Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
02-07-1979 City Council Minutes
M I NUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL TIME: Wednesday, February 7, 1979 - 7:30 P.M. PLACE: Saratoga City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, Califo TYPE: Regular Meeting AGENDA --.~. ACTION TAKEN I. ORGANIZATION A. ROLL CALL Present: Councilmen Kalb, Corr, Callon, Matteoni, Kraus Absent: ' None B. MINUTES MINUTES ~_ _. '_.~ Jan. 17, Page 7, Item VIII-A- Correction to indicate Councilwoman 'callon seconding the motion, rather than Mayor Kraus. M/S: Corr/Kalb to approve minutes of January 17 and January 23, as corrected. Carried unanimously by voice vote. II. SPECIAL BUSINESS - OATH OF SPECIAL BUSINESS- OATH OF OFFICE OFFICE Assistant City Manager administered the Oath of Office to Eugene Zambetti for a renewed term on the Saratoga Planning Commission. III. COM~UNICATIONS COMMUNICATIONS A. ORAL None B. WRITTEN ~ ~ ~ 1. Copy of lette~ to the Referred to Public Works staff for Directo~ of Public Works report at<s'Ub'se~'e~ ~'~'t'i~gl ...... ~ from John It. 'Haufe, 21210 ..... ~""~ ~ ........... Y~ Canyon View Drive, re: soil movement along the northerl~ edge of Canyon View Drive'. " 2. Ralph S. _~anne, 13899 'Referred to 'Public Works staff for Upper Hill Drive, request% report at.~u~seq~ ~eti~.-~--. "No Parking" signs on Upper "' ~"'" ~ ..... ' ~ Hill Court. AGENDA ACTION TAKEN COMMUNICATIONS (Cont'd.) .COMMUNICATIONS B. WRITTEN 3'.' Warren W. Richmond, No'ted; considere~ as part'of pub~ic 19311 Valle Vista Drive, hearing. supporting West Valley Freeway. 4.' Ruth Wood Myrvold, Noted; considered as part of public re: Southeast Saratoga hearing. Urban Service Area re- moval. 5. Jerome M. Rosefield, Noted; considered as part of public 16040 Overlook Drive, re: hearing. proposed Urban Service Area. 6. Mr./Mrs. Tanso Ish'~j~a~.a, Referred to Director of Community requesting License Agree- Services to explore alternate ment for operation of~%7~"~'~ arrangements for tea house Hakone Gardens Japanese operation. Tea Room be ~terminated. 7. A petition fromcitizens M~Si.~M~tteoni/Callon to adopt of Saratoga requesting Resolution 894, with modifications adoption of a Resolution to reflect "American citizens of supporting a day of Japanese ancestry" in all instances; remembrance for persons . also, to eliminate "acknowledges of Japanese ancestry, etc. and" in second to last paragraph of resolution. Carried 4 to 1, Councilman Kalb in opposition. 8. Margaret L. Marsden, Noted; considered as Dart of public re: proposed Urban Service hearing. Area. 9. John S. Perkins,attoraey~' Noted; considered as part of public for Saratoga Vista II, re: hearing. Southeast SaratogaUrban Service Area. 10. Don Prather, Saratoga.- Noted; considered as part of public Vista II, Re: proposed hearing. Urban Service Area. 11. Jan Martel, re: littering Noted and filed; City Manager to during Paul Masson Marathon. respond. 12. Letters from residents Noted; considered as part of public re: proposed West Valley hearing. Freeway: Grace Germany, 19141 Dagmar Drive - oppos&d~.~ Nathan Gold, 13126 Anza~ Drive - oppos~d~ - 2 - AGENDA ACTION TAKEN COMMUNICATIONS (Cont'd.) COMMUNICATIONS B. WRITTEN 12. Residents re: proposed Noted; considered as part of public West Valley Freeway: hearing. Bette Black, 18240 ~' Saratoga-Los Ga~o~s Rd., opposed. Pamela T. Nesbet, 15450 Pepper Lane support. Murm L. Vedder, 14930 Farwell Ave. - support. Richard Vieira, 18478 Prospect Rd. - support. Mr~l/Mrs. Donald Warren, 20766 Granada Court - support. GeorgeCarter, 12450 Arroyo de Arguello - support Raisa Kocher, President Saratoga Village Merchant! Assn - support. League of Women Voters - support. Rev. Stanley M. Johnson, Saratoga FederatedChurch support. IV. SUBDIVISIONS,' BUILDING SITES, SUBDIVISIONS/BUILDING SITES, ZONING REQUESTS ZONING REQUESTS V. PETITIONS,. ORDINANCES, PETITIONS, ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTIONS A. RESOLUTION 891 M/S: Corr/Kalb to adopt Resolution 891. Carried unanimously by. A RESOLUTION COMMENDING voice vote. FRED LUSTIG B. PETITION OPPOSING PROPOSED Cont'do to Committee of the Whole RESOLUTION MV-133 Mtg. Tuesday, February 13. PARKING DISTRICT N0.4 '~889_.thzough~.8~9-_C.,~s.u~j~b'~6di-' ASSESSMENT DISTRICT fication to Resolution 889-A, as ~-i~d{8~Ee~2~T'CErri~d'~unan~mously by 1. Resolution. 889, A .~yoieEvStgrj~. . ResolUtion Determining'to , Undertake Proceedings Pur- .., suant to Special Assesanent ~.. _ and Assessment Bond Acts for the Acquisition and ~ -- ' " -' \ ~"' ConstructiOn of Improvements .... :~.t---~'~ .... ~ ............. without Pro~eedingsunder Division 4 of the Streets and Highways Code AGENDA ACTION TAKEN PETITIONS, ORDINANCES, <~7 PETITIONS, ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS (Cont'd.) RESOLUTIONS C. RESOLUTIONS RE: VILLAGE PARKING DISTRICT NO. 4 ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 2. Resolution 889-A, A The Council concurred in the Resolution Appointing Director of Public Works' recommen- Engineer and Authorizing dation to approve this resolution, Execution of Agreement for subject to receiptof an executed Engineering Services in ~upplement to the agreement to Connection With Village guarante~ engineering costs. Parking District No. 4 Assessment District 3. Resolution 889-B, A Resolution Appointing. Attorneys 4. Resolution 889-C, A Resolution of Intention to Acquire and Cons. truct Improvements D. RESOLUTION 893. The Assistant City Manager trans- mitted the staff report, dated A Resolution WithdraWing 1/29/79, delineating modifications Land of Hall from Williamsot to said resolution, and recommending Act Contract leaving the additional 2%.acres in the Williamson Contract:. M/S: Matt'eoni/Kalb to adopt; Resolution 893, and request the staff bring back a proposed modification to Section B-3 to indicate a time specific for re- ten~i6n =bf~'m~nies-~Vf~d'Y0~?~]~btic:_~ ~ _ ~. O ~fl~0~an': C~i:l=~'r~:~~i.~ .- E. ORDINANCE 38.93 M/S: Corr/Callon to introduce An Ordinance Modifying the Ordinance 38.93, and waive the City Code as to Prodedures reading. Carried unanimously by for Review of Geotechnical voice vote. Reports ~ Continued to Committee of the Whole F. RESOLUTION 780.7 "'Q~',7'~Meeting to consider alternate A Resolution Amending>:.. ' ~,~'~Suggesti6n re: non-refundable '! Geologic Survey Fee :-'~' .deposits of geologic service fees. Schedule :-' .- ~'Di~t~d~t.~f~'~o provide infor- ~m~ti~on.~re:,.numBer~of buildable lots also, ~sti~ of why on minor sub- divisions that are not geographically mapped, total cost is less than if mapped. G. ORDINANCE NO. 3E-15 Continued to ~egular meeting on An Interim Emergency February 21, 1979. Ordinance Regulating Land Development of the City's Western Hillsides AGENDA ACTION TAKEN 'VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS ~, PUBLIC HEARINGS x\ A. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER \ PROTESTS IN RELATION TO ' ,mi~ted '~f~Tr~d/~d~'ted~lT. 30~'7~9~" PROPOSED ACQUISITIONS PER~ TAINING TO VIL~GE ~h~"~bp~ ~'~"~dbi~hearing PARKING DISTRICT ~2 at 8:2] P.M. ?AND : There being no discussion, it was VIL~GE PARKING DISTRICT by Councilwoman Corr ~o close the ~2 public hearing. Carried. Public hearing closed at 8:23 P.M. 1. Adoption of Resolutions for Village Parking~.~/ M/S: Kalb/Corr to adopt Resolutiqns District ~2 888-1 through 888-M. Carried ~ Resolution 888'-I,A unanimously by voice vote.' gesolution Overruling Pro- tests on Resolution of IntentioniZe7' '~8-D · Resdlution 888-J, A Resolution and Order Adopting Engineer's Re~ port, Confi~ing the Assessment and Ordering the Work and Acq~sitio~ · Resolution 888-K, A Resolution Overruling Protests, Orde:ing Formation of City of Saratoga Village Par~ District No. 2 Mainten- ance District, and Establishing Maximum Tax Rate · Resolution 888-L, A Resolution Designating Collection Officer ~ Resolution 888~M, A ' Resolution Authorizi~g Validating Proceedings ~h B. TOCONSIDER REZONING FROM /~ e s~is%'~ht 'C~tV~-Man~ger ex~Ia'~ed "A" (AGRICULTURE) TO "HC~' ~d~s~.~m~~-~'~r~d'~'over_ THE 17.5 ACRE -PARCEL ~I~] ,~on~at~io~'~n~' ~i'th the OF APN 336-05-04 COmmONLY resolution to withdraw land from KNO~ AS ~LL PROPERTY, AND -. the Williamson Act. UNIT 3 OF PA~ER ~NCH The Maydr opened the public hearing (Cont'd. ~1/1/78) 1. Adopt Ordinance 'N~i~kc~8~ at 8:25 P.M. An Ordinance ~endi~g .... There being no discussion, it was Ordinance NS.-3, the~Zoning moved by Councilwoman Callon, Ordinance, by amending the seconded by Councilwoman Corr Zoning Map. close the public hearing. C~rri~d. Public hearing closed at 8:25 P.M. .~ ~ ~/~/?~ AGENDA ACTION TAKEN PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont'd~) ,~ PUBLIC HEARINGS B. TO CONSIDER~REZONING FROM M/S: Kalb/Matteoni to adopt "A" (AGRICULTURE) TO "HCRD" Resolution NS-3j~80. '~C~ri~d THE 17.5 ACRE PARCEL PORTION 4 to 1, Councilwoman Callon in OF APN 336-05-04 COMMONLY bpposition. KNOWN AS HALL PROPERTY, AND UNIT 3 OF PARKER RANCH (Cont'd. 11/1/78) C. TO CONSIDER ANALYSIS AND The Assistant City Manager RECOMMENDATION RE: SOUTH- referenced staff report, dated EAST SARATOGA URBAN SERVICE' 12/13/78, recommending the COunCil AREA (Cont'd. 1/3/79 modify the USA boundary based on the analysis to date. The Mayor opened the public hearing at 8:29 P.M. John Perkins, Attorney for Saratoga Vista II, addressed the Council, He indicated the rebuttal report approximately one week ago, they had a meeting with the Planning Director, a staff member and the - City Manager. .In the report, they have traced the history of Montgomery Highlands because this is legally a~d practically tied to Saratoga Vista !I. -He commented that in the abstract, if it were the choice of the City of Saratoga to the County and to those people who live in the Urban Service Area, "We don't have any future intent to annex ljyou; we want to pull back the urban service areaV, they probably would not be objecting as they do have a proposed development in the County under the County RHS Zoning Ordinance~ and it is a request for cluster permit approval. However, there is a potential direct effect in that this project as it currently exists, exists under a grandfather status of projects that were in the pipeline with the County Planning Department before the en- actment of County 20-S zoning. If, for some technical reason, the application for either the cluster permet or tentative map is denied and the applicant has to go back before the County Planning Department and re-submit a new p~ckage, the applicant is going to be faced not with RHS, but with 20-S zoning, the reason being that 20-S zoning is directly tied to the stars of the property as to whether or not it is in a city's urban service area. ,- AGENDA ACTION TAKEN PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont'd.) PUBLIC HEARINGS C. TO CONSIDER ANALYSIS AND .planners at the time somehow made RECOMMENDATION RE: SOUTH- a mistake in believing they EAST SARATOGA URBAN SERVICE shouldn't have included~any of the AREA (Cont'd. 1/3779) southeast urban service area in the USA, or included it to a lesser (John Perkins - cont"d.) extent. The City's records, however, seem to leadconly to one conclusion, Mr. Perkins explained in the and that fs: Not only was it. early 1950's, Mr. Montgomery ' considered with concerted effort of subdivided one of his 3 parcels the planning studies at that time,' which is now known as Montgomery but considered by LAFCO to the Highlands. All but about 9 extent that LAFCO specifically of the parcels which he created commented that the area should be have been built upon, and those included. .people owning homes there are Mr. Perkins indicated members of Montgomery Highlands ~or~ 's~em~d to h~ tb'b~ Honeowners Association. c ~ir~c~d~tOward the Sa~a~o,~'V~s~a The Association for a number of~ ~project. The staff compa~e~ the Cbunt~ requirements'to the City's years has' been concerned about requirements. It seems that most 2 things . . . the condition of the requirements would be very of the private roads in the' similar. Mongtomery Highlands area, and ~he condition aBd future ser- He indicated the County would re.- vice and servicability. of a q~ire a geotechnical site evaluation private water system owned by and inhis report, Mr. Perkins gives current owners of Saratoga a short summary of Rreliminary Vista II. There is a matter conclusions of the geologist hired' ~pending before the Public by Saratoga Vista II. One of the Utilities Commission to attemp~ major..things he noted in %oing to have them use their juris-; through the report was it appeared diction tolook into any prob' under the RHS zoning of the County lems with the water system. that this project would not The Saratoga Vista II people necessarily have to go through an and Montgomery Highlands architectural and site review. Homeowners Association have Under the cluster development worked out' an agreement in ordinance of the County, they do principal to attempt ~o in fact require their site and alleviate both ~he road and architectural committee to review water prOblems~'/!There is an the cluster development; therefore, agreement to rejuvinate and this does not seem 'to be a dis- re-build the roads to County t~nctionl. I't appears'that the development standards between HCRD of the City and RHS of the the'Homeowners Association · County are.very similar. It is and the owners. These two their feeling the Saratoga Vista'Ir problems that have faced project