Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-07-1976 City Council Minutes MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL TIME: Wednesday, January 7, 1976 - 7:30 P.M. PLACE: Saratoga City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, California TYPE: Regular Meeting · I. ORGANIZATION A. ROLL CALL Present: Councilmen Brigham, Corr, Kraus, Matteoni, Bridges Absent: None B. MINUTES ~o~il~a~-~igh~'pOin~"~"~a~e ~e~he motion to approve the library ~ i ~'~' the '~6~er ~h ~"ti'~g~e~ than Mayor Bridges. It was then moved by Councilman Matteoni and seconded by Councilman Kraus the minutes of December 9th be approved, noting this-correction, and the reading be waived. The motion was carried.. II. CONSENT CALENDAR A. COMPOSITION OF CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Authorization to Negotiate Agreement with Architect for E1 nuito Park Master Plan Revision 2. Payment of Claims It was moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded by Councilman Matteoni the compo- sition of the ConsentsCalendar be approved. The motion was carried. It was then moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded by Councilman Matteoni the Consent Calendar be approved. Th~ motion was carried. III. BIDS AND CONTRACTS A. LAW ENFORCEMENT CONTRACT - COUNTY O~ SANTA CLARA The City Manager advised that this agreement was reviewed with the Council at a Committee of the Whole Meeting in early December, the only modification being the 25 percent increase lid on the contract for the 6-month period, which will save the City approximately $15,000 from which was originally anti- cipated. He further advised that the a~reement~S~T~O'~f~e~n~ t~a~ the 6~i~t~n~ ~ ~emen~ 'i ~ '~ '~e bas i s f6r chargi n~ 'for %~' i~' ~ ~ent: ..... ' ' ' l) on the basis of activity hours performed in the City'Saratoga; 2) on the Supplemental Servi~e portion which the City has a direct contract for 80 hours per week for traffic patrol. Therefore, he explained that the City is only paying ~ased on activity in the City:, The agreement also spells out, which it did not before, that the 80 hours contracted for traffic enforcement, that those two cars will never leave the city, except in extreme emergency. It was moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded by Councilman Brigham the ~ayor be authorized to execute the Law Enforcement·Contract for the effective period from January 1, 1976 through June 30, 1976. The motion was carried unanimously. IV. PETITIONS, ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS A. RESOLUTION NO. MV-105 Resolution Prohibiting Parkin9 on a Portion of Big Basin Way The City Manager reported that this is a recommendation for elimination of "No Parking at Any Time" on Big Basin Way, from the crosswalk paralleling Blaney Plaza across Big Basin Way, and the "No Parking" would go from there to the existing crosswalk at Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. He indicated that the Chamber has written a letter~i'~j~'n~beir'obj.ec~i.b~n to the elimination Of parking, except for the possibilitylofprovid,ing tJestern Federal Savings with a sign indicating parking totheir lot in'back. 'He explained, however, this sign approval was denied because of the logo included in the sign. C6~nC~lwoman ~o~r commented thatinilight of'the fact tha~ parking iS s~'~ad on Big Basin Way, perhaps until the City gets th~ parking districts installed, i.t_should be indicated where there is parking off the street. Councilman Matteoni suggested following the Council's action this evening, the staff should be instructed to direct a letter back to the Chamber suggesting that the City is amenable to meeting with them in trying to work out some sig~n. ing program, but would ask for their cooperation. Councilman Matteoni clarified that he is speaking to a larger issue, and not specifically Western Federal. Mr. Van Duyn, Planning Director, indicated the staff has received a fair indication that there is approximately 50 percent reasonable property owner representation of the preliminary design for an assessment district, and Western Federal Savings is included in this district area. It was then moved by Councilman Brigham and seconded by Councilman Kraus Resolution MV-105 be adopted. The motion was carried unanimously. Councilwoman Corr asked that the staff follow through on Councilman Matteoni's suggestion to indicate to the Chamber that the City is interested in pursuing this idea of parking. The City Manager indicated he would comment in this regard. B. CONSIDERATION OF P.P.C. RESOLUTION RE: COMMUNITY CARE FACILITIES The City Manager indicated that it is the staff's recommendation that the Council not support this proposed resolution on Community Care Facilities~' ~s submi tted,~T~h~T~f~ ~1~1 owl ng reasons: 1 ) the City Attorney has questioned the cons ti tuti onal i ty of the State action in this regard; and 2) the Needs Assessment Task Fo~c~ is reviewing this issue, and will be discussing this in some depth and including something on this subject in their recommendation to the Council. Councilman Matteoni commented that it appears this' is a State attempt to pre- emption in an otherwise local area, but it didn't appear .that the State mandated that zoning must be consistent with the General Plan or change their zoning, but that there was an ovenall declaration of State public policy that/~h~e'jf~cil'i~t~es ';b~O. ns~t:Wi~h~:~a~:~!~72~'h~nd Comm~ni t.y Care Faci li ties that acco~o- dated'6'~'l~Si ~eopl~ '~s 1 i~)nsed"~h~oUgh the State Health Department was com- patible with that. He stated that nowhere did the law say that cities or counties have to do anything with their ordinances. Therefore, he did not feel it was necessary to take action, and that the law just elaborated if you do take some action, the conditions cannot be different than what they would otherwise be in similar conditions. It 'was the consensus of the Council' the City Manager relay the direction of Mr. Matteoni's statement to P.P.C., along with~the staff's comments in this regard.. - 2- C. ORDINANCE NO. 62 Ordinance Declaring the Necessity that Land Purchased for Park Purposes be U~ed for Constru'ction of 'Publfc B~ildin~ The City Manager explained that the Government Code, Section 37111, provides that if a city desires to use land that,was purchased for open space or park purposes, that it adopt ~an ordinanceso indicating this. He indicated that in light of the Council's recent action concerning the location of the library, it is recommended the Council introduce this ordinance this evening. Councilman Matteoni indicated he would like to suggest adding a new section to the Ord~n~q~b.