Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-19-1966 City Council Minutes SARATOGA CITY COihqCIL SUP~4ARY OF MINUTES TIME: Wednesday, January 19, 1966 7:30 P. M. PLACE: Saratoga City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, Calif. TYPE: Regular Meeting I ORGANIZATION Mayor Glennon called the meeting to order at 7:30 P. M. A. ROLL CALL Present: Councilmen Glennea, Drake, Hart~mn, Tyler, Burry Absent: none B. MLNUTES It was moved hy Councilman Burry, seconded by Councilman Tyler and minutes unanimously carried to waive the reading and approve the minutes of the ~anuary 5, 1966 meeting, as written° II BIDS AND CONTRACTS A. NOTIFICATION FROM H.H.F.A. of authorization to proceed with landscaping projects H.HoF.A. Landscaping Mr. Hanley reported, as a matter of information, that the Housing and Projects- Home Finance Agency has notified the City that any scheduled projects Civic which are undertaken subsequent to the H~H~F.Ao acknowledgment of the Center City~s application for Urban Beautificatien Funds will qualify for suoh funds if and when the Ct~y~s application is approved. Accordin~ly, Mr. Henley continued~ the City has advertised for bids on the Civic Center l~ndscaping project. E. AGREEmeNT FOR WORK TRAINING - ECONOMIC OPPORT~qITY COMMISSION Mayor Glennon explained that about a year ago he had received a Work munieation from the EOC asking if the City would be interested in Training participating in the Neighborhood Youth Training Programwherein the Agreement Federal Government would allocate funds for the training and employment E.O.C. of certain groups of disadvantaged people, with accent on training. A~ his direction, the Mayor continued~ the City Administrator responded, with no commitment on the part of the City~ that the City was interested and the agreemen~which is presented for Council consideration at this time would authorize the participation of the City in this program. Fur. Henley presented a work sheet of the City's estimated cost of participation for the training and employment of two traincos in the road maintenance department and one in the engineering department. Of the total cost of the program, Federal funds would pay for 90% of the cost, with the other 10% to be the Ctty's responsibility. The City's share, Mr. Henley pointed out, would not represent an expenditure in dollars but would reflect the City's cost in the time and services rendered by the Staff in supervision and training. The City would bare the right of selection and hiring and firing and~ Mr. Henley indicated, from the standpoint of the City it may result in more effective road work while providing local use of money involved in the program for the beDsfit of qualified tralnees. The program, Mr. Henicy continued~ is basically designed to provide work and training to young people~ under 21 years of age~ out of school and out of work, who come from families with total incomes of less than $3100 per year. Councilman Drake moved, seconded by Councilman Tyler to authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement as outlined. Councilman Burry stated that he wished to abstain and Mayor Glennon called for the question and pointed out that any question in the minds of the Council regarding any aspects of an item under consideration may be discussed at this time prior to individual decisions as to the vote. There being no further council discussion, Mayor Glennon called for a roll call vote and the motion to authDrize the Mayor to execute the agreement carried by the following vote: AYES: Councilmen Glennens Tyler, Drake NOES: Councilman Hartman ABSTAINING: Councilman Burry. SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - Jantmry 19, 1966 III PETITIONS, ORDINANCES AND FORMAL RESOLUTIONS A. ORDINANCE 38.9 Mr. Nanleyreferred to a copy of a memorandum from the City Attorney. setting forth the legal background for Ordinance 38.9, which was Ord.38.9 introduced at the last meeting. Basically, Mr. Hanley explained,the Legal fees ordinance provides that the City, if it chose, to do so, may recover fees in abating involved in a situation where an ordinance has been violated and the violations City, after due and repeated notice, goes to the expense of going to court to obtain the abatement. Councilman Drake asked if the City can recover fees if someone sues the City and loses and the City Attorney stated.that it is Just the opposite; that it is only when tSe City sues for abatement of a violation and wins that it can recover legal fees. Mr. Johnston advised that the City has two methods of abating violations: (1) ~he City can go in and physically abate the violation and is, by laws entitlea 56 recover the/eXpenses involved, or (2) The City may go to cour~ tO have th~ viola~ibn abated. This ordinance would enable the City to recove~ expenses inVolVed in the Court procedure method bf abatement ~nd the City!Attorney pointed