Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-06-1966 City Council Minutes SARATOGA'6ITYCOURCIL S~Y OF MINUTES TIHE: Wednesday~ April 6, 1966 PLACE: Saratoga City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga TYPE: Regular Meeting I ORGANIZATION Mayor Glennon called the meeting to order at 7:35P, M, A. ROLL CALL Roll Call Present: Councilmen Glennon, Drakes Burrys Tyler Absent: Councilman Hartman B. MINUTES Minutes It was moved by Councilman Burry, seconded by Councilman Tyler and carried unanimously to waive the reading and approve the minutes of the March 16s 1966 meeting as written. Councilman Mayor Glennon directed the record to indicate that Councilman Hartman Ha m~ rt ~n arrived and took his seat on the council at this time, arrfv~l II BIDS AND CONTRACTS A. CIVIC CENTER IANDSCAPING CONTRACT CHANGE ORDERS NO. 1 and 2, The Director of Public Works described changes ~htch he recommends in the Civic Center landscaping proJect~ amounting to $321,00 for TChange Civi~ Center Order No. I and $52.00 fog Change Order No. 2~ After discussi~n it Lands, roping was roeveal:by Councilman Drake, seconded by Councilmen Tyler; and unani- Chang, mously carried to apprdve Change Orders No, I and 2 as itemized in Order; the ~eport from the Director of Public Works aated March 91s 1~66. B. RECOMMENDATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME ON CONTRACT FOR SARATOGA AVENUE. RECONSTRUCTION The Clerk read a letter from Creegan and DsAngelo advising that rainy weather has caused a further delay in reconstruction of Saratoga Avenue SaratOga and reco~uended that an extension of time of 29 calendar days be granted Avenu~ as the contractor has been unable to pave on 29 days due to wet sub- Contract grade. This extension would set the time of completion at May Exten~ion 1966, based on an original completion date of January 23s 1966 and a ! 90 day extension granted in January, 1966. Councilman Burry objected to a further extension based on rainy yearher and quoted rainfall statistics since the January 90 day extension was granted. Mr. Hanley explained that. t~is is the only request which has been received for an extension 6f'time due to ~eather conditions. The previous 90 day extension, Mr. Hanley continued, was granted because of the delay in relocation of utilities and the 29 calendar day extension is currently recorm,~nded on the basis of daily inspection by the engineer and inspector for the project who logged each day and determined that there ~ere 29 days ~hen the moisture content of the sub-grade exceeded specifications and the contractO~ was not allowed to proceed. The Director of Public ~orks indicated that he concurs with the rec- commendation for a 29 day extension and stated, in answer to a question from Councilman Hartmens that the Contractor was limited as to the amount of work he could do on those days when the moisture content was too high for paving because much of the other work involved in the project is dependent Upon proper grading and base construction. Councilman Hartman-stated that although he ~aS disappointed that the project has been delayed and that he found it difficult to understand the need for an extension in this case because of weather he would, on the basis of the engineering and staff reports,move for approval o~ the 29 day extension. In answer to a question from Councilmen Tyler, Mr, Hanley stated that the original contract completion date was based on the engineers estimate of the time necessary to complete SARAT0~A CITY COUNCIL ~INIrfES - APRIL 6, 1966 oa the work durin~ fay r ble weathe~ and that there is no~allewan~e in the contract for inclement weather, Councilman Tyler seconded the exten on as motion to grant the si recom-~-nded and the motion carried, with Councilman Burr~ dissenting, Sarahills Mayor Glennon reported that he has had several complaints that. portions Driv~ of Sarahills Drive are failin~ and asked the DirectOr of Public Works Street to check this streetInnd Cul-de-sac. ~r, Huff indicated that he has Defi~iency asked Cupertino Sanitary District to check one location where the sewer trench appearalto be at fault and that he will also check the rest of the area, C. RF~UEST TO PURCHASE ENULSION SPRAYER FOR PATCH TRUCK l~e Clerk explained that the current year*s budget provided for the Emulsion purchase of a basic dump truck chassis, body and installation on it Spray?r of an emulsion sprayer to spread patch material, The Director of purchase Public Works investi~ated available sprayers and the Council was for patch furnished with a list of seven different sprayers which were investi- truck ga=ed as to capacity~ heating elements, compactness, safety