~wa~ o.~ a~nd~nt, sayi~g~9ometh~ng to the effect that their ' ~'otatT6n of ~he ~i'~e'~T'~,~'6F~F~uld be'compatible with. the~l' ~se ~of ~l;~rd~i ece~'o~_ .pCgpe~ty'ii~'~ ~Cent~l' Park;' He suggested ~i's ~e' made '~'ne~ 'SectiSn 2, ~hd the ekesting S~ction 2 become Section 3. It was then moved by Councilman Brigham and seconded by Councilwoman Corr to introduce Ordinance No. 62 and the reading be waived. The motion was carried. V. SUBgIVISIONS, BUILDING ~ITES AND ZONING REQUESTS A. SDR-1167 DENNIS BRYAN, BELLA VISTA AVE. (Cont'd. 11/5/75 and 12/17/75) Appeal Of Planning Commission Decision .Regarding the Change of Conditions of Building Site Approval by Saratoga Swim Club~ The City Manager advised that this item'was continued from the last regular meeting to allow th(~Council an opportunity to review the site, and at that time, the question ~a~whether or not ther6 was basis fdr appeal. He indicated it is still his opinion to this date that the appeal does not meet the require- ments of the Ordinance, and there is no basis for appeal. Councilman Matteoni pointed out tha~ he wishes to continue to abstain on this issue. It was moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded by Councilman Brigham that the Council not hear this appeal. The motion was carried, 4 to O, Councilman Matteoni abstai.ning from the vote. VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED CHANGE OF ZONING FOR BLACKWELL HOMES (PARKER RANCH), PROSPECT AND STELLING ROADS, FROM "R-1-40,O00" (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) AND "A" (AGRICULTURE) TO "R-1-40,O00 PC",(SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, PLANNED COMMUNITY) - (Cont'd. 8/6, 8/26, lO/1, 11/5, 11/19, 12/9, 12/17) 1. Ordinance No. NS-3-ZC-75, An Ordinance Conditionally Re-ctassifying Certain Property-in the City of Saratoga to an R-1-40,O00 PC Zoning District, Together with Certain Reasons Therefor and Conditions Thereof The Mayor acknowleged items of written correspondence received during the past two weeks on this issue, as follows: 1. David Ferran, 20851 Hillmoor Drive,'expressing concerns relevant to development of Painless Parker Ranch. 2. Roger C. Buel, 20684 Ritanna Court, expressing concerns regarding Council's actions to date relevant to Parker Ranch. 3.Alfred B. Barsten, 12634 Arroyo de Arguello, requesting the Council oppose Parker Ranch development plan and rezoning. - 3~ 4. Fred Rouse, 12336 Arroyo de Arguello, expressing concerns relevant to development of Parker Ranch. 5. Mr. and Mrs. Mehdi Javaheri, expressin~ opposition to'the proposed development of Parker Ranch. 6. N. Per~v Moerdyke, Jr.,Attorney for the owners of Parker Ranch, clari~ving a statement to Russell Crowther followin~ a previous City Council Meeting relevant to damageto the value of Painless Parker Ranch. 7. Mr. and Mrs. Fred ,Badal, 20785 Kreisler Court, expressing opoosition to the development of Parker Ranch. 8. Mr. and Mrs. Dave Eby, 20819 Meadow Oak Road, urging.the Council to vote against the development of Parker Ranch. 9. Errol Schubot,.1745 SaratQga Ave., San Jose, supporting the Friends of Painless Parker with regard to hazardous aspects of rezoning in relation- ship to traffic and flooding. 10. Bob McWeeney, 12940 Pierce Road, asking the Council not to allow the development of Parker Ranch. ll. Russell L. Crowther, Arguello'Homeowners Association, expressing thoughts concerning Parker Ranch. The Mayor advised these communications would be made a part of the official file on this matter. The City Manager reported that at the last Committee of the Whol'e Meeting on December 22rid, the Council discussed the ordinance which had been drafted by the City Attorney, which ~!~s "th~ 'b~s i ~ for thTCOO~T1!' ~'~'i dn~' ~it~r'~pprovi ng or denying the subject request. ~'~i~t~d'at ~(~ ~u~e~' to'~'Hncluded in the,ordinance: the first pertaiHi~ tb' ~he ques~i6n of "the'site development plan and substantial changes With that plan, and he pointed out on page 3, second paragraph in Section ,2, specific wordin~ in determining "substantial compl'iance" With condition: 1) in the event any ~ajor change or alteration is proposed, it shall be within perview of the Planning Commission to require, if being necessary, a notice of public hearin~ thereon prior to such change or alteration bein~ permi'tted that particularly relates to the issue which Mr. Matteoni raised; and '2) page 4, where there is an additional requirement added, which reads: "and additional"Iv to include review of all hydrologic and drainage plans necessary to mitigate any possible flooding problems related to the development of this site." He indicated this was a concern expressed by Councilman Kraus. The Mayor then declared the public hearing open at 8:12 P.M. Bruce J ~___n'~e~'~T-~ 12781 Arroyo de Arguello, adddessed the Council and stated that he is opposed {o the development of the Parker Ranch, as he .believes most of the people here this evening are..He indicated that his familv moved here from Atherton 2 years ago because that area was becoming too c~Owded, too cluttered, too many carslack of parking spaces, too many exhaust fumes in the air . . . and they were attracted to Saratoga because it still has the roral aspects that make it attractiv~ for family living. He'commented that is thefr hope that the City Council would do everything in its power to maintain this type of community, and they feel development of the Parker Ranch will congest the area, will put more cars on Stelling Road, will make transportation more difficult in thffs area, and w~ll do all the things he believes the citizens-of Saratoga are opposed to. T6erefore, he stated he would like t~ register his opposition to any future development in, that area. Larry Fink of Norada Cou~t addressed the COuncil'and stated that he strongly opposed' to the development of Parker Ranch, based.on flooding conditions and traffic. 