Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-03-1977 City Council Minutes MINUTES. SARATOGA+CITY COUNCIL TIME: Wednesday, August 3, 1977 - 7:30 P.M. PLACE: Saratoga City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale 'AVe., Saratoga, Calif. ~y%~ Regular Meeting I. ORGANIZATION A. ROLL CALL : Present: CounCilman Brigham, Corr, Kraus, Matteoni, Bridges Absent: None B. MINUTES It was moved by C0uncil~a~ Brigham and seconded by Councilwoman Corr the minutes of July20, 1977 be approved. The motion was carried. II. CONSENT CALENDAR A. COMPOSITION OF CONSENT CALENDAR It was moved by Councilma~ Kraus and seconded by'Councilman Brigham the compositionof Consent Calendar be. approved. The motion was carried unanim6usly. B. ITEMS FOR CONSENT CALENDAR 1. RESOLUTION 824, A Resolution of the City CoUncil of the ~ City of Saratoga Requesting Permission for Temporary Closure of State HighWays on September 17,~1977 2. RESOLUTION 826, Resolution of the C±ty Council of the City of Saratoga Declaring Fiscal Yea[ 77-7.8 to be Burglary Prevention Year and Pledging Full Support and Cooperation to the Regional Criminal Justice Planning Board of Santa Clara County in Their Burglary Prevention Efforts. 3. ApprOval of Walk-a-Thon for Muscular'Dystrophy on August 20,' 1977 4. Addendum to Improvement ContractsfOr TraCtl. 5944, Relevant to C~x Avenue -'Rodeo Creek Culvert Extension 5. ConstrUctign Acceptance . . a) SDR-1164,.James Day Construction, Doug~aS/Taos b) SDR-1174, Thomas Foster, Horseshoe Drive 6. Payment of Claims It was moved by Councilman Brigham and seconde~ by Councilman Kraus approval ofthe items for the Consent CaLlendar. -The motion was carried unanimously. III. BIDS AND CONTRACTS A. AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FORiBIDS FOR PUBLIC WORKS EQUIPMENT' It was moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded by Councilman Brigham the staff be authorized to advertise for bids for this equipment. The motion was carried unanimously. IV. PETITIONS, ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS A. RESOLUTION NO. 822 RESOLUTION DESIGNATING NAME OF CERTAIN STREET - GERALD ZAPPELLI COURT(Cont'd~ 7/20/77) It was moved by CounCilwoman Corr and seconded by Councilman Brigham Resolution No. 822 be adopted. The motion was carried unanimously. B. RESOLUTION NO. 85.9~29 A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION N0.'85-9, AS AMENDED, DEFINING CATEGORIES OF PART-TIME EMPLOYEES, PERSONNEL POLICY AND LEAVE BENEFITS FOR SPECIFIED ~ART-TIME EMPLOYEES OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA It was mo~ed by Councilma~ Kraus and seconded by Councilman Brigham Resolution No. 85j9-29 be a~opt~d. The motion was carried unanimously. C. RESOLUTION NO. 825 A RESOLUTION OFTHE ~ITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AUTHORIZING EXAMINATION OF SALES AND USE TAX RECORDS It was moved by Councilman Brigham and seconded by Councilman Kraus Resolut±on No. 825 be adopted. The motion was carried unanimously. D. MINUTE RESOLUTION RE: PROPOSED SARATOGA HOUSING ASSISTANCE AND REHABILITATION PROGRAM UNDER THE HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1974 It was moved by Councilman Kraus and-seconded by Councilman Brigham to approve the Saratoga Housing ~S~istance and Rehabili- tation Program. The motiorn was carried unanimously. E. ORDINANCE NO. 38.75-1 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA RE-AFFIRMING AND RE- ESTABLISHING PRIMA FACIE SPEED LIMITS FOR MOTOR VEHICLES ON PORTIONS OF COX AVENUE, PROSPECT ROAD, ALLENDALE AVENUE AND QUITO ROAD, TOGETHER WITH ADDITIONAL FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF. It was movedby'Councilman Brigham and seconded by Councilwoman Corr Ordinance No. 38.75-1 be introduced and the reading waived. The motion was carried unanimously. V. SUBDIVISIONS, BUILDING SITES, ZONING REQUESTS None. VI. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS Taken Out of order) A. MAYOR B. COUNCIL AND COMMISSION REPORTS 1. Councilman Brigham - P.P.C. will be undergoing a period of review on the 208 Study, and will be reporting back to the Council. C. DEPARTMENT HEADS AND OFFICERS 1. Report from Director 6f Public Works Re a) Request for.."No Pa~king" zone on portion of Reid Lane Mr. Moeller, Traffic Engineer, explained that this matter comes about as a result of a request for relief of a parking problem which was believed to have been caused by students taking up spaces on Reid Lane because ................. p~rki~g_~ be~ e_l_imin.ate~_o~H~rriB~n ~enue It was the concensus'of the CounCil to continue this Imat~er to the October 19thmeeting of the Council to ~ review the status of the parking situation on Reid Lane at that time. =b) Improvement of Certain T~e-Intersections: RUSsei.1 Lane Saraview Drive SarahillS Drive ~rroyo de Arguello De Sanka Avenue Mayor Bridges explained that this matter appears as a result of a~proble~ that was brought forth during the discussion on the Northwest Saratoga Circulation ~lan. Mr..Moeller, Traffic Engineer, indicated that the Traffic Consultant firm of De Leuw Cather has suggested a treat- ment for traffic'Control at Tee int'ersection~.having relatively low traffic volumes, and this has been Used at variousintersections throughout the city. with success. It was moved by Councilman Krausand seconded by Councilman Matteoni~ approval to install Tee intersections at the designated locations, as per the recommendations of the Public Works Department. The motion was carried unanimously. j 2. Report from Director o~ Planning Re: Inventory of HiStorical Sites, Buildings and Trails, Relevant to Request by Santa Clara County Historical Heritage Commission The City Manager reported. that at the July 20th reguta~ meeting, the Council had requested review of the inventory list that was submitted to the County, and he has included a copy of the City's reply to the County. Councilwoman Corr suggested including the addresses of the particular buildings and homes on the.list. The~Counc.il concurred in this suggestion, and. it was indicated this would-be forwarded to the Co-nty Historical Heritage Commission. VI. PUBLIC HEARING A. ORDINANCE NO. 38.79' 'SeC0~d Reading)... ORDINANCE GRANTING TELEVISION FRANCHISE TO VIDEO ENGINEERING, INC. Th~ City Manager indicate~ there is an item of correspondence pertaining to this subject from William T. Brooks, Attorney at Law, representing Mr. James Nishimura,. regarding the proposed cable television ordinance. The Mayor then opened the public hearing at 8:00 P.M. Mr. William Brooks addressed the Council. He indicated that he would urge the Council to consider his letter and the request to continue this public hearing for the purpose of giving Saratoga Cable Television the opportunity to review this ordinance with a couple of things in mind. Mr.~ Brooks commented that Saratoga Cable has, for a considerable ~period of time, during the franchise period and thereafter~ I been negotiating with the ~ity on several items with_regard_to cable service in the City of Saratoga ~h~ch are spoken to in thi~ 0rdi~ance'. ' H~ fhr'~H~"~n~h~nted"'~at~ S~t6~'~B"i~ T.V~ has specifically been looking to the City for help in negotiating a way to resolve some of the technical and financial problems in supplying Saratoga with cable television,.and thOugh?it.had negotiated with the City possible resolutions to these problems. However, he stated that when reviewing the ordinance, he noted that one of the problems Saratoga Cable had discussed with the City for a long time~2~[~['i~i~ assessment cha~ge and the cost of undergrounding --~'s~i~B~i~addressed in this Ordinance granting the franchise to Video Engineering. He indicated that one of the alternatives which Saratoga Cable T.V. had discussed with the City was to provide a line assessment charge which in the Saratoga Cable T.V. ordinance had been granted only for hillside..areas, and there had been some positive response from the city staff wi · regard to the line assessment charge also being allowed in the flatland~. He indicated that in reviewing the Video Engineering ordinance, the line assessment charge is identical, and it appears to be intended not simply for hillside areas, but for the entire city. He referred to page 2 of the ordinance where it ~Line Assessment Charge in Area II, and the ordinance speaks not to areas, but to service zones. There~ fore, what Saratoga C~B'_~e~pT V had requested from the City is now being granted to VideosEngineering, without negotiation. He commented regarding an item having to do with the bond, and indicated that this ordinahce provides for a $25,000 bond and the phased reduction of same, which also had been much of the discussion with Saratoga Cable T.V. Mr. Brooks stated that another item which was discussed by Saratoga Cable T.V.,~andappears to be given away in the Video Engineering ordinance is the idea of being able to pre-sell an area before service is supplied to the area. He commented that they had talked to the City in terms of a fifty percent pre-sell, particularly with reference to the areas where undergrounding. would be requi~ed, and this is being done in the Video Engineering ordinance -- no pre-sell is being allowed for the hillside areas, but simply allows that within two years of the franchise date, ORDINANCE NO. 38.79 (Cont'd.) ~the hillside areas consisting of 500 or 600 homes be served. Therefore, any work that needs to be done to the two areas in th~ needs to be pre-sold. He stated that nothing in the ordinance states what degree of diligence or speed is to be required of the franchisee in making an effort to pre-sell. He commented .that it would be.his feeling what ~he Council would buy, in adopting this ordinance, is a c~bl~ T.V. system for the hillside areas. He indicated that under the franchise ordinance which Saratoga Cable T.V. had with the City, not just the hillside areas, but the entire city, was to be served within eighteen months~.. This ordinance requires serviceto the hillside areas within two years, and then within the next year and after that, accomplish zone three. Mr. Brooks commented itwould be his feeling that a delay of a short nature for the opportunity of giving other cable tele- vision companys the opportunity to have its engineers review the map and determine what it can do to better the system, is not going to damage the C~ty and is not going to damage Video Engineering. The City Manager commented that he believes ohe thinglts be mentioned is that the one significant thing that is different here is that Saratoga Cable T.V. did have a franchise with the City of Saratoga, and because the franchise obligations agreed to were not met, the City after a year rescinded that franchise agreement -- one of the reasons being that the bond which had been agreed to be paid was. not paid. In addition, when the F.C.C. raised some questiohs concerning the franchise ordinance, there were some five additional requests madeby Mr. Nishimura to modify the franchise agreement which had been entered into one year previously.. He agreed that the~e is a ~orreet~on, as Mr. Brooks had mentioned, on page 2 of the ordinance~ that being to eliminate the words: "in Area II". He further aommented that the concept of this ordinance is different from that which Mr. Nishimura was last talking to, He explained that the formula agreed to by Mr. Nishimura was a concept for',the hard-to-serve area, in which there would be an additional cost to install the system. However, he had also requested that a formula' be established in those areas which are currently underground in the city so that some type of line assessment charge would also be applied in those areas, and in most of these areas, the density is greater than sixty homes per mile --ztherefore, there was an additional attempt to try to get front-end money to pay for the construction costs through a different mechanism. The concept in this ordinance is that the line'assessment charge would be applied in those areas only where the density is less than ~ixty homes per mile, and this is not a majority of the developed portion of the ~ity of Saratoga. Councilman Kraus indicated'it would appear to him Mr. Brooks' client had ample opportunity to do something about this, but he did absolutely nothing. He indicated that Councilwoman Corr and himself had served on ~he ad hoc committee with Mr. Nishim~ra, and all they got from Mr. Nishimura were reasons why it couldn't be done. Therefore, he is. ready to go ahead with this ordinance. ORDINANCE NO. 38.79 (Cont!d.) Mr. Kenneth Daniel, owner Iof the franchise of Video Engineering, addressed the Council, sta.ting that he has nothing to add to the comments of the City Manager. Gary Gordon, resident of Bankmill Road, addressed the CounCil, indicating that he would like to propose an alternative'to a cable system, that being the translator. Mr~:Gordon dommented that the performance of a translator would be better than that of a cable, and the cost would be approximately one-hundredth of that of the cable.system. He explained that a translator is a system that is often use~ in coastal and resort areas to provide television, and if applied in Saratoga, it'would be ~ small installation on John Brown's Mountain, perhaps eight feet square. He explained that there would be an antennae which would pick up the San Fran'cisco stations, and they would be re-radiated into the SaratOga basin on UHF channels, rather than VHF channels. To pick this up, he indicated a homeowners. would only require a small. ex.ternal antennae on his house. Mr. Gordon commented that 'there are two advantages to this system -- the°first is better picture quality. He indicated that cable has two problems because there are many amplifiers, producing snow and color problems. There are also reflections in cables which give "ghosts". He indicated that these problems are not present in a translator system. Further, he stated, the translator system involves a lower cost. He commented that a translator system would run between $30,000 and $100,000. He indidicated he would like to submit the proposal on behalf of the Toll Gate Homeowners Association. He reported that the' monthly cost of this system would be approximately 8~ per month. With regard to financing of this s~stem, Mr. Gordon indicated he would like to suggest two possibilities -- one would be to have a tax district for approximately 3,000 residents who would benefit from this system and a one-time assessment of $10~per family. Another alternative might be to put it.on the~ener~ city tax base. '~"' Mr. Gordon stated that he would like to say that Saratoga is unique geographically ~nd~that~.this type of system would work very well. Councilman Kraus asked if he was correct in understanding that zthi_~s system has no possiblity of serving the remainder of the Mr. Gordon replie~ that it'woUld serve 90~percent of the City -- it would serve every part of the City that could see John Brown's Mountain.. Councilman Brigham inquire~ what the difference between $30,,000 and $100,000 represented. Mr. Gordon explained that a minimal sMstem that would re-transmi~ $100,000. The $30,000 solution consisted of 3 s~ations, plus 1 FM station. ORDINANCE NO. 38.7'9 (Cont'd. Mr. Daniels commented on this, indicating that.dne t'ranslator is required for each station, and he is sure th~ F.C.C. would approve 3 or 4 channels, but not 18 open channels. Councilwoman Corr asked if there wouldn't be a great.deal of difference in'reception in the area., due to the fact some people are located down in hollows and others on the hillsides. Mr. Gordon replied that the best reception would be'a one-foot dimension ~ooftop antennae and in the line of sight view df~ John Brown's Mountain. He stated it would normally have a ten mile radius, and would gi~e superior reception out to ten miles. R. E. Kauffman, 20700 Fourth Street (Gatehouse Condomin±ums), addressed the Council on behalfof the Board of Directors of their homeownerts association. .Mr. Kauffman stated'that he has read very carefully both the City.Code and the Enabling Ordinance and is very happy to see that we have what he believes is a contract that can be' fulfilled for the residents GatehOuse, and pointed ou~ there are'many present in theft audience this evening. H~ stated that the City has tried twice unsuccessfully to get a cable, and commented that~'~l~.~'~ months ago, Saratoga Oaks. appeared before. the Cou~h~l~w~th~a,~_.~i-~ request t~ erect their own private aDtennae to p~ck up~ ' ' San Francisdo. As soon aS this'proposal was ~resented ~Saratoga-~ Oi~wifh'Srew its pl~'~. rTvff?'.K~ffman stated that in view of the time the residents have waited for a system, he would urge as far as the alternative,proposals, he. asked why a simple re- peater couldn't be use~ instead of a translator. He indicated that a repeater would not:.even change'channel frequencies; it would amplify the frequencies from the same location as the translator. He indicated that Mr. Gordon had mentioned line of sight, Snd he feels this is both an asset and a handicap, and we would have to be very careful about surveying the location of any feeder or translator that was installed. Mr. Kauffman commented that it seems one of the reasons more repeaters and translators,aren't used is the problem of who pays for them. ~' i~d{~'f~d-~Eh'~F- with~ repeater anyone can steal your signa'l]-the~e:fS~e~h~'--~rd-;h~e to ask the Council to con- sider very carefully any method df financing-other than a _" general public tax because he wouldn't know how to doi't~_~.~T- selectively. In closing,-Mr. Kauffman commented that are a great number of them who would like to again watch television. Mayor Bridges indicated that the Council has investigated some translator systems which have been installed, and it was found where they were in public ownership, law suits came thick and fast when one television station was chosen over another(Jto be magnified. Also, you run into the problem of open television channels because these must be converted off the regular channels onto another open frequency, and these are not readily available. ORDINANCE NO. 38.79 (Cont'd.) Gus Francis, President, Saratoga Oaks Homeowners Association, indicated that Saratoga Oaks concurs in everything Mr. Kauffman has said this evening. He further indicated that Saratoga Oaks has made a gallant effort to obtain T.V. for its homeowners -~ they have tried a tower and were defeated by a variance -- they looked into the translator system very carefully and decided not to go that route because of the limitation of channels, due to the number of translators required and the number of frequency bands available, and also, future maintenance costs and possible public suits. Mr. Francis commented that they are quite happy someone has come in with a cable to provide cable television, especially in the darkened areas. He felt that now that there is an opportunity to get cable T.V., it is his feeling the City should take this route. Mr. Brooks indicated he w6uld like to respond to comments by Mr. Beyer and Councilman Kraus. He indicated it is true Saratoga Cable did have problems, and they tried to work them out. He commented that the fact they did have problems, and the City recognizes them, is clearly evidenced by the Video Engineering ordinance before the Council. It speaks to the problems~and resolves them in some fashion; therefore, it should not be a point to hold against Saratoga Cable T.V. that it had these problems, as it appears Video Engineering has exactly the same problems. He asked if it ~61~"~'~a~~pe~"~i~p and have a number'.of c6mpanies n~ii~h'fh~g~i'dal'i~'~'s they exist in this ordinance. To Councilman Kraus's statement that they should have known how to get these negotiations back on the track, Mr. Brooks indicated Saratoga Cable has had proposals before the City since January, 1976 with regard to those problems which a~e now spoken to~i~. this ordinance. Mayor Bridges stated thatlthe Council on two occasions has let franchises to people who have committed themselves to fulfill their obligations, and atthe time the franchise was let, did not raise those objections which Mr. Brooks speaks to; rather, they chose to get the franchise in hand, and negotiate after- wards. This has left a bad taste in the mouth of the Council in dealing with cable franchise operators. He indicated that the franchise Mr. Nishimura signed foresaw the building of a cable in the flatlands first, and the regulations which were put into that ordinance were put there for the purpose of assuring that he wou~d later onfbu±ld in the hill area. Mayor Bridges commented that he didn't feel it would disappoint the Council if there were only a cable system in the hills, 'because this is where it is needed. He indicated that Mr. Nis~imura's proposals over the past two years have been presented to the Council. Some of the proposals' the Council has indicated a position of being able to see its way clear, when it did not involve giving up those provisions that would assure the Council of television construction in the hills; however, others the Council has continued to say "No" to~ for this very reason. This is'what the Council wants, and he does not feel Mr. Nishimura has responded to this. Mr. Brooks stated that Mr.. Nishimura's '~esponse is contained within the Saratoga T.V. franchise that was granted, and that is the requirement that s~rvice be provided to-all areas within 18 months.- ~ ORDINANCE NO. 38.79 (Cont'd. Mayor Bridges sta~ed that ~this is incorrect --Lthat Mr. Nishimura had wanted to pr6vide service to the flatlands first~ Mr. Brooks indicated that the reason for doing this is that his hookup wSutd be.in the northeast corner. Mayor Bridges commented thatlthe Council iSn0t naive enough to~believe this, and the season was to provide 30 homes to the mile, instead of 45. : Mr. Brooks stated thatin any event,. the franchise calls for complete coveraK~18 months, and this ~r~nchise calls for coverage~o S~ratoga~Oa.ksl~and Gatehouse in 2-years, and then the~'rest~%the~e~=~.~.= maybe, if there isla pre-sell. Therefore, it is his feeling this'ordinance ignores 95 percent of the city.i - Councilman Kraus-addressed Mr. Brooks, s6ating that the only reason Mr. Nishimura was going to put in cable television, and provide service in the.flatlands first, ~aS ~ecause of 60 houses tothe mile. He indicated that the people who are needing cable have beeh cOminglto the CounCil meetings 'for years. He stated that he is very happy someone has come along and is willing to puti'tin~tthe .areathat needs it most first. Mr. Brooks respond.ed.~ st~tling that hi~ pointis even if Mr.'Nishimu~a~ commences in the flatlands within 18 months, he will have provided servic~ to Tollgate, and this ordinance may result in 2 years. Mayor Bridges indicated that the reason for the 18months was to see that the hills got .built at all. Mr. BroOks acknowledges this, stating ~hat this would have been required under the franchise agreement. by Councilman Kraus and seeonded by CounciIman 'the~pub~c~jRea~ing be closed. The motion was carried; the public hearing was closed at 8:40 P.M~ It was moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded bY councilman Brigham to adopt Ordinance 38.79, with the correction to page 2 to delete the words "in Area II!', and to,waive the reading of the ordinance. The motion was carried uanimously. B. CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION RELEVANT TO ARPLICATION A-575 FOR SIGNS TO IDENTIFY FUTURE BANK BRANCH FOR SECURITY .PACIFIC BANK ~T FOURTH AND BIG BASIN WAY Mr. Loewke of the. Planning Department reviewed .the facts con- cerning this appeal. He indicated that the Planning Department is viewing this as an appealof the Planning Commission's decision to deny 3 signs under this application, and it appears Mr~ Clark is'objecting on the b~sis that the Commission did not have the ability to deny the signs -- that the signs were com- pletely in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance., He explained that the free-standing parking directional sign that is proposed is more an identification sign than a parking sign; the bank's logo is displayed in a~ver~targe size. He indicated that the ordinance does provide for directional signs; however, those signs should be limited to indicating'parking only, and not identificationc,6f the use involved. - 9 - A-575, SECURITY PACIFIC BANK (Cont'd.) Also, there are two signs proposed to be ~lac~d~on the face of the building, and these do comply with the Zoning Ordinance requirements. However, it was on the basis of aesthetic evaluation that the Commission chose these signs. The Mayor opened the public hearing at 8:49 P.M. Raymond Clark,j Marketing Officer, Security Pacific Bank, addressed the Council. He indicated that Security Pacific Bank filed for an application for Planning Commission .review, and the identical scale drawings before the Council this evening were considered at an informal Committee of the Whole Meeting of the Planning Commission At that m&eting,~they tried to establish several .things ... ~r'.~-cr~f~'-~ 'fh"e~'g~l~'~~~ ~i'~ d ingyare'tHr~'e~t--p o ss "~l~t±on-to~js=i~n~ng~alt~t~ank-.-"H~ stated that the s~igns are less than half the square footage allowed by the Sign Ordinance; and the letters are less ~han 5 and6 ihches high; whereby the Ordinance allows as much as an 18-inch high letter. Also, the Ordinance requires that the surface ofthe signs be a matt finish, which th~e are~l~ the ~'jj~inatio~_~only of the white letter~rf~and=~[= en~6ta~g~ Mr. Clark indicated they were unable to get a unanimous opinion from the Planning Co~ission as to what they really wanted. He explained that it is basically the same kind of. sign which they use throughout their system -- they try to establish a recognizable image with the blue trim and white letters with the charcoal background so a motorist or pedestrian won't have to read the words onthat sign, but will recognize it as an image, because the.letter style, color and positioning is the same at this branch as it would be.atany other branch. Mr. Clark cohented one o~ the requests made at the Co~ittee of the ~ole Meeting was to have both signs ill~inated. He stated that when viewing do~ a city block where there are~ several signs ill~inated, if a business isn't ill~inated, thi~ a~ehe~i~ail~ l~7~o~ect. they could illuminate individual letters;however, they would have technical problems with this. He co~ented regarding the small parking entrance sign, indicating that the~bank considers t~is a directional sign', and the ordinance does'not specifically prohibit a direCtional sign from having identification on it. He pointed out that there were Planning Co~issioners who felt a need to have this sign-so people wouldbe brought off of the street to the proper place. He presented a full-size paper facsimile ofthat sign' for the Council's consideration. Mr. Clark presented another drawing which compared to scale Security Pacific's request to the other banks in the i~ediate ~icinity. He pointed out that the Bank Of ~erica sign has 12-inch letters, as compared to their 5 or 6-inch letters. Also, Wells Fargo has a number of directional signs, and Bank of America has a fa~ly high free-standing directional sign. He further pointed out that the letters on a standard stop sign are 10 inches high. With regard to the edgingon signs A and B, Mr. Clark pointed out that these are not plastic, but ~l~inum material, which provides thickness and allows them to countersink what few fasteners there are. 10 - A-575, SECURITY PACIFIC BANK (Con~'d.) Again, Mr. Clark stated that the signs are in complete con- formance.with the City Sign Ordinance, with the possible exception of Sign "C". Further~ it is the bank's belief that anything different than this sign is not going to be good, and would urge the Council to allow them to' proceed with this type of signing. Councilwoman C~rr asked Mr. Clark if she was correct inlunder- standing that the illumination would be behind the full .sign, and if this meant-the sign stands out quite a bit from the wall. Mr. Clark replied that there is a 5-inch depth of the sign, and it is illuminated with flI~'~t"~lamps inside the sign. At night all that is seen illu~i~d~re ~he letters them- selves, ands_the watts consumed are probably less than a typical ceiling fixture in an office building. Councilman Kraus inquired if Mr. Clark ha'd observed the wooden sign in front of St. Andrew's Church. Mr. Clark r~pli~dthat he I~ad not seen this sign. Councilman Kraus then asked Mr. Clark if he was aware that the City does not allow free standing signs. Mr. Clark replied that under General Provisions, the ordinance would seem to in~icate'tha!t signs less'than 8 square fee t would not even require a sign permit. The ordinance reads that "No sign with an area. greater than 8 square feet shall be erected without a permit.", It funDher states tha~ "Direction signs for off-street parkihg and loading, each not more than 6 square feet in area, shall be permitted in all C.d~stricts." Mr. Clark commented that he does not w~ntthis little sign to become a problem, and if this is to be a stumbling block, they would be willing to have sign C denied, if they could have ~A and B. Also, he pointed out that the~e was some discussion ~.at the Planning Commission. Meeting ab6ut the '~arking District having signs directing peol~, He indicatad_that_they ha~e-8 parking spaces exclusively for the use of the bank, and they !.~lJ. like_~b~_~q_b~e_i_d.~D~ie~i~_.s~me._wa~_~r_.ano.th~r Councilman Kraus asked what the treatment was on the outside of this building. Mr. Clark replied that it iS white slumpstone block. A~so, it is a rough texture and uneven surface, andmountain individual letters on this kind of surface is a definite problem -- it is almost impossible to get that small of a letter perfectly straight. R. E. Kauffman addressed the Council, and stated that he recalls when the old Village Creamery had a pipe sign, and for years the Echo Shop had a sign which they wheeled out every morning which was at least as large which Mr~ Clark had displayed. Mr. Kauffman indicated that he speaks only in the interest of equity. There being no further comments from the audience, it was moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded by Councilman Brigham the public hearing be closed. .The motion was carried; the public hearing was closed at 9:05 P.M. Following a lengthy deliberation of this matter by the Council, it was moved by Councilman'Matteoni and seconded. by Councilman Brigham to continue this matter to the next regular meeting of the Council to allow opportunity to view a..sign similar to that which is b~ing proposed, located at the E1 Paseo de Saratoga Shopping Center. The motion was carried unanimously. 11 - Recess and Reconvene- C. CONSIDERATION O~ REQUEST BY CITY CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER RE: REVOCATION OF CITY BUSINESS LICENSE 77-842~FOR THE FRUITBOWL, LOCATED AT 12175 SARATOGA-SUNNYVALE ROAD Mr. Upson,'Code Enforcement Officer, pointed out.on the~over- head map the location of the Fruitstand, which is on the Spaich property near Hansdn Motors. He indicated that ~he Fruitstand has been in business under various ownership'for a . number of years, and was recently leased by a Mr. WatterrCohh who went into business in approximately March. of this year. Soon after going into business, a large number of illegal signs were posted, both on the building itself and off the building, but on the same property, advertising sale of various produce. Mr. Upson advised that he has contacted Mr. Cohn several times regarding these signs, requesting that he obtain a sign permit, and also, Outdoor storage ~of produce in. bins under umbrella~ outside of the~fFji~tand?'~He~had been contacted several times requesting that he corredt the violations. ~Mr. Upson commented that after one meeting with Mr. Cohn, it became quite obvious at that time that he had nO intention of complying with the Zoning Ordinance, especially with regard 'to the signs. It was at this time the Code Enforcement had decided to take action toward the revocation of his business license~ Since this actio~ has been taken, Mr. Cohn has applied for a sign permit, and it looks ~s though the signs he has applied for will be approved. Mr. Upson commented that he has also noticed within the. past week the outdoor storage has ceased, although there still re- mains some debris on the outside of the fruitstand. In View of the fact Mr. Cohn does appear to be taking steps to comply with the ordinance', Mr. Upson recommended this matter be held o~er for 30 days. The City Manager brought to the attention of-the Council 2 items of correspondence. on this matter, from: Mr. and Mrs. Fred Mitchel, 19684 Kshton Court, in favor of'letting the Fruitbowl remain in business. Mrs. R~f~aei~'~'~20577 Manor Drive, objecting to cer~i~'F~vi~i~n~'of the Fruitbowl continuing to operate. The Mayor then opened the ~ublic hearing ~t 9:55 P.M. Robert Dem~ter, Attorney representing Mr. Cohh, 20325 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupe~tino, addressed the Council. Mr. Demster indicated that Mr. Cohn is: attempting to work with the City in complying wi~h th~='ordinance. Mr. Demster presented a petition signed by approximately 300 people pertaining to this issue. He urged that'this matter be continued fQr 30 days, and re- ferred back to the staff. He stated it is his opinion the Fruitbowl is outside of Code Section 7.5, roSibiting outdoor storage except for those hses which norma{ly require outdoor display and storage. He'f~rther commented that the Fruitbowl can be compared to n~rser~e~, garden supply stores and other similar~ype services; therefore, some consideration should be REVOCATION OF BUSINESS LICENSE, THE FRUITBOWL (Cont'd.) given to outdoor displays outside of the main.building. It was his feeling this type 0f operation was different than a normalsupermarket because of the fact that it is an outdoor operation altogether, and it is not a building in effect, but it is a stand. Further, he felt with proper thought given to the outdoor displays, it. is not offensive, and aesthetically it is proper'to have displays of various produce and fruit outside of the particular stand itself. Also, it attracts customers. Mr. Demster commented that he believes Mrs. Mitchell puts it quite succinctly in her letter as to the type of operation that it is. He commented that the City of Saratoga prides itself on being somewhat ~ural in nature~ and cannot see what is wrong with an individual attempting to run a fruit display in what is considered a rural atmosphere. It was his feeling the two fit quite closely together, and felt it should be referred back to the staff for consideration over a 30-day period. Councilman Kraus indicated that he has a great deal of diffi- culty in following Mr. Demster's line of reasoning. It was his feeling if Mr. Cohn runs the stand according' to the ordinances, this is fine;,however, if he doesn't, he felt he should lose his license to operate. Also, he would' not put this stand in the'category of a nursery at all. Mr Demster explained that what he was saying was that this type of operatZ~is in ~ffect'an outdo'or operation;therefore, he does not see much difference in allowing satellite stands in the proximity of the m~in stand. He commented that the main stand in effect is a~ outdoor display because it doesn't have that many walls constructed around it. Councilman Kraus commented that he has difficulty in calling in an outside stand, as it has a roof and sides; therefore, the signs should be contained within. Mrs. Sifferman, 12400 Green Meadow Lane, addressed the Council. She commented that she is a long-time proponent of cleaning up the northern side of Saratoga, and felt that this fruit stand does not live up to the image of Saratoga. She indicated that when it closed previously, she was very excited.~ However, shortly after that, the fruit stand was about th.~be re-opened, and it started with the most horrible color of yellow she had ever seen. After several~phone calls to the Code Enforcement Officer, the color eventually was changed. Mrs. Sifferman indicated that she really does not see much change in the fruit stand, and she finds it difficult to believe it takes a businessman from March to August to understand that his signs are illegal. It was her feeling this is just the forerunner of constant trouble. Mrs. Sifferman further pointed out that there is a traffic hazard at this location. With the increase in business and dust caused by people trying to beat the traffic as the light changes, it is much worse. Therefore, she does~not see this fruit stand as an asset to Saratoga. Don Sifferman, 12400 Green Meadow Lane, indicated he would like to touqh briefly on the comments concerning the traffic hazard in this area. He explained that the fruitustand fronts on the highway and.is separated from the traffic by a very - 13 REVOCATION OF BUSINESS LICENSE, THE FRUITBOWL (Cont'd.) small distance, and there ~is helter-skelter parking around. the fruit stand -- both toward the Prospect side and .the side toward the railroad tracks. Also, the paving in the' area is unoiled.lo0se gravel, causing dust and slipping and sliding of cars. He,indicated that there are no parking Stalls marked, and no way ef telling how people are parked. Mr. Sifferman suggested that if :the City is taking a look at this fruit stand over the next 30 days, it ~look' very care'fUlly at the traffic situation. He felt it lwould b& much more desirab~le if the building c'ould be separated from the highway, as he would judge a building abutting on ar~property. line to be a very dangerous situation. ~ . '. Mr. Demseer indicated tha~ he is' ~omewhat confused, as he though't~this hearing was based on two questions' -- namely, signs and outside display of frdit. Therefore, he would ask for a point of information Of how we .would discuss parking aspects. Mayor Bridges explained this is an open public hearing, and a point has been raised with regard to parking. Further, it is apparent that the Council is going to continue the matter; therefore, this will give the attorney ample time tq address this question. Mr. Demster indicated he would question the jurisdiction of this city to do this at this point in time for the reason . that if this is a pre-existing, non-~onforming use. He~%'~'~ ~h~i be clarified what are the issues ~hat are properly B~fOre"fhe Council at this time. The City Attorney re~spSnd~d, stating that on the issue of whetherl'or'~not outside additional displays Would be permitted, on the premise of a pre-existing, non-conforming use~ there are code re.quirements which prohibit~eXpansion..~'~H~indir'~ ~d~Cha~-irih~iframe, it would be proper to c0n~'{~'~-~-~' non'~'c~'~fo'~'~f~g use status .~ ' ' Secondly, the question was raised as to what Were the.parking regulations at the time the use becameI noneconforming. Councilwoman Corr indicated that it would seem to her that stand has been~.fde'~'~d]~'efore~2there probably needs to be ~some change in th~"tY~ff'i~"platte½~. She further ~indicated her real concern is that be~e"SY'~rl'~ha~Viiy ~'f ihe'['ff~it ..... s_~a.n_.d, ~cars ~do .noti~h~vev~room~to pull ~6ff ~t_h.ej~r. oad. It was moved by Councilmah Kraus and seconded By Councilman Brigham to continue this matter for 30 days, stipulating that the Council look into all aspects of the fruit stand and con- sider this at the' time it is continued. The motion was carried. Councilman Kraus clarified that in reference to 'his motion, he was particularly intereste'd in the park{ng situation, and would ask the staff to look into this and report to the CounCil. D. RESOLUTION NO. 827 RESOLUTION CONFIRMING REPORT AND ASSESSMENT RE: WEED ABAT'EMENT The City Manager indicated' that it wbuld be his recommendation after the public hearing ils closed on this matter, Resolution No. 827 be adopt.edi - ~14 - Councilman Matteoni pointed out on page 2 of the list, the specific parcel number should be inserted for the property indicated on Saratoga Avenue. The City Attorney further pointed out 'that the Code requires the name and address be included for each property. In reviewing the map, the City Manager advised that th~ area is a~f~t~off of Saratoga Avenue and there is no speci~?l'c~'~r'~l number f~r the area.' Chief Carter indicated he would investigate to see who was billed for this parcel. The public hearing was opened at 10:23 P.M. There being no additional comments on this matter, it was moved by Councilman Kraus 'and seconded by Councilman Matteoni the public hearing be closed. The motion was carried; the public hearing was closedat 10:24 P.M. It was then moved by CounCilman Kraus and seconded by Councilman Brigham Re~olution 827 be adopted, with the direction that the ~staff include names and addresses of the property owners on the ~exhibit. The motion was carried unanimously. VII. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS (Cont'd.) D. CITY MANAGER 1. Report P~ins ~ Re: Tennis Court on Via laintf~"'~'~' Colina (C~nt~?~Ju'l'~20) !The City Manager i~dlc~d'~h?last regular meeting, th.?~ [_qpe~i_o~_h_a~.~een ra~se~ if ~his~v_iola~ion had. previously been brought to the attention of the Ci~'bef~'e re~ei~ ~'f"~ Mr. Smith's letter. He reported that in checking this, he found that it had come to the attention of the Code Enforcement Officer in 1974 -- the issue of the setback was known, however the issue of the lights had been looked at from a different perspective, in that the issue at that time was: Were lights allowed? He explained that the .file indicates that the ~ennis court itself is legal; the fence is illegal, but it was approved by the then Acting Planning Director; and the light standards were not specifically approved, and it specifically states so on the plans.. ~ He indicated it Would ~e the staff's recommendation to acknowledge that ther~ was a mistake made in the issuance of the approval for t~e fence, request a correction be made to bring it into conformance with the city ordinaces (owner apply for a variance, recognizing that if the variance were to be denied, it would still have to be corrected). He clarified that this would also apply to the lights. It was moved by Councilman Matteoni and seconded by Councilman Brigham to take the recommen~d action, and ask the owner of this property to make application for a variance. The motion was carried unanimously. 15 - 2. Tract 5150~ Fruitvale Avenue and Douglass Lane Public Improvements and Inability of Residents to Access into Driveways-During Construction The City Manager explained a question has'been raised because the frontage on these streets which are under- going improvements are all time-limit parking. He recommended that the Council rescind the portion of Resolution MV-90.3 to allow parking on these frontages for a 2-week period. It was moved by Councilman Matteoni and seconded by Councilwoman Corr to approve rescinding that!portion of Resolution MV-90.3 ~srindicated. The motion was carried unanimously. 3. Change Order No. 5, Re: Improvement of Frontage to New Librar. y on Saratoga Avenue It was moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded by Councilman Matteoni approval of Change Order No'. 5, in the amount of~4,~J~'~_._~l~ The motion was carried unanimously. VIII. COMMUNICATIONS 1. O. Magnone, 13122 Via Arriba Drive, complaining regarding landscape maintenance in Saratoga. Mr. Moeller, Traffic Engineer, reported that this situation has been followed up by the staff, and the individual property owners notified to correct the situation. .... 2. Ms.' E~I~ S~i~f~r~270"0I~'W~d~R~ad, appe~IIi~g'~t~'~h~'Ci~y Council to waive fees on re-application for a use permit for a tennis court. It was moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded by Councilwoman Corr to approve waiving the use permit fee on this application. The motion was carried unanimously. 3. Ms. Jean Siriani, City Clerk of the City of Stanton, urging City Council's support id the adoption of Resolution No. 77-31, urging the State LegislatUre to amend Penal Code S311 relating to definition of obscene material. Noted and filed. 4. Mr. William Nighswonger, Mayor of the City of-Montebello, urging the City's support of the State Constitutional Amendment Initiative which would resolve key issues in area'of public relations. - Recommended for discussion at future Committee of the Whole Meeting. 5. Mr. George Barati, Executive Director, Montalvo Center for the Arts, Re: calim against the City concerning damage to his car on July 26, 1977.. - City MaDjger to respond and advise City's p~u'y~.~'~h~ yi~g~o'~f~l~m~-~7.~ C~'~y-~c~cii~'~'-l°p~r'gY~l~'~i~l'ati~ to correct the current method of sales tax distribution. - Continued for discussion at future Committee of the Whole Meeting. - 16 - 7. Ms. Mardi Gualtieri, member Santa Clara County Historical Heritage Commission, announcing the replacement of Paul Jacobs as laison forlthe City ofLSaratoga. - Noted and filed. B. ORAL The City Manager requested the Committee of the Whole Meeting for August 9 be cancelled. This was acceptable to the Council. IXi, i. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Councilman Brigham ahd seconded by Councilman Kraus the meeting be adjourned. The motion was carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 P.M. ~obert F, Beyer~~ ' City Clerk - 17