Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-02-1975 City Council Minutes MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL TIME: Wednesday, April 2, 1975 - 7:30 P.M. PLACE: Saratog~ Cit~ Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, Californ4a TYPE: I. ORGANIZATION A. ROLL CALL Present: Councilmen Brigham, Corr, Kraus, Matteoni and Bridges Absent: None B. MINUTES Councilman Kraus indicated he would like to see his comments relative to the Resolution Opposing Inclusion 6f the West Valley Freeway Corridor as an Expressway or Freeway in the CoQnty Transit Plan inserted into the minutes. These comments were presented~i_-~i~"~ta~' the City Clerk. It was then moved by Councilman Brigham and seconded by Councilman Kraus the minutes of March ll, 1975 and minutes of March 19, 1975, with the addition of Councilman Kraus's comments, be approved and the reading be waived. The motion was carried. C. PRESENTATION OF RESOLUTION COMMENDING TOM WILBERDING Mayor Bridges presented the formal resolution (No. 725 to Tom Wilberding, former member of the Parks and Recreation Commission. D. APPOINTMENTS TO PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION z~M~bes moved, and it was seconded by Councilman Brigha~m,~.~Mrs_. L_9_oUj.se_ ~Ch~e~¥'and Rober_t~Flora I~e appointed as replacements ~tC6~_i~6rfner~.Pa~s and ~R'~cr~'iTi~issi6~e'r~'W~lberding and Zambetti. The moti'O'n The City Clerk .then administered the Oath of Office to Mrs. Schaefer and Mr. Flora. II. BIDS AND CONTPJ~CTS A. AMENDMENT TO JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT AND COOPERATION AGREEMENT HOUSING & COM~UNITY DEVELOPMENT ACT) It was moved by Counci.l~an Kraus and seconded by Counci~lman Brigham this amendment be approved. The motion was carried. B. ORDINANCE NO. 38.63 (Second Reading) An Ordinance of the City of Saratoga Adding Article III to Chapter 6 of the Saratoga City Code, Relating to Weed and Rubbish Abatement It was moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded by Councilman Matteoni the City Council's action of March 19, 1975 relative to Ordinance 38.63~ be rescinded, a~d Ordinance 38.63 before the Council this evening be adopted, and the reading be waived. The motion was carried. C. RESOLUTION NO. MV-94 Resolution Designatin~ the InterseCtion of Kosich Drive and Radoyka DriVe and Intersection of Radoyka Drive and Westview Drive as Stop IntersectiPns It was moved by Council~n Brighamand seconded by Councilwoman Corr Resolution MV-94 be adol/~d. The motion was carried. IV. SUBDIVISIONS, BUILDING SITES AND ZONING REQUESTS A. SDR-1073 JAMES A. RODRIGUES, WOODBANK WAY It was moved by Councilman Kraus ahd seconded by Councilman Brigham one-year extension of the Building Site Approval Agreement to cQmplete improvements on this site be approVed. The motion was carried B. SDR-1100 A. R. WOOLWORTH, BRANDYWINE DRIVE Mr. Shook, Director of Public WorkS, explained that Mr. Woolworth has re- ques ted there be a modi fi cati on to T the(CTt~'~T~(~'e~ i~'~tcepti ng Offers of Dedication. He indicated that typic~i~"~'f~'~'~ade to {he City they are made without conditionMr. Woolworth is willing to make the Offer of Dedication for storm ,wa~e~"~r~i~ ~'l~Y"~urposes which run~ th~u~Ts"~t~e~h~i~hes to ~di~'~a~ the Offer of DediCation i'n such a way that if it is not accepted in ten years, the Offer would be automatically revoked. The second con- dition would be that the Offer could not be accepted until similar Offers Of Dedication in both directions of the property are accepted. Mr. Shook indicated it wouldn't appear to be in the Ci~y's benefit to accept such Offers, and recommended the Council require the standard form of Offer. Mr. Wade Hover, Attorney representing Mr. Woolworth, addressed the Council, indicating that the development'of,this property has been ~pproved by the Planning Commission, and during the courseof the hearings at the Planning Co~ission level, there was a question as to whether or not there was going to be a need for astorm drainage ease~and walkwayeasement. He indicated at that time it become apparent that. the City does not at this time have Offers of Dedication for Storm Drain Easements i~ any direction alonQ the' peripheral of the property. It also became apparent that ~hTF~d~6n~rol District did no~ desi re to