'He felt the community as a whole would be seriously deprived of their rural, aesthetic values. Brian Carlton of Wardell Road, indicated he would like to voice his' opposition on the basis that the houses on his street were not designed for through traffic, and he has yet to see anything presented by the developers of this proposal that \_ - ......... , -4- would indicate how the service to this development will be accomplished, and somebody is going to suffer. He commented that they all have very expensive homes, and at the time the homes wer~ built,'there was nothing in the plans which stated anything would happen onour hills, and one of the reasons they purchased is because of the view and some of the qualities mentioned by the first speaker. '~s,. Mr. Carlton further commented that there are a number of excellent home builders who have done the majority of development in Saratoga, and he is .not aware of any effort by 2 or 3 companies that he knows of to do something with this, and he has not seen anything in Saratoga that he knows Blackwell has done. Therefore, he feels there may be something suspect on that basis, and he would like to go on record stating his opposition. The City Manager explained that the proposed ordinance is the basis by which the Council acts on the proposed request, and the alternatives~a~iT~"W~QT~'6~'T6~-~ 1·) do nothing at all; 2) continue the hearing and take no action on the ordinance; 3) continue the hearing and introduce the ordinance; or He explained that the ordinance as proposed is only !'f~od'F'conditi6~a~ 'F~ec~a~'i:fi- cation as there are a number of requi~ents to meet be~'~o~ing became effective, if the ordinance was ultimately adopted by the City Council. Councilman Kraus indicated he has heard comments on several occasions that this development does not conform to the General Plan, and he asked that the staff re-elaborate if,.it does not. The City Manager co~ented that the Planning Co~ission in reco~ending and adopting this.splan felt it was in confo~ance with the General Plan Councilman Matteoni. indicated that at, the worksh6p meeting, he was discussing the idea that if the Council took action on the ordinance it would be approvifig the concept of "PC", attaching it to an existing zoning district of ".R-1-40,O00" that applies to the property. Therefore, if~the Council approves that type of planned co~unity concept and the land be developed on that basis, then the- Council would approve this ordinance, Councilman Matteon~ indicated that there is a preliminary site plan that shows 105 units. He pointed out that at~,~ Committee of the Whole Meeting it was re-conformed that the Co~issi on interpreted ' this .as an outside ~imitation ~. the ,prelimina~v plan di:d not guarantee 105 homes -- and home si:tes would be eliminated i~, on'a"part~.cuqa~ area, by shi-fting. it a few ~ee~because~f-ge~g~c~f-i~d~.ngs~,-~u~c~u]d~acc~da~e-t~a~.~e~-e~ was the reason for ~he addition i~n Secti:on 2, "substantial ~ompliance"~ :.He indi- cated that he is concerned in looking at the ordinance, and he wonders if we should be'~re precis'e, as he'~s having.difficulty findi'ng the language that would elaborate on the concept he ~s understanding applies in this case. Mr. J ohns ton, City Attorney, commentS' t~t talking about tentative maps and final maps, site develop~6~{'plans', ~c'~' iS~ up to this point in time the .City h~s always nearly used what the Map Act used, and that is "substantial compliance with". He ind.icated that under the Map Act, that decision is usually made by the Department of Public Works as to Subdivision Maps,and it is made by the Planning Co~ission as to s'ite development plans. He asked Councilman Matteoni if he was understanding hi's ~6mme~t ';~hat he would like to see something in there that would be more definitativ~'~s'~( where we could go far insofar as lessening or changing the number from that site development plan. He explained that "substantial compliance" could be more as well as less. Councilman Matteoni stated it is because of this type of general interpretation that he is wondering if we should be more specific in this case, as the Planning Co~ission, as well as the City Council, has given a great deal of review to the preliminary site plan for the cluster concept that has been presented.. Further, the Commission has said they are working with an outside limitation of 105 units, and when you take all the conditions spoken to in the Planning Staff Report adopted by the Commission, dated June 10, 1975, those conditions were designed to reach a lot of the concerns talked about throughout, 'and they have to be avoided. - 5- If the conditions cannot be avoided substantially complying to this map, ~then we are caught with a whole new concept. Therefore, he feels if this is what the City Council has always being saying or what the CommiSsion has been advising was their position, the City should provide these kinds of safeguards and cal.1 them out so we don't have several months from nowa debate over what is "sub- stantial compliance".-He ~om~ented that he is wondering if we'should say why we incorporated by reference these two documents, and what is the meaning for that action. M~. Johnston advised that the ordinance could still be introduced, and then the Council could still come up with the qualifying language. Councilwoman Corr asked if it could be written into the ordinance something that would say the Council is accepting the general concept of the' development so if the Council was to eliminate a certain area of construction, they wouldn't have the authority to try to locate it somewhere else. ~r. Johnston indicated you would ~lmost have to change the'PC regulations if you were to go this far, as the ordinance now reads: ."At the time of the rezoning,there shall have been a site development plan approved by the Planning 'Conmission." He indicated this is what has happened, and the developer is mandated to compl.v with it. What has been built into the ordinance is that he can be required to deviate downward, in the event that a particular investigation would indicate' changing the location; however, the Council can't be in a position of so directing the developer 'to change his site development plan so that it no longer substantiantially com~]~With the one approved by the P.lanning Commission. It is a matter of interpretation whether there is going to be substantial com- pliance. Councilman Brigham stated thathe is. opposed to the ordinance on one of the grounds inSection 4 dealing with the Williamson Act, and he does not feel the City can conditionally zone from "Agricultural" to anything else with this land in the Williamson Act. He stated that the'interpretation for him is that it does not allow him to understand how we could go from "Agricultural" to - "R~l-40,O00 PC", aS it is written in the contract-! a~ agricultural land, and the whole intent of the.Williamson Act is to keep that land in agricultOral land, and he cannot see voting upon an ordinance with this' in it. Councilman Kraus indicated before he would be wi'lling tovote for'introduction of this ordinance, he would like to Understand it; therefore, he moved that the Council continue the publi'c hearing, in any event, unt~.l~h~. f~pal,ordinance is drafted. Councilman Matteoni seconded the motion.