and ease of operation, end cost. On the basis of these factors the Director of Public Works recommended that the City purchase the P-B emulsion sprayer, a hot water'heater unit which can not heat beyond the flare point of the oil end ~having a 153 gallon capacity, The unit is com- pacts occupying a sm~11 area on the truck and operates hydraulically off the truck cooli~ system, The total cost is $1731.60 and this figure, it was reported, is well within the budget. After discussion it was moved by CounCilman Drake, seconded by Councilman Hartman and : carried unanimously ~o authorize thepurchase of the P-B emulsion i sprayer as recouunended, PETITIONS, ORDINANCES AND ~ORMAL RESOLUTIONS · A. ORDINANCE 38.10 -'SPEED LIMIT ON ~UITO ROAD 0rd.38.10 quite Road Mr, Henley reported that the County of Santa Clara and the City of Speed limit San Jose conducted e~tensive=studies of' the Speed limit on ~uito Road and, as a response to those studies, reqhested that the City of Saratoga consider 'the' e~actment of a joint increase in speed limit. c ucted its 0~vn study which corroborated and verified The Cit~ end ! i other agehcies stydiets and an o~dinance ~as ihtroduceda~ the last meeting tO increase the speed limit to 35 mil~s per ho~r on those portions= of qUito. Roa~ b~tweeh S~rStoga Avenu~ and-~ollard Road which lie within the pity boundaries. MeanWhile, Nr. Henley con~ tinned, a petit~od~a~ rece~ve~ signe~ by apprbximately 90 signatures 6~ pers5~ l~vi~g in ~he Quitd Rbad ar~a~ prot~sting any increase, O d ~ir. Hanley read r in nee 38.10 and it was moved by Cooncilman Burry~ seconded by Councilm~ Tyler and unanimeusly carried to adopt the ordinance as reco--,ended by the staff~ the Sheriff*s Departments the Chief of Police, the ~ity of San Jose ann the County of Santa Clara. B.' ORDINANCE 38,11 - ADOPTING 196~ UNIFO~I BUILDING CODE, 1964 UNIFORM PLUMBING CODE, 1965 UNIFORM ELECTRICAL CODE AND 1964 BEATING AND COMFORT COOLING CODE~I ~ITH MODIFICATIONS. 0rd.38.11 Building, The Clerk reported that' Ordinance 38~11 was introduced at the last Plumbing meeting and referred ~o the Public Welfare Committee for review and Codes!ere, reconnnendation,= As alresult of the Cd~mittee~s review two recommended changes were incorporhted into a rety~n~ of the ordinance and Henley presented the ~odified ordinan~& for re-introduction, ~ith the Clerk announced the Ordinance has been set for the'meeting o~ April 20, 196~. C. RESOLUTION NO.'321 Res, 321 Nildli£e It was moved by Councilman Drake, seconded by Councilman Tyler and Preservation unanimously carried ta adopt Resolution 321, declaring the interest of the City Council ia the preservation of gildlife within the City S/~IDGACII~COI~CIL MI}~ES - APRIL 6, 1966 limits; this resolution havin~ been presented in response to C~uncil discussion at the last.~etin~. D. ~SOLUTION NO. 322 Res. 322 ~. H~ley reported that Rasolution No. 322, callfn~ for bids on Azul~ Bonds Azule Ho~sites ~provement .~oJect Bonds will not be ready until ' the next ~etin~ andm ~tth no objections ~yor Glennon~ed the ~tem over to the April 20 meetf~, · IV SUBDIVISIONS~ BUILDING SITES A~ ZONING ~STS A. ~CT 3860 ~. 3860 Monument It ~as ~ved by Co~cilman Bur~ seconded by Council~ ~1~ and Bond~ unanimously carried to release the ~num~t boGd posted for ~act Release 3860s as reco~nded by the Director of hblic gorks. ~ B. S~610 -.~CT 41~ S~610 ~. Henley reported that all fees have been pafd~ bonds pos~eQ and Tr. ~165 conditions ~t for final ~p approval of a nine lo~ subdivision on Finn ~p ~lJevich Drives with the exception of receipt of an encroachment pe~t from the State Division of Hi~ays. ~. ~/al~r explained ~hat the conditions set by the Pla~i~ Co~issi~ apply to t~e entire subdivision develo~nt and that only those Uonditfo~ ~hfch are necessary fu connection with the develo~nt of. the first ~unft are i~osed arthis ti~. After brief discussion i~ was ~ved by Co~cil~n Hartroans seconded by Co~cilmn ~ler and Unani~usly carried to adopt Resolution No. S~61~1, approvi~ the final ~p of ~act 4165s subject to obtaini~ the encroachrant pemit from the State, C. SD~614 - ~A FOO~iLLS DE~ CO~O~TDN SDR-~14 ~. Hanley ~d ~. Ualker explained that this lot on ~lJevich ~ive Si~e~ was originally a part of the subdivision develop~nt S~610 and that approval the s~ conditions apply for this lot as ~or the priSr' tract +develop- ~n~ ~d ~hat modt of them have been ~t under the subdivision ~oddi- tions, All other conditions h~e been met and fees paids with the exception of recordation 0~ the sumy~p~ It was ~Ved by C6uncil- ~n ~lers seconded by Cou~a{lman Hartmn~ ~d ~ani~S!y carried to adopt ResolutiOn No, SDR-~!