Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-18-1966 City Council Minutes~""="-' CITY OF SARATOC-A SD~RY OF MINUTES TI_~E: l~'ednesday, }lay 18, 1~66 7:30 P. M. P~CE: Saratoga City Co~cil Chambers~ 13777 Fruitvale Ave., Sar~toFa, ~PE: Regular l. YeetinR I OR~NIZATIO~I Mayor Glennon called the meetinS to order at 7:35 P. M. A. ROLL CALL Present: Councilmen Glennon~ Drake~ ~ler, Burrv Absent: Councilm~n Hartman B. ~I~ S It was m~ed by Councilman Drake, seconded by Councilm~n Buff and ~animously carried to waive the readin~ ~d aDprove the minutes of Minutes the ~4ay 4~ 1966 meetin~ as written~ subject to the addition of the word "underStood" prior to the ~,~rd "utilities" on line 13 of Item IV-C, page 4. II BIDS ~ND CON~CTS A. REPORT OF BIDS RECEI~D ON }TONTALVO ENTPANCE I~PRO~ENT Mr. Henley reported that two bids were received on the improvement to the [bntalvo entr~ce: (1) Collish~ Sprinkler Co. - $4~343.00 and ~4ontalvo (2) ~elo C. S~bseto - $6,574.00. ~e Engineer'~ ~d architect's Entrance estimate was $6~000 ~d it was the staff reco~endation that the low Bids bid be accepted. It was moved by Councilman Drake~ seconded by Council- man T},ler and unanimously carried to accept the lo,x bid of Collisha~, Sprinkler C~pany ~d authorize t~e ~ayor to execute the contract for the a~unt bid, S4,343.00. B. ~PORT ~F BIDS ~CEIVED ON B~T'~E~ P~ZA~NDSCAPI~,~G ~e Clerk reported that two bids were received on the Blaney Plaza Landscaping: (1) Collishaw Sprinkler Cobany - $28, 298.00 and Blaney ~gelo C. SDoseto - $34,000, and that the architect's estimate was Plaza $35~000. It was moved by Councilm~ ~ler, seconded bV.C~ncilman Bids Burry and unanimously carried to accept the low hid of Collisha~,7 Sprinkler Comany~ as reco~ended by the staffs. and authorize the Mayor to execute a c~tract for $28,288.00. C. ~Q~ST FOR EXTEMSION OF TIM OT] SA~TOCA A'~N~ P~CO~,~STRUCTION ~Ir. ~{anley read a letter, dated ~ay 5, 1966, from J. U. F~, Canetel ~anaF~r of ~o F. Piazza Paving Co~eny~ requestinR an extension of Saratoga Ave. contract time on the Saratoga Avenue reconstruction pro~ect from the Reconstzuc- present expiration date of May 23, 1966 to June 25, lq66 and setting tion Project forth a n~ber of items in Justification of this request. ~?~r. !Janlay Extension then read the reco~endation, dated ~ay 13, 1966, of the pro~ect enFi- Request neers~ CreeR~ and D'Angelo, relative to this request and the staff report and rec~endation which was based on revie~.~ of the en~ineer~s letter and the records involved, includin~ the day by day dia~ of the inspector. ~e project engineers reco~ended that the requested time extensi~ be ~ranted provided that the Contractor a~rees, tn uritin~, to press no claim a~ainst the City based on alleged delays to his pro- gress. ~e staff report, d~ted May 1~, 196G, sets Fort~ t~+e items ~.,bich the staff verified as bavtn~ delayed ~,~ork on the Dro~ect. On the basis of the items listed~ the staff also' reco~ended that the extension granted. ~r. Henley added that it ~as reco~ized from the start of the project~ that an ideal timetable would be to ~Tait for S~rin~ for a~,~ard of bid and use the InterveninR time to relocate utilities and allo~?z for the rather extensive installations which the San Jose Uater '!orks ha~ planned but that the end of the fiscal year ~,~as near an~ the City had to proceed if it w~ted to guarantee eli~ibility for Federal funds for the project. SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL '~IT]IJTES - May 18, 1966 Mayor Glennon commented that he assumed that all the factors ~ich bore out the problems prior to the first re,uest for aD extension bnd been raised at that time and that the circumstances ~icb had arisen between the time of the first extension and the second request ~mre thorou~ly considered so that he xyas of the opinion that the ~resent request for further extension would require considerable substantiation by the ~ro- jeer engineers. Mr. Pat Creegan stated that nothin~ had occured between t!