Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-05-1975 City Council Minutes MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL TIME: Wednesday, March5, 1975 - 7:30 P.M. PLACE: Saratoga City Council Chambers; 13777 Fruitvale Ave., SaratOga, California TYPE: Regular Meeting I. ORGANIZATION A. ROLL CALL t~ ___: . unc lmen Kraus,, Matteon~!,'-sBr~gham, Corr; and Br~dges-~"'9 B. MINUTES It was moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded by Councilman Matteoni the minutes of FebrUary 5th and February 19th, 1975 be approved, and the reading be waived. The motion was carrie~. C. ~PROINTMENTS TO LIBRARY COMMISSION The ~.Clerk admi~tered the Oath of Office to (C~i~i~n~T~'~k~ %M~Fg*'MO~d~A~Mill~r~Trecentlyappointed to t~~Ei'b~fy"C(~ssion. II. BIDS AND CONTRACTS A. AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLA~ AND .THE CITY OF SARATOGA TO CONDUCT SPECIAL CENSUS AND PROVIDE INFORMATION RE: COMPOSITION OF POPULATION It was moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded by Councilman Brigham the Mayor be authorized to execute the agreement. The motion was carried. III. PETITIONS, ORDINANCES, AND FORMAL RESDLUTIONS A. RESOLUTION NO. MV-92 A Resolution Prohibiting Parking or Stopping at Any Time Along F~uitvale Avenue from Allendale Avenue to Douglass Lane It was moved by Councilman Brigham and seconded by Councilman Kraus Resolution MV-92 be adopted. The motion was. carrie4. B. RESOLUTION NO. 724 A Resolution of the City Council of the Cit.y of Saratoga Commending Charles H. Smith ~~ed~=by Counti. lm~ Bridges and seconded by Councilman Kraus Resolution I~w 724 B~86pt~d.~ ~otion was carried. Mayor Bridges announCea the next regular meeting of the Council would conveyne at Mr. Smi~h's residence for formal presentation of this resolution. This ~as acceptable to the Council. C. ORDINANCE NO. 38.63 An Ordinance of the City of Saratoga Adding Article II of Chapter 6 of the Cit~ of Saratoga City Code, R~latin~ to Weed Abatement ~, It was moved by Councilman Matteoni and seconded by Councilman Kraus Ordinance 38~g__j.n.t~Fe~and~ed~1~d~discussiop~t a ~.tudy seraph_ on Tuesday, ~March~ 1.1 , = 1975~_ and~or=.~bl~ heari~ ne~'r~q~t~ Counci 1 Meeti~~h~_~'i 9~'~e Ordinance No. 38.63 Re: Weed Abatement (Con~'d.) IV. !SUBDIVISIONS, BUILDING SITES, AND ZONING REQUEST~ A. SDR-1071 WILLIAM'P. WALTER, FOOTHILL LANE (~ont'd. 11/20/74& 2/25/75) The City Manager indicated MrS Wa~lter has requested a two-week extension on h wil,1 therefore this matter. This was acceptable to the Coupci'l; t e matter be agendized for the regular meet.ing of March 19. Appeal of Planning ConTnission i nditions Imposed under Tentative Map Approval Miss Barbara SampSon, Director of~Community ~ervices, explained that the Parks and Recreation Commission had studied ~his tentative map prior to when it appeared before the Planning Commiss~ion for conditioning She indicated this is an area which the Trails and Pathways Task Force is worki'ng to try to gain access in order to get from one poin~ to another. It is recommended the conditions which Mr. Cantaces'si is appealling be retained until the Trails and Pathways Task Force has completed its job and determines if this easement indicating that he didn't feel an easement i~n this location on Ten Acres Road would be desirable in terms 9f privacy. He felt a more desirable location for this easement would be parallel to the creek. CoUncilman MatteOni asked the City 'Attorney what.problem would it pose if the Final Map were recorded with these conditions, and later i·t were'found one or more of the conditions could be dropped. Mr. Johnston, City Attorney, replied that iQthe conditions are only for an Offer of Dedication, the City woulld have no obligation to accept them; therefore, they could later be te'rminated. s h d ed After some discussion, it wa moved by Councilman Brig am an second by Councilman Kraus to affirm the P'lanning Commission decision to impose con- ditions relative to this· Tentativ~e Map ApproVal, modifying the language of Condition "M", as follows: "Offer to dedicalte an easement for trail purpose~ from Ten Acres Road to the northeast corner and from that area to the south- east corner aS per Exhibit "B".. Said trail ~rea to be a minimum of 10 feet wide." Councilman ~atteoni indicated he did not feel he Should vote in favor of this action, in that he felt the driveway on this~ property is already established ahd serving the property. He suggested, how~ever, in the event this motion passes, that it should be followed by a motion providing that all outstanding offers of dedication in connection with the ~roposed trails plan be re- considered at the time the Master Plan for rails comes up for adoption. The motion carried, wi~h Counci'lman Matteo~ voting in opposition; however, the follow up motion was passed unanimously. C. SDR~1067. JOSEPH'R~ HEIM, PIKE ROAD It was moved by Councilman Brigham"and seconded by Councilman Kraus Resolution SDR-lg67-1; granting Conditional Building Site Approval,'be adopted. The motion was carried. D. SDR-1131 BROOKS TERHUNE, CARNIEL AVE. It was moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded by Councilman Brigham Resolution SDR-1131-1, granting Conditional Buildi-ng Site Approval, be adopted. The motion was carried. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. ARTERIAL BIKEWAYS PLAN (InformatiOnal Public Hearing) The City Manager explained that this is a proposalTMby the County of Santa Clara relative to the Arterial Bikeways Plan~ He explained that it covers portions of the County and ties into future bikeway links in various incor- porated cities.' He indicated.~he~proposal b~fore ~he Council this evening is an agreement between the City 0f SaratogaI'and'the County for the possible · installation of arlinkin the arterial bikeway system from Saratoga Avenue, from Cox Avenue o n ~p~ st hearing is'that ~ ui se i bikeway standards, and in keeping with .the C}~y Council's previous policy not to eliminate parking for the purpose of bicycle lanes, except where absolutely necessary, it was felt property o~ners affected by this proposal should be given the opportunity to express their views. The Mayor opened the public hearing at 8:32 P.M~ re sed the Council. She commented Bonnie Helgoe, 12384 Saratoga Avenue, add s~ that the bike lanes are good; however, when they bought their'home'they expected to'have a blace in front.where people could park. She further commented that there isn't enough'bike traffic ~long this strip to warrant this action. Mr. Stevenson, 12511 Saratoga Avenue, commented that he recently bou~ht:~.s~ home~ which Has approximately 90"feet frontage. He asked if parking is eliminated in front of their home, where are~their friends to pa~k. He also commented that ~t is very dangerous to back out of their driveway onto this street.because of the rate of speed cars are traveling on Saratog~rAvenue. Mr. Tavares, 12444~S~t~ Avenu~,~ihdicate they have 3 cars at their home, and if parking is eliminated in front, there would be no place for him to park. He commented that if he has to pave a place to park, it will look like the "slums". ' Mr. Stevenson again addressed the Council, cgmmenting that he has noted teen- agers crisscrossing and not staying within t~e 4 to 5-foot lane. Robert Foster, 12516 Saratoga Avenue, indicated he has observed quite a bit of bike traffic along this area, and he felt~if people using bicycles would residents woul have to give up use their heads, there is no reason why d street parking privileges. Mr. Verinsky, 12528 Saratoga Avenue, omm nted they have 3 children who c e visit their home at least once weekly, and t~ere is no possible way they can accommodate 5 (ars ~n their drive. M~. Tavares, 12444 Saratoga Avenue, commented that they would notbe able to have any social life whatsoever if parking.is not allowed in front of their home. She also commented they have li~ed at this location for 20 years and haven!t seen very many bicyclists along ~his route. She didn't feel it was necessary to have 1 anes i n this locationi E. L. Davies, 12433 Saratoga Avenue, commented that he is in favor of bike lanes; hwoever, he feels the speed limit aloHg Saratoga Avenue should