~I~ approvi~ one lot on~lJevich Drive as a buildi~ Site, subJe~ ~o receipt of the recorded ~u~ey ~p. D. SDR-491 - jE~RY~BROADUS SDR-491 ~e Clerk refer ed to a ~e~Oest from 'Jer~ BrQaduS/{~r an extension Broadus Of time In ~hia~ to ~e~ ~ditions reld~iVe to do~Str~tihn ~f an extension access road to his building site on Bohl~ Road and recomeded that the request be approved. It was ~d by Councilm~ Bur~ seconded by Cou~il~n ~ler and unani~sly carried to approve an extensionof one year from the present e~piration date of the building site appr~al agree~nt, E. S~586 and SDR-565 - ROBERT P~ S~5~6 Rr, Ranlay reviewed the bachround o{ ~r. Planess request fur deletion SDR-~65 of reqUire~nts for curbs and gutters In connection with the develo~ R,.P~e ~nt o{' S~58~ and SDR-565 and explained that this request was Curbs & previously su~itted and denied after =evi~v by the Pl~ing Co~tttee Gutters and Subdivision Co~ittees but has been re-submitted {n the light of discussion held recently regarding the modifications of the require~nts relative to curbs and gutters in ~I-40,000 zones,. gith no objectionm. ~yor.Olennon directed the ~tter to the Pl~ni~ Go~ittee for study ud recu~ndation. -3- SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL TES - APRIL 6, 1966 F. SDR-490 - JOSEPH LONG SDR-490 Long! It was moved by Councilman Drakes seconded by Councilman Hartman and Construction unanimously carried to accept the improvements constructed in Connection Acceptance with SDR-490s for construction only; with the one year maintenance ~ period to begin immediately, G. SDR-545 -R. B. WILDS SDR-545 Wild~ Mr. Hanley reported that all conditions have been mets bonds posted Flna~ and fees paid in connection with SDR-545s with the exception of Site~ recordation of the survey map and it was moved by Councilman Drake, Approval seconded by Councilman hurry and unanimously carried to adopt Resolution SDR-545-1s approving one lot on Ambric Knolls Road as a building sites subject to receipt of the recorded survey map. H. SDR-462 - A. T. BARRIE SDR-462 Barr~e It was moved by Councilman Tyler, seconded by Councilman hurry and Bond carried unanimously to authorize release of the $1500. cash bond Release posted by Mr. A. T. Bartie to guarantee completion of improvements required as a condition of site approval for SDR-462. I. SDR-573 - DONALD MAC CORMACK SDR-573 Mr. Hanley reported that all conditions have been mot and feeSpaid MacC0rmack for SDR-573 and it was moved by Counciihmn Hartman, seconded by Site, Councilman Drake and unanimously carried ~o adopt Resolution N~. 573-1, ApproVal approving one lot on Wild Oak Way as a Building Site. ~ J. SDR-463 - FRANCIS MINSNALL SDR-463 ~he Clerk explained that the Planning Director has discussed' with the Minshall property owners the conditions of tentative approval, including the Conditions requirement for an 6fret Of dedication on Saratoga Avenue and payment of site of storm water and inspection fees. It was explained that the~property approval originally consisted of three lots and that the owner sold the lot on Saratoga Avenue= after the conditions were imposed and has ~dvised that he ib now unable to 6brain an offer of dedic~tion from.the new property owner. Under normal procedures it was explaineds; the staff cannot recommend approval as a final Building site in its present status and Mr.! Minshall has therefore directed a ~equest for Council consideration of the problem. After brief d~scussions Mayor Glennon With no 6bjections referred the matter to the Planning Committee and asked that the City Attorney submit a report for the Committee's consideration as to the legal status of the offer of dedication require- ment and alternativess if any. K. C-93 - JOHN B. JESSUP C-93 bit. Hanley reported that. the Planning Commission recommends denials Je~sup without prejudice of a request to fezone from "R-M-4s000-~' to Change of "R-M-3s000-P-C" approximately 20 acres located on the north side of Zoning Big Basin Waywest of Sixth Street. Mr. Hanley also stated that it was the opinion of the Planning Commission that it was the intent of the applicant to withdraw the rezoning application but that a request was not received and the Planning Commission therefore voted to deny the application but not to prevent resuhmission of an application within the one year restriction that usually applies when an application is denied, The City Attorney~advised that the City has no Jurisdiction to deny an application and not impose the year limitation against refiling and that in denying an application without prejudice the City would be implying to the applicant that he could reapply within the year and ~e legally could not. Howevers· the