dedicate an easement for ~orm d~i~6~ on this property. Therefore, the need for such an easement seemed to be un- explained. - Mr..Hover stated that the City's ordinance ~rovides for dedication for storm dra~nage faciliti~es ~or~the general area,~e~~ing ~6~nt'6~ ~end~ a~.it i~i~c~l~Gnder~tand~hY~-the City,would requir~ . ~hTiY~ity doesn't ever requi~e~th~-'development of a storm drainage facility, what would be the purpose of requiring a dedication which-has no termination date, which would affect the property unduly and unnecessarily. He felt it is a question of whether or not the City intends to require indi- vidual property owners to make offers of property which are useless, and whether an Offer which is effective for a ten-year term can be accepted for the general improvements6f stor~n facilities in the area. Mr. Shook co~ented that whil9 it is true the City has'no contiguous ease- ments~'~i~~d~n~m~from this property, the property up- strea~i.s~l. Op~-d~~posite side of that property is the subdivis~on of Paramount Drive, which is developed. Therefore, there is only one property away ~rom the subject p~operty in that direction, and downstream from there the Flood Control District has easements and even key ownership of some properties immediately downstream, nearly to Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road.. Because the FloodSControl District is discussing the possi- bility of granting those easements~ to the City, the jurisdiction line would be Saratoga-Sunn~vale Road, as~there are public easements'Timmediately adjacent downstream from this p~operty and within one property upstream. As h'e recalled, Flood Cont~ol's l~tter tot'~h~Ch~Mn. Hover made reference, did indicate the District Was~]~nous of e~seme~tS through this property because they wished the jurisdic~ion~l~ne to be downstream. Mr. Shook commen~ed ~ha~ asfar as. planned projects, the purpose is not necessarily that the City-i~ intending now or ~some future date to go in and concrete the channel or put .in pipe -- in fact, this creek is heavily wooded and it would not be appropriate to do so. Rather, the inten~ is to protect that easement against the property owner encroachment into it in- A. R. Woolworth, Brandywine Drive (Cont'd.) such a'fashion that it would be a detriment to the storm water. Mayor Bridges commented that he felt'there are two basic principals to consider in this matter: 1) Whether or not the Council wants to set aside its former policy with respect to conditions on Offers of Dedication; and 2) Whether or not it wants to accept the two conditions offered by the applicant. Councilman Kraus suggested theCouncil postpone action on this matter this evening inorder that the CouncilSmight ha~e a chance to go out and per- sonally observe this property. This suggestion was acceptable to the Council, and it was agreed to continue the matter for further discussion at the April 8th Committee of the Whole Meeting. C. SDR-1126 PAUL GEERING (SARATOGA FOOTHILLS DEVELOPMENT CORP~'), SARATOGA- SUNNYVALE ROAD (4 LOTS It'was moved by Councilman Matteoni and seconded by Councilwoman Corr Resolutions SDR-1126-1, SDR-1126-2, SDR-1126-3, and SDR~lJ26-4, granting Final Building Site Approval, be adopted. The motion was carried.. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. UP-263 .JAMES T. ROHNER, NORTHAMPTON COURT Appeal by Norman J. Martin, 12524:Miller Ave., Re: Planning Director's Decision Regarding Conver~ on 3of. Existing Residence at 12545 Northampton Court The City-Manager indicated that this hearing was not noticed within the required time .limitation, it would be his recon/mendation the hearing not be opened this evening, but postponed to the next regular meeting on April 16, 1975'. It was moved by Councilwoman Corr and seconded by Councilman Kraus this hearing be postponed to April 16, 1975. The motion was carried. VI. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS A. MAYOR 1.The Mayor 8nd6un~ed aQ Executi.ve Session to'follow this meeting for the purpose of discussin~"Land Acquisition'L. B. FINANCE 1. Payment of Claims,- It was moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded~by Counc~lman Brigham the list of disbursements, 21045 through 21126, beapproved,'and the Mayor be aQthorized to sign the warrants. ~The motion was carried. C. COUNCIL AND COMMISSION REPORTS 1. Report Re: Request by Santa Clara Valley Water District to Eliminate Statutory Limit on Ground Water Extraction Charges in Santa Clara County (SB-510). The City Manager indicated this item was on a previous City Council agenda and was discussed at l~st week's Committee of the Whole Meeting, at which time comments were heard from a representative of the Water District, and also, Mr. Walter Hays, Attorney. He indicated the Water Distri.ct is requesting the City's support on this bill, and-the possible actions this evening would be: l) Support the bill; 2) ~ppose it; or 3) take no action. - 3- Ground Water Extraction Charges (Cont'd.) The City Manager pointed out an item of correspondence relevant to this matter, received from Mrs. Bruce Stephen, 12321 Saraglen Drive, Saratoga. He indicated Mrs. Stephen is aski. Hg that careful consider- ation be given before recommegding passage of SB-510. Mr. Albert Henley, representing the Santa Clara Valley Water District, addressed the Council and commented the District has indicated in its draft resolution that there is no intention of raising the limit beyond the $40.00 rate. However, he'indicated dollars should not be the con- troling factor here, but a responsive government should be. Mrs. Stephen (above) then addressed the Council, suggesting that the Council postpone action on this issue until the'Water District has more clearly defined its needs and after review of the E.I.R. on the San Felipe project.  After additional discussion, it was moved by Councilman Brigham that the 'City Council adopt t~_h~ Water District's proposed resolution; however, a statement be added to ~!pUTate ~h~{"t~re be a vote of the'people prior to raising the statdtory limit. The motion failed for lack of'a second. It was then moved by Councilman Kraus no action be taken on the Water District's proposed resolution. This motion also failed for lack of a second. Councilman Matteoni then moved, and it was seconded by Councilman Kraus, that the Council endorse legislation allowing removal of the statutory limit on ground water charges~ with the proviso that the District go on record ~bY_'gL'~'d~i'_~a~r~o~'u~t~t~hTi't~iTl~t~h~i n- ~Cr~'~'d~v~ue' fo~ f~ nan~Cn~ n~co~y '~ac~'~i'e'~ ~or ,t~e San ~el i pe, ater' ~f'-the ~6~:~he-moti'Dn~w~a~r~ 2. Planning Commiasion Referral Re: Beck Enterprises, Walnut Ave. (SDR-1154) Mr. Van Duyn, Planning Director, indicated that at the March 26th Planning Comnission Meeting this 4-lot Building Site Approval was heard before the Commission, and it.was indicated that there are some extenu- ating conditions with respect.to improvements of the property abutting Saratoga Creek. The Planning Co~ission reviewed the staff report and specifically requested the Council give consideration to Condition "R", which provides for a Hold Harmless and Indemnity Agreement between the applicant and the City against flood and/or other erosion damages. Mr. Van Duyn then reviewed for the Council the backgrou~ on this file. He indicated that,~epresentatives of the Flood Control District had met with the staff today, and they are now suggesting the District be given an easement for dedication within a 23-foot access from the top of the bank in order to provide maintenance to the creek. Mr. Van Duyn advised that the Planning Co~ission has not yet reviewed this alternative, and if the City Council would be in agreement with the concept of a Hold Harmless Agreement, or possibly other alternatives, he would like to bring this back to the Planning Co~ission for consideration. The question of liability in connection with a Hold Harmless Agreement was discussed. The City Attorney indicated that the City would not be liable for leaving the creek in its natural state. The City Manager explained that the intent this evening is not to have the Council approve the agreement; rather, the Planning Commission would like to know if the City Council is agreeable to the.