be lowered to 35 M.P.H. He commented that he h~s difficulty turning into his driveway because people often are following ~o closely behind him and traveling too fast. Robert Monlux, 12445 Saratoga Avenue, omme ~ed that in his family there are C n 5 licensed drivers and each has a vehicle. A~ a result, they have topark their cars along the street or on'a side street. - 3- Arterial Bikeways Plan (Cont'd.) One citizen commented he felt it would be more benefi~cial to the bicyclists if the City would do something about the speed along Saratoga Avenue. He felt if the County wants to do something for the bicyclists, they could' take some~of this money and put on additional patrolmen. He indicated he has complained to the Sheriff's Office on several occasions-~bO"G~'~d]'n~'T~ along Saratoga Avenue; however, the response time was v~slow. Ben Althouse, 18944 Saratoga Glen Place, commentedhe wasu~der the impression the City intended to put in a sidewalk inside the curb from Cox Avenue up to his house. He wondered why this couldn't be continued all the way up to Qui~o. He inquired if children would be allowed to ride on these sidewalks? Mr. Shook, Director of-Public Works, replied that the walks are being. con- structed in this location at the request of property owners at the corner of Oox Avenue and Saratoga Avenue, and are.primarily intended asa pedestrian facility. However, the Council has p__r. eviously adopted legislation to allow bicycles on the sidewalks. Jim Isaak, 18596 Martha Avenue, ~uggested consideration be given to an alternate bicycle route to get bi~yclists off this busy street and provide a safer route. The City Manager then brought to .the Council!s attention 3 items or corres- pondence relating to this matter,~as follows: William L. Cox, 19965 Herriman Avenue, requesting further con- sideration be givento the'Demonstration Bicycle Route System before implemmnting the Arterial Bikeways ~lan. Earl H. Jones, 12480Saratoga Avenue, in opposition toArterial Bikeways proposal. Rita Ciletti, 12468Saratoga Avenue, in opposition to proposed bicycle lanes and elimination of .parking. It ~as then moved by Councilman Kraus and'seconded by COunci.lman Brigha~ the public hearing be closed. The motion was carried. Ihe public hearing was' closed at 8:50 P.M. Following some discussion of this matteri"the Coune~l'~i~a~cated it would support the concept of the Arterial Bikew~'Pl~'~,~'hS~ it was felt the elimination of street parking would be inco~i~Te~'~e'C~~9 I t was,~ecommended the matter Be c~.C~e(~j~d. Regul at-Meeti fig , . 1 these bicycle 1aries. Mayor Bridges also..asked that the D~rector or Public Works ~nqu3re. as .to ~h~ ~:~he im~l'ementation.of the Arterial Bikeways- ~l]n'~]~h~ut~e p~h]b~'~f~F~(~ould be within the County's standards. - ' B. NUISANCE ABATEMENI (Cont'd.' 11/6/74, ]~(18/74, 1/15/75 & 2/5/75) Mayor Bridges announced the publ)C hearing re-opened at 9:00 P.~. Councilman Kraus commented that he has a problem accepting'w~at Mr. Hansen is putting in with reference to fencing. He felt the chain link fence was fine; however, he' had been under the imDression. thescreening ma~ial would ~9nsist of redwood=slats, instead of th~ bamboo type w~ich(i~ He"did not feel the bamboo material wou.ld be substantial en(U~'a~d' CoUld be blown down easily. -4- Nuisance Abatement (Cont'd. Mayor Bridges inquired about the status of the wood sales. The City Manager reported the owner is in the process of removing the wood from this property; however, the trailer is still there. He indicated this situation is not to be considered completed until the trailer and the wood is removed from the property~ ~ With regard to the Hansen situation, the City Manager indicated the staff will contact Mr. Hansen and advise him that the Councii is very unhappy with this situation to date.. He recommended if the entire problem on this property .is not cleaned up by the next regular Council Meeting, the Council take final action at that time. The City Attorney pointed out the fact that the City Council does not have any design review control over the, type of fencing material'Mr. Hansen is using, and that the Ordinance only]provides that the cars be screened from public view. Therefore, it was hi~ opinion the Council could not force Mr. Hartsen to use redwood ~ssopposed to bamboo. It was then moved by Mayor Bridges and seconded by Counci.lwoman Corr this matter be continued to the regular meeting of March 19th for final action. The motion was carried. VI. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS A. MAYOR 1. Announced Proclamation for "Family Unity Mo~h" in April. B. FINANCE 1. Payment of Claims' It was moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded by Councilman Brigham the list of disbursements, 20883 thru 20968, be approved, and the Mayor be authorized to sign the warrants. The motion was carried. C. COUNCIL AND COMMISSION REPORTS 1. Councilman Brigh~m - Reported he attended ABAG Meeting on February 20, at which time a report was heard pertaining to a new bill supporting the Clean Air Act 2. Councilman Brigham - Reported Re: Social Concerns Subcommi ttee's new work plan on the Social Element of the General Plan for~eities. Reported he would be bringing back infor- mation regarding implementation. 3. Councilman Brigham - Reported Re: Master E.I.R. for LAFCO. Reported that LAFCO is requiring that all annexations be accom- panied by an E.I.R.'~for urban service areas. 4. Councilman Brigham - Reported A.L.U.C. turned down a proposal for a ~eliport by Almaden Vin'eyards. 5. Councilman Brigham - Reported Social Concerns Subcommittee heard a report Re: COmprehensive Health Planning on a County basis. He indicated the City should soon be receiving this information from the County. D. DEPARTMENT HEADS AND OFFICERS 1. Planning Director - Recommendation Re: Policy Change in Land Development Referrals in Sphere of Influence, County of Santa Clara. It was moved by Councilman Matteoni and seconded by Councilman Brigham the policy as recommended in the Planning Director's memorandum, dated March 3, 1975, be adopted. The motion was carried. - 5 - 2. Director of Public Works - Proposed'annexation of 2 portions.of Prospect Rogd Mr. Shookindicated he would Iconsult LAFCO concerning the correct procedure regarding proposed annexations to unincorporated portions of the City, and report at the Committee of the Whole Meeting on March 11. · E. CITY MANAGER 1.' Recommendation Re: proposed WOrk Program Outline for.Needs Assessment Survey. It was moved by Councilman Brigham and seconded by Councilman Kraus the Work Program Outline for the Needs Assessment Surveya_~_~s~e~v'~p~ · by the Economic and Social OpPortunities, Inc.~,n~tTeCi~ty stg~f, be &_~a~p~o~ed.-'='Yhe."'S~i~on was carried. 2. Report Re: Moving of THi'storical Store Building ~'n~6~i'~(r~'6~"d~a~on Of thiTs matter, it was moved bv C~u~6'~%~o~i~ ahd-secon~e~ ~by 'Ca~nci 1 man Bri ghamthe Mayor~ be authorized to execute the Quitclaim Agreement with-the Saratoga Historical Foundation~fon.~oving of the Swanie store building, subject to the modi- fication reflecti~ng that the F6undation be responsible for all costs in moving the building. The motion was carried. 3. Recommendation Re: SB~275 The City Manager sdmmarized t~e provisions of this bill, and recommended the Council vote.in oppositioh to the bill in its present form. ~ It was moved by Councilman Br}gham and seconded by Coun'cilman Matteoni the Council go on' record as opposing SB-275 in its present form. The motion was 'carried. ' ,~ · 4.Report Re: FUture Action ~n!Northwest Saratoga'Traffic Circulation Study. . , ~ Upon the recommendation of the City Manager, ?t was' moved by Councilman Kraus and secondedby Councilman Matteoni this matter be referred to the Planning Commission fdr action'7'~_s~'T~')a~ amendment to the General -Plan Circulation Element..The motion was carried. 5. Santa Clara County Manpower Bbard Approved to indicate to th_~eC~ of Sunnyvale the_Cit~;o.f_S.ar~atoga's ~'_p~f~h~a~n~'C'l~a Valle~'~aTp:p_6_~'B~r~or~oader:~e~e~e'~-""'~ ~tation;if.this p~ogramis not,workable, City would support a new program -VII. COMMUNICATIONS' A. WRITTEN 1. Mrs. Henry Nbttesheim, 136Z5 Surrey Lane, requesting the Council con- sider her request for a change of position to end the right-of-way pedestrian path at the end of Surrey Lane. - Referred to staff for a . report back at future City Council Neering. 2. William L. Cox, 19965 Herriman Ave., Re: Santa Clara Bikeway System..- Noted and filea; City Manager. to respo ~. - 6- Written Communications (Cont'd.) 3. Mrs. Robert Swanson, Chairman-Advi.sory Committee, 19616 Farwell Ave., Re: Proposed Formation of Saratoga Historic Landmarks Commission and Amendments to Zoning Ordinance. - Continued to March llth Committee of the Whole Meeting. 4. Henry J. Liewer, Mayor, City of~Lynwood, requesting City Council's con- sideration in opposing legislation which would grant~ public employe~s the ri'ght to'strike, etc. '(SB-275) ~ Noted and filed. 5. Mr. and Mrs. Richard Green, 12350 Goleta Ave., expressing concern about the intersectio~of Saratoga-Sunnyvale<~6~>and Seagulq Way. - Referred to staff; report back at regular meeting on March 19. 6. Thomas A. Wilberding, Parks and Recreation Commissioner, informing Council of his resignation from the Commission. It was moved by Councilwoman Corr and seconded by CoQncilman Kraus Mr. Wilberdigg's resignation fro m the Parks and Recreation Commission be accepted. The motion was~carried. 7. Resolution of the City of Santa Clara Re: Operation ofTSanta Clara County Transit District Buses. - Consideration at future Committee of the Whole Meeting. 8. Shirly Yelsvich, Argonaut School Booster Club, requesting the C6uncil consider initiating a paramedic program for emergency medical assistance in the City of Saratoga. - Staff to obtainsfurther information; matter contin6ed to future Committee of the Whole ~ee~ing.~ 9. Margaret Reed, 13366 Ronnie W~y, Re: Ordinance No. 38.51, relating to Saratoga's business license regulations. - Scheduled for discussion at March llth Committee of the Whole Meeting. /~l'~.'~]~-M'~.i'~il'~'~a~jS19 Eric Drive, requesting the City Council's ~onside~{i~h~i~Pansf~f~ the Santa Clara County Transit System bus stop from its present location in back of her house, to another lcoation. - Referred to staff for report pt~regular City Council ~eeting on March 19. ll. Mrs. Ann Graves, 555 Maud Ave.~ San Leandro, Calif., expressing opposition to SB-211 {mandatory flourida~ion}. - Council to revie~ bill. B. ORAL 1. Mayor Bridges commented regarding an observation relevant to advertise- ments for the current production by the CommUnity.Players group in the Civic Theater, indicating "for mature audiences only". The City Manager explained that at the preseht time, the City only uses a basic rental agreement, and there is not a statement in the agreement specifically relating to discrimination.. However, he indicated an affirmative action statement could be easil~ added to this agreement. Councilman Matteoni questioned if the advertisements ~e~e of an advisory nature, leaving it up to the judgment of those purchasing tickets as to whether or not they should attend the performance. "*: The City Manager indicated the staff would have a report on this matter at the next regdlar meeting of the Council, 2. Councilwoman Corr mentioned that she is now a member of the Xnformation and Referral Board, and it is being ~requested this board relocate in the Saratoga Community Center. ~he City Manager indicated he would bring" this matter up at the Commit{ee of the Whole ~eeting on March 11. - 7- Oral Communications (Cont'd..) · 3. Mayor Bridges recognized' ubll representatives present i~n the audience, p · c as follows: John !Power ' .. Chamber of Commerce/Qutio Merchants Margaret Reed Saratoga ChamBer of Con~nerce Marjorie Foote A.A.U.W. Mary Mo'ss, Ann Miller, Saratoga Library CdmmissiOn Jim Isaak Gene Za~betti Saratoga Planning Commission Anne Tunzi Saratoga Bicentennial Committee .VI'II. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Councilman K~aus and seconded by Councilwoman Conr to adjourn to an Executive Session this evening and to an Adjourned Regular'~eeting on Tuesday, March ll, 1975. The motion Was carried. The m~eting was adjourned at 11:05 P.M. ~' sPec~C - Ro