-~'~ Councilman Matteoni commented with r'egard to the guest~on raised by Councilman Brigham, he didn't know if this would require redrafting -- it is either deleted or it is in, depending upon the vote of the Council: He explained this was the matter of not wanting this included so that the 17 acres was not conditionally rezoned.(Section 4). Councilwoman Corr commented that she wants to be sure Sectio'n 4 does what she thinks it should do, and that is not to rezone the agricultOral'land until the land has been taken out of the Williamson Act. Councilman Matteoni commented if additional language is wanted here;~h~ not ~ deletion of this section, then he would feel it is in conformity with Mr. Kr~us's motion. The motion was then voted upon, and carried unanimously. The City Attorney asked that the Council specifically point out what changes the? would like made in the ordinance. Councilman Kraus pointed out Councilman Matteoni's reference to the fact that the Council had discussed at the last Committee of the Whole Meetin~ they did not want to go over 105 homes, and i.f there was something wrong, those homes would be deleted. However, he indicated he was still confused in reference to -6- Councilman Brigham's point because as he reads the ordinance, it sounds like this 17 acres isn't involved unless something is done with it. Councilman Brigham explained that his feeling is that he wouldn't even like to have it conditionally rezoned, even before it is taken out of the Williamson Act. Mayor Bridges commented that he feelS, then, that ~his is different than what has been proposed by Councilman Kraus in his motion, and Councilwoman Corr's comments were that she would like to. see some additional wording to indicate that it had to be removed from the Williamson Act prior 'to the time the zoning actually took place. However, it seems that what Counci'lman Brigham is saying i~s that is should be taken out of the development altogether and not be allowed even to be applied for. Councilman Kraus asked the City. AttOrney if this were deleted and not addressed at all, wouldn't it basically be saying the same thing, or does it have to be addressed in this ordinance? Mr. Johnston replied that if you l'eft out Section 4, there would' be an inference that by the rezoni ng,'you would be permitting the proposed number of units, which would be possibly contrary to the contract. He explained that the purpose of putting in Section 4 Was to try'and make it look more clear. 'He indicated it could be changed to say something~to the affect that "It will not become rezoned unless and unti'l it is out of the Williamson Act." or you could take out the 17-acre parcel, and in that ~ase, this would change the exhibit. Mayor Bridges advised that the maker~of the motion'did not address taking it out of the ordinance altogether; rather, he addressed himself to the comments of Councilman Matteoni with regard tO the "substantial compliance" portion. Councilman Matteoni explai ned that hl is asking for the City Attorney's judgment on whether we can adapt a special definition of "substantial compliance" or relate it to the facts before us in this ordinance. He stated that generally, the concept he has in mind is that the deletion of certain home sites because of adverse environmental factors that would be created~'~9~'t~i"~'~la~6 m~nt in the location presently shown~-- if they cannot be s~if~ed slightly t~ substantially comply with that map -- the deletion would not be a substantial non-compliance with this,'but'would be furthering the open space and increasing the average lot size overall. He indicated in his,mind this is substantial com- pliance. Therefore, he wondered if this shouldn't be said, and he would like the City Attorney's thoughts on this. Mr. Johnston commented there would be no problem with this, as i n relation to tentative and final maps, the staff has always found the final map with less units than the tentative map as being in substantial compliance. B. CONSIDERATION OF REZONING FROM "R-1-20,O00" (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, LOW- DENSITY) TO "R-I-IO,O00 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, MEDIUM DENSITY) THE NORTHERLY 10,000+ SQUARE FOOT PORTION OF THE PARCEL DESIGNATED AS PARCEL 65,0F BOOK 391 AT PAGE 37, LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER O~ ALLENDALE AVENUE AND DOLPHIN DRIVE Mr. Van Duyn, Planning Director', explained that this site is presently under one ownership, and is~6d~'t6 ~'~Zb~e~ ~ R~l~i~,560~5~h¥'a~p~'i.cant. He indicated' the~'C~a~a~6~!~6~i~a ~6~i!a'-~lio~"~A~ aD~i~n~ ~ S~llt'th~ ~a'~'~e'l, on which 10,960 ~quar~ f6et woul~ conform to R-I-IO',O00 and-'R-l-'15,000 ~oninq to the north, and 20,135 square feet would conform to R-1-20,O00 consisting of sinpie~family residences, with R-l-~O,O00 on the other side of Dolnhin to the east. Mr. Van Duyn further pointed out tha~ the property all along the east section of Dolphin Drive, although the zoning varies from 20,000, 12,500, and in some instances, acre zoning, the General Plan designates that entire strip on the north side of Allendale for'medium densi[ty ~esidential activities. He indicated it was the Planning Conm~ission's feeling that by establishinp zoning lines to be superimposed on the proposed lot split line, the applicant would be able to retain the R-1-20,O00 corner buffer and avoid "spot zoning". -7- He also indicated with regard to public reaction, there has been no verbal or written opposition to'the proposed rezoni~ from anyone in the notification area. The Mayor oDened the public hearing at 9:51 P.M. There being no comments from the audience, it was moved by Councilman Brigham and seconded by Councilman Kraus the public hearing be closed. The motion was carried. The public hearing was closed at 9:52 P.M. It was then moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded by Councilman Brigham to intro- duce Ordinance NS-3-ZC-74, Amending the Zoning Map, and waive the reading of said Ordinance. The motion was carried. C. SANITARY SEWERAGE PROJECT N0.