City Attorney pointed outs the applicant can withdraw his application and would then be eligible to reapply within a year. With Council approvals Mayor Glennon d f red action on this item to e er the next meeting with a direction to the Staff that Mr. Jessup be a~v!sed of the City Attor~ley's SARATOC~ CITY COUNCIL MINU~ES - APRIL 6, 1966 L. C-90 - TOWN AND COUNTRY REALTY C-90 Mr. Hanley reported that he had received a telephone request f~om To~nl & Mr. Rankin, Attorney for Mr. SeaSraves (who is out of the State) for Country a continuation until the May 18 meeting on the application to fezone Real~y from 'A' to "P-~' the parcel of land located on the southwest Corner Change of of the intersection of Saratoad and Cox Avenues, With no obje~tions Zoning Mayor Glennon directed the item to the May 18, 1966 meeting and ~ directed that Mr. Seagraves also be informed of the City Attorneyts ] opinion relative to the status of applications when the Plannihg ~ Commission has recommended denial without prejudice, : M. CALSON PROPERTIES RF~UEST RE NANOR DRIVE IMPROVEMENT ~ Calson Prop~rties Mr. Henley reported that Mr. Gordon, attorney representing eelson request re Propertiess is also a Councilman in Mountain view ands as he had Mano~ Dr. co-,,{tments relative to his campaign for reelsorion, had asked that this item be deferred, if possible~ until his arrival after 9:30 P. Mo ~lth no obJection~ Mayor Glennon directed the item deferred until later on the agendao N. TRACT 3946 Tr.3~46 Mr. Henley reported that a request has been ~eceived f~r a revision ~ot ~ of Lots 41 and 42 of Tract 3946;'a tract consis~ing of 51 lots. A ReviSion record of survey has been submitted showing the revised lot lines and Mr. Henley reported that the Director of Public Works and Planning Director see no disadvantaSe in therevision and are of the opinion that the revision wl!l improve the subdivision layout and will provide for minimum excavation and grading° It was moved by Councilman Hartman, seconde~ by CodncilmanTyler and unanimously carried to approve the revisionof Lots 41 and 42 of Tract 3946 as requested; V PUBLIC HEARINGS None- VI ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS A. MAYOR 1966 in reply to a question from Mayor Glennon, Mr. Hanley announced that Election voter reminder posters will be placed in commercial areas on election Reminders day, April 12, and that the Saratoga Civics classes have been supplie~ with lists of'registered voters and will call the individual electors to remind them of the election and their polling place. B. FINANCE It was moved by Councilman Drake, seconded by Councilman Tyler and Bills unanimously carried to approve the disbursements on the list dated April 6, 1966 for a total amount of $76~753.25 and authorize that warrants be dravm in payment, COUNCIL COHHI~TEES (1) Councilman Drake gave a brief progress report of the Management Youth Commieteets continuing efforts to develop a workable youth center Center program,~He indicated that although there are a number of pro- Report blemsf.which mast be resolved th~ Committee and the Youth Center and R~creation District representatives are making progress towar~ the developmant of a sound program to present to the Council for consideration.! Councilman.Drake added that plans have been presented to the Planning Commission and referred to Com~{ttee for review and recommendation to the Management Committee. SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 6s 1966 (2) Councilmen Drake reported that the Management Committee met with Mr. Amerio, one of the partners of the Los Gatos Scavenger Los Gatos Company, and with Mr. Hubert Allen of the firm of Allen and SCavenger Co. Pattersons certified public accountants responsible for the Contract Companyss accountin~, The Committee and representatives - reviewed the Companyes request for an extension of its current Amendment i franchise agreement and for the inclusion within the contract of a rate schedule for bin collections from commercials school and apartment house userS. The proposed rate schedule for bin collections would have resulted in an increase for this type of service to comm~rcial establishments. The Company furnished financial statements~ including balance sheets and operating expense and revenue statementss covering the past three years of operation and after two meetings and analysis of the Companyes financial statements, it was mutually agreed with Company rep- resentatives and the Committee that the Committee would recommend the five year extension to the Council but recommend the retention of existing charges for all categories of service. Councilmen Drake summarized the