~e tine of the last extension and the present time to delay the contractor but t}~at the contractor had, at that time, made an error in ~ud,~nent in estimatin~ the time ~hich would be adequate to complete the york. Mr. Cree~an pointed out that 120 calendar days of delay can be Justified hy the inspectors diary and that, as indicated in the staff tenoft, these days ~ere based on the definition of a worrying day as that on which a portion of the work can be prosecuted and does not take into consideration the fact that conditions may not permit the contractor to o~erate at Desk efficiency, with a full crew, because of areas closed to him at that time for reasons beyond his control. Saratoga Mr. Creegan indicated that he tl~ou~ht the Contractor might be able to Avenue justify, in Court, his request for a total of 149 days extension and Request that he might be able to Drove that the basic nature of the ~ork chenged. for Contract It was Mr. Creegan's opinion that the contractor had tried to di!i~ently Extension fulfill his contract but that the many fte~s ~ich contributed to the timing of those items combined to justify the ~resent reCuest. In renly to questions from Council~n Tyler and Drake, Mr. Cree~n stated that he thought every reasonable effort had be~n made, within the last 30 days, to complete the work as scheduled. Councilman Burry observed that the total rainfall this year had been considerably lower than normal and t~at he questioned the number of d~ys of delay attributed to inclement weather. ~r. Cree~an indicate~ that the timin~ of the heavy rain with the middle of the ~ob instead of the tail end o~ the job re~ul~ed in lost days of road work because of wet sub-grade and that, had not delays beyond the Control of the Contractor prevented him from followin~ his schedule, t~e number of non-workable days because of weather ~ould have been considerably re- duced. Mayor Glennon stated that he felt that it ~ras not a sm~ll error for the Contractor to misjudge his previous extension request by 1~0% and that very ~ood reason would h~ve to be presented for him to Justify further extension. Councilman Drake questioned whether or not the Contrsctor's schedule of days lost might contain duplications and Mr. Huff stated that he had not made a day by day analysis but that the recommendation for grantin~ the extension was based on day by day inspection records of the project. The City Attorney reviewed portions of the contract which apoly to delays, extensions, penalty provisions and back-charges for charges ~htch accrue to the City bY means of extensions and, in ans~zer to a Cuestion by Mayor Glennon, advised the Council that it can, if it so desires, delay its decision for two weeks and refer the question to Committee. ~r. Johnston pointed out that it can be expected that the Contractor ~ill diligently prosecute the Job to completion ,,;hether or not the Council grants the extension and that, should the Council. later decide to ~rant the extension, it would not waive the riZbt to bad~-~har~e the Contractor for certain charges. Mayor Clennon stated that he felt that there was insufficient evidence to enable the Council to ~r~nt an extension and that ha favored referrin~ the matter to the PubIic l~!fare Committee for a total review of the problem. Councilman Drake urged that a day by day analysis be made to itemize the number of days extension that are ~ustified under the terms of the contract together with the reason or reasons therefor. With no objection, Mayor Glennon directed this item to the Public Welfare Committee for recommendation at the next meetin~. -2- SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL ~{INUTES - }~ay 18,. lg66 D. EXTRA WORK ORDER NO. 5 - SARATOGA-COX AVENU~ P~OJECT [Ir. Henley read the report from the Director of Public Worlds, dated May 18, 1966 reconm~endin? approval of an extra ~ork order for removal Extra Work and replacement of