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-