~concept of a Hold Harmless Agreement. The matter would then go back to the Planning Co~ission for T~ntative Map Approval, with the inclusion of~h~.s_9~n-, dition, i f approved by the Planning Co~ission. He c~d~d~at~t~- Flood Control District has indicated its support of ~h~S'7~*cep~~' -4- Beck Enterprises, Walnut Ave. (Cgnt~d.) Following considerable discussion of this matter, it was moved by Councilman Matteoni and seconded by Councilman Kraus the Council indicate to the Planning Commission its support of the concept of entering into a Hold Harmless Agreement, if the.Planning Commission has explored all other alternatives with respect to the rechannelization requirements, and pro- vides a detailed report to the Council of these alternatives, justifying their reasons for not selecting one of these alternatives. Further, the Planning Commission should exercise extreme caution in recommending a Hold Harmless Agreement, and do so only after all other possible alter- natives have been explored. The motion was carried. riD. 'DEPARTMENT HEADS AND OFFICERS 1. Public Works~Director - Report Re: Nettesheim correspondence (Cont'd. 3/5/75) Mr. Shook, Director of Public Works, reviewed the history of this easement requirement, indicating that the Council made a determination to utilize two easement documents which involved a connection to Surrey Lane, rather than a connection to Paramount Drive. These two easements ran across the properties of Nettesheim and Knapp, and the final determination was that a minimum access r'oad of a temporary nature be constructed on the Knapp property and a permanent pathway easement be established on the Nettesheim property. In 1970, the Nettesheims granted the City a t~n-f6ot wide pathway easement, which has been construction, and this pathway has created for the Nettesheims problems throughout the years. He indicated Mrs. Nettesheim's letter of February 25, 1975, is requesting that the Council terminate this easement. Mr. Shook further explained that in 1969, theCouncil had felt the need to have this connection, both for emergency vehicles and pedestrian access from the Paramount area through to Surrey, and eventually providing the connection through to Foothill School. The minimum access road currently exists, as well as the pathway. Mrs. Nettesheim, 13625 Surrey Lane, addressed the Council, inquiring if this easement was rightly changed to a pedestrian pathway without proper noti- fication to residents involved. She indicated they had very little to say ih~the matter of granting the pathway easement to the City. Mayor Bridges advised Mrs. Nettesheim the time for appealing conditions on this SDR has run, and it is not the Council's intent to go back and examine the notification procedure in this matter. I~twas moved by Councilman Krau~ and seconded by Councilman Brigham this r~quest fo~ removal of the pathway easement be de~ied. The motion was carried. 2. Public Works Director - RepOrt Re: Hildebrand correspondence (Cont!d. 3/19/75) Mr. Shook reviewed b~iefly the facts surrounding th~s complaint, indicating that the City has an eight-foOt right~of-way from the face of the curb to the property line, and the fenc~ is ~'~Sb~k~nine feet from the curb. Mayor Bridges indicated he went.~Q~t~and viewed this site, and. agrees that Mrs. Hildebrand has a problem in that this setback is very close to th~ fence. Also, he noted that anyone walking up Miller Avenue must walk in the street in a blind right-hand turn lane. He felt the bus stop would be better located across the stree~ in front of the Church of Ascension. Mayor Bridges then moved th~sCi~y propose to the Transit District the relocation of this bus stop from its present location to across the street in front of the Church of Ascension property, w~h a roposed route going down January Avenue, proceeding'up Larkin Avenue, wi't~ a left-hand turn · I onto Prospect Road ((6~T~n~IK~s seconded the motion, and i t was carried unanimously, "~~- y '- 5- 3. City Attorney - Report Re: Donald Perata Con~unication Cont'd. 3/19/75) Mr. Johnston, City Attorney, explained that MrL Perata is attempting to appeal to the City Council a determination regarding new Building' Code changes related to Energy Conservation regulations. He advised that there can be no appeal to the City Council on these regulations; rather, it mus~go directly through the State Commission of the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Therefore, it was his recommendation Mr. Perata contact the Department of HouSing and Urban Development to inquire about this appeal procedure. 