pavement at Scotland Drive and at Saratoga Glen Order for 'Place. Contract plans provided for utilizing existing pavement Scotland Dr. these locations but failures have developed necess~tatin~ t~ae resurfac- & Saratoga ing of the entire areas in which the failures are located. This Glen Place surfacing is estimated to cost a total amount of $322~ and the Director of Public Works indicated that tY~is fs a reasonable cost and that no part of these areas are ~,yithin the assessment district area. It ~-~as moved by Councilman Drake, seconded bv Councilman Tyler and unanimously - carried to approve Extra Work Order #~ as outlined and recommended. E. REPORT OF JENNI~]GS~ MCDERMOTT & U. EISS ON ~UITn ROAD PLA~,Y LINE Mr. i{uff presented a preliminary lay-out of the muito Road Plan line and, quite Plan after brief discussion, ~tayor Glennon referred the matter to tba Public -Line ~,'elfare Conmittee for revieL~. Mayor Glennon pointed out to those present that the proposed 40~ basic width is a plan line for future development set back F~uide lines and should not be construed as a ~lan for ~,idenin~. the street at this time. III PETITIOn, IS, ORDINANCES AND ~ORMAL P~ESOLUTIONS A. RESOLUTION'NO. 330 Mr. Henley presented Resolution ~Io. 330, rescindin~ Resolutions ~o. 31~, 317, 318 and 319; the initial resolutions Dertainin~ to Parking District Res. No 330 No. 1 ~.yhich embraced the entire villa~.e area. This resolution was dra~,n~ at theI dire, ction of t~e council at its last meetinF~ as a resuft of the fact that aporoximately 1/4 of the village area o~mers submitted a petition for formation of a neT,, and separate parkin~ district. It was moved by Councilman Burry, seconded by Councilman ~,'ler and unanimously carried to adopt Resolution T;o. 330. B. RESOLUTI~}] NO. 36-B-86 It was moved by Councilman Tyler, seconddd by C~uncil~an Drake and Res. No. unanimously carried to adopt Resolution No. 36-B-86, acceptin~ the 36-B-86 dedication of streets in tract Igo. 3596, as recentended by the Director Tract No. of Public Works. 3596 C. RESOLIrfION NO. 36-B-87 Res. }{o. Councilman Burry moved, seconded by Councilman Tyler to adopt Resolution 36-B-87 No. 36-B-87, accepting the dedication of streets in Tract 3572, as Tract No. recommended by the Director of Public Works; motion carried unanimously. 3572 IV SUBDIVISIONS, BUILDINGSITES A~,ID ZONING REQUESTS A. SDR-615 -W. C. GARCIA SDR-615 With no objection, Mayor Glennon deferred this item until the next meet- Garcia ing, at the request of the City Clerk, ~ybo indicated that the necessary defermerit documents had not been received as expected nrior to this meeting. B. SDR-616 - PACIFIC GAS A.~ID ELECTRIC CO~[PANY ~r. ~anley reDerred that l.[r. Straub ~nd '.~r. -~7ouston vere nresent on be- SDR-616 half of the Pacific Gas and Electric ComDan~r's a~licttion for buildin~ P.G. & E. site a.oDroval for one lot on Cox Lane for use as a substation. Mr. Request a I{ouston filed a buildin~ site annrevel agreement and an offer of dedica- surety bond tion with the Clerk and 'Ir. }~anley then stated that all conditions of waive tentative site approval had been met ?ith the exception of ~ostin~ a bond and that the P.G. & E. ~as reeuestIn~ that t}~.e surety bo~ require- merit be waived because of .their status as a ~u~lic utility. -3- SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - May 18, 1966 The Council and staff discussed this request in the light of ordinance' requirements, precedent and policy and the City Attorney advised that surety bonds are ~equired, by the Map Act, on subdivisions of five or mere lots and that the Council would have the power to waive a bond for this quasi-public utility if it;chose to do so. Councilman Burry moved to waive the requirement for posting a bond for this building site application and, after discussion, the motion died for lack of a second. The Staff reported that bonds have been required of other public utili- ties and the Council then discussed