out that the Government Code p~ovides that the City my do this. The City Attorney explained that it is his practice to always come to the Council for a directive before filing a civil action. Councilman Drake expressed concern that, althoughthe City Council relies on the good judgment of the City Attorney to bring such matters to the attention of the CoUncil before action is taken, the City Attorney is not required to do so and he felt that i~ is inequitable to provide that the City mey recover fees as a result of imposing this ordinance but that the other party, if he wins the suit, would not be in a position to recover fees from the City. Mayor Glennon Stated that Ordinance 38.9 would apply only in those cases where the City must go to court to enfor'ce the abatement of a violation of an ordinance, after diligent efforts on the part of the staff to obtain compliance with the ordinance. Councilman Drake indicated that he felt it should be discreti0na~y 6n the partof the Council t9 brln~.sUit and incur charges and repeated his o~inion that this ordinan~e is inequitable. There beina no further discussion, the Mayor called for a roll call vdte and Ordinance 38~9 ~as adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council- men Glennon, Hartman, Tyler, Burry NOES: Councilman Drake. B. RESOLUTION NO. 308 Res,308 AdOpting It ~as moved by C0unc~lman D~Ske, secdhdea by Counciiman Hart~an, and Eng.Gas unanimously carried to adopt Resolution No. 308, adopting and submitting Budget a budget for expenditure of State allocated Engineerina funds for the 1966-67 1966-67 fiscal year. IV SUBDIVISIONS~ BUILDING SITES AND ZONING REQUESTS None V PUBLIC HEARINGS - 8:10 P. M. A. ANNUAL REVIE~ OF THE GENERAL PLAN Mayor Glennon declared the public hearing re-opened on the annual review General of the General Plan at 8:10 P. M. and directed that any communications Plan which may have been received since the last meeting be introduced into Annual the file, " Review Mr. Hanley stated that only one communication has been received since the last meeting and he read the Planning Cou~ntssio~clarification, which $AP~A~3C~ Ci~ COUNCIL ~II~TU~ES - J~Y 19, I966 ~as ~equested b~ the Co~c~[~ ~nd~ng Paragraph [-~ o~ the Plan Co~ittee Ee~t, ~e Plannl~ Co~sion reco~nded that the ~eneral ~ea ~ounded by Saratoga Creek on the North~es~ ~y A~enue on the Sou~heas~ by the ~u~ure Wes~ Valley Free~ay ~ the ~neral .Southwest and professional develop~nt (ffedical Village) on the North- Plan :' east be redesig~ted on the Cenezal PI~ as a ~di~ high density resi- ~n~l dential ~ea, At the sn~ t~e caution in zoning was advised, ~e Revi~ PI~ Co~tssion clarification of its o~iginal report co~luded with . the rec~ndation that no change in ~isti~ ~es~dential de~ities ' be rode at this ti~ excep~ tn the s~ll area described above, ~yo~ Gle~on obse~ed that the Planni~ C~4ssion clati~ication sufficientIF definitive and asked if ~one present wished to co~ut in any way on the ~neral Plan,' ~ere being no ~spo~e, it was ~ved by Co~cil~n Hattmn~ seceded by Council~n Bu~ and ~ani~usly ca~ied to close the public heari~ at 8:15 P, N, ~yot Glennon rec~ randad that the Cou~il, at its ~xt eeting, be prepared to ~ke a decision on the specific ~eatutes oE the ~neral Plan that have been reckended by the Pl~i~ Co~ission, ~e Co~cil briefly disc~sed the Pla~i~ C~......~ssion reco~ndations with respect to ~uded uses in the C~S zone and detained that this a zonin~ miter ~hich is ~der consideration by the Plani~ C~ttee aM ts no~ a part of the ~neral Plan ~eview~ With no objection, ~y~ Clench directed the ~ral Plan a~l review held ~er to the n~t ~eti~ ~or Council decision, ~e Clerk read ~dinance NS-3.11, a proposed mend~nt to the ~diu~ce prohib~ting corridor lots ~r~ hs~ng access to the ~ou~ space o~ a street cul-de-s~, ~, Hanle~ and the Planning Director explained that the curb space of a cul-de-sac is ~tually ~d, eli~nated ~ere co~Ldor lots are peatted and t~bt th~s ~nd~ut ~ould ~3.11 also prevent abuse of the cul-de-sac provision, Cul-de-sacs were designed Corridor to sere lots beyond which a street could not be extended but have been Lots .on used by developers as a device tO avoid extend~ standard street impr~e- Cul-de-sac ments to sere the rear portion of a p~operty~ As ~ese lot frontages ~rn are s~ller to begin ~th ~urb space is practically eliminated by the ~ound addition o~ several corridor lots, In adj~tion to the esthetic spaces advantage ~, Walker stated that corridors do not have to be ~ptoved and that as a result several lots ~y be se~ed by unimpr~ed corridors instead o~ properly extend~ the street to adequately sere these lots. Co~cil~ Drake questio~d the possibility o~ hardship where there no other means o~ access ~d the PI~ Director suggested that such cases a variance can be considered to serve the property but that usuall~ the developer can silly redesign the street, ~yor Gle~on declared the public hearing opened at 8:30 P. ~. and asked i~ anyone present wished to c~nt with ~espect to the proposed ~ud~nt, ~r, Robert Plane, Do~las Lane, asked Council consideration oE excepting on~hal~ acre and one acre lots from ~y prohibit~on of corridor lots having access to cul-de-sac turn around space, ~, Plane e~ressed the opinion that on these larger lots the drive~ays would be more extensive the curb less used for parking, ~, ~lane also asked h~ th~s ordinance would affect his subdivis~on ~h~ch has been Sranted tentative approval but has not yet had final approval, ~e Planning D~rector indicated that it was his belief that ~n ~, Plane~s case it would be a legal non- conEo~ng use but that in any event~ corridor lots ate not petitted on less than 20~000 square ~eet minimum size lots, ~e City Attorney co~i~ed the opinion that iE corridor lots are shou on ~. Plane*s tentative ~p then this ordi~uce would not affect ~. Pliers sub- d~v~sion. Ho~evera the City Attorney also counted that he had a question he ~ished to resolve regardi~ th~s ~ndment but that the ordinance could be introduced ~d, ~ necessary, re-introduced at a SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - JANUARY 19, 1966 No one else present wished to Cg~nnent regarding Ordinance NS-3.11 and Mayor Glennon directed that the Comments and correspondence be introduced into the record; the Public ~earing closed at 8:40 P. M. and the ordinance introduced, VI ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS A. MAYOR Council (1) In answer to a question from the Mayors Mr. Hanley reported that Chambers the ash trays have Been fixed, at the expense of American Seating Ash trays Company, so that they w~ll no longer fall off. Building (2) Mayor Glennon reported that, for the 1964-65 fiscal year the Department Building Department received revenues totaling $59,556.25 and expended 1964-65 $26,960.81, for a net gain of $32,595.44. Campbell (3) Mayor Glennon announced that the Council is honored by the presence City at this meeting of Campbell City Manager Robert C. Stephen, and Officials his assistant, Mr, Ed Ravenscroft. FINANCE Bills (1) It was moved by Councilman Tyler, seconded by Councilman Burry and unanimously carried to approve the disbursements on the list dated January 19, 1966 and authorize t~at warrants be drawn in payment for the total amount of $17,519.62. (2) The City Clerk's Financial Report and the Traasurerss report for Finance the month of December, 1965 were submitted and accepted and Mr, Reports Henley reported that approximately 99.7% of the City's funds are invested in interest bearing accounts. All new deposits are being invested at increased interest rates and old deposits will be redeposited at the higher rates as soon as the required notice time has elapsed. COUNCIL COMMITTEES C-S zone (1) Councilman Hartman reported that the Planning Committee wishes to uses make a more thorough study of the proposed changes in Uses permitted in the C~S ZOne'before submitting a recoummndation. With no objection, Mayo~ Glennon directed the matter put over to the next regular meeting~ (2) Cquncilman Burly ~epOrted that the.Public Welfare COmmittee met to McGinnis~ review the request Of Baker McGifi~{s that the City recommend to RequeSt the State Divi~ian 0~ Highways ~ha~ the median between Bro0kwood ~or median L~ne and Mario~AvenUe on Righwa~ 85 be modified to allow a lef~ b~eak o turn acros~ the median for a ~O~thbound vehicle to ente~ the drive- Rwy 85 way of his home at 20511 Broobaod Lane. Th~s would= inVOlve pro- vidin~ a crossing about 100 feet north of the Brool~dod L~ne- Arbeleche Lane crossing of the median. Councilmen Burry stated that, after careful consideration of the problems the Committee concluded that it could not recommend an additional crossing of the Highway 85 median at this point for the followins reasons: 1) The Committee believes that an additional median crossing at this point would result in confusion for south bound vehicles seeking to turn left at Arbeleche Lane and create a hazardous conflicting movement within this short distance. 2) It would set a very questionable precedent for the City Council to recommend breaks in the median strip on divided highways for individual driveways when not even all cross streets may justify breaks in the median and 3) For increased conveniences Mr. McGinnis does have the option of reconstructing his driveway out to Brookwood Lane where a median crossing already exists. It was moved by Councilman Drakes seconded by Councilman Hartman and unanimously carried to accept the Public Welfare Com~nittee report and the City Clerk was requested to notify Mr. McGinnis of the Councll's action. SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - JANUARY 19, 1966 (3) Mr. Hanley reported that there are still several aspects of the Highway 85- Highway 85 and Seagull Way intersection proposal that he and the Seagull Way Director of Public Works wish to discuss with the Publiu Welfare intersection Committee ands with no objection, the b~yor directed the matter continued to the next meeting. (4) Councilman Hartman reported that the Planning Committee has been reviewing the required street improve=ent standards in residential Curbs & areas for several months and, after detailed review and field Gutters check, recommends that curb and gutter not automatically be Ln R-1-40~000 required in R-1-40~000 zoning districts but only upon the decision zones of the Planning Commission and Public Works Director that circum- stances in individual cases require it. As it is now worded, curb and gutter is the standard requirement unless waived by the Planning Commission and Public Works Director. The recommendation would not .apply to Hillside Collector streets where the Cor~n~ttee regards cUFp and gutter as a standard requirement because of the steephess 9f the grades involved. The deletion of automatic requirement for curb and gutter can be accomplished by amending Table II-A of the Subdivision Ordinance to provide that curb and gutter would not be a standard requirement in R-1-40,000 zoning districts for either Local or Collector streets but could be required when necessary in the opinion of the Planning Co~ission and Public Works Director, and it was the recommendation of the Planning Comm{ttee that the Mayor direct the drafting of the necessary code amendment. Councilman Drake moved, seconded by Councilman Hartman to adopt the Planning Committee report and with no objection Mayor Glennon ordered the ordinance drafted as outlined. D. DEPART}~NTHEADSAND OFFICERS The Director of Public Works stated that $750ohas been budgeted for the portable purchase of a portable emergency pump for use during storms and rec- emergency commended the purchase of a 3XPN Jaegger model for a total cost of $607 pump and a discharge. hose and new tongue ~at a cost not to exceed ~100. It purchase was moved by Councilman Drake, Seconded by Councilman Burry and unanimously carried to ahthorize the purchase as recommended. E~CITYADMINISTRATOR No special reports VII COMMUNICATIONS A. WRITTEN Dr. Sanoff (1) The Council acknowledged a letter from Dr. Nicholas Sanoff requesting Parking that his name be withdrawn from the petition approving formation of District a parking district in the Village Area. Dr. Sanoff indicated that he now favors an alternate proposal which has been presented by Mr. Mason Shaw and which includes the purchase of Dr. Sanoff's property° (2) A letter from Emil Kissel offering his services to the Council representative to the County Transportation Policy Committee was referred to Councilman Tyler~ the Couneil's delegate to that Committee. Building (3) The Council reviewed copies of the Saratoga Building Activities Activities report for 1965 and the City Administrator noted t~at the total Report value of $10,278,959 was almost the same level of building activity as the 1964 total. Special (4) Mr. Henley called attention to a communication advising the Council Commendation of a special commendation bestowed by the Planning Commission upon P1. Dept. Fir. Stanley Walker and Mrs. Evelyn Voges for their work during the past year. SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - JANUARY 19, 1966 L~.tter _ (5) The Council acknowledged a letter from Louise Oreracket relative to EOC - Mr. Mayes recent report to the Council regarding the Santa Clara Overa~ker County Economic Opportunity Commission activities° Miss Oreracket expressed the opinion that Dr. Cunmaings was in no way to blame for the unfortunate delays and events pertaining to the November 22 Area 6 meeting. B · OPAL (1) Mr. E. K. Coburn, 20242 Kilbride Avenue, described to the Council events which have harrassed him and his family since they moved Coburn to Saratoga and expressed his concern that they have resulted in private repeated calls to the Saratoga Fire Department and the Sheriff's problem Department. 14ayor Glennon asked if there was anything the Council could do to correct the situation and b~r. Cob urn stated that the matter is under investigatinn by the Shertff's Department and there is nothing the Council can do but that he had wished to re- port to them his regret that public expense has been incurred in connection with this unfortunate private problem. (2) Mayor Glennon acknowledged, with pleasure, the presence of Planning Commissioner Kellum, Campbell City Manager Robert C. 3tephens Campbell Administrative Assistant Ed Ravenscroft and the Good Government Group representative fo~ providing coffee. Mayor Glennon also extended his felicitations to the Paul H. Gardiners. VIII ADMOURNMENT It was moved by Council~n Burry, seconded by Councilman Tyler and unanimously carried to adjoUrli the meeting at 9:15 P. M. Respectfully ~ubm~tted, / WILLIAM C. HANLEY~ CITY CLERK.'r -6-