HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-15-1976 City Council Minutes MINUTES
SARATOGA ~ITY COUNCIL
TIME: Wednesday, September 15, 1976 - 7:30 P.M.
PLACE: Saratoga City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, California
TYPE: Regular Meeting
I. ORGANIZATION
A. ROLL CALL
~'PF~.'~Co'T~TI~'n Brigh~mm~'O'~T'~a~t~6~, Bridges
Absent: Councilman Kraus
B. MINUTES
It was moved by Councilman Brigham and seconded by. Councilwoman Corr the
minutes of August 18, 1976 and August 24, 1976 be.approved. The motion
was carried.
C. PRESENTATION BY JAMES MC ENTEE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SANTA CLARA COUNTY
HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION, RE: TRI-COMMISSION REPORT OF PUBLIC HEARINGS
ON HOUSING PATTERNS, ZONING LAWS AND SEGREGATED SCHOOLS
Donna Blacker, Commissioner with the County Human Relations Commission,
addressed the Council and presented the findings and recommendations of
the Tri-Commission, established to study housing zoning and effg~ts on the
educational patterns throughout the County. She outlined th~'~ecommendations,~!
~Y~he.~'~'6~i~io~T'~d=~s~a'thos~FdT6~i~61~
l) New housing development shall include 20 percent of the proposed
housing units' designed at a price to accommodate low and
moderate-income people.
2) The County of Santa Clara and cities therein should undertake
a joint major study of housing codes..
3) The various cities and the.County of Santa Clara ~hould adopt
an accessive information apartment licensing ordinance.
4) The various cities and the'County should acquire, bank, lease~
sell land to be developed for housing low and moderate-income
people.
Regarding reco~endation No. 1, Ms. Blacker indicated that the Commission
would like to see Saratoga utilize planned unit development in all new
developments. The Tri-Co~issiOn .plans to approach the Planning Policy
Co~ittee to attempt to get their ,aid in coordinating this effort county-
wide', and turn this reco~endation into an ordinance.
Regarding reco~endation No. 2, SHe commented that Saratoga is a ~rime
source of rehabilitable housing stock, and would urge m~re flexibility in
relation to partidular types of property, and in allQwing homeoWners to
perform some of their own labor.
Regarding reco~endation No. 3, the Tri-Commission received overwheiming
evidence of discrimination in the irental of apartment units in the.County.
She urged that the Council adopt an ordinance which would provide accessible
information for every prospective .tenant of every apartment unit, regardless
of sex, race and.national origin.
Regarding reco~endation No. 4, Ms. Blacker stated it is the understanding
of the Tri-Co~ission Saratoga has approximately lO percent of its usable lands
remaining which could be engaged in the land banking process, and urged that
the City think about land banking as a way to assume Saratoga's fair share
of the low-income population in the County.
Following additional discussion, the Mayor recommended this matter be
referred to the Planning Staff and Planning Commission for a report back
to the Council.
II. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. CO~POSITION~OF~CONSENT CALENDAR
It was moved by Councilwoman Corr and seconded by Councilman Brigham
approval of the Consent Calendar Composition. The motion was carried.
B. ITEMS FOR CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Payment of Claims
2. City Clerk's Financial Report
3. City Treasurer's Report
It was moved by Councilman Brighamand seconded by Councilwoman Corr approval
of the Consent Calendar. The motion was carried.
III. BIDS AND CONTRACTS'
A. LIBP~ARY SITE DEMOEITION
It was moved by Councilman Brigham and seconded by Councilwoman Corr the
Council accept the work on this project and authorize the filing of the
Notice of Completion. The motion was carried.
IV. PETITIONS, ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS,
A. FENOLIO ANNEXATION - 2.86 ACRE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY, BOHLMAN ROAD (File 76-1)
The City Manager ~ec6mmended this .item be continued to the next regular
meeting in order to review additional data concerning this matter. There
being no objection by the~Cou~cil, the matter was continued.
V. SUBDIVISIONS, BUILDING SITES AND ZONING REQUESTS
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. CONSIDERATION OF REZONING THE.AREA GENERALLY DESCRIBED AS "R-1-40,O00"
(SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) TO THE ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION
ENTITLED "HILLSIDE CONSERVATION AND RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT" (HC-RD) ZONE,
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ADOPTED~C!}TY OF SARATOGA ORDINANCE NO. NS-3.33
AND THE ADOPTED CITY GENERAL PLAN.
The City Manager advised this matter has been referred by the Planning
Co~ission, and their recommendation was to adopt the rezoning from
"R-1-40,O00" those properties in the Slope Conservation District'Tin~the
General Plan, and to have those properties zoned "HC-RD". He advised
that Ordinance NS-3-ZC-78 establishing this rezoning was introduced by
the City Council on August 18, 1976.
He brought to the Council's attention items of correspondence received on
this matter, from:
l) Mr. and Mrs. Langwill, 15210~Bohlman Road, expressing support
of proposed rezoning.
2)i Mr. and Mrs. O'Connor, owners of property in Saratoga, expressing
opposition to proposed rezoning.
3) Mr. Crowther, 20788 Norada C6urt, raising an issue with'regard
to 200 acres of the Parker Ranch in relationship to the proposed action.
-2-
Rezonin~ from "R-1-40,O00" to HC-RD (Cont'd.
~j~..~ .... - . .-~.----- . ...... ~-'T.~ _ .
Mayor Brldges.'quest~oned_a statement by Mr. Crowther ~nJ. hls letter of
~b~6~F'l'5T~1976~h~Ye-he'-F~fe~'F~'~6'Ca-l'iforni'a-Et'eCtion Code 405.2,
requiring an ordinance rejected by the voters not again be enacted for a
period of one year.
The City Attorney advised that the Parker Ranch rezoning was a cluster re-
zoning, and~]~i~'6'~i'~6n"T~l'd be no similarity at all. 'He stated
that the pr6~~ih~'~te'T,C(ighter density than is there now, and
it appears they are asking that the Parker Ranch be excluded from thi~ area,
in which case the developer would~be able to get more homes in there than if
it were rezoned.
Councilman Corr cohented that her feeiing was~D~oni ng call s fort. 1 acre
.43,000 square feet, and what was ~iscussed on the P~k~Ra~ ~a~ i
house per 40,000 square feet.'
The Mayor then opened the-public ~earing at 8:09 P.M.
Russell Crowther, 20788 Norada CoOrt, addressed the Council in response
to Mrs. Corr's co~ents. He stated that the Parker Ranch plan i'n the re-
zoning ordinance was for 100 units, and in looking at the average density of
the Parker Ranch and applying the slope density equation to the Parker Ranch,
it2~omes to 105 units, Also,~"~l~.the setbacks, especially on.a.
steep hi 11 ~d~'~rm~T~he~u ~n b~l~' on~'l~'~ "Ther~ ~
fore, ~l't'~ n' ~i'3]"~Tgof this "char~'~e~e ~'d~d~6~Y~~ .
this ordlnance r~l~i~to"'R~l~O'O'O'?~61'd'affect whether~r not it ..is. .
~r~(f~l-tTbTild-~lot~Fd~6~l~'f~'~'t~Fd~i~l~pm~t~i~='~
the hills in many cases.
It was then moved by Cobncilman M~t~eoni and seconded by CounCilman Brigham
the public hearing be closed. The motion was carried. Thepublic hearing
was closed at 9:11 P.M.
It was moved by Councilman Matteoni and seconded by Councilman Brigham to
adopt Ordinance NS-3-ZC-78. The motion was carried, 3 to 1, Councilman
Brigham opposed (favored lower. density).
B. CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL BY TWIN OAKS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION RE: PLANNING
COMMISSION DECISION REGARDING REMOVAL OF FOUR (4) WALNUT TREES ADJACENT
TO THE TOWNHOUSE COMPLEX A~ 14613 OAK STREET (PROJECT NO. A-5OO, PARKING
DISTRICT NO. II)
The City Manager reviewed the history on this ~ssue. He indicated that the
plans for Parking' District No. 2 have been approved by the City, and at the
time they were approved, the condominiums were under th~ Ownership of the
developer. TheZplans ~approved at.one point by the Planning Com~ssion con-
sidered the removal of the 4 walnut trees in the ~iddle of the proposed
Parking District. The property owner had requested these trees be saved
until some of the landscaping which was part of the development~d9 and
provided some protection between the Village area and the c~ndom~i~ above
the Village. As a result of negotiations, the owne~ agreed'to provide a 2-
foot.~str~~6~T~r~O' ~i3~Tr~ini~~ -
base o~ E6~ c~d~i~ (~H~i~'re~ ~ ~ ~ri E~
out a program to retain those 4 trees for a period of 5 years, at the end
of which the Maintenance DistrictsWould remove the trees, and 8 parking spaces
would go in this place. The condominiumswere sold, and when the new owners
were approached to enter into an agreement for the easement, they refused to
do so; therefore, a modification ~as made to the plans to move the easement
back 2 feet, and since that easement could not be accomplished, the proposal
was to remove the 4 walnut trees ~t the present time, and include the 8 spaces
when the project was co~enced. He explained that it is upon this basis that
the appeal is made by. the Twin Oaks Homeowners AsSociation concerning the
removal of these 4 trees.
.-3-
'~Ap2Eal bX ~wjn .0aks=Homeowners As__s_n.__(.ContZd. J-
It was moved by Councilman Brigha~ and seconded by Councilwoman Corr to
hear the issue thiSevening, rather than setting a de novo hearing, The
motion was carried.
The Mayor then opened th~ public hearing at'8:22 P.M.
Dick Eiler, Vice President and Secretary of Twin 0aksHomeowners Associatio'n,
addressed the Council. He explained this is not a homeowners association
designed to protect the homeowners; rather, it is a legal corporation that
Twin Oaks Associatiop required to carry on its business; He indicated that
the residents of Twin Oaks Condominiums are here tO lodge a proteS't against
the Saratoga Planning Commission'g decision to remove the wal'nut tr~es .~r~s~ly
i~ exi§t~nc~ on ~h~ss!t_e o~f.n~p~sed Parking ~!st~t N~._~2~.C~ZL_._~"'
~He stated th~ the reason for~ ~B(i~'6b~t'fon to re~ng
trees iT(H~ ic~'a' ~l~-p~i~ lot T~mTdi~lTtT~'~f '~h~i~
homes, with no provision for screening off the noise.and unpleasing sight
that a parking lot brinas_toJhejDack_~a~d~l~_~a~d. tba~_the_r~sj~n~s
are requesting that the~al~ut ~ee~ be ~eBez~ed ~o~
d
time in order to plant ~d ~w~'gObYt~Ute ~'cP~eff'6n ~he h]llsi ~ to Com-
pensate until the trees succumb to their natural life span. Mr. Eiler
stated that this is theposition adopted originally by the Planning Co~ission
on October, 1975 when they were dealing with the developer
He stated that parking lots in back yards~[~6~undes~rable, and existing trees
can help alleviate part of the undesirable ~ffec~ of the~r~j~=t6~and in
fact, even improve its attractiveness to those who use' ~('Z~urther~'these
same trees help to improve the aesthetic view of the condominium and improve
its attractivenes~ to t.hose that use the parking lot.
Mr. Ejler stated that the residents of the condominium also.object to the
attitude of the Planning Co~issidn in dealing With them regarding the
preservation of the trees. He stated that the Commission was willing to
keep the trees for the benefit 6f'the the cond6minizum-developer, and the
trees would have been preserved had the promoters of the parking assessment
district executed their plan before the condominiums were sold. However,
failing this, the parking lot developer, in close cooperationwith the
Planning Commission, worked out an alternate agreement that resulted in
eliminating the trees without any.regard to the'~~nt.s.
Mr. Eiler explained that the cond6minium residents do'not'objeCt to the
construction of Parking Assessment District No. 2, and their position was
to negotiate with the developer t0 preserve the trees and ask for financial
assistance to plan a substitute screen to eventually replace the trees in
question. This was.in'exchange for an easement on the property, and the
residents felt this was a reasonable, negotiatable position. 'He added that
when Twin Oaks bought the condomi~iums, the hadno knowled e of Parking
AssessmentCD'i-~t~]~t'N[~2"~f~e' ~fe~B~Pt~eH'~h~-~(~nd'~he~Planning
Commission.' HoweVer, ~hT~6~ in'al6(~'(o~(e~'with the~6~'
lot developers, eliminated the need for the easement and reversed themselves
on preserving the trees.'
Mr. Eiler stated that the Planning Commission went out of its way to avoid
the voice of the residents immediate to the parking lot, and in this way,
the Commission shows a tendancy ~o side with developers and merchants, as
opposed to Saratoga residents. He indicated that they would request that
the. Council.be as s~pathetic with its inhabitants and taxpayers as it is
with its merchants. Further, tBe9 would request the Council .consider re-
taining the walnut trees in question to make the parking district both
more attractive and less offensive to its immediate neighbors.
Councilman Matteoni inquired if the developer is looking for some other
type of screening,than the 3 existing 3-foot trees.
~-~ppeal by_T. wj.n_O~ks Homeowners Assn. _(Cont'd.)_y}'
Mr. Eiler replied that they were goingto install a Screen when they
were requested to give an easement, and decided to negotiate and get
some assistance in planning the hillside. They were going to put up some
'trees or fast growing high shrubs which would eventually screen the parking
lot off within the 5-year time fob which the walnut trees were destined to
be destroyed.
Councilwoman Corr asked if the developer is then agreeing to the original
agreement.
Mr. Eiler repl~ed~they are agreei.ng, with one exception: The developer
had agreed verbally to pay the cost of the boxing and pruning of the trees
at the time the parking district Went in. They were handed an agreement
which said .they would pay an undetermined amount of money to box i'n and
prune the trees, and also, they wanted a 2-foot easement. Mr. Eiler stated
he was quite surprised of this, as he had no knowledge of any obligation
on the part of the homeowners to preserve the trees behind the condominium.
He indicated that what they have changed in the proposal is the requirement
that the develop~r~of the parking lot pay for the boxing and pruning of
the trees.
Mr. Van Duyn, Planning Director, ~eviewed the action of the Design Review
Committee and Planning Commission when this plan had first been considered,
and he explained the bas~is for arriving at the proposal which was ultimately
approved by the Planning Commission.
Councilman Matteoni inquired what the elevation of the 6~foot hedge was at
the entrance to the park~ing ~rea.,
Mr. Shook, Director of Public Works, commented that he believes some of
the drives into the carports or garages could be as much as 15 feet
difference in elevation from the parking stalls in the district.
Larry Tyler, 13611 Saratoga Vista 'Avenue, addressed the Council. He
indicated that at the ti~e the original parking plan was approved ~y the
Design Review Committee~ it did nbt include retaining the trees, and at
that time~ the property owner who was developing Twin Oaks also was develop-
ing the property that ~is. now ownedj by Security Pacific, and there was no
problem until the people~developin~ Twin Oaks sold the commercial part to
Security Pacific Bank. At this time, they came back to the Design Review
Committee and Planning Cbmmission requesting that the walnut trees'be re-
tai ned. Mr. Tyler expl ained that ~the reason the trees were being removed in
the first place is that ~t was determined they were far from being the ideal
tree to have in the parking lot. ~In order to expedite things, ~he Design
Review Committee did recgmmend, and the owners agreed, that if the developer
would prune and box them and give the 2-foot construction easemen~ for the
retaining wall, the owners would agree to pay the price later to remove them
and pave. He commented ~hat the ~rade-off seemed to be unreasonable at the
time as the trees were b~ing retained for the developer's benefit, as' it
was estimated the cost of boxing and pruning was approximately $500, and the
cost to the property owners funther down the line'would be approximately $1,'800.
However, it was agreed t9.
Mayor Bridges asked Mr. ~yler if he had been granted the 2-foot easement,
would he have picked up any parking spaces.
The City Manager explained that the easement was necessary for construction
purposes; therefore, it wouldn't have given him any more spaces.
David Goodmacher, 14611 'Oak Street, addressed the Council. He commented
regarding the point of ~he rather severe slope of the hill from the level
of the condominiums down to the p~rking lot. He indicated that what he is
disturbed about is the removal of~the trees-and'cutting into the base of the
hill. Mr. Goodmache~ indicated ~hat he had spbken~o his attorney, and he
Appeal by Twin Oaks Homeowners Assn. (Cont'd.)
had mentioned something labout a guaranteed l~teral support. He indicated
this had been brought u~ at the Planning Advisory Board's meeting, and he
was assured that the contractor and architect were bonded, however, hestill
hasn't had this question' of lateral support resolved to his satisfaction.
He stated that the hill ~itself is very compact at the present time, and asked
what happens when it is !cut into and the trees removed.
Mr. Shook commented tha~ he recalls during the course of the design of the
parking district, there was at one time to be 2 walls -- one midway up the
current slope on the condominium property and the wall for the parking district.
He indicated there was ~ great de~l of concern at that time regarding the
sequence of the construction of the walls, for if the higher wall was con-
structed first, it would have~to be protected during the .construction of the
lower wall. He stated ~hat if there were to be a loss of support during
that construction, the ~ngle of any slope that might be created would not be
such as to involve the ¢ondominium'structure.
Mayor Bridges commented that by testing the soils and having it engineered by
a certified engineer, this would be protecting against eventualities of the
structures themselvescfa'iling.
Mr. Shook commented that there is~always the possibility that the slope might
be affected, but not the structures.
Mayor Bridges asked Mr~Shook What if the slope were affected.
Mr. Shook replied that i~t would be the contractor's responsib~lityto re-
place the slope and ~ha~ever improvements were'onthe slope.
Mr. Goodmacher then asked: "When'was the sub-structure analysis performed
on this particular hill~"
Mr. Shook replied that he believes it was 1½ to 2 years ago.
Jim Hanson, a resident 6f Pierce ~oad, addressed the Council. Mr. Hanson
commented that we seem to be arguing about 4 trees, and everybody seems to
think that a tree will never be replaced. He stated that this issue gets·
down to pure economics,~Y. ou_ha~e_some~h~.gh~r_i.ced. peopl~-~-~.ng_he~e~
f~
who are costing the taxpayers a lot of money, an~ are spending a lot o t me
arguing about 4 trees.". He commented that if these people want screening,
they don't have to bu~ ~-foot trees -- and why not.get them 15 feet tall?
(~tTd~'~'~r~f..'~'~n"~'r~.a ~i~-~t-axp-'6~'~' '~o'~y, they (~s a
,~Te o~ar~l~i~nd..'~rf~"~'fu~her Comm~'_th~t~i~_ ~h~parking
lot'hTd e~6~'~"~p~n~ea~=~S'~ it woul~ ha~0 percent o'~"~hat it
will cost today, and if:you leave part of it o~t[~r) the sake of 4 little
trees, it is going to cost about l0 times what those trees would cost 2 or
3 years from now.
Laura Vercachi,~ 14613 Oak Streeti commented in rebuttal to Mr. Hanson's
comments. She stated that the argument here is not only about those 4 trees,
rather, it is the fact the property owners purchased this property in good
,faith; they pay and are~assessed on the basis of the vi:ew of their property.
She indicated that the back of their homes overlook these trees; when the
trees are removed, they!look directly into the Plumed Horse on Big Basin Way.
Once the parking lot is:built, they look at the
noise from the parking lot. She pointed out that they are ~Ri~prov~sions
to plant the trees. Further, she commented she, as well as the other home-
owners, are willing to pay the extra money for larger trees; however, this
is not the point involved here. Mrs. Vercachi stated that they are taxpayers
in the City of Saratoga and pay a.good size tax on these properties, and
they are not objecting to the parking lot being constru ~ed; however, they
were never advised of a~y agreements between the builder, the Planning
Commission or the City Council, and all they are asking for is temporary
retention of the trees so they can put in some type of screening.
Appeal by Twin Oaks Homeowners Assn. (cont'd.)
It was then moved by Councilman Brigham and seconded by Councilwoman Corr
to close the public hearing. The motion was carried. The public hearing
was closed at 9:00 P.M.
It was the consensus of.the Council to visitSthe site, and view the situation
from the standpoint of the condomi ni um complex: 'IT'~a~mm~'d'B~/'C6~ i~
<['~dh'i"~'~d '~ec'E'6~'ded__~_by Counci 1 man Bri gham to ~6~H~ '~h'i~m~t~t~he
~xt regulTrCfty'~O~Ci l; Meeting on O~tober 6, 1976. The m~i(n' '~s carried.
Recess and reconvene
C. CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED ZONING MAP AMENDMENTS FOR ZONE 20, IN CONJUNCTION
WITH THE 1974 SARATOGA;GENERAL PLAN. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS CALL FOR THE.
FOLLOWING ACTION: REZONE FROM "A" (AGRICULTURE) TO "P-A" (PROFESSIONAL
ADMINISTRATIVE) THE FOUR (4) PARCELS LOCATED WEST OF ,SARATOGA AVENUE AND
SOUTH OF COX AVENUE, BOUNDED ON THE WEST BY SARATOGA CREEK AND ON THE
SOUTH BY TRACT ~5343 (~NOWN AS "THE VINEYARDS OF SARATOGA")
The City Manager advised that these properties have been under consideration
by the Planning Co~isSion to bring into consistency with the General Plan,
and it is the recommendation of the Planning Co~ission they be rezoned as
proposed.
The Mayor opened the pQblic hearing at 9:34 P.M.
The City Manager broug6t to the Council's attehtion 2 items of correspondence
related to this matter:,
1)'Letter to the Planning Commission from Joseph S. Stillman, 19166
DeHavilland, opposing the rezoning.
2) Frank Druding, 12~75 Saratoga Creek Drive, requesting the same
restrictions and ~greements;be attached to the use ,permit as were
part of the original medical and professional center.
He explained that. the ~lements M~. Druding refers to are conditions of
the actual use permit ~here an application for the actual development of
the property came in, ~nd this would not be a condition of the rezoning.
There being no further "comments on this matter, it was moved by Councilman
Brigham and seconded b~ Councilwoman Corr to close the public hearing~ The
motion was carried. The public hearing was closed at 9:30 P~M.
It was then moved by Counci-lman ~righam and seconded by Councilwoman Corr
to introduce Ordinance;NS-3-ZC-77, and waive the reading. The.motion was
carried.
VII. ADMINIST~TIVE MATTERS,
A. MAYOR
1. A d
nnou nce ~that noti fi cati on has ~ b~en~.~ec~i~ed, from Senator Smith' s
office rega~dl~T~ii":d]~T~-'l'Q~'~'h~O~'O~Oc~6ber 1St.
B. COUNCIL AND COMMISSION ~REPORTS
1.Parks and Recreation Recommendation Re: Endorsement Of Proposition 2
on the November Ballot - Coastal and Park Bond Act
It was moved by Coqncilman Bdgham and seconded by Councilwoman Corr
endorsement of this proposition. The motion was carried.
. .
~ SSIO~
2. ylanning Co ~ Recommendation on Ordinance to Prnhihit nrivp-Hp
Faci,1 ~,ti es~, in ~ll .Commercial, Zones.
-. '
- 7 -
Council and Commission Reports (Comt'd.)
It was moved by CoUncilman Brigham and seconded by Councilman Matteoni
to introduce Ordina, nce NS-3.35, and set this matter for public hearing
on October 6, 1976i The motion was carried.
3. Trails and Pathways Task For~e Report and Recommendations
It was moved by Co6ncilman Brigham and seconded by Counc,ilwoman Corr
the Trails and Pathways Report be accepted by-the Council and scheduled
for a future Committee of the Whole Meeting with the Council, Trails and
and Pathways Task Force Committee, and Parks and RecreatiOn CommiSsion.
The motion was carr~ied.
C. DEPARTMENT HEADS AND OF~FICERS
1.Code EnforcementOf~ficer Report Re: II.legal Accessory Structure
at 12516 Saratoga Avenue (Cont'd. June 16th)
The Code E ent OfficerShas indicated in his report that the
n orcem
removal of this structure has not been accomplished.
Mayor Bridges received a letter from Ron RoCkwell, 12504 Saratoga Ave.,
owner and occupant iof a home-operated business directly adjacent to
the Foster property, stating that he and-his wife would have no objections
to the completion of construction and maintenance of a structure On
the back half of th!e Foster lot.
After giving further consideration to this matter, it was the consensus
of the Council to not alter i. ts previous action to abate this nuisance
following the 60-da~ period which was granted.
(the property o~(rsi a~d'~he people who had.l~a~ed the'bu'i~J'dingSl'and
't~d~' ~t~he~ 3~dgeme~E~a~ ~iV~a~n~i~A~-'~~ Harri S's
buildi.ng, and giving the present tenant until November 19th to remove
all illegal structures from the premises. It is the reco~endation
· of the Building Official to continue this matter t6 mid-November to
see what sst.eps haveT been taken relative to this judement. This
recommendation was 9cceptable. to .the Council.
3Z Director of Public Works Repo'rted that work' on the quito-Pollard
intersection improvement project commenced yesterday.
D. CITY MANAGER
1.Request by Larry Tyler to Proceed on Portion of Parking Lot in
Proposed Village Parking District No. 2
The City Manager ad~d tha~= this request would
~Ts~o~'~'6a'~e~llTF(~ s )'eveni ng~ over to ~(h'(c~n~p~,
..................... ~oUl~'bTi~ essenEe ',de~lopi~ the botto~ half of ~he~rkin~' ~t.
This would also require the release of a bond covering the constructi~on
The City Manager meqtioned ~n6ther alternative to thiS. proposal would
be to inform the people at Securit~.Racific Bank we are going to move
He indicated he w0u l'd co~su~7~='i~ ~ounsel regardi ng~'~z'.
native, and report < ~~(6U~S i~l T{~'~...F~G~ i~~-y~.
-8-
City Manager Reports (Cont'd.)
2. Claim by Lyngso Garden Materials for $720,000 Against the City
It was moved by Councilman Brigham and seconded by CounCilwoman Corr
to deny this claim. i The motion was carried.
VIII. COMMUNICATIONS
A.. WRITTEN
1. Letter from Senior Citizens Task Force Chairman requesting the Council
to reconsider its pr'evious action regarding the exclusion clause in
Ordinance 60.2 Re: C~ondominium ConVersion.
Mayor Bridges reported that members of the Council met with the Senior
Citizens Housing Task ForCe on Tuesday, September 7th, and heard argu-
ments with regard to~ this matter.
It was moved by CounCilman Brigham the Council reconsider this proposal,
and rescind.._'~_)Ordin~nce No. 60.2 to include the exclusion clause.
The motion ~d for ~ack of a second.
2. Robert Van der toorr~n, 14555 Horseshoe Drive, expressing opposition
to a downtown "drive~up bank and bus facility". - Noted and filed;
further consideration to be given at public hearing on October 6, 1976.
3. Green Valley DiSposal Company, P. O. Box 1227, Los Gatos, requesting
increase in rates frgm the requested garbage pick-up service beyond
100 feet. - Referred~to the staff for consideration and a report back
to the Council.
4. Bruce K. Anderson, D~D.S., President-Elect, The Diabetes Society of
Santa Clara Valley, Inc., expressing opposition to another Diabetes
Bike-acthon Day. - No action t~ken.
5. Dominic L. Cortese, ~hairman, Local Agency Formation Commission, Re:
Lafco policies when applying for annexations. - Noted and made a part
of the file on this iubject.
6. James E. Swenson, 12752 Rodoni Court, expressing opposition to the Real
Estate Sign Ordinance, and expressing his opinion Re: increased sheriff's
patrol. - City Manager to respond.
7. Richard J. Rios, ExeCutive Director, Economic and Social Opportunities,
Inc., The Community Action Agency for Santa Clara County,'requesting
Council's assistancein selecting replacements for vacancies on the
ESO Board. - Determined that the City is not eligible; therefore, took
no action.
8. Copy of a letter~to Werner Stern, Jerry Harris and Sandra MilOvina
from Fred Caploe, Attorney representing Anthony Citko, owner of Plant
World, 18840 Cox Avenue, advising of claims against'Mr. Citko. - Noted
and filed.
lO. Roger W. Haag, Chairman, Saratoga Village Merchants Association,
supporting conversion~of the Arco site into retail property. - Noted
and filed.
B. ORAL
1. Ruth Lamb, 20397 Pierce Road,' com~en'ting relevant to the temporary
barrier on Pierce Road behind Argonaut Shopping Center. - City Manager
advised he would se~d draft agreement between the City and ,property
owners for maintenance responsibility of the permanent barrier.
IX. ADJOURNMENT
It was moved by Councilman Brignam and seconded by Councilwoman Corr the
meeting be adjourned. The motion was,carried. The meeting was adjourned at
ll:O0 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Robert F. Beyer
- City Clerk
- 10-