the various conditions of tentative approval. Mr. Hanley pointed out that Condition 8 of the agreement provides that underground storm drain line construction shall be de- ferred until development of the adjacent property warrants its installa- tion, at which time the P.G. & E. shall participate with developers of the adjacent property on a pro-rata basis. This provision, Mr. Hanley continued, is an amplification of the Planning Conmission reconmendation · which the Staff reconmends, the City Attorney indicates is appropriate, and the applicant approves. Councilman Drake moved, seconded by Councilman Burry to approve SDR-616, subject to the applicant's'posting the required $28~000 bond and the fact that the Council approved the change of Condition 8 as above noted; motion carried unanimously. C. SDR-627 - PAUL FLANAGAN Mr. Hanley reported that all conditions have been met, bonds posted and SDR-627 fees paid and it was moved by Councilman Tyler~ seconded by Councilman Site Approval Burry and unanimously carried to adopt SDR-627 for one lot on Big Basin. Way D. SDR-623 - RICHARD EASTMAN Mr. Hanley reported that all conditions have been mat, bonds posted and SDR-623 fees paid, with the exception of receipt of the recorded survey map, Site Approval for one lot on Allendale Avenue~ and it was moved by Councilman Drake, seconded by Councilman Burry and unanimously carried to adopt Resolution No. SDR-623-1, approving this parcel as a building site. \ E. C-90 TOWN AND COUNTRY REALTY Mr. Hanley reported that the attorney for the applicant for rezoning of C-90 property at the intersection of Saratoga and Cox Avenues has requested Deferment deferral to the June 15, 1966 Council meeting and, with no objection, Mayor Glennon ordered this matter deferred as requested. F. C-96 - JOSEPH J, PON The Clerk explained that this item had been deferred from a previous C-96 meeting, at the request of the applicant~ and that no public hearing Port had been set~ in accordance with Council policy of not automatically setting public hearings on rezoning applications when the Planning Conmission has reconmended denial, Mr. Pon was present and the Mayor explained the procedure, indicating that if the applicant requests the Council will direct the Clerk to set a public hearing. Marcel Poche, attorney representing the applicant, requested that a public hearing be scheduled and asked that he be permitted to file a proposed development map with the Planning Conmission SubdiVision Conmittee for its review prior to the time of hearing. With no objection, Mayor Glennon directed the Planning Director to schedule a Subdivision Conmittee meeting for Mr, Poche to present this matter and~ at the some time, directed the Clerk to set a public hearing for the meeting of. \ June 15. Recess: 9:30 P. M. Reconvened: 9:50 P.M. .' IV-D - SDR-623 - Richard Eastman SDR-623 Mr. Heiser, who had indicated during discussion of C-96 that he wished Eastman to discuss certain aspects of this site approval application, explained SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL ;~NUTES - ~{ay 18, 1966 that he o~ns property on Allendale Avenue and bad sold the back nortion of his property to ~{r. Eastman. _T,~r. Heiser stated that ha yes retired and had sold the lot uith the understandin~ that the buyer ,~ould obtain building site approval and tbat the most that might be required of him, as the seller, would be a 10' street dedication alon~ ths 120' frontage of the property ,~hich fronts his home that he intended to retain. The buyer, ~r. Eastman, ~ho has 20' frontaRe on Allendale Avenue, ~as sub- sequently required by the PlanninF~ Commission to dedicate and imnrove the entire frontage of the original parcel. This re~uirement, ?!r. Heiser indicated, placed a financial burden on him as he had not considered this possibility at the time of the sale and had made no provisions for the buyer to assume responsibility for the cost of imDrovin~ this Dronetry. Negotiations ~;ith Mr. Eastman, ~r. I!eiser continued, resulted in ~r. Heiser's aF, reein~, under nrotest, ~o dedicate the frontaRe and pay half the cost of improvement. ~r. Heiser indicated that ~ir. Eastman is anxious to proceed x.yith construction of his borne and that h~_ uill ful- fill his agreement ~.