does conform to the General Montgomery Highlands for some Plan and policies stated therein. time indirectly qr dilrecly face the. City of Saratoga He explained that if'one takes the because in order t~ get their whole 107 acre site and do the development through, this= calculations, it comes out that the will in effect solve their overall gross density is approximately problems. .2 dwelling units per acre. The approximate net density of the 30 Mr. Perkins commented he gets acres, which comprises the 21 pro- the impression from reading posed sites, is about .7 dwelling the staff report, for some units per acre. Mr. Prather's reason,-the Counci~f~th~ drawing shows that this project AGENDA ACTION TAKEN PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont'd.) PUBLIC HEARINGS 'E~'~ C0~S~b~R'AN~LY~ AND . should be approved in any develop- or any area of Saratoga or the '"' AREA (Cont'd. ll3l ) County. Their conclusion is that they ~John Perkins cont'd.) believe there should be a de~ay for at least one year in any action has very little chance of being of the City of Saratoga, and would growth inducing. On an average request ~he Council and staff to the 21 sites are approximately re-examine their'refusal to allow an acre ~acho 75 percent of sewering to the property. the parcel would remain in open space --compl~ing with. They would like to be able to the requirements of the County develop in the County without the Ordinance, as well as the pressure of having to worry about General Plan and development what effect withdrawal of the requirements. urban service area will have. He stated that the geologist If for fiscal reasons or what the has given them the preliminary City considers good planning policy indication that only~tmini- i~ wants to consider backing off mal amount of grading'w~uld of the urban service area, that is be required. one thing. However, for the reasons stated in the petition, he does Re: traffic flow. It is noted not believe it is valid. that most of thos~ citizens who signed th~ pet±tionwill Councilman Kalb: Requested that not be affected by traffic Mr. Perkins elaborate:~0~eF~n~-' .from this area, and mostlof the agreement between Saratoga them would still be inzthe Vista.II and Montgomery HighlandS, urban serv~'ce area boundarv' specifically with regard to cost by-the staff's ~oposal. Tie of improving the roads and Water staff was using ~s'statistics system. an average of 12 dail~ trips per dwelling unit,'and h& Mr. Perkins stated that the total believes this figure is not c6st of the water system is realistic. A county report estimated to be in the neighborhood uses the figure in hillside of $700,000. The roads = around areas such as this of 7.5 $500,000. trips per day, and the County report indicates 6 to CoUncilman Kalb commented that he 8 units. Therefore, in- doesn't believe County'standards stead of 684 total trips for':these roads would meet city per day, the average would standards for annexation. be closer to 427. Robert Shook, Director of Public Re: sanitary.sewer system. Works, replied he is not sure The Saratoga Vista II people' there would be a vast difference have never tried ~o hide the. if they were brought up to fact that eventually they appropriate County standards. wanted to connect to this extension of the sewer line. Mr. Perkins added that as he Without sanitary sewerS, the understands it~ the County will Saratoga Vista II cluster consult with the City of Saratoga development cannot be a for its recommendations since the reality. He has made a list property is in. the urban service of reasons on page 17'of his area. report why sanitary sewers Councilman Kalb: With regard to the statement that the resolution AGENDA ' ACTION TAKEN PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont'd.) PUBLIC HEARINGS C. TO CONSIDER ANALYSIS AND (Mr.. Slemmons - cont'd. RECOMMENDATION RE: SOUTH- EAST SARATOGA URBAN ;ERIriCE · fire hazard is extreme. AREA (Cont'd. 1/3/79 .~ · Much of the property is out- (Jeff Kalb -'cont'd.) side the bound~Eylof San Jose Water Works-rr of water and roads is ~6ta!ly contingent on the $~ratoga He po{nted out that following VistalI development, he asked extensive grading and ~earance if the present owners do not of ~egetation in the summer and recognize the lfabi-lity to fall. of 1977 by Mr. Prather, loss maintain the roadslandprov{de! of soil has occurred in several the water service. locationS. Mr. Perkins replied there is '. Mr. Slemmons stated it is for a liability imposed by the these reasons that Saratoga would deeds themselves. The point be well advised to not consider · is Montgomery Highlands ~ ever--annexing this area~ Further would like the ro~ds. im~. removal of the urban service~are~ proved substantially, and is not picking away water or would like the water system roads from 'the Montgomery HighS'ands to be brought up to P.U.C people -- the City does not Pro- standards. ' vide water or roads. Mr.'Vi~licka and Prather have this legal Arthur Slemmons of Redb~rry obligation in their deed. Drive addressed the Council. He indicated that the pro- Rodney Diridon, County Supervisor, posed cluster development addressed the Council, affirmed of 21 dwelling units is not that the County's policy as- the issue -- we are talking described in the Plannin~ Department about the urban serViCe report is that this area'not be area. However, before the developed. The portion in the Council is a large handout hills is not in the Urban Service which is the report of the Area, and therefore, you do not Santa ClaraT.County Planning have the acreage to balance a Department, recommending cluster. The area on the other denial of this particular side is not sewered. The County~ 21 dwelling units. The policy is not to allow development of these kinds of parcels, but to reasons they deny it are also relevant to why he allow the cities to decide what believes this area should kind of density and where to locate be withdrawn from the urban that density. s~rvice area. He a~ticulated reasons for this denial: Bernard Porter, 20800 Canyon View Drive,(Chairman of Montgomery · geologically, it is a Highlands Homeowners Association), high potential earthquake indicated he moved to this area induced landslide area. 33 years ago. He indicated that · ' severe septic tankl in order for their water problems limitations due to to be solved, there has to be shallow soil and steep some development. He believes it slope. is deplorable the kind of action would be taken to damage a solution · poor circulation, in- to a long-existing problem. I~ is adequate road widths, simply a matter of cost -- Saratoga steep and excessivegrades, Vista II must be able to develop etc. it in order to make some money in ~ order to