-1975-3, UNIT NO. 1~- Informational Hearing 1. Resolution No. 756, A Resolution Approvin~ Form of Resolution of Intention and Boundary MaD and Granting Consent bv the City Council of the City of Saratoga to County Sanitation'District No~ 4 of Santa Clara County to Undertake Proceedings to Construct a Sanitary Sewerage Project and to Provide that the Cost Shall Be Assessed on the DistrictIBenefited under Appropriate Special ~ssess- ment and Assessment.Bond Proceedings Mayor Bridges introduced Mr. Steve Goodman, Manager and Engineer for Sanitation District No. 4, to explain the project. Mr. Goodman addressed the Council indica~"t~a~'t~e"pr~e(~'consists of co~-. structing sanitary sewer mains and buildi~'~ew~s-~6T~h'~'i~i~t~f ~6perties, consisting of 94 residences alonQ Woodside Drive, Brookview, and Palmtag Drive in the City of Saratoga. He ~exp~ained that presently these homes are served by septic systems, and the project was in~ti9ated at the request of a~majority of the property owners in the area. .He indicated that' the bids~o~ t~is-project will be opened on February l'Oth, andlthef~§b~l'~T~ ~a'~i~g'~6~la be ~el~ on either February llth or 13th, and the property owners will~b~ ~otified of that hearing. The present estimated assessment is $1,406 per resi!dence. The construction will include replacement of the bBckfill in the trench and pavements in accordance with the Director of Public Works' pavement replacement requirements. Mr. Goodman further pointed'out that the original assessment project was just to include Woodside Drive from Brookvie~ to Bellwood and'Palmtag, but at the request of 10 of the property owners' along Woodside Avenue, which were originally to be left out of the District, the Sanitation District brought them'into the project, and they. will be assessed under the assessment projectT He pointed out that those residences which are left out of the project, at the time they request connection, they will be required to annex to the District and pay a connection fee equal to the assessment the property owners wou~d pay if this project is approved. The Mayor then.acknowledged 2 items of correspondence from: Marvin and Shirley Steinberg, 19129 Brookview Drive, expressing opposition to Resolution 756, allowing County Sanitation District 4 to construct a sewer project along Brookview Drive; and Mr. and Mrs. L. P. Thompson, 19110 Brookview Drive, favoring the adoption of Resolution 756. ~ The Mayor then opened the public heaning at 8:59 P.M. Ralph Walgren, 1916~ Brookview Drive, addressed the Council. He stated that at the time this was presented.at the Sewer District Meeting a~ which the Mayors of the various coFmunit~es were present,~ it was suggested tha~t he contact residents on his street in order to get a majority. Mr. Walgren indicated he did this, and out of 15 homes on B~ook~i'ewi~Drive, 13 were in favor of the project. Jack Mc Elravey, 12528 Woodside Drive, addressed the Council, indicating he would like to register a protest. He commented that the homes that elected not to parti- -8- cipate on Woodside Drive don't have to be assessed the $1,400, and asked why this couldn't be carried down to those areas on Palmtag and also on Woodside Drive. He commented that it doesn't seem fair that the District can ~fford to cover certain areas of Woodside, and at a later time if those people want to hook up, those people can do so at the existinn cost. Mavor Brid~es explained that it wasn't a Question of those DeoDle being left out, but rather, the other PeoPle beinn let back in. Mr. Mc Elravey agreed with this, but commented these pegple sti'll don't'have to be assessed that~-$1,400 right now. He further pointed out_~bat the original paperwork included Bellwood~, Mellowood Drive, Palmtag.~6od.side~a~d Brookglen. Further,'he stated that Bellwood'is almost entirely "' ~p~6ject, and against the district change~eliminated Bellwood from the original 1975-3 annexation proposal. Therefore, it seems to him that you can get in if you want to,'i'f you,re on the north side of Brookview, and ifyou don't want to, you don't have to pay the annexation fee. He felt the way the proposal is now equality exists. Bill Finn, 12529 Woodside Drive, indicated he has been a homeowner in this area for 9 years, and this is the third time he has been in on these sewer projects. He commented that i n each case,.they have gerrymandered the district -- they have gone out to all the homeowners wfth a petition. When they.got the protests, they then took out certain sections where the majority d~ th~ people didn't want it, and then went to the Local Formation Commission to try to get it approved. Mr. Finn commented that he feels everyone Who needs a sewer should have it; but he doesn't believe they should use district funds to ,pu~ a maih trunk line in in one section, giving certain people the option to join o~ drop out of the district, without offering ~hat option to everyone else. Councilman Kraus inquired what happened on the north side. Mayor Bridges commented he believes as far as the law i~ concerned with regard to sanitary districts, one should be'aware'of the fact ~hat these subdivisions would not be allowed to exist under present policies fo~ the simple reason that septic tanks do not belong in areas where houses are built this close together. One of the reasons behind this is that good septic tank.operation requires a drain field, and according to the size and density of sgil planted, it may re- quire a larger drain fi'eld. He explained that under the City's setup of using the Sanitation District, they are a separate taxing agency; they do attempt to put together districts that they can build without a majorilty protest, and still have it feasible from a cost and engineering standpoint.! It was his feeling Sanitation DistriCt No. 4 has done an outstanding job iQ this area. Councilman Kraus asked Mr. Goodman if this was a case then that the trunk had to come down Woodside Drive, and on the north of that, anyone who wanted in was allowed in, but it was not really part of the original.district. Mr. Goodman explained that originallg, the Distriat was~just goiHg to ~o ahead with the left-hand side of the area, but due to the topography, found ~hey would have to traverse Woodside from'Brookview down to ProspeCt where the trunk is. He indicated it wasn't the intent to bring anyone in on that northern section, but only at their request bring them'back in. Mr. Finn again addressed the Council, indicating that several years ago, the ~h~ST'~' ~h~'~'~e~oposed exactly what the District is doing now, and they said the