4. Planning DireCtor -'Report Re~-Annexation of Projects within Saratoga's · Urban SerVice Area. Mr. Van Duyn, Planning DirectOr, indicated that in accord with the County's new ordinance, the City is now<~eq~to respond regarding annexation of new developments withinits UrbanService Area. He indicated there are . four applications which he would like ~Council to review and indicate its recommendations in order that he can reply to the Countg~ as.requested. -Mr. Van Duyn then outlined the four application ref6rrals, the first two being Lyle Hamilton (6.87.acres) and Stephen F. King (10.75 acres), both of which are located in the Bohlman Road Urba~ Service Area. The third application is that of Andrew J. Poulos on Prdspect Road(1.64 acres), and the fourth application is that of Frank Horvath in the Mt. Eden Urban Service Area (2.336 acres). It was moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded b ~ Councilman Brigham the City indicate to the County it~ interest in annexing these properties. The motion was carried. 5. Planning Director - Report Re:' Northwest Saratoga Traffi~ Circulation Study Mr. Van=Duyn, Plann~ing Director, indicated that on March 12, 1975~ the Planning Commission took under advisement the transmittal ofthe Northwest Saratoga Traffic Circulation Study which came to the Commission at the direction of the City Council. He(a~'~b~t~ Commission had indicated it felt the comments of Mr. De Leuw in his letter of March 6, 1975, should be included in the Study analysis and made a part of the study document itself. However, it ~as the opinion of the Planning Commission that the report lacks sufficient information with respect to traffic counts on Prospect Road, east of Stelli.ng to Highway 85. Mr. Van Duyn further advised that the Planning Commissi on is' also interested in knowing what kind of improvements San Jose and the CoUdty had in the way of Prospect Road and the c~rridorbetween Stelling and Highway 85, and what the timetable is for~these~'intersection improvements. The Commission is recommending that ~heCounty make these i. ssues available to them. Mayor Bridges expressed his disappointment that ~his matter had been passed back to the Coun~i!l~.w~thout a recommendation from the Commis~sion, and he felt there are some ~ery basic decisions which must be acted upon. Councilman Matteoni suggested this matter bescheduled forthe Commi.ttee of the Whole Meeting on April 8th, and the Chairman of the Planning., Commission be invited to attend this meeting in order to obtain a better understandingof this study and what is expected'of the Commission. - 6- E. CITY MANAGER 1. Senate Bill 478 - A bill introduced by Senator Smith which attempts to clean.up a problem pertaining to filling,~'~unc~ (v~ancies. "' It was moved by Councilman Krau~ and seconded by Councilman Brigham the Council Support SB-478. .The motion was carried. 2. Senate Bill 275, Re: Public Employer/Employee Relations~d~T'~T"'~9 The Council expressed opposition to SB-275 at its regular meetingon March 5, 1975. On March.13th, the bill was amended to modify four elements. It was the concensus of the Council that the City Manager should direct a response to the ~t~Tl~i~iiators indicating the City Council's dis- satisfaction with th~"~{sl~s.and indicate its reasons. 3. Assembly Bill 1163, Re: Noticing Procedure for Zoning Changes This bill clarifies previous proposed legislation (AB-734) relevant to notification requirements. It was moved by Councilman Matteoni and seconded by Councilman Brigham the Council support AB-1163. The motion was carried. Colle D f 4. West Valley The City Managerindicated hehas received a draft Environmental Impact Report from Wes( Valley College ~concerning the proposed bleacher and lighting ~rOO~ami~or their athletic facilities. He.indicated he would like to receive direction ~rom the Council concerning the extent to which they would like to pursue this matter. He stated it was his understanding, after discussing this issue at a joint meeting with' the College, the matter would be tabled and discussed a~ a future joint meeting. He was not aware of any actionb~the Board to o{ficially bring ~he item up as a project again.' It was the co~cens~s of the Council that after a revi~ bf the.~raft~ _ E.I.R., a detailed response should be prepared,(~letter ~ ~i~ct~d'~{o the College requesting that the 'City's response t~ep~tTi~ludi'ng~ any corrections, be included in :their~ final E.I.R. and given to the Board ~or consideration. Also, we should ask the College how this matter comes about, in light of the comments atthe joint meeting with the College. 5. Board of Supervisors Meeting on Transportation Improvement Program-1980 i~wqs ~Ugp2~t~d tb~Lth~.v_~ger relay th~~mme~st (thi's ~o~o~d~liT~d its affect oH~r~Fn~s~tT'b~l~i~i'e'~~ F. MISCELLANEOUS" 1. Councilman Matteoni, Re: Fires in Various Neighborhoods Councilman Matteoni reported that in thetpast few weeks, startingwith a f~re in the garageat a home on Candy Lane, there have been some fire bombings and similar devices set in the Prides Crossing area, with rumors that this would increase in the next few weeks. The City Manager investi- gated this and found this is not only a problem in the Prides Crossing area, but also in the area of Harleigh Drive, and the Fire District is working with the Sheriff's Department in an attempt to apprehend these individuals. The City Manager advised that th~ City could request that the Sheriff's Department a~d Fire District keep us informed of these occurrences and advise what action they would deem appropriate in dealing with this. - 7- VII. COMMUNICATIONS A. WRITTEN 1. Town Clerk, Town of Los Gatos, Re: inquiry of Thomas U. Dorsey, 1222 Heatherstone Ave., Sunnyvale, t6 re-name Saratoga-Sunnyva!e. Road tO "West Valley Boulevard". - Noted and filed; City Manager to respond. 2. Clifford Petersen, 16298 Oleander, Los Gatos, requesting relief from Title 25 Energy Insulation Standards. - City Manager to respond.' 3. Isabel Green, 18986 Mellon Drive, favoring stop signs at Radoyka and Westview Drives and Radoyka and Kosac~Drives. - Noted and filed;.City Manager to respond. 4. Richard L. Davis, SDperintendent, Moreland School District, requesting placement of stop signs at intersections of Radoyka. and Westview and Radoyka ~nd Kosich Drives. - Noted and filed;. City Manager to respond. 5. Mrs. W. G. Carlson, President~ Brookview Home and School Club, 12301 Radoyka Drive, requesting 4-way'stop signs at the intersections of Radoyka s.~ and Kosich and Radoyka and Westview Drives. - Noted and filed; City Manager to respond. 6. David B. Graves, Principal, BroOkview School, urging the Council's approval for installation of 4-way stop signs at Kosich and Radoyka and Westview and Radoyka Drives. - Noted andlfiled; City Manager to respond. 7. Phyllis and Stanley Yasuda, 125Q1 Northampton Court, expreSsing support of application for conversion at residence at 12545 Northampton Court. Respond and advise public hearing on April 16. 8. Rosemary Woolley, 19396 Shubert~Drive, inquiring if Saratoga has an ordinance prohibiting the display of certain magazines in public view. Referred to staff. 9. Wallace E. Fox, Mayor, City of Emerville, requesting City Council's action in adopting a resolution opposing the passage of Assembly Bill 625. - Council to consider this bill at a future date. 10. Mrs. Bruce Stephen, 12321 Saraglen Drive, Re: SB-510, relevant to removal of limits on ground water extraction charges. - City Manager to respond and advise Council action. B. ORAL 1. Mrs. Nettesheim, 13625 Surrey Lane, voicing her objections to City Council's action to deny request regarding termination of pathway easement. - · No further action by the Council On this matter. 2. Councilman Matteoni requested that Mr. Shook, Director of Public Works, give ~9,si d~a_~ti on. i n hi s traffic priori t i es to Cp~ ~t~.'~.~_con_E~t~T_r_o'l'd~i ~es ~t the intersection of Blauer and Regan Lane, due to a :site dista~Fe ~6blem. 3. Mayor Bridges recognized publiC:representatives p~esent in the audience, as follows: Margaret'Reed = Saratoga Chamber of Commerce; Lynn Belanger - Saratoga Planning Commission; Louise Schaefer and Robert Flora - newly appointed Parks and Recreation Commissioners; 'Marjorie Foote - A.A.U.W.; John Powers - Chamber of Commer~e/Quito Merchants; and Rose Aberle - Good Government Group. - 8- VIII. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded by CouncilmanBrigham the meeting be adjourned to Executive Session. The motion was, carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:25 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Robe -9-