solve the road and.water problem. AGENDA ACTION TAKEN PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont'd.) PUBLIC HEARINGS C. TO CONSIDER ANALYSIS AND James Rohner, attorney representing RECO~vIENDATION RE: SOUTH- the Coalition of Southeast Saratoga EAST SARATOGA URBAN SERVICE Homeowners, pointed out that the AREA (Cont'd. 1/3/79) Planning staff report recommends the change in.this urban service Councilman Matteoni: Requested area boundary.. He indicated that if under the contract~ral obli- it seems the real issues are the ' gations the assessment cannot ability of the City to provide the be equitably spread unless there urban services in that area, the is development of SaratOga Vista willingness of the City to pay for II. those urban services, and whether the City is planninglon annexing Mr., Porter: If Saratoga Vi'sta 'th~S property within the foreseeable II is allowed'to develop the future. He stated that it doesn't land, they could hope to reap appear this land can be d~veloped some profit from the lots they in the City of Saratoga, and he selI, and Montgomery Highlands doesn't believe there would be an homeowners' would be assessed for major change for people in Montgomery part. Of the cost. Had Mr. Highlands area if the urban service Montgomery. continued the develop area boundary is modified as ment when he s~arted it in the recommended by the staff. ~ 50's and 60's, the cost would have been lower and they could Don Prather, resident on Northkmpton have afforded it. tie requested Drive and one of the owners of this the Council defer action for property, indicated he'would like one year, and let the develop- to make some points of clarifi- ment stand on its meritS. cation. He believes the Council .is clear that the urban service Margaret Slemmons, Redberry area runs down through Overlook Drive (representing the Drive,_a~d~.tbe property~ ~ Coalition of Residents and /~ft~&rly and easterly direction Homeowners in the'Southeast 'frbm O~rlo~k is in with the urban Urban Service Area), presented service area. Additionally, all a resolution signed .by 112 of the property is in Saratoga's residents and homeownerS in sphere of influence, and ~hen this area. Said resolution they acquired the property, it reads as follows: was zoned County RHS. Therefore, "~he application is consistant with "We the residents and home- all. three of those points. owners in this area support the Planning Department's ~ M~i Perkins again addressed the _recommendations for urban Council, indicating'that he would service area modificatipns, and like to hear from the proponents urge the Saratoga City Council of the proposal is what~i~'~'~ .~ approval and submission to is going to have to be paid for LAFCO for final designation." this development. He indicated that contrary to S'he indicated that whether Supervisor Diridon's Doint that those peopl~in Montgomery Sanitation District N~. 4 had turned Highl'ands are in or out of the down this proposal, Mr. Perkins urban service area has no stated that Sanitation District No. bearing on their ability to 4 made this proposal before the .procure a better water system City of Saratoga under a policy of and better'roads, as the deed LAFCO, and it was the City Council -- restriction signed by Veliecka and not Sanitation District No. 4 and Prather obligates them to that'turned down the proposal. maintain the roads and water - - system for Montgomery Highlands. Also, he does not believe Mr. Diridon's statement is correct 10 - AGENDA ACTION TAKEN PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont'd.) PUBLIC HEARINGS C. TO CONSIDER ANALYSIS AND Mayor Kraus: After looking at the RECOMMENDATION RE: SOUTH- property, he does not see any way EAST SARATOGA URBAN SERVICE the City of Saratoga could agree AREA(Cont'd. 1/3/79) to'extend services to that area, even within the next 10 years.. He that the property has to be completely under the urban this would be to modify the service area in order to de- boundaries. velop under RHS zoning. M/S: Kalb/Callon to modifZ.~he With regard to the P'lanning ~ou~ies:.~':'~e-s~aff:recommen- 'staff report, Mr. Perkins .d~tion d~ted 12Z13/7.8, and directed addressed the following issues: .'~he staff to prepare an. ao~ropri~[: ~'resolution'-for Council ~K~id~ration The geotech~ical aspects of tMe~ atJi'~s ne~t ~e~ul~ m~e~ing. carried report parit the County's genera{' ~ to 1, Councilman Matteoni opDosed. L~o~t'~ ~he area -- they i --- don~t pro~ort to be from any investigation the City's geolo- gist has made on the site. Re: alternative access, he ' commented that the project has alternative access. Mel Wright, resident oh" ~pj~y _Drive, commented ~hat :J~e cost thgt ~a~"~ ~n ~jo_D~d would be the widening_ .of the roads that lead from%' this development -- such as .Redberry, such'an CapXon, s~dh as Bainter and the~rest of~+~ ~h~e thaiwOBld.le~d from'.the .~evelopment~'in the area -.+' '.and he understands if this:~ ~ere. to_go through, those resi- dents who live on'these roa'ds_ ~ould autSmatically be :assessed. He~'qu~s~ion~d'.iif ~their benefit is to-have all t' this traffic 66ming down"in "front of-their h6mes, a:d indicated if' this is th~ case, he is against the proposal. M/S: Callon/Kalb to close the public hearing. Carried. The public. hearing was closed at 9:34 P.M. Councilman Matteoni: He_woUld. -:~l'~Saratqg~ ~Vfs t~:iI plore other options. AGENDA ACTION'TAKEN P.UBLIC HEARINGS (Cont'd.) PUBLIC HEARINGS D. TO CONSIDER SANTA CLARA 3 The Assistant City Manager trans- VALLEY CORRIDOR EVALUATION mitted a report of the City Manager PREPARED BY MTC/ABAG AND dated 2/1/79. ITS IMPACT QN SAI~ATOGA (Cont'Zd. 1/23/79)' The Mayor opened the. public hearing. at 9:50 P.M. County Supervisor Rodney ~iridon addressed the Council;indicating he believes there were some points of misunderstanding in the develop- ment of'the staff report. He indicated that it should be stressed that the West Valley Transportation Corridor is not being retained at this time purely for a freeway. Also, it should be stressed that as of the Cal-Trans audit that was ~eleased last,week there is not money for any kind of pavement facility in that corridor until beyond the year 2000. The cost of developing a freeway in that corridor today is 250 million dollar. That amount of money we would hope to see is predicated on the 2¢ gas tax increase which has not been passed, but vetoed twice by the current governor. He pointed out 75 percent of the land in the corridor is purchased -- it is in public ownership ~y the State Transportation Agency, and in order to purchase the remainder of land in .the corridor, it is going to cost between 40 and 50 million dollars, and this is in the study guidelines. The highest pribrity is to protect the corridor for future options, He ihdicated the figures used in the staff re~ port were those used in the extreme .comparisons during Phase .3. These were disregarded and discarded in the comDr6mise land use proposal which is now p~rt of the plan. · The Assistant Cityi'Manager acknowledged those~items of written correspondence on this issue. Mr. Diridonf~d~d:~h~"Qh~f'h~ .___k~ would request'f~o~'~h~ Cbupcil this evening is an endorsement Of the overall plan. Shelley willjams, ,l~Sr'~ookri'dge j. Dff~e~ 'ih~d-~hen he first "' ,t~-!moved into[the County 27 vear~' ago, - 12 AGENDA '~CTION. TAKEN PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont'd.) PUBLIC HEARINGS D. TO CONSIDER SANTA ~LARA SecOndly, the labor force in the VALLEY CORRIDOR EVALUATION state is growing faster than our PREPARED BY MTC/ABAG AND population. ITS IMPACT ON SARATOGA Third, h~' pointed out there are (Cont'd. 1/23/79) ab.~u~ 400,000 young people in the State that are maturing be- (Shelley William'~ - cont'd.) tween 16 and 21. it was an orchard area from Jameson's conclusion is that we StevensCreek Boulevard to do=ineed a dynamic growth pattern PermanentelCement Plant to in this state to accomplish the San Carlos. He was amazed . growth pattern we have here..' that the planners had taken advantage to plan in advance It is Mr. William~' recommendation for the traffic and growth that 85'be placed on first priority of the area at that time. and built out as soon as plans can He is personally..in favor of be drawn. and funds .attracted by preserving the 85 CorridOr, the special multi-modal funding and building it Out as or matching Gas Tax funds by rapidly as matching federal. lobbying with our legislators. and state funds are'available. .. As the-corridor is owned 99~ percent Mr. Williams commented the in Cupertino, 76 percent'in County has talked for 30 years Saratoga; and 74 percent in Los about this freeway, and we Gatos; and only 35 percent from in Saratoga are part.of a Route 17 to 101, he feels it greater community. He should beiSi~n%l~mented as the believes Saratoga has the monies come {h'from the matching responsibility to carry its funds, from the Cupertino area to share of the'load in com- Saratoga, through Los Gatos, and pleting a pathway'that has down to 101. been planned for such a -~'~ ..... '~-~.-.~- long period of time. He Cupertino~ Los~ Gatos, and CamDbell commented he believes the ~haV&~gHh Dtedge&~$25,000 td~d frantic pace of life will ~"'~hi~'~oje~7:and san'jose h~ slow down a little bit as ~iS'piedg~d $1~00~0'0.' H~'~k~d: traffic is focused on a free- I'~Wh~[~w~lr"Saratoga pledge toward way corridor at 55 M.P.H., matching funds on the corridor rather than crowded city itself?" streets at 35 M.P.H. with stop-and-go traffic. Also, Barbara Majors, resident of Saratoga, proper freeway design can presented a token survey which had minimize the noise impact. been taken over the weekend'to se9 The freeway will also shorten if the people of Saratoga really time in reaching our destin- were interested in maintaining the ations by 15 to 20 minutes right-of-way for Route 85. She during rush hour. indicated this petition has been ~igned by several hundered people. Donald C. Jameson, Vice President and Economise at Bob Boswell, 14345 Saratoga Avenue, Security Pacific B~.~'~ pointed indicating he is speaking as a out in a seminar on Growth resident and also, Director of Control Control on DeCember 5, Development for the Good Samaritan 1978, that severe growth . Hospital. He stated the Board of pressures are already here in Trustees has just completed a the County and in the State. year's study on how this community Three factors: ImmigratiOn in- hospital 'can best serve the West creased substantially in the Valley Area, both. north and south. '50's and 60's, and dropped off Partof this study pointed out in the early 70's, and now it that we should in every way'support is halfway back ~p. the proposed freeway because of the accg§sipility to the hospital. - 13 - AGENDA ~ ACTION TAKEN PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont'd.) PUBLIC HEARINGS D. TO CONSIDER SANTA CLARA He stated that he believes our VALLEY CORRIDOR EVALUATION goal is clouded by people who have PREPARED BY MTC/ABAG AND a specific ax to grind. ITS IMPACT ON SARATOGA (Cont~d. 1/23~7~ He urged that the Council look upon this road as something that is (Mr. Boswell - cont'do) impossible and for which we don't have money; rather, look upon it ~e indicated last year there as a necessity. If we do not have were 25,000 emergencies, and the money, he believes it is the they would strongly support job of every citizen in this area an opening of the corridor to put their mind to it and try to allow accessibility to the to find the money. hospital. Jerry Kosier, 12855 S. Highway 9, Robert Van der toorren, 14555 Saratoga, indicated he feels partly Horseshoe Drive, commented responsible.for all the traffic the only worse than having no as he was one of the 50 that in- Rlan at all is having half a corporated this city because plan.. He indicated that in San Jose was going to get it. the beginning of the traffic He stated that he is in favor of plan for this area of the the corridor; however, if we put County, the freeways were de- a light rail in there and some- signed with this extension in thing goes wrong like the Bart mind. What we have now is a system, how are the rest of the good plan; we can go almost people going to get along?. anywhere, except this vital Secondly, they say there is no link is missing. moneX~__~9~r, the Treasury~,_i.' He argued 10 years ago in,_~ - sidle Proposi__Cion 13, couldn't favor of this corridor. He ff~d"fhe ~ount of money in the heard a moment ago the word Treasury, so how can we believe "urban development" in this them? city, and commented we are ~'~-- ~5.! almost, in his view, as any I~ene~Tolbert, 20720 Fourth Street, rural development he has ever indicated she and her husband own seen. 2 properties on either side of the proposed freeway. She is very much He indicated it is a most in favor of it, and would like to wasteful thing to have an urge the Council to support and. idling car ~- gasoline, energy, preserve the right-of-way for patience, and a loss of human several reasons: In 1976., Mayor values. Hayes appointed Mrs. Tolbert to Mr. Van der toorren commented serve on the Task Force to con- Saratoga-Los Gatos Road (the sider street financing for the city. scenic route), is becoming It was then she became acutely more and more a walled in high- aware of why the West Valley way, and there has been no Corridor was so essential for all .progress at all in ~0~years. -of us in %his County -- not only He does not believe this area in Saratoga. She believes we all and the area of the South recognize we have the label of being County can be convertedto a a "bedroom community". Most of us rail or a bus system because work and play outside of this area, the type of people that conmute and it is for this reason we must over these streets are not the relieve congestion in the different ones that can at most timesuse2 areas. She presented traffic counts public transportation. It is of three busy spots in Saratoga, a very long educationalprocess::.: conducted by the City in 1977. .. AGENDA 'ACTION TAKEN PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont'd.) PUBLIC HEARINGS D. TO CONSIDER SANTA CLARA (Mr. Huff - cont'd.) VALLEY CORRIDOR EVALUATION PREPARED BY MTC/ABAG AND .He indicated at the laSt'~zhearing, ITS IMPACT ON SARATOGA only'One persOn. spOke in favor of (Cont'd. 1/23/79)~ the freeway; therefore, they decided that they had better come (Mrs. Tolbert contfd.) out in mass. tte stated'that if · .necessar-y, he wilt..pro~ide a She believes it is'tunnel'vision petition of over 2,000 or 3~000, to delete 85; in fact,. she is or a 3 to 2 vote on the ballot. in.favor of having a freeWay go through that corridor as,she 'Mr. HuBf indicated' he would like feels it is essential. to see someone on the Council make the resolution of abandoning With all due respect to the freeway. He stated that if Supervisor Diridon, she believesl we need light rail, there is the when he is in Washington, we S.P. He stated it has been. pointed are still going to be stuck out it takes $40 to.$50 million to with the traffic problem. buy the reset of the land. He asked if the Council has thought Charles Huff, 12725 Miller about if the other 75 percent were Avenue, commented he notices sold, it could raise $120 to $150 in the audience 50 or 60 million, which would go a long people; the Council'has a way in paying for the roads that petition of a few hundred we need in this county. With who were selected. He regard td the 2¢ tax, he would commented that a few years like to see the polieitian get ago, the group he was with elected 'in this state who says presented the Council with he is in. favor of a tax increase as about 2,700 names and they one of hi~.campaign promises. didn't work at it very hard. Bryce Reynolds, 20700 Prospect Mr. Huff indicated that Road, indicated when he-came to Orange County was simi~.ar in the meeting on January 23rd, he size to Santa' Clara County was a staunch supporter of pre- at one time. They built"~'?_~y serving the right-of-way; however, more freeways that this after listening to the arguments, County. every dreamed of, and he got caught up in the concept of today, their traffic prob- "I'm in first, and be damned with lems are worse than.when he the rest." Mr. Reynolds stated was a boy. he is in favor of retaining the corridor, and he is in favor of Further, he has noted the a freeway. The previous s~eaker letters in the Saratoga and indicated people living on- the people who spoke tonight Prospect, Highway 9, Saratoga- are those people who live Sunnyvale Road' are for the freeway, near Highway 9. He pointed and the reason being access· The out when we have discussed people who bought in Prides expanding Saratoga-Sunnyvale Crossing also'knew there was going Road to 6 lanes, or ex- to be a freeway, and for them to panding Saratoga-Los Gatos try to change that now -- after it Road to 4 to 6 lanes, He has been on the plan for 30 years,.I- hasn't heard these same and the entire Metropolitan Trans- people coming up saying, portation flow has been based on. "Yes, we are in favor of the .existence of a freeway like 85-- roads." He wants to hear is unreasonable. the Mayor of Los Gatos come 'before the City Council and Mr. Reynolds indicated he drives say, "We.are in favor of an automobile which in city traffic -- putting 8 lanes through the stop and start -- probably gets less Town of Los Gatos." than 8 miles per gallon. That means he is spreading'the pollutants 15 AGENDA~ ACTION TAKEN PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont'd.) PUBLIC HEARINGS D. TO CONSIDER SANTA CLARA (Louise Schaef.er - cont'd.) VALLEY CORRIDOR-EVALUATION PREPARED BY MTC/ABAG AND Possibly in 25 years, a totally ITS IMPACT ON SARATOGA different concept could go into (Cont'd. 1/23/79) the corridor. She indicated that Seattle has a freeway that goes (Mr. Reynolds cont'd.) under one of its most popular ~- _ parks. She believes we are not associated with,~'~llon of~' [ just talking about numbers of gasoline over jus~'8'~l~es O~ people -- but quality of ideas. less. On a freeway at 55 MPH, A matter that should be considered he gets around 15 miles to the is if the West Valley Cor. ridor is gallon. This means he is not going to go in for a few years, spreading the pollutants then what is going to be done for associated with 1 gallon of traffic on these streets? gas over 15 miles. This means through Saratoga, the traffic Tessie Young, 15101 Pepper Lane, on Saratoga-Sunnyva~e Road, if indicated she is one of those we had a freeway there, we people who can't get out of their could get twice. the amount 8f driveways, and the thing that traffic with the same amount concerns her most is th~_.problem of pollutants~ with~the ~childrenCZ~bpJ~ould urge the Council's support for the Mr. Reynolds pointed out that Eorridor~ what we are talking about ....... - - here is 2 miles of paved con- · Harvy ~Or~orf, 18944 Bonnet'Way, crete. Putting rail or ~on- · indica~ed'h~-dfd'~ t~ o~por- crete on an already existing tuhity before purchasing his home dividing line is not going, to talk to the city planners, to to make it any more devisive. Cat-~rans and other people, to We need the freeway, but we insure in his own mihd.that some- need other forms of trans- -'thing may happen, but this would portation also -- this be well planned and in the distant completes a plan which has future. He believes most of us been in existence for a long are speaking with our emotions, time. He stated that with and are not listening to the entire technology the way it is to- reasonable argument that the free- day, it should be possible way will not solve the problem of to build a freeway which re- getting.outof the driveway or duces noise, has a way of reduding the flow of traffic that controling pollution -- exists now through the limited dorridors that we now have. another suggestion is to cover it up. The figure of $250.miilion was Louise Schaefer, 19874 Park thrown out for this' freeway. He Drive, indicated she is' pointed out that back in 1960 thru very much for a multi-modal 1962 when Bart was being announced, concept over the West Valley the dollars appropriated-were one- Corridor, She would 'like eighth to one-tenth of what it to see it preserved, and she eventually cost the taxpayers to would like to see 'the City put in that system. The same of Saratoga donate some seed thing'happened with the Alaskan money toward it. Light rail Pipeline. Therefore, by the might be possible~ but we year 2000, the $250 million could also have to take into be over $2 billion. We are not account.lnow that cars and going to solve the problems today buses are the way people by putting in a freeway, but we are accustomed to moving in might be preserving the options the area. by keeping the corridor as a possibility for'whatever mode be- comes realistic by 2000. - 16 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont ' d. ) 2' '=' 'PUBLIC HEARINGS D. TO CONSIDER SANTA CLARA (Mr. Hopkins cont'd.) VALLEY CORRIDOR EVALUATION PREPARED BY MTC/ABAG AND consider what this does for the ITS IMPACT ON SARATOGA residents of Saratoga. tte beIieves (Cont'd. 1/23/79) it is going to make it worse because it is going to have a blocking' (Mr. Orndorf - cont'd.)' effect on traffic. He stated that the freeway in the Saratoga does He realizes the $1,200,000 that not really face the problem. What has been pledged is good seed we are doing is cutting a couple money to develop things' like of miles off of t. he 10ng route, bicycle trails or perhaps Some~ which is 280 and 17. If traffic thing underground, but when we were flowing in some reasonable talk about an underground sys- manner on, t~e 'fr~eWays', this tem, we are adding 3 to 4 results in a s~v"in~ of 'maybe 2 times the cost to the system. minutes who starts out in the Noise pollution is another vicinity of 85 and' 17 and wants to concern, and he believes this get to 280 and 17. It would seem is something to consider. to him for the money invested, major improvements to the existing Mirabeau TOwns, 13035 Regan thorof, are's could be made, major Lane, commented he and his improvements to access roads, and.. wife are solidly behind the .alternative forms of transporation new freeway system that has could be addressed. been planned since they moved here in 1960. With tte indicated for $250 million, 'you regard to a previous are talking about a bargain base- speaker's comment that per- ment freeway; this is not going haps we should spend some to buy noise abatement, it is not of this money to make going ~o buy a reasonable number Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road 8 of overpasses with a reasonable lanes each way, he asked Humber of laneS. He believes the if it could be imagined if time has come for somebody to 15 years ago E1 Camino face the face that adding a couple would have been made:_10 miles short cut on the freeway is lanes wide each way and not going to solve our traffic didn't build the Bayshore? problems. He would request the Council' to uphold preservation of Stewart Hopkins, 19431 the corridor. DeHa~i-lland Court, indicated he has a personal and finan- Dick Green, 12350 Goleta Avenue, cial stake in this. ~: '-; indicated: 1)' he is opposed to :L'~o_mmeh't~d, ~t '. t~ i!day' t~ any additional freeway; 2) because bulldbzers-start ,m6ving is we have already made a mistake when the property values by deadending 85 into. Cupertino will be impacted. This is doesn't mean we should make another talking about an impact of one and extend that freeway; 3) '_if around $5 million. Another we save the corridor, let's make personal interest is that he sure we have adequate feeder routes does not like_traffic. He well defined before we build any- pointed out the reason it thing else takes him so long to get to work is the bottlenecks -- Charles Bachick, 19323 Via Crecente 280 and the Central Express- Court, con~nented that he :believes way. Therefore, when he the Council should become self, ish thinks about 85, he has to with respect to the City of Saratoga. The City has a bedroom community, 17 - PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont'd.)i © PUBLIC HEARINGS D. TO CONSIDER SANTA. CLARA (Doug Nagel - cont'd.) VALLEY CORRIDOR EVALUATION PREPARED BY MTC/ABAG AI~ going down to Saratoga-Sunnyvale ITS IMPACT ON SARATOGA Road. It appears to him that all (Cont'd. 1/23/79) the emotion centers around trying to get the traffic off of (Mr. Bachick - cont'd.) Saratoga streets. and it should support this bed- Joe Sheredy, 19095 Cox Avenue, room community. He suggested indicated he came to Saratoga the Council do the obvious and from New York 22 years ago, and make an expressway extending one of the considerations in the current freeway from doing so was the West Valley Stevens Creek Boulevard down Freeway -- although he was war~ed to Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, at that time it Would take as long 'and then stop it there and as 5 years. He indicated his give up the corridor, and sentiments are expressed very/ you have already purchased clearly in a letter sent by 90 some percent of that Char~es Earley to the Saratoga property. He does not~believe. News, and he agrees with him the City wants the freeway . that ultimately, Saratogans are extended down to southern San. the ones who will be the losers Jose and bring all the crime L if they don't participate in elements into Saratoga as well. the solutions to some of these problems in the County. Art Grafe, 12121 Saraglen Drive indicated his only concern is It was then moved by Councilman between 7:50 and 8:15 A.M., it Kalb, seconded by Councilman takes him about eight minutes Matteoni the public hearing be to make a left-hand turn onto closed. Carried. The public Prospect, and the proposed hearing was closed at 11:07 P.M. freeway is supposed to go under Prospect going.south M/S:~C~il~/K~I~ '~_~{~ t~e or northbound. He wonders corrido~ and r~m0ve the'~e~er- what is going to happen to all vation of the corridor from the the Campbell traffic onto Highways section of the report Prospect and then trying to to the Transit section of the make the freeway instead of report. Approved, 3'to 2, using 17 and 280. He is '~' Councilmen Corr and Kraus in against the freeway, but he is.L_ ~ opposition. for the corridor as a piece of property. M/S: Callon/Kalb to go on record against a freeway or expressway Doug Nagel, 13050 La. Vista Dr., in the corridor. Approved, 3 to indicated it seems to him all 2, Councilmen Kraus and Corr in ofithe.people in favor of a opposition. freeway have a problem with ~raffic. It appears to him M/S: Kalb/Callon to support items that traffic will come to a 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 through Route 17 total stop during a coupl~ of under "Recommendations for Highways". hours of the day. He stated Carried unanimously. that based on his observation that freeways do not solve M/S: Kalb/Matteoni to go on'record the ~robleml-- they simple opposing the extension of Route 85 funnel things in different through Cupertinoto Saratoga- ways -- he believes that in a Sunnyvale Road, or making other~ certain number of years, operational improvements, due to whatever we build will be the detrimental effect on the totally utilized, and it will existing traffic situation in back up onto Highway 9 again Saratoga. Carried unanimously. 18 - AGENDA .. ACTION TAKEN PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont'd.) "~ PUBLIC HtARINGS D. TO CONSIDER SANTA CLARA' ! "i~ '~ VALLEY CORRIDOR EVALUATION PREPARED BY MTC/ABAG AND ITS IMPACT ON. SARATOGA (Cont'd. 1/23/79) Councilman Kalb then o~'fered a motion suggesting a stronger position with regard to re- duction of industrial develop- ment in the north and :'increased industrial development in the south county. There was no sec6nd to this motion at this. time. M/S: Kalb/Callon to endorse the recommendations in the Santa Clara Valley Corridor Evaluation Summary in con- cept, subject to modifications discussed and acted upon this evening. Carried unanimously. E. TO CONSIDER THE APPEAL OF The Planning Director transmitted PLANNING COMMISSION his report dated 1/24/79, which DECISION RELATIVE TO recommends the City Council uphold VARIANCE TO ALLOW CON- the Pl'~i-ng Commission decision STRUCTION OF A 520 SQ. FT. to deny this ~a~iance request. FAMILY ROOM ADDITION IIDPPED BY A DECK, TO PROVIDE AN The Mayor opened the public AVERAGE 27.5 FOOT gEAR hearing at 12:02 A.M. YARD WHERE A 35 FOOT REAR YARD IS REQUIRED - 19825 Philippe ~uger, .19825 Merribrook Merribrook Drive (V-501) Drive, understands from the staff and Commission there are alternates to this plan which would not re- quire.a vRriance. However, these plans would not satisfy he and his Wife's desires. They would lose some 'trees -- a 24" walnut in the bank and a big cypress in the front. He indicated that the deck over the familF. room would encroach 7% feet i~to the setback'~ Mayor Kra~s: Is the family room itself in violation?-: Mr. Auger: His understanding of the ordinance 'is if it is a 2-story ' building, the rear setback is 35 feet. Th~_refore, the room itself is in vio[ation. Mr. Auger indicated that 22 years ago, the 'rear setback requirement was 25 fe,~t.' The ordinance 17 L.y.ears._l_~_t.~r, changed that to~_ _~b AGENDA ACTION TAKEN PUBLIC HEARINGS (cont'd.) PUBLIC HEARINGS E. TO CONSIDER THE APPEAL OF (Mr. Auger - cont'd.) PLANNING CO~ISSION DECISION RELATIVE TO require an additional 10 feet. VARIANCE TO ALLOW CON- STRUCTION OF A 520 SQ. FT. Callon: How close does this " F~.~ILY ROOM ADDITION TOPPED ~ddition bring the applicant BY A DECK, TO PROVIDE AN to a neighbor's residence. AVERAGE 27.5 FOOT REAR YARD I~tERE A 35 FOOT REAR Mr. Auger: The deck as he has YARD IS REQUIRED - 19825 proposed keeps it furthest away Merribrook Drive (V-501) from adjoining rear yards. Kraus: If he were to straighten out the family room in back of the garage, would this still be a problem? Mr.,Auger:. We would lose the walnut tree. To move the garage forward-and put an "L" in front would completely change the aesthetics of the house. Mr. Auger pointed out he has letters from the 3 adjoining owners indicating no objection to his proposal. It was the consensus Of the Councilto continue the public hearing to allow the Council an opportunity to view this property. M/S: Corr/Kalb to continue the public hearing to February 21. Carried unanimously by voice vote. VII. BIDS AND CONTRACTS BIDS AND COIlTRACTS A. REPORT"ON BID OPENING ON Continued to Adjourned RegUlar SOLAR SPACE HEATING PRO- Meeting February 13, 1979. JECT FOR THE SARATOG~ ',' COmmUNITY LIBRARY (Cont'd.. 12/21/78) B. AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FO~ M/S:' Kalb~Corr to authorize the BIDS, QUITO-WILDCAT BRIDGE staff to advertise for bids. Carried unanimously. C. REPORT ON PROPOSALS FOR M/S: Corr/Kaib to authorize-the GEOLOGIC MAPPING OF Mayor to enter into an agreement ~STERN HILLSIDE with Mr. Cottonl~t~'.'undertake the study as proDosed'for a cost not to exceed$2i,500, and direction to commence work not later than March 1, 1979. Carried unanimously by voice vote. AGENDA ACTION TAKEN BIDS AND CONTRACTS (cont'd. BIDS AND CONTRACTS D. OTS STREET ILLUMINATION M/S: Kalb/Corr to approve pro- STUDY AGREEMENT ceeding with Phase I of 'the agreement,~i~h the understanding the City!~us_t. approve the first phase of the project prior to fun~her work commencing. Carried unanimously by voice vote'. VIII. CONSENT CALENDAR CONSENT CALENDAR A. ORDINA2~CE 38.75-3, AN M/S: Corr/Kalb approval of the ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF Consent Calendar. Carried SARATOGA CITY CODE, ~ND unanimously by voice vote. SPECIFICALLY REPEALING AND AMENDING PORTIONS OF SECTION 9-51 THEREOF, SETTING AND ESTABLISHING PRIMA FACIE SPEED LIMITS FOR MOTOR VEHICLES ON CERTAIN STREETS OF THIS ~TY, BASED ON AN ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY CONDUCTED WITHIN THE LAST FIVE YEARS (2nd reading) B. CONSTRUCTION ACCEPTANCE, SDR-1345, BELLOMO/PROSPECT RD. C. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS IX. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS A. MAYOR t. Requested discussion'~i';~of %. C 'C, 6~g~n~di~ed fb'~ f~[u~e 2 Requested report to Council re: emergency service procedure. 3. Letter from City of Gridley re: strike by employees - new legislation (requested copy for City Councilmembers). B. COUNCIL & COPR~ISSION REPORTS 1. Recommendation from the Approved to set for public hearing Planning Commission Re: March 7, 1.979. C-192 - City of Saratoga Rezoning from "A" and "PA" to "CN" the 10.253 Acre Parcel Located Between Cox Ave. and MacFarland Ave. Approximately 250 Feet East of Saratoga ~ve. C. DEPARI~4ENT HEADS & OFFICERS 1. Report from Director of Continued to February 21st meeting. Public Works Re: Arroyo de ArgUello 21 - AGENDA ACTION TAKEN ADMINISTRATIVE Iv~TTERS (cont'd.) .'IiDMINISTRATIVE MATTERS D. CITY MANAGER REPORTS 1. Second Quarte'~ly Financial No action taken at this time. ~ Report · . 2. Request for Add~t~onaI\ The Assistant City Manager re- Funding - Saratoga quested'the Council consider a Community Gardens letter from Saratoga Community Gardens in the context of the SecOnd Quarterly Report. No action taken at this timeto fund this request· 3. Senior Center Survey No ~ction taken; p~esentation and discussion to take place at Whole'Me~ng. X. ADJOURI~ENT. ADJOURNMENT M/S: Kalb/Corr to adjourn the meeting to an Adjourned Regular Meeting on February 13, ~979, for the purpose of considering the report of bid opening on solar space heating project for the Saratoga Community Library. Carried unanimously. TheLmeeting was adjourned at 1:00 ~.M. - 22 -