Sanit~i6~'Di~trict wouldn't have enough~funds.' He stated at that time they were going to take the trunk line down Brookv-iew, and he ~elieves it could still be done this ways' It was his feeling they could Have brought the trunk ~om the end of Woodside down to Brookglen and out to the existing trunk. Mr. Goodman commented that there is a line down Brookglen; however, the one on Brookview was terminated several years ago, and the General Plan was to come down Woodside. However, he stated he doesn't see whereathis would. make too much difference, as it wouldn't alter the cost in the area, and he doesn't see where this is too relevant. - 9- CouncilmanMatteoni asked if he was ~orrect in understanding that the District could go forward with the homogeneous area and set this on their side, and those people who received a fringe benefit are those who wanted in, but couldn't get in because they couldn't form 'a district years ago.' But this~district could commence without these people,!and the costs would come out to allow that, and it would go to that sufficience of protest situation within that homogeneous area and stand on its own. Therefore, he is of the view that those who want in get a fringe benefi~ because the line happens to come down there. Mayor Bridges commented that he doesn't feel the question of fairness is relative to the situation because this district will be built, whether any-of these people are hooked up or not. Councilman Matteoni inquired how long this assessment period is.where this $1~400 is paid back. Mr. Goodman stated that the property owners, if the District does proceed with the project, would have 30 days thereafter-to elect either to pay their assess- ment entirely or partially i~'.cash, and if not, the District would sell 1915 improvement bonds representing the unpaid assessments, which~do have a term of 15 years, which have been selling at.7½ interest on the unpaid balance. Councilman Matteoni then asked what the average increased assessment would be over a 15-year period. Mr. Goodman replied that it probably.would increase it by approximately 60 oercent. ~lelson Bukeman of Palmtan Rriv~ ~a~r~s~ the. Colmci] .indi.catinn th~t~h~ nll~St~o,S Ehe"i~sue 6f'whit~'t6~'b~tld~:'~Vai:i~Ble'~totho~e p~6~l'~ ~n't~e' ho~tn-S~de-.~ag' .... substantially increased'the cost to those who are choosing to join in the oth~ areas. He commented that someone must have to pay for the construction, and someone has to pay for the interest for this expenditure, and he wondered if the District's lack of participation in that one section contributes to an increased cost to those who are participating in the other areas. Mr. Goodman replied that County Sanitation District No. 4 is advancinq the funds that would normally be assessed against those properties that are being left out along Woodside between Brookview and Prospect Road. In returh, when those'property owners who-are being left out do apply to the District for connection, they will be required to pay a connection fee equal to the assessment, so County Sanitation District No. 4 is returned its investment in the project. It does not, however, increase the costs that are left to the.property owners that are in the project. Mayor Bridges asked what these residents would be allowed 'if 10 years later they wanted to come into the District. Mr. Goodman stated that their ordinance reads that it. would be the equivalent to the assessment that was levied on the adjacent properties under the assessment project, or the frontage connection fee, whicheveris the greater. He stated that the frontage connectionsfee represents interest andinflation, so if they wait long enough, the frontage fee would be higher than the connection fee. Therefore, the District usually gets back its interest it invests in these projects. Councilman Matteoni asked what type of events might compel. the ones not hooked up to hook up, and if their septic tank fails, are they able to oet another septic tank permit or would that trigger having to hook up to meet h~alth requirement standards because sewer is available? Mr. Goodman replied that County Sanitation District 4 does administer the septic tank abatement. He indicated that there is a county-wide ordi nande which states that anyone within 200 feet of a sanitary sewer must connect to that sewer; how- ever, it has been the practice of the Health Department, acting on behalf of the City, not to invoke that ordinance until such time as the septic tank does fail. Councilwoman Corr asked what Mr. Goodman meant by "failing" -- if this means if it is property cleaned, it doesn't fail, or it simply gives out? - 10- Mr. Goodman commented that g e~ally what happens is that the solids carry over en into' the drain field, and it plugs the gravel packing around the drain field, and once the drain field fails, th'ere is nothing to do except put in a new drain field. Councilwoman Corr commented that sh6 is somewhat disturbed by this "spotting" of areas, and feels if we are going to spend Sanitary District money to intro- duce the Sanitary District to the whole area, it should be enforced and everybody join. Mr. Goodman explained that the District doesn't have the authority to require cennections to its service system; i~ simply senves as a vehicle for the City in this particular case. to put in sewers when it is necessary. He stated that if the City chose to adopt an ordinance and enforce this, it could; however, the Sanitation District wouldn't recommend it for this reason: 'By not requiring immediate connection to the system'upon its completion, i't.allows a property owner who has a septic tank that might not be in favor of the project to spread his costs over a longer period of time. He pointed out that thiS-S1,406 doesn't provide ~ complete connection; it 'only brings the building'sewer to his property line. In addition, when they do abandon their septic tank, they will have to construct a building sewer from the property line back to a point where the~v can cannect into their existing plumbing, and they are now estimating this at $600. So the total cost of connecting would be closer tO $2,000, and this allows a property owner wi.th a functioning sehtic tank to start incuring and paying for the $1,406 cost, and deferring that additional $600 charge until his septic tank does actually fail and creates a'nuisance. It was then moved by Councilman Brfgham and seconded by Councilwoman Corr the public hearing be closed. The motion was.carried; the public hearing was closed at 9:20 P.M. It was moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded by Councilman Brigham Resolution No. 756 be approved, and this project be coordinated and supervised by Department of Public Works. The motion was carried. Recess and Reconveyne VII. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS A. MAYOR 1. Announced meeting scheduled with Transit District Board and'Monte Sereno City Council on Thursday, January 15th at the Community Center Re: 1/2 Cent Sales Tax Election. 2. Acknowleged letter from Jean Woodward, Planning Commissioner, Re: Not wishing to be considered for re-appointment to the Planning Commission when her term expires in January. It was the City Manager's recommendation the Council delay any action regarding this matter for approximately 2 weeks in order to receive an opinion from the City Attorney regardi'ng the process for sellection of members to boards and members under the recent Moscone Bill. B. COUNCIL AND COMMISSION REPORTS 1. Parks and Recreation .Commission -' Recommendation' Re: Appraisal to determine current market value of the land for library. It was the feeling of the Council this r~e6'~me~t~on'.i~'pr~m'~u'r~'a~ ~iS 'time inasmuch as the Council hasn't. received'~e ~udgeta~f~bU~es wi~h r'e~rd to the acquisition of the land.,?_:C: 2, Councilman Brigham ~ Advised that P.P.C. will makea recommendation to all the cities on a Transportation Advisory Committee, and asked to present this at a future Committee of the Whole Meeting. - Scheduled for January 27th Committee of the Whole Meeting. ~ · - 11 - 3. Councilman Brigham - Advised that at his meeting with Congress Minetta, he received some information on Revenue Sharing showing the 3 bills currently going through Congress. Also, advised there were some amendments to the Community Development ACt which might affect the City's funding. C. DEPART~ENT HEADS AND OFFICERS , 1. Director of Public Works Re: Petition from Residents on Carniel Avenue.~ (Cont'd. 12/3/75) Reported that he has been in contact with the State, and they are investi- gating the problem and will report back when they.have something substantial. Also, there has been some inquiry' on the development of the proDerty on the east side of the highway, and if this property is developed, the City would incorporate the storm drain facilities to assist this problem. This will be carried as an. open item, and. reported on at a future date. 2. Di rector of Public Works Report Re: Traffic Improvements, State Highways This pertains to the re-striping of Highway 9tO provide for left-turns. State has put together a striping project similar to that originally proposed, and the City is awaiting approval~to perform this work. The City Manager indicated he would direct a letter on behalf of the Council to the State Highway Commission and the District Engineer. Mr. Shook indicated the other area involves a similar type of activityl~ for re-striping to provide for left-turn lanes in the area of Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road and Prospect to the railroad. He advised that the State has provided a plan to.re-strip this, providing a continuous left-turn lane along that reach. Estimated cost for this project is $6,500. - This will be further considered at a futureSCommittee of the Whole Meeting. 3. Director of Public Works Report Re: Southern Pacific Crossing of Cox Avenue Reported that he has received correspondence from Dr. Silber and Mr. Steinberg concerning the condition of the railroad crossing on Cox Avenue. He indicated that the City corresponded with Southern Pacific back in June advising that the City would be willing to work with them to resolve this problem. Advised that he would follow this up and report back. Councilwoman Corr asked ~if there had been any consideration given to moving the signal poles at this railroad crossing. Mr. Shook advised to his. knowledge, there are no plans to relocate these poles. He Believed there was a general plan which called for additional safety devices at all. railraod crossings; however, the Railroad may not wish to spend interim funds prior to installation of crossing gates, etc. 4. Director of Public Works Report Re: Ralph'Pearson Maude Ave. (Cont'd. 12/17/75) Mr. Shook outl.ined the history of this matter, dating back to the time this applicant received site approval. to develop sites off of Maude Avenue on the extension of E1Qu~to Way, which called for the condition to provide Maude Avenue with minimum access road standards. Mr. Pearson has ind4cated his confusion regarding this particular condition and that he felt the Public Works Inspector had in some eliminated this condition on Maude Avenue, and he has suggested, since the original bond was $1,500, and he has already expended $900, that he give the City the difference of $600 and he be con- sidered as having completed the conditions of that site approval. Mr. Shook indicated he has received a quotation for similar type work on Marion Avenue at approximately $2,000. It was, therefore, his recommendation Mr. Pearson be required to comply with the conditions of his site approval. -12- After hearing testimony on this matter from Mr. Pearso~'s son, it was the feeling of the Council because of the City's inconsistency regarding these improvements, this matter should.be continued to allow the staff to look at an appropriate reimbursement agreement, to include owners of any undeveloped parcels on Maude Avenue, as well as the triangular parcel referred to in the discussion. The matter was therefore referred to the Public Works staff for further~i~f6~tib~'~Tt~'G~d~l.~dI~~i!~'~a~p~t~ck to the Counci 1~ ~'t~'~e~t"~'~di~ ~t~g !6~'j~H~ury'~l~tT ......... ~ 5. Director of Public Works Report -~Eick Observatory. Re: Shielding Street Lighting Mr. Shook reported that he has recently be contacted by the Lick Observatory concerning the p~oblem of light c6ntamination of the skies. For the reasons outlined in his report to the City Manager, dated December 26, 1975, Mr. Shook indicated it would be his suggest!on the City take the stand that it provide in their standards for shielding of all new street light installations. 6. Planning Director Re: West Valley. College Board Meeting Agenda Advised that also to be on the West Valley agenda tomorrow evening w~s the matter of relocation of the G-wing portable buildings. Also on the agenda is a discussion on the Mission College Stadium facilities and what is anticipated the Mission Campus will provide. 7.Planning Director Re: Letter related to proposed plans for construction of bleachers and lights for stadium facility. Advised that the College is asking that the Plannine ~ommission go throueh ..... , the review process for'~"u'~_=,e"l~r'~mi)~ ~i~.'i'~_[to=_th~.E~=~h~cZb,.'~s~'a~ ~'~_=1~9.~_7_~ He , indi'cated he would 'like tolinform the Coun¢i;1 "that his reply to the College wou~d 'be that this wil'l 'not be reviewed before the 'Planning, Commission because basicalluv it is not' in compliance with the use permi~ He felt the'City should take the stand that it does not agree with the fact, that 'this is 'a reviewable ~ .; ......... D.ro,i.eC_t Councilman Matteoni suggested adding to the letter that if the College wanted to pursue the matter, they would have to ask for an amendment to the use permit, which would require a public hearing. The Couhcil supported this action. D. CITY MANAGER 1. Youth Science Institute Request for $500 - Recommended this request be denied at the present time, and if the Council is interested in such funding, it be considered during the next budget process. It was moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded by Councilman Matteoni to approve the City Manager's recommendation in this matter. The motion was carried. 2. Report Re: Proposed Health System~ Agency for Santa Clara-County F61towing .comments by the City Manager and members of the Council on this matter, it was moved by Counci,lman Kraus and, seconded by'Councilman Matteoni to convey to the Board of Super. visors and-the Comprehensi, ve Health .Planning Agency the recommendation to encourage the County and'Heaith Planning Agency to -submi~ne~app]-i~ca1~i.~n.,-as~i~cL$c~ted~i.n~t~he4~i~y~Manaf~er~s~mem~r~andum, da-t-ed December 31, 1975.. The motinn 3. Recommendation Re: ACA 71 Reported that he has submitted a letter to'the Assembly Revenue and Taxation Committee concerning a bill which' he received today, which is relevant to tax relief and proposes to impose. a maratorium on' the increased value on an an annualbasis that could be benefited if the assessed value goes up. His response was that the City believes in the concept, and supports the issue of property tax reform and/or relief, but opposes ACA 71 in its present form for the following reason: It pertains primarily to residential assessments, and the'impact over a 5-year period could mean a loss of potential revenue between'$300,O00 and $400,000. Also stated in the letter is that if it is considered in its present form, they consider the spirit of SB 90, and pro- vide replacement funds to the City for this potential loss.-It was indicated this would be further reviewed at a future Committee of the Whole Meeting. 4. E.I.R. for Library Project Advised that the Planning Director has determined that an E.I.R. is required for the proposed 'li brary project. He advised he is in the process of nego- tiating an agreement with the consultant for this project, and he anticipates bringing the E.I.R~.before the Council for action by the end of Janaury. VIII. COMMUNICATIONS A. WRITTEN 1. Irvin L. Burke, 12300 Saratoga-SunnyvaleRoad, urging the Council's favorable considera(i~n of a change in the name of'Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road to De Anza Boulevard. - Concensus of the Council not to pursue this matter further; City Manager to communicate this to Mr. Burke. 2. Robert T. Sapp, Chairman,-Board of Directors, Santa Clara Valley ~later District, advising the Council regarding Landmark Designation Ceremony -Noted and filed. 3. Dr. Edwin Pinto, 13901 Upper Hil~l!Drive, requesting the Council authorize an investigation regarding setbackr~quirement on Lot 72, 13899 Upper Hill Drive. - The City Manager advised that this matter has been investigated, and City's Building Inspector has indicated the subject violation will be corrected prior to any final inspections. 4. Richard Cecchi, MacKay and Somps,'CiVil Engineers,~requesting to appeal the Planning Commission decision to,deny an application for a use permit to allow tennis court lighting in Saratoga!Oaks .... It was moved by Councilman ~raus and seconded by Councilman Brigham to deny this ~equest, due to the fact it was beyond the lO-day allowable appeal period. The motion was carried. 5. ~T~T~harl~'~"~u~c~d~'!21130 Wardell Road, requesting reconsideration'" ~f ~i~ ~eq~e~('~for~e~o~"ng~parcels of less than five acres to be zoned "A" (Agricultural). - Noted; City Manager to advise Mr. Guichard he may comment at next meeting under Oral Communications. B. ORAL 1. James Isaak, 13785 Calle Tacuba, (ommented with regard to the West Valley. Board of Trustees Meeting tomorroW'evening hold a discussion regarding Child Care Centers With regard to ACA 71; suggested ~he Council look into the use of this concept for tax relief for the elderly. Inquired if the E.I.R. forthe l~6rary project would come directly before the Council. Mr.. Van Duyn replied it would come.directly before the Council, and there is a 30-day review period following this. 2CgPaul Ross, 12851Regan Lane~ advfsed that he submitted a ~etiti'on which he had u~derstood would be considered this evening. The City Manager explained that he did not see thi.s until late in the afternoon, and scheduled for the January 21st agenda unden PETITIONS. 3. Mr. Ross commented~with respect to another.issue,' that-be~nq'Green ~alley Disposal pickine._u~t~ash-a.t_3:30 A.M. i~.the,Ar~!~naU~'~nt~r~ i~di'c~'~h'e ~"Ci~'~ C6d6 E~f6rd~ent~ Office ~as adv~Se~ him ~here a~e ~o. NaiVe 'Ordinance' ~.. ~rebu'l ati ~ns. with r~s pect ~6~ ~1 '~6~'6p6~i~T'=-Mayor~ad'Vi~ed- th is w6~ld~6~ F~f~'~'the~'staff fo'r ~ report back'to the Council. The Mayor then recognized the presence of~ public service representatives in the audience, as follows: G. Carlson, Chairman, Panks and Recreation Commission; Jean Woodward, Saratoga Planning Commission; George Whalen, Chairman, Bicentennial Committee, Roger Lueke~ Good Governmen~ Group; jim Isaak and MaryMoss~ Library Commission; John Weir, President, Arguello Homeowners Association; April. Barrett, League of Women Voters, Nancy MacDonald, Repbbli'can Central Committee; Marl ene Duffin, President, Wildwood Heights Homeowners Association; John Powers, Saratoga Chamber of Commerce; and Harry Mayf}eld, President, Good Government ~roup~}'Marjorie Foote, A.A.U.W. IX. ADJOURnmENT tt was moved by Councilman Brigham and seconded by Councilman Kraus the meeting be adjourned. The motion was carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:50 P.M.