recou=aendations of the Committee as follows: That the basic agreement with the Los Gatos Scavenger Company be Rmended to provide: (1) That the contract be extended for a~ additional five year periods that iss from March 20s 1967 to March 20s 1972. (2) ~hat the existing rates for bid type service for commercials offices industrial and apartment house uses be incorporated in the agreement. (Note: Bins were not in use at the time the contract was last approved.) (3) That the Compan~ furnish all necessary financial information to enable the City CounCil to conduct areview of the rate schedule every two years. (4) That a starting hour of 5:00 A. M. be es~ablished as the ~atliest pe~missible hour for residential collection serVi~e. It was moved by Councilman Hartmane seconded by Council- man Burry and unanimously carried to approve the Committee rec- commendations and authorize the Mayor to execute the amended contract when it has been drawn. The Council discussed with the staff whether or not the contract should be allowed to run for another year to the current expiration date or should be amended to take effect now. After further discussion~ Councilman Hartmen rescinded his previous motion; Councilman Burry rescinded his second and it was unani- meusly carried to move the item to the next meetingss agenda for presentation by the City Attorney of an ~ndment to the ~urrent agreement providing for an additional five year term beginning w~th the expiration date of the current contract and incorporating the reco~mendations of the Management Conunities in the proposed amendment. (3) Councilmen Hartman reported that the Planning Comm{ttee met regarding an appeal for reconsideration of deletion of under- ground utility requirement as a condition of building site Smith - approval for Mr. Stuart Smith. Councilma- Hartmen indicated Underground that in Decembers 1965 Mr. Smith had appealed this requirement Utilities ands on the recommendation of the Planning Committee, the City Council denied the appeal and affinned the requirement of the Planning Commission, Subsequently Mr, Smith learned that h~ would have to provide separate trenches for underground conduit for electrical and telephone service because they must be taken from two different poles, Mr, Smith also appealed the condition on the ground that Mr, earth, from whom he bought the sites had obtained building site approval for the lot in 1962 (prior to the adoption of the underground policy) and had inadvertently let it expire because he was not informed of the two-year limiemtion on site approvals, The underground utility requirement was imposed in 1965 when Mr, Gerth resubmitted his lot after learning that his original site approvals which he had mistakenly assumed to be permanents had lapsed, Because of the severa~ unusual factors related to this site Councilmen Hartman stated that the Planning Committee would like to obtain the viewpoint of .the rest of the Council with respect to this request. SARATOCA CITY COUNCIL l!I.'~rfES _ APRIL 6,'1966 Mr. Smith spoke in favor of his request, citing the reasons ~ore fully set out in his letter of March 21, 1966. The CounCil discussed the factors relating to this matter and agreed that the question should not rest on whether the original apparent, 1,. Gerth, was notified of ~he two year limitation, but gather on how this particular piece of property is affected by ~he underground utility requirement. After further discusSiOn, during which Mro Smith described the present and probable future development of the area, the Mayor, with no objection, ~ferred the item back to the Planning Committee for further study and report at the next meeting. IV SUBDIVISIONS, BUILDINC SITES AND ZONING REQUESTS - continued M. REQUEST FROM CHARLES CORDON ON BEF~LF OF CALSON PROPERTIES Mr. Gordon explained that Mr. Lindsay, president of Calson PrOperties, was required to improve 60' of roadway along Manor Drive in connection with the development of Tract 3822, which he did with the understanding that the additional 20' of improvement which would ultimately~result in a full S0' street would be accomplished with the development of the Lyngso .property adjacent to the rbadway, k~en Lyngso receive~ tents- Manor Dr. rive site approval from ~he Plen~ing Commission in January, one of ~mproVemant- the conditions imposed in connection with the application was'for Lyng~o & Lyngso's dedication of the 20' street, but not for its improvement. Calson Prop. As the matter n~ stands, Mr, Gordon stated, should the LyngsO property develop as proposed, Manor Drive will remain in an incomplete condition, Mr. Cordon asked that the City either require Lyngso to improve the balance of the street, at the time of final approval, or, if the City feels it cannot impose this condition, that the street be improved at City The Planning Director stated that t~e original development plan for LSmgso provided for dedication and improvement of Manor Drive:bUt that when LSn~so applied for a variance for the long building in the back on the west side of the property an objection was raised by the Lindsay rim, not only to the variance, but to the use by Lyng~O of Manor Drive as an access, It was the contention of the Lindsay Company at that"time that the entrance on the subdivision sid~ of the Llmgso property would be a detriment to the. subdivisioh, ;After meeting withl~r~ Lindsay and Lyngso.~he Subdivision Committee commended tha~ the Lyn~so Company have access on garatoga-Sunnyvale Road and when the: Lyngso Company objected ~o improvement of Mano~ Drive without right of access, the Planning Co..--ission felt i~ would be reasonable to require improvement.if it was Used as an access and if it ~ere not~ to require an ofeer of dedication and relinquish- ment of the right of access. Mr. Cordon stated that there are many cases where street improvements have been required when property backs up to another right of way and that although Mr. Lindsay preferred that there be no access on Manor Drive he indicated that if it were to take place he hoped it would be adequately landscaped and truck traffic prohibited. ~, Cordon stated that it seemed to him that in requiring Lyngso to dedicate the 20' right of way that the City implies that somehow this street will be improved to the full 80'. The City Attorney agreed with Mr. Cordon that if the City accepts an o~fer of dedication and does not require anyone to improve it, it indicates that at soma time the City may accept the offer and improve the property. ~r, Johnston, however, indicated that he felt there was a serious question of the legality of requiring improvements of an exterior street where the developer has no right of access. Mayor Glennou asked the City Attorney if the Council had the power to act at this point and Mr. Johnston advised that although anyone could have appealed the Planning Commission conditions within 15 days of their imposition iast January, it can not be done at this time unless, at the time of final approval, the Lyngso Company agree~ to it, SARA~0CA CITY COUNCIL ItlNLFrES - APRIL 6, 1966 A~ter extensive discussion, ~yor Gle~on sud~ested that the Start stay the ~C~er ~ consult vi~h L~so C~any and the su~iyision ~t~ee ~o demesne if. any~hiu~ can be d~e at this sCaSe. ,~her- ~se, ~he ~yor indicated, ff the Pla~i~ C~ssi~ conditio~ have been~C at the ~im o~ ~inal appr~al the Co~cil ~sC approv~ ~he ~. ~rdon as~d if ~ere~ ~y indica~ion on the part of the Council as ~o whether or not ~he City ~y i~r~e the bal~ce of the s~ree~ and ~he ~yor replied ~hat it is ~oo ~ly ~o dete~ue that quesCi~ a~ ~his ~ime. VI ~NIS~TI~S - confined D. DEP~~S~ O~ICERS A~o~yss (I) ~e City Attorney reported that he h~ a~tended 2he ~aSue of Confe 'once California Cities coherence of City atto~eys a~ had fo~d very beneficial. He.noted ~haC i~ ap~ared Chat ocher cities have far more liCi~a~ion problem ~ ~he City of S~aCoZa has had. Recess: 10:10 P. H. ~c~ve~d: 10:20 P. H. Cl~ ~S~TOR (1) ~. H~ley asked if the Council ~lshes the staff ~O contact a landsdape archi~ec~ redardi~ the mdl~ on Hi8~ay 85 ~d Hidbray 85 indic~ted ~ha~ there would be no ~roblem in ob~aini~ peaseion ~dian from the state for landscapt.. ~yor Glennon, wi~ no, objection, ~ndsCaPl~ so directed with ~e su8destion tha~ the scaf~ explore the pos~ : j sibili~y of State p~ticipation, to ~y eXtent,.~ ~e prpject; Mv. ~or bids - (2) It wu ~d by C0~i~n ~t~, seconded by C~unCil~n Burry ~nta~vo ent. and u~i~usly carried ~o authoriz~ the staf~ to advertise & Bla~y Plaza bids~or the land~capi~ o~ the ~cntai~o entrance ~d Bluy Flaza~ (3) ~. H~ley re~rted that the S~ Jose Light ~era Associat~n, as their a~ual ~und 'raisi~ project, conduct a decorator sh~ H~one - in estates er other buildi~s o~ widespread ~blic interest~ ~corator and ha~ as~d pe~ssion to use H~one ~rdens for their ~all ~ sh~. ~ts would in~lve c~lete re~urbishi~ of the~in house~ guest house and several room of the cottage at Ha~ne and the decorations ~d fu~ishi~would co~ist of individual treat~nC bF pro~essional decorators in an oriental style. ~urnishings would be re~ved at the collusion o~ the show but the basic re~urbishi~ of walls, fl~rs~ etc. ~ould re~in and it is pla~ed to simply ren~ the original natural treaC~nt. No wallpa~r or paint or any o~her trea~nt which would ~r ~e natural ~inish will be used. ~e Council agreed eo this use fr~ a policy standpoint pr~ided the City Is ~sured~ possibly by a cash ~nd~ that the proposed use will not deter ~rom th~ char~ter of the buildings and that ~ dd~e to the ~ac~litie8 will be repaired. (4) ~e City Ad~nistrator stated tha~ the Saratoga Ele~nta~ School is pla~i~ to start construction o~ a multi-purpose buildin~ School by ~p~e~er o~ this year and the Co~cil ~herefore needs to property resolve the question of the purchase and exch~e of the Sea- adJac~ to Staves property as the school mat soon proceed with their plans Civic Cen~er for locati~ the buildin~. ~. Hanley indicated t~t ~. Seagraves ~ Searayes is presently ou~ of the State so negociati~s ~ould have ~o ~operty his retu~. ~. Hanley also obse~ed that It is unlikely that t~ proposed expansion o~ the Civic Center Site~ll qu~li~y ~or ~ open-space grant. :~e Council ~reed that the staff should p~oceed with negotiations for the p~chase o~ the Seagraves proper~y for u~a~e with the School for its property ~Jacent ~o the Civic ~n~er as so~as ~. Seagraves re,urine SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL NINIrIES - A~RTL 6~ 1966 Arborettnn (5) ~r, Henley called attention to a recent recommendation to~ the from old Board of Supervisors by Hr, James Pott, Santa Clara County County Director of Public gorks, that the County quarry on Big Basin Quarry Way be converted into an aboretum, After brief discussion the Council unanimously approved this proposal and asked the Mayor to advise the Board of Supervisors of its support and ! endorsement in this regard, Park (6) The Council acknowledged copies of a letter fromMr. Karl Acquisition Belser, Director of Planaing for Santa Clara County, expressing ~ his approval of the Council's recent action relative to proposed ~ acquisition of Hakone and gildwood Park properties and noting that this action will have significant value in the futurb in the light of the Countyes proposal to convert the County quarry into park property. Mr. Belser also congratulated the CoUncil and staff for the quality of the 1964 annual report. (7) Mr. Henley reported that the Director of Public Works has~ contacted a number of geological firms over the past few months BohlmanRoad and has recowe.ended that a contract be entered with the f~rmof Soil Grtbaldo, Jacobs and Jones for a soils analysis of the Bohlmen Anal ,sis Road area which will provide data on which recon~nendations can Contl'act be made toward some permanent solution to the most difficult problems of maintenance of this road. It was reported that it is, at this stage, difficult to establish a ceiling until after some preliminary work has been completed but that it is estimated that the work will cost between $4600 end $5000. This item was budgeted for this fiscal year but the estimate exceeds the budgeted n~.ount and it was reco-~nded that the full study be authorized. After discussion, it was moved by Councilmen Drake, seconded by Councilman Hartman and unanimously carried to authorize the Mayor to execute the soils analysis contracts as outlined, with the firm of Gribaldo~ Jacobs and Jones for an a~nont up tO $5,000. VII CO~GATIONS WRITTEN (I) The Council discussed a letter from the Chamber of Con~uerce Village requesting that suitable designed and worded signs indicating Business the Village business district be placed near three of the District entrances to the intersection of Saratoga Avenue and Highways ~9 Sign~ and #85~ and it was the general position of the Council that i the signs were unnecessary and should not be installed. Planning Co-~ssion Chairman Norton added his opposition to that of the Council to the village signs and stated that he is Highway 85 also particularly opposed to the staff report that application Street signs has been made to the .State for an additional street sign on Highway 85. None of the street signs installed by the State Division of Highways nn this highwaycnnformto the Cityss sign ordinances Chairm~n Norton observed, and it was his belief that no more non-conforming signs should be erected. Public (2) Mr. Hanley advised the Council that their folders contain copies hearings - of a letter from the State Division of Highways relative to State Hwy. legislation requiring a public hearing prior to any reco-~udation routes for the adoption of a state highway route. (3) A letter from Evelyn C. Craham regarding the upkeep of the alley Alley by -adjacent to the Foothill Club and Mrs. Grebam~s property was Foothill referred to Staff with the observation that if the area is a Club private right of way the City has no Jurisdiction to repair it. (4) The Council acknowledged a letter from the gesthope United Presbyterian Church advising of the availability of its property SARATOGA CITYCOUNCILNINIPI~S - APRIL 6, 1966 Yourb Center - on Cox Avenue as a possible facility to ba purchased for a Presbyterian Youth Center, It was noted that the Nanagement Cor~m~ttee is ChurCh p~operty aware of this offer and that it is under consideration alon~ with their studies of the Youth Center proposals, (5) A letter from ~ir, John Convery requesting that a franchise be C.A.T.V. issued to conduct a Courtunity Antenna Television System in FranChise Saratoga was ordered to be filed with other communications Request which have been received in this regard until such time ~hat ! the City Attorney is' prepared to present an enablir~ fradchise ordinance for Council consideration, It was pointed out that recent action by the Federal Co~nunications Commission and Congress have delayed this item and it was reco~nended that ! Council action await final action of the F.C.C. sad Coveross, (6) A petition was received from Austen D, Warburton, signed by Saratoga property owners on Saratoga Hills Road in opposition to the Hills Road formation of say proposed improvement assessment district for ImprOvement that area, The petition was directed to file until such time District that a petition may be received requesting such a district, protests B. ORAL (1) Fir, William Cla~k asked for ;consideration of final building SDR-539 site approval for SDR-539 and stated that this item was not Clark ready t8 proceed at the time the a~enda closed, Council agreed Building to consider the item at this time sad the Plunnin~ Director Site~ reported that Hr, Clark is willing, at this time~ to pay the storm drainage £ee and inspection fee and that $2s200 bond will also be.required to complete the conditions Of tentative! approval° F~r, Clark indicated that he wished to post a ce~tificate of assigned financix~ as bond and the City Attorney advised that the map act was fairly recently amended to provide for this method of bonding, The method choSen by~r~ Ciark wouid necessitate approval subject to 'receipt of the bond as the finance company will not issue the certificate until they have an indication that the Council will approve the site ~hen this condition has been fulfilled, Hr, Clark presented the Clerk with his check for the storm drainage fee and the inspection fee and it was moved by Council- man Drake~ seconded by Councilman Hart-man and unanimously approved to grant buildin~ site approval for SDR-539, subject to receipt of the bond, as indicated, Bridge (2) Hr, Robert Keller of Pierce Road expressed his concern that site load~limits- approvals have been granted subject to conditions includix~ ~-~r~ency the construction of an H-10 bridge, which the Director of vehicles Publicl~orks defines as a I0 ton capacity bridge, and F~r, Keller reported~ for futhre considerations that the SaratoSs fire trucks sometimes weigh over 14 tons, lit, Keller also asked for sad received a review of the earlier Saratoga Ave. action of the Council concernin~ a recorm~endation for extension Contract of time to Leo Fo Piazza for the reconstruction of Saratoga Extension Avenue, lifo Keller indicated that he did not arrive until after the discussion on that item and stated his stron~ objections to the performance of the Contrscto~ on this as well as other projects which have been or a~e bein~ constructed within the City, Hr, Keller expressed his objections to the Couucil~s action in extendln~ t~e SaratoEs Avenue contract and Kr, Burry co~nented that he had not voted in favor of the extension, Island - Fir, Keller than questioned the advisability of retainin~ the Verde Vista triangular shaped island located at Verde Vista sad Sarahills & Sarahills Drive, He stated that the i~land creates an obstacle for emergency equipment and school busses and the Director of SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL 14INUTES - APRIL 6, 1966 Public ~/orks indicated that the island was installed in response to complaints about speeding and seems to have corrected 'that problem. Nr. Ruff indicated he would review the situation the field with .a view to possible corrective action. '(2) There being no one else who wished to address th~ Council, Hayor Glennon acknowledged, with pleasure the presence of Planning CommisSion Chairman Norton, Don Bush of the Chamber of Commerce, the Good Govetmment Group representa.tive who served coffee at the recess, Council candidates ~rs. Scharf and Mr. Finley and extended his greetings to Nr. ~nd Hrs~~ Paul Cardiner. VIII ADJOURI~ENT It was moved by Councilman Burry, seconded by Gouncilmsn Hartman and unanimously carried to adjourn the meetin~ at 11:25 P. H. -11-