974-75: and 1978-7~'C~pital Improvement Program and refer to the Planning Commission and the Parks and Recreation CommisSion. The motion was carried. ~ ,/ 3. Request for Block Party, Chalet Lane. It was moved by Councilman Kra~s and seconded by Councilman Bridges that the request to close Chalet Lane on July 4, from 11:00 a.m. to 9:15 p.m., for the annual Fourth of July block party be approved. The motion was carried. 4. C.A.T.V. Franchise The City Manager advised that the C.A.T.V. franchise has been officially accepted, effective June 3, 1974. - 10 - VII. COMMUNICATIONS A. WRITTEN 1. C. W. Neale and Laura Neale, Neale & Sons, Appraisers, P. O. Box 425, Saratoga, expressing opposition to the 6-lot subdivision on Walnut Ave. Noted and filed. 2. Jeanne Z. Neale, 20451 Walnut Ave., Saratoga, requesting acceptance by the City Council for denial of the 6-lot subdivision on Walnut Ave. - Noted and filed. 3. Elio Ponchione, 20433 Walnut 'Avenue, Saratoga, Calif., ~e~p~sing' -~sltio~it~th~g~o~ba.f~ision~n~Walnut~lXv~ue~ '- ~Not~d -and filed ~ 4. -. Winiam Faul Walter} .608 sW nLfl et Way, San Jose', :CaniN re{ugs[fng" th~'N[y' co~niil i~vie~r'SDRif0~ Sp~ffG'Co~di~ions "E" and "F", and C~_l.~ia;rive/aC.~2a!31i~w~gg}~e=f~Sna~[~2~.,be~met. -.Refe{r~d to staff ~'~e'poft B~k' to ~h~ CounC~l.~ ...... " ~i_.i ' - i-~'~ '~ 5. Russell Reed, Reed~s Carpets,~ 12361Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, requesting the City Council release them from Faithful Performance Bond ~135286 for improvements at 12333 Saratoga-Sunn~ale Road. - Referred to staff. 6. ~arles P. and Margaret C. Guichard, 21130 Wardell Road, Saratoga,. requesting~fhe City Council to consider funding a complete study of necessary road patterns from the present budget. regarding the extension of Wardell Road. - Noted and filed. 7. ~thur L. Cooley, M.D., Re: Appeal of Planning Co~ission decision to deny application of ~rald Bu~ler for map approval on a 6-lot subdivision on Walnut Avenue. - Noted and filed. 8. ~omas B. Inglis, Jr., ~ief ~dministrative Officer, City of Monte Sereno, to T. R. Lammers, District Director, Department of Transportation, re- affirming their City Council's support regarding Route 85 and join~ financing for protection of right-of-way. - Noted and filed. 9, Mason Shaw, Shaw International Theatres, expressing opposition to the proposed plan for the Parking District in the Village. - Noted and filed; letter to again be considered in 1ater stage of Parking District proposal. <, B. OR~ 1. Mr. John Curry; 20120 Merida ~ve., indicated that he has a complaint from his neighbor regarding the dust, noise, etc. created by trucks. He indicated he has been notified by the City that he is in violation of the Noise Ordinance. - It was determined that~r. Curry w~! i~ violation af the Noise Ordinance, ~hd~l~iSe~.~.q.~york~itH ~he Ci~y's Code Enforcement Officer to w~r~t a'f~'aSonable ti~e fo~ r~fo~ting this equipment. VIII. ~JO~E~ i ~ It was moved by Councilman Bridges and' seconded by Cou~citma6'~aus' that the meeting be adjourned to an Executive Session. ~e mot}~~ was carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:25 p.m. - ~ pectfu bm~tte~ ~ pect~ . Rob '~ ' - 11 -