Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-17-1974 City Council Minutes MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL TIME: Wednesday, July 17, 1974 - 7:30 P.M. PLACE: ~aratoga City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, California TYPE~ Regular'Meeting I. ORGANIZATION A. ROLL CALL Present: Councilmen Bridges, Brigham, Diridon, Kraus and Smith Absent: None B. MINUTES Councilman Kraus pointed out in the minutes of J~ly 3, 1974, Page 3, Item B, Re: PETITION REQUESTING "NO PANKING" SIGNS ON ASCENSION, it should be noted that he voted in opposition to the action which was taken; therefore, the vote in favor should be shown as 3 to~2. It was then moved by councilman Brigham and seconded by Councilman Kraus the minutes of July 3, 1974 (as corrected' and minutes of July 9, 1974, be approved. The motion was carried.' II. BIDS AND CONTRACTS A. A. C. OVERLAY, VARIOUS CITY STREETS (Cont'd. from July 3, 1974) The' City Manager indicated Mr. Shook, Director of Public Works, has met with the paving contractor in an effort to get an adjustment to the previous bid Mr. Shook reported, however, he had been unsuccessful in his attempts, and indicated the Council had three alternatives: 1) Reject the bid; 2) Reject the bid and re-advertise; or 3) Accept the bid recognizing that it is above the engineer~s estimate. It was moved by Councilman Iraus and seconded by Councilman Bridges that the contract for A. C. Overlay be awarded to Piazza Paving Co. for the single bid of $29,872.50. The motion was carried. III. PETITIONS, ORDINANEES AND FORMAL RESOLUTIONS A. PROCLAMATION ESTABLISHING JULY 25, 1974 AS "SARATOGA HIGH SCHOOL BAND DAY" It was moved by Councilman Bridges ~a~d seconded by Councilman Iraus this proclamation be approved. The motion was carried. B. RESOLUTION NO. 85-9.15 A Resolution Amending Resolution No. 85-9.8 and 85-9.9 Adding to Basic Salary Classes~ Employment Position Classifications and Compensation Schedule for ~/Employees of the City of Saratoga The City Manager explained this resolution establishes two new positions which have been approved in the 1974-75 Budget. A~ditionally, it updates the compen- sation schedule and job description for the Youth Center Director. The City Manager asked that the Council hold open the title "Youth Center Director" until the recommendation to change the name o£ "Youth Center" to "Community Center" is again considered by the Council. It was moved by Councilman Bridges and seconded by Councilman Brigham that ResolutionnNo. 85-9.15 be adopted as recommended. The motion was carried. ~. ORDINANCE NO. 38.58 .An Ordinance of the City of Saratoga Relating to Fire P~evention and Adopting by Reference the 1973 Uniform Fire Code with CertainModifications~ Deletions and Additions The City Manager advised that a letter has been received lfrom the Board of Commissioners.of the Saratoga Fire District indicating that there is still some difference of opinion with regard to some elements of the ordinance, and requesting the City not ~et~h~'~at[~[Tfor public hearing until such time as a mutual agreement can b~ fe~6hed between the various entities. The ~etter also recommends that the City of Saratoga adopt the 1973 Uniform Fire Code as adopted by the County on August 14, 1973. He indicated the ~d'~c~ ~underjwhi~.~he~Cify is currently operating hasn't been updated since 1956; and the f973 V~si~h ~of the Uniform Fire Code has not been adopted by the City. It was therefore the recommendation of the City Manager to set this matter for public hearing on August 21st, and a Committee of the Whole Meeting be set prior to the 21st. It was mo~ed by Councilman Bridges and seconded by Councilman Kraus Ordinance No. 38.58 he introduced and the reading be waived, and the'matter be set for public hearing on August 21st. .The motion was carried. It was also asked that the City Manager ~gendize this matter for a Committee of the Whole Meeting prior to the hearing date. D. PRIDES CROSSING TRAFFI~ CONTROL (Co~t'd. 6/19/74 and 6/25/74) Mayor Smith indicated that as aresult of j.!e~nt traffic Study conducted in the Prides 'Crossing area, a plan has been~,fq~mu~ted in an attempt to deal with this entire area rather than on an individual basis. The Council then viewed the I~ay's~gps in this area, both existing and proposed, on the overhead map. ~be Mayor felt this matter should be'set for public hearing so that all home- owners in the PrideS>Crossing area could be notified and the Council could determine support for th~s program. Mr. IFrj~k Perdichizzi, representing Prides Crossing Homeowners~ Association con&urred in this recommendation for a public hearing, and suggested the date of AUgust 21st for consideration. This date was acceptable to the Council; therefore, the matter will be heard on August 21st and residents of the Prides Crossing area will be notified. 'IV. SUBDIVISIONS, BUILDING SITES AND ZONING REQUESTS A. SDR-1113 CAROLYN BUEHNER, ALLENDALE AVENUE - 1 LOT It was moved by Councilman Kraus and.seconded by CouncilmanBrigham Resolution No. SDR-1113-1, granting Final Building Site Approval, be adopted. The motion was ~arried. B. SDR-1121 LANOIE, INC., CANYON VIEW DRIVE It was moved by Councilman Diridon and seconded by Councilman Brigham that Resolution SDR-1121-1, granting Final Building Siee Approval, be adopted. The motion was carried. C. SDR-1124 WILLIAM GARCIA, MENDELSON LANE - 1 LOT It was moved by Councilman Diridon and seconded by Councilman Brigham that Resolution SDR-1124-1, granting Final Building Site Approval, be adopted. The motion was carried. - 2 - D. SDR~1063 EMMONS W. COOCAN, HILL AVE., BONNIE BRAE, WINN ROAD It was moved by Councilman Diridon a~d seconded by Councilman Brigham that work on this SDR be accepted and the Faithful Performance Bond in the amount of $1,000 be released. The motion was carried. E. TRACT 5243 C & I DEVELOPMENT CO., ALLENDALE AVE. Itwas moved by Councilman Diridon and seconded by Councilman Brigham that the Monument Bond in the amount of $1,325 be released. The motion was carried. F. SDR-1033 E. T. BARCO, ALLENDALE AVE.- 4 LOTS It was moved by Councilman Diridon and seconded by Councilman Brigham that Resolution No. SDR-1033-1, granting Final Building Site Approval, be adopted. The motion was carried. G. SDR-1065 GEORGE KOCHER/SAMUEL TYLER, FIFTH STREET & BIG BASIN WAY It was moved by Councilman Brigham .and secodded by Councilman Kraus that Resolution No. SDR-1065-1, granting Final Building Site Approval, be adopted, subject to receipt of the Encroachment Permit from the Division of Highways. The motion was carried. H. SD-904. GEORGE W. DAY CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. · Mayor Smith explained this request is for deletion of Condition 6 8n the tentative map~hir'in~'an unimproved pathway along Douglas Lane. As indicated in the staff memorandum, dated IJuly 12, 1974, the unimproved pathway does not appear on any map of the development, and furthermore, the final map was approved on May 17, 1972. The City Manager indicated ~t~s~qd~t_came before the Council at the previous City Council Meeting of July'~'f974'~und~ri~TT'EN COMMUNICATIONS. At the request of the applicant, the matter.was c~ntin~[d to this evening. He indicated the C~uncil should:?l)TDetermine whether or not they want to hear the matter; and 2)'If the Council does decide to.hear the matter, whether or not it should be tonight or a future meeting. Mr. Bill Filice, Attorne~ representing George Day Construction, commented the maps were approved without the restriction of an unimproved pathway; therefore, they are requesting this condition be eliminated. He pointed out that he is unable to speak on the merits of this matter tonight due to the. fact thae'/~=y- M~ Leto is no longer with George Day Construction. The City Manager explained that deletion of this pathway was an oversite,.~nd ultimately it is the staff's responsibility to~se~.~t~hat'i~"is'sh~h on the map. Mayor Smith ordered ~ public hearing on the merits of this issue the first regular City Council'Meeting in August. Mr. Filice indicated he may not be available for this date. The Mayor indicated the matter could be scheduled for August 7th, and if a conflict arose, it could be brought up as an action matter on August l~th. The City Manager then indicated t~h~_r~_~ a letter received from Mr. and Mrs. Dunn, 19521 Douglas Lane, requesting~that the COuncil consider deleting Condition 6 on this SDR. He indicated this letter wourdl be included as a pa~t of this file and he would respond tO Mr. and Mrs. Dunn. - 3 - V. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. A-429 CHURCH OF THE ASCENSION, PROSPECT AVENUE (hearing de novo) Mayor Smith explained this is an appeal with regard to final design review, and the matter is continued from the previous City Council Meeting. The City Manager clarified that the purpose of the public hearing is to consider the appeal of a design review issue. He indicated there is a letter from Frank Perdichizzi, President, Prides Crossing Homeowners Association, appealing the design review decision of the Planning Commission, and also the requirements of final design review, per the Planning Commission's action. The City Manager further indicated items 6 and 7 in Mr. Perdichizzi's letter, dated June 20, 1974, were pertinent to the Use Permit application, and these items were addressed at the time UP~80 was considered by the Planning Commission. He stated that items 1 and 2 are taken care of in the plans as approved by the Planning Commission. Mr. Van Duyn,~_P!~_n_~Y~n~;D~e~[~'~7~ verified the City Manager 's comment with regard to items 1'~ ~ ~f~[ing ~hat these items have been addressed in the Design Review approval. Item 3 was considered by the Planning Commission; however, a circular drive on the northwest side of the new building was not felt to be a feasible'alternative. Item 4, requiring both driveways to Prospect be a minimum of 24 feet in width,ibis been taken care of. Item 5, requiring a planted buffer be provided between.the southern parking lot and Ascension Drive, would be taken care of.By conditions outlined in a staff report, dated June 12, 1974. ~:~7.7 Van Duyn indicated that items 6 and 7 were specifically addressed when !U~6.~s~.~oh~{_~d_~'~b~i~he Planning 'Commission in 1972. Mayor Smith added that agroup of homeowners and representatives of the Church met during the past week and discussed specifically about the type of traffic using the church lot, and i~ was felt this entrance and exit should be used as a service road. He indicated this w~uld particularly address item 7. It was also felt it should be the responsibility of the City to restrict parking before both entryways to allow traffic to decelerate. At this time, the Mayor opened the public hearing (8:10 p.m.) and asked if any- one would like to speak for the appellant in this matter. Dr. Nat Abrams, 19739 Edina Lane, addressed the Council and commented he would have to agree with the Mayor that some of these items do not relate to design review. Dr. Abrams indicated his question would be: "What items under the Use Permit hearings requir~ that particular ordinance, and which items should be heard under Design Review?" He stated that the impression he has is that the~ provisions of the Use Permit call for very specific exhibits, and he felt they dele~iate those items which are a part of that hearing. He then read from page 90, paragraph 16.3, item "~'~O~Tt[~Ci~!'Ts-~ni~ b~d~a~c~Y.'ir"T~e-a~ii'C~'ti~n"~arI' ~ accomp~e~l~b~-~o~loWf~lan's'ahd dra~ings:Y~fy'A~ accurate scale'g~ the site ~howing the contourS.existing and proposed locations of streets, property lines, uses, structures,. driveways, pedestrianways, off-street parking, off-street l~ading facilities~a~dcl~dscaped areas." Dr..~!~Abrams commented that it seems Prides Crossing Homeowners are concerned about two elements: 1) driveways and parking; and 2) landscaping. It was Dr. Abrams~ feeling these are elements which become part of the Use Permit con- siderations, and it would be the right approach to consider them under the Use Permit hearings. He indicated the question which comes to mind is that there is no provision under the Zoning Ordinance with rega_~ to amendments, and he would construe that those issues I~r~e~'ed consideration 'by .t~[ 'Planni~g'~o~{ssi~n. A-429 C~urch of the Ascension (Contend.) ® pF~ ~brams _§~ted it is hi~ feeling the neighbors d9 nqt intend to~,ki~the church ~fr0m .b~i'_l~'fng~ t. his' =f'~l,j~n~d~iQl~fbflfty Tof '~ih~'~is i~'~'~''' ~ ac~{eQfng the goals of the church l. Eo cont{~u~ ~' ~idl~ as' po~siB~'Wf[~ the structure, and still meet the des'ires of the homeowners. Dr. Abrams stated: "To put it more simply, this would mean to consider'the structural design under this Design Revie~ issue, and consider the other.evidence under the Use permit, approving the design conditional on resolving these two issues." Mayor Smith asked Dr. Xbrams on what particular matters the Council should re- open the Use Permit issue. , Dr. Abrams replied that the Design Review Approval is ~dbj~' to.~nditions out- lined on t~e Staff Report, dated J~p 12, 1974. The i~ues here are: 1)~Ifi~~''~ -- ,d'~ive~ays u~e~ the.~U~e~-~rmi~c6~lth~ '~re ~ar~ ~p;' ~')' p~rki~ ~ots and ' ~p~rking stallS; .andi3) 'Tjir ~f ~[he 71.a~d~'c~ingj ' Dr. A[rams stat~d~that i~ i~his .... f~Zffn~ theTea~onin~ 'Se~i~"ehi~is' that he doen't see how you can associate the original Use Permit Ordinance requiring totality to be shown, and deal with parking lots or landscaping, etc, if you haven't had the overall plan approved. · For example, he indicated the current building on the plan of October, 1972, is shown to be on the south part of the parcel of land next to Ascension Drive. The current proposed location is on the north side; therefore, he commented he felt this was a substantial change. Therefore, it'was his feeling a change of this magnitude should be considered as a Use Permit issue. Mayor Smith asked Dr. Abrams if he was referring to the internal circulation. Dr. Abrams replied he is talking about the internal circulation on driveways and also ingress and egress. He clarified this as any access into and through the parcel. He indicated that when he refers to "parking lots", he is talking about off-street parking. Dr. Abrams stated that what poss.ibly could happen is that the ~mit would be granted, and subsequently, under Design Review hearings, the whole internal property could be changed. He asked if this is what the Council considered as consistant with the Use Permit. The City Attorney indicated that what is facing the Council tonight has nothing to do with the Use Permit. He further indicated that this Use Permit as originally granted was not conditional upon the location of any buildings. He advised that many Use Permits the Planning Commission has'granted have been conditional upon the applicant building out the development in accordance with a particular plan. Mr. Johnston indicate~ that this Use Permit was first granted in June, 1964; it was reviewed and revised on October 24, 1972, and again on April 9, 1973. He indicated that the Use Permit has always been subject to Design Review; but the Use Permit itself never specified that any particular building had to be located in a particular place. He stated it is still subject to Design Review, and the Design Review that is being appealed' this evening, the~first condition is to submit complete landscaping plans for Final Design Review prior to application for Final Building Site Approval, whic~ would indicate to him that the Planning Commission is considering this Use Permit still tentative because they haven't received a final set of plans yet. Mr. Johnston stated that items 6 and 7 in Mr. Perdichizzi's letter of appeal have nothing to do with Design Review, and therefore, they have nothing to do With the structural design of the building, landscaping, etc. He indicated that this relates to the number of parking spaces that has already been set, and whether or not there should be acceleration and deceleration lanes has.already been decided at another level/~'a_~'t~'e~i~f~' ~. period has expired. - =4~- A-429 Church of the Ascension (Cont'd.) Mr. Johnston stated it his impression Dr. Abrams assumes there is going to be an automatic reopening of the Use Permit. Dr. Abrams indicated that he reads this differently, and in June, 1965, two conditions were set: 1) One condition stated "Subject to Building Site Approval." 2) Design Review. He stated his question is: "Under what procedure is Building Site Approval going to be heard?" It was his recollection in 1973 there was a Use Permit hearing; however, it was not considered as a "hearing", but was heard under "Miscellaneous". The City Attorney indicated that many times the City Planning Commission.will put a condition into a Use Permit specifying where a person must put a building. However, in this case they did not; therefore, there is no requirement of where they put the building. He clarified that Building Site Approval does not require a 'l~cation of the buildlug. He stated that there may well be a requirement for a specific location, or the~e msy not be a requirement for a specific location. Therefore, because th~ physical location for the recreation building might choose now to be changed%from one portion of the site to another portion of the site does not reopen the Use Permit; however, this does not mean the Planning Commission doesn't have the~power to exercise its jurisdiction to re-review it. Mr. Johnston reiterated, however, that this is not what is before the Council tonight -- it is an appeal from Design Review. Mayor Smith stated that the issues this evening pertain to items 3, 4, and 5; therefore, it was his feeling the Council should proceed with the appeal and get it resolved, and then it would be up to the Prides Crossing Homeowners to ask for further consideration of the Use Permit. Dr. Abrams commented that assuming the number of~parking 'spaces under the prior approved plan, and if there are fewer parking stalls, does that re-open ultimately the matter of the Use Permit? Mayor Smith felt this would have to be handled under a complaint procedure which the homeowners would have to pursue. Dr. Abrams stated there are bitter feelings among some of the property owners in this area because ~[ainissues they want addressed have been pushed aside. Some of these issues ~lr'il) location of the structure; 2) number of parking .stalls; and 3) internal circulation. He pointed out that these are not issues'which would re-open autimatically the Use Permit, and these are the issues that bother them. Mayor Smith pointed that this is not a matter of the appeal, and secondly, for all he knows, we don't really know how many stalls there are. '~ Dr. Abrams asked what the appropriate procedure would be for requesting the City to re-open the Use Permit hearings. Mayor Smith replied the Planning Director could outline the actual steps, if requested. After c~sulting representatives of Prides Crossing Homeowners Association present ~'~e'audience, Dr. Abrams indicated it'would be their desire to consider this · appeal withdrawn at this time. It'was moved by Councilman Bridges and seconded by Councilman Kraus that the public hearing be closed and the appeal be withdrawn. ~The motion was'carried. .I~ e_' ! earingwas closed at :35 p.m.' ...... B. 1974-75 thru 1978-79 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM The City Manager '~W~lc.'a_a_ti~_d'~haf' he had submitted to the Council in June the proposed 5-Year Capital Improvements Program for 1974-75'~b~u 1978-79. This program was submitted to the Planning Commission for review and conformance with the General Plan and to the Parks and Recreation Commission for consideration. He indicated since,%t_h?~fn~L'of'hifo'rigfna~'~ecommendations, there have been modifications due to the fact' fhefe'h'a~' barn dhanges in the 1974-75 Operating Budget. He then reviewed the recommendations as set forth in the cover letter with the Capital Improyements Program. · 1974-75 thru 1978-79 Capital Improvements Program (Cont'd.) The City Manager indicated further that as a result of the ad_~o~o_n_pJ the 1974-75 Operating Budget~ $42,000 has been shifted from the/~rlgxRal proposed Program, primarily for 1974-55. He explained that essentially funds for the Capital Improvements Program come from the following sources: Motor Vehicle-in- Lieu fees, Park Development fees,.Gasoline Tax funds and Revenue Sharing Funds. He indicated that the policy of the City has been that 50% of the ~otor Vehicle- in-Lieu funds received go into the Capital Improvements Program, and the other 50% to the Operating Budget. However, this was altered slightly this year. He indicated that the Council adopted a policy several years ago that the Revenue Sharing funds' would be used primarily for new projects on land acquisition and development. The biggest change in the proposed budget originally submitted to the Council for the 1974-75 fiscal year is the removal of possible devel6pment of Azule Park, the reasons being twofold: 1) the lack of total funds ,~o~e ~9~p__letion or development of Phase I of that pa~k this year; and 2) the idevelopment of Che Avco subdivision within the freeway right-of-way and whether ~r n6~ ~d~eiop- ,/6~'~ig~t alter the City's position concerning that corridor and the relation- shi~ of Kevin Moran Park and Azule Park and how that should be developed. He indicated the addition which has been from the original budget submitted is $15,000 for development of Wildwood Park, particularly for the retaining wall at the entrance of the park to prevent further erosion, and the Parks and Recreation Commission has ~ade two other recommendations in that regard. The · third item which was added was the McCoy-Quito traffic signal. He explained that one itemswhich was left out under "Streets" on page 9 was the Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road landscaping, and this should be shown as $30,000 additional out of Gas Tax funds. The Cit~ Manager presented a letter which had been received from Mr. R. E. Kaufmann, President of the Gatehouse Condominium Homeowners~ Association, questioning why, in the second year of the proposed Program, we have included the Gatehouse Walkway. / The City Manager explained that the.Parks and Recreation Commission has taken the position that because of some of the problems with the implementation of the path- way, the project should be considered as being delayed. He continued that because of the General Plan process and recent appointment of the Trails and Pathways Task Force, this item has ~ot b~en officially deleted by the City Council from th~ Budget. He then outlined the two recommendat{ons submitted by the Parks and Recreation Commission, as follows: 1) An additional $5,000 be allocated for Wildwood Park for improvement of the barbeque.area in 1974-75; 2) $5,000 be allocated for improvement of the drainage system in the play area of Keven Moran Park during 1974-75. The Mayor opened the public hearing (8:50 p.m.) Mr. Ed Armentrout~S{~e~rof~r~n~er Subdivision~ addressed the Council., stating he felt ~g~t~ng'~u~d'~d0~ with the Azule Park a~ea during this time when no development is taking place. He indicated this~area has been a nuisance~i~.7~'dust problems, vandal{sm, "pot" parties, etc., and~h~.f~lt the Counci'f ~ho~ld consider another use for this area. The City Manager advised that one improvement the City is planning(~'~ .,~-.~ ._e~_sol__v_.~e-~ rpr_J!~Ie~ efi~s~ng ~n th~s area, andithat ~s the area zn front of t~e ~ I~ pro'p'~'s~d~p~k"~'i~idh"i~"fi~66 ~fBVed, causing children walking to and from -' school to walk out on the road close'to the traffic, and the two alternatiyes being .considered are: 1) improve the frontage; and 2) construct an asphalt path 1974-75 thru 1978-79 Capital Improvements Program (Cont'd.) ~alross-the schoolSproperty. He stated the City has been attempting to work wfth~som~of the other problems mentioned; for example, trying to keep the orchard plowed and the weeds down with an adequate maintenance program. He indicated another problem is that the proposed park is adjacent to the freeway right-of-way, and that provides access of all typesT Mayor Smith asked if the City is in the position that it would have to go to the State and request the ability to close off this right-of-way or police it. The City Manager replied that he believes in gets down to the point: "Does the City intend to assume responsibility to control this right-of-way?" He felt it would be worth contacti~'~t~o~'~ ~{'f~a~b~i~f program could be worked out. He s[a[~'t~at p~ibl~i~'~g~w~to g~t '~me interim official type of use for this area so ~er~i~ht be some direct responsibility by the City. Councilman Diridon asked if i~ome=part~of this~park area isn't under a culti- vatiSn contract. Miss Barbara Sampson, Director of Community Services, advised the City has a Crop ~reement for the area adjacent to this, which is considered a part ~vin Moran Park. She stated that Mr. Wightman, with whom the City contracts for ,farming. ~ ~vin Moran Park-/~Tyhas.'spoken to her about taking care of the trees at .the ~ule Park site. She stated that unofficially she has given him that prer~[{~e~o[~[h'~frees would have been in very poor condition, and he has indicated an~in'~'~ in extending his contract to cover the ~Ule site also. Mayor Smith suggested Miss Sampson investigate the possibility of extending the present crop agreement to cover this entire area. This might be accomplished by working with the State in evolving a policy, such as leasing, for the entire area. He~gge=~d'~.-contacting the Sheriff's Department with regard to some of the other problems mentioned. One resident of the Greenbrier area indicated he felt tker~ ~1~ b~ sJ~e kind of paved trail which would connect Goleta Avenue to~help =emedy . the the dust problem. The Mayo~ advised this recommenda't'i~rd='be'~fbr~a~ded t6 the staff for a future report back to the Council. The question was asked: "If this is not going to be a park, will the homeo~ers in the area have anything to say about what is going to go into that area?" Mayor Smith replied that it is the pattern of this Council to decide those kinds of issues at a public hearing. He pointed out this is a residential area, and the use would have to be consistent with the ~neral Plan. One citizen indicated. they have been experiencing problems with bats in this area and felt it should be the City's responsibility to take care of this problem. Miss Sampson commented she felt part of this problem would be rectified if ~ule ~re put und~.'the Crop Agreement. She stated she has spoken with the Santa Clara County Health Department, and they have recommended spraying and pruning of the trees. Mayor Smith asked Miss Sampson if something could be done on an interim basis. Miss Sampson replied she would discuss this with the Parks Maintenance staff. A citizen inquired ~g~ [~Rossibility of~the City selling~this land tb a developer. Mayor S~{[~fddrc~&ed~{:~f~'~d~'dS~d'cff'to consider this alternative, it would hav~ t'o~have to be-communicated to the City Council, and it 'would be discussed at a meeting of the Parks and Recreation Commission. He indicated, however, this would have to be weighd against many other ~actors, one being the freewa~. - 8 - ~974-75 thru 1978-79 Capital Improvements Program (Cont'd.) Mayor Smith indicated he .would like to receive recommendations back from the staff with regard to the comments raised this evening and a report back to the Council within .30 to 45 days. It was then moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded by Councilman Bridges the public hearing be closed. The motion was carried. It was moved by Councilman Diridon 'and seconded by Councilman Kraus the adoption of the 1974-75 thru 1978-79 Capital Improvements Program, with the inclusion of the two recommendations of the Parks and Recreation Commission ($5,000-Improvement of barbeque area at Wildwood Park; and $5,000 - Improvement of drainage system in p~y~area at Kevin Moran Park) as first and second alternates. The motion was carried. C. ORDINANCE NO. 38.51 (Cont'd. 6/19/74) Ordinance of the Cit.y of Saratoga Amending Article V of Chapter 4 of the Saratoga City Code, RetatinM to Business Licenses The City Manager advised that ~e has received a written request from the Chamber of Commerce to delay taking action on this 'issue~!tonight. He indicated, however, there would be no problem in opening the public hearing at this time and con- tinuing to a later date, possibly September 4, 1974. The Mayor opened the public hearing at 9:20 p.m. There being no comments~no~is matter, it was moved by Councilman Bridges and seconded by Councilman K~a~ the public hearing be closed and the public hearing be set for September 4, 1974. The motion was carried. The public hearing was closed at 9:22 p.m. VI. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS A. MAYOR 1. ~P~rade-Honoring Saratoga High School Band It was moved by Councilman Bridges and seconded by Councilman Diridon the Saratoga Marching Band parade be approved for July 2Zth, subject to meeting approval of the Sheriff's Department and Fire District. The motion was carried. 2. Request by Saratoga Employees Association for Special Meeting with the City Council to discuss Salaries and Benefits Councilman Bridges indicated he would prefer this matter be included on the agenda at a regular City Council Meeting ~n order that the public be present and have an opportunity to participate in this discussion. Following .some discussion by the Council and Mr. Don Wimberly, representing the S.E.A., it was moved by Councilman Bridges and seconded by Councilman Brigham this matter be agendized for the City Council Meeting of August 7, 1974. The motion was carried. 3. Recommendation ~e~r~c~ss f~r 'P~tiCipation in 'San~ ~l~ara .County ~BAG Growth Study Mayor Smith outlined the_~e~mmended process for participation in the Santa Clara County ABAG Growth Study, as submitted by the City Managers~ Association. This ~was discussed by the Council, and it was felt the three bodies concerned (I.C.C., P.P.C. and City Council) meet and further discuss this proposed process. - 9 - B. FINANCE 1. Payment of Claims It'was moved by Councilman K~aus and seconded by Councilman Diridon the list of disbursements, 19544 thru 19682, be approved and the Mayor be authorized to sign the'warrants.' The motion was carried. 2. City Clerk's Financial Report - Noted and filed. 3. City Treasurer~s Report - Noted and filed. C. COUNCIL AND COMMISSION REPORTS 1. Councilman Kraus reported he had attended the Hillside Subcommittee Meeting of the P.P.C. last night, at which time the E.I.R. for the proposed Parker Ranch was discussed. 2. Parks and Recreation - Repo~ Re: Capital Improvements Program This'was considered under PublicTHearings and the recommendation approved. D. DEPARTMENT HEADS AND OFFICERS 1. Public Works - Report Re: Traffic Safety Problems, Cox Lane The Director of Public Works adMised that PG~E would be unable to assist in setting of poles to provide a permanent closing of Cox Lane to vehicular traffic. He indicated he would investigate other possibilities for this closing and report back to the COuncil at a future date. E. CITY M~AGER 1. Joint Powers Agreement for Intergovernmental Employee Relations Services It was moved by Mayor Smith and seconded by Councilman Kraus the City approve. entering into this program for the next year. The motion was carried. 2. LAFCO Meeting on August 7, 1974 Re: Sphere of Influence boundaries on Black Mountain,~Evergreen and Loma Prieta Resource Conservation Districtst r=" · The Co -- .~ unc~l _authorxzed t~e C~ty-Manager to prov~e _the C~ty s'znput and ~.report~jaCk at the next regular meeting. 3. Vailco Shopping Center, Cupertin~, and possible traffic impact on Saratoga This will be seheduled for discussion at a Committee of the Whole Meeting in August. VII. COMMUNICATIONS WRITTEN 1. James M. and Margaret Dunn, 19521 Douglas Lane, requesting the City Council consider deleting Condition 6 of SD-904, related to an unimproved path along the north side of Douglas Lane. -Public Hearing to be scheduled for August 7th; City Manager to respond to letter. 2. Chief Ernie Kraule and Commissioners Long, Butera and Klear, Saratoga Fire Di~trict~ indicating opposition to City nf Saratnga~s proposed Ordinanee 38.58, and recommending adoption of the 1973 Uniform Fire Code as written and adopted by the County of Santa Clara. -,Public Meari~g'.scheduled for August 21; City Manager to respond to letter. - 10 - Written Communications <Cont'd.) 3. Letter to the Planning Commission from John Weir, Greater Arguello Homeowners Association, recommending that the Parker Ranch Draft Environmental Impact Report, dated June 3, 1974, hot be accepted. - Noted and filed. 4. Letter to May6r Smith from Dr. and Mrs. J. Jay Sitney, 19404 Vineyard Lane Re: requirement of Cal-West Communities for paving of a 4 to 6-foot pathway along Saratoga Creek which borders the northern property line. - Referred to staff for a report back.to the City Council on August 7th. B. ORAL Councilman Diridon brought to the Council's attention the unsightliness of the property on which the Cox Garage is situated; for i~stance, weeds, abandoned ~ehicles and other debris. The City Manager advised he would refer this 6omplaint t~ the City's Code Enforcement Officer for follow dp~ VIII. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Councilman Bridges and seconded by Councilman Kraus the meeting be adjourned. The motion was carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:10 p.m. esp submitted,