~ith TIt. Eastman but that he strongly ~rotests the requirement that the frontage be ~aved. The Council a'.~ Staff discussed this matter at length and the PlanninR Director stated that it is normal Question of procedure to require fronta,~e improvement of the entire nroDerty Validity of a lot is subdivided. The City Attorney? advised that the validity of Offer of the offer of dedication which Mr. Heiser conditionally signed is ques- Dedication tionable and that, in view of this, the previous action ~.yhich t~e Council by ~IIr. Heiser took in granting site approval was invalid. It ~-;as moved by Councilman Tyler, seconded by Councilman Rurry and undn- imously carried to rescind the previous action of the Council uith re- spect to SDR-623. Councilman Drake then moved that ~DR-623 be aDDroved, subject to ,~yithdrawal by ~4r, Yleiser of his ~.yritten ~rotests on thee offer of dedication and butldin~ site anDroyal aRreement. Council?an Burry seconded the motion which carried unanimously. Uith no objection, Mayor Clennon referred the question of the required frontage dedication and im~rovem~nt to the Plannin~ Comn~.ittee for study and recommendation, upon the advice from the City Attorney that the improvement agreement could be amended, in the future, if the Council wished to modify this requirement. Mrs. Sherbourne and ~.Trs. Schuber spoke on behalf of ~!r. 7!eiser's protests and, in response to the concern expressed reqardin~ the red~ood tree which might be removed or damaged as a rasutt of the proposed street improvement, the Director of Public LYorks advised t~nat the plans pro- vide for saving the major trees. G. SDR-617 - SACRED ~{EART CMURCI! It was moved by Councilman Burry, seconded by Cou,3cilmaD Tyler and SDR-617 carried unanimously to adopt Resolution No. SDR-~IT-1, ~rantin~ buil~- Building Site ing site approval to Sacre~ ~{eart Church for one lot on Smrato~ Avenue, Approval subject to receipt of the recorded survey map and receipt of the ner- formance bond from the Church Archdiocese. VI ADMINISTPJ%TIVE _~IIATTERS A. MAYOR Mayor Clennon announced that be has asked a Com~mittee, includin~ Plannin~ Commissioners Crisp and Kellum, to try to determine why t~e City had Committee on been unsuccessful in obtaininF retirement develonment an~ that a public Retirement meeting has been scheduled, by this Committee, to preserzt nosstble solu- Development tinrig and circulate questionaires to obtain public reaction. ?.y this method, ~-Tayor Glennon indicated, it is honed that some effective course of action can be developed to~,yard nrovidinT suite~,le retirement facilities within the City. B. FINANCE (1) It ~.zes moved by Councilman Drake, seconded by Councilman Tyler and ApproVal of unanimously carried to approve the disbursements, totalinR $18,585.65 Disbursements as itemized on the list dated ~ay 18, 1965, and authorize that warrants be dra~m in payment. -5- SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MINIFIES - May 18. 1966 Financial (2) The City Clerk's Financial Report and Treasurer's report for the Report month of Aprils 1966 were submitted and accented. P.T. & T.. (3) .'--lr. Henley presented a claim for damages from the Pacific Teleghone Claim for and Telegranh Company for alleged dama~,es in the smount of $200. as a result of damaFro to underground facilities in the course of the Damages Saratoga Avenue reconstruction project. Councilman Burly moveds seconded by Councilman Tyler. to deny the claim.. notify t.~le P.T. & T. to direct its claim to the contractors Leo F. Piazza PavtnF. Conmany~ and to direct the Staff to notify the Citv's liability insurance cartlet of this action. C. COUNCIL CO,'fi~ITTEES No reports. i D. DEPARTI~EMT }LEADS AND' OFFICERS ContinUance of (1) The Plannin~ Director reported that the LynFso Co~anv h~s re~uested -SDR-609 a continuance, until July 6, 1966, of tT~e question of the imDrove- ~ano~,Drive ment of Manor Drive in connection ~;fth SDR-609. ~{r. U~lker indicated' that Mr. Gordon, Attorney reDresenttnF. the Lindsay Cornany ~yho subdivided the property adjacent to the nursery ,roperty~ and have protested the conditions established by the P18nnin~ Commission ~ith respect to the Lyn~so, develooment, has consented to this com- tinuance., I.Yith no objection, Mayor Clannon directed this item de- ferred until the meeting of July 6. Authorization (2) It was moved by Councilman ~,urry, seconded by Councilman Tyler end to Advertise for unanimously carried to authorize the staff to advertise for bids for paving the parking area at the Civic Center site. Bids Civic Center Parkin~ Are~. CITY AD}flNISTRATOR (1) ~.~r. Henley read a letter~ dated T'ay 6. 196~ f~om the District Reid Lane and Engineer for the Division of tligh~,,ays re~ardin~. siSnalization at , ' llighl~ay 85 Reid Lane and High~ay 85. The datas as completed by the City and analyzed by the State, is insufficient to Justify a stfrnal at t~,is location but the State indicated that it is still ~.~illin~ to share the cost with the hiF. h school for a flas~',lng yello~ beacon and is ., in contact with the school in this reRard. }It. Henley stated that the staff had discussed possible alternatives and had. for instance, asked if the State ~ould allo~.,, the installation of a si,~nsl if the Council. on the basis of other studies~ decided that it ~.;ished to install one at City cost and that the State officials had indicated that they would not for, in their views it ~xould impose a problem which might result in greater traffic hazards than it ~oUld solve. Follo~4ing thiss Mr. Fanlay reDotied, the staff collected the same kind of basic data for the intersection of Herrimam Avenue and Intersection Highway 85 and submitted it to the State for analyzation a~- to Herrimam Ave. & whether or not this intersection ~ould meet the State~s criteria. lIi~hway 85 The State has not yet had time to report bac]~ but ~!r..t!a_~ley pointed out that the data collected indicated a ?raster volume of traffic. both pedestrian and vehiculars than at the Reid L~ne crossin~.. ,*leanwhile. the City staff has been placing a oortable sign in the Reid Lane crosSin~ dUrin~ the hours allo~;~ by the State ,.yhile school is in session. This measure has been taken Dendin~ the School Board's resolvin~ t]~e · ~uestion of possible liability if the Schools,as a coonerative effort, assumes t~,e responsibility for placing and removin? the nortable sign. If the Herrimam Avenue data does not meet the criteria of the ,~tate and uould not alleviate the problem then, Mr. Henley indicated, it ~.~11 be tY'e staff recom- mendation ~hat the School District be asked to coo,erate, 'by formal resolution, on the flashin~ beacon installation at the Reid ~rossing. ~4ayor Glennon stated that he felt 'that an indenendent analysis and recommendation from an expert traffic analyst firm ~as indicated. SARATOC4 CITY C01~ICIL HINL'TES - May 18, ln66 Approval for Mr. Henley agreed and indicated that he will, if the Council so Independent desires, ascertain possible costs involved and report bacTr to 6be Analysis by a Council. Councilman Drake moved that the City Administrator ba Traffic Analyst authorized to proceed immediately to consult and emnloy an inde- Firm of Reid Lane Dendent expert to study the Reid Lane crossin? prohle~ at a Cost not to 'exceed $500; Councilman Tyler seconded the motion ~.~hich carried unanimously. Mrs. Jean Moyles questioned the traffic count conducted for Reid Lane crossin~ and Hr. !lanley advised that the studies included a 24 hour count of all pedestrians as ~,~ell as vehicular traffic, (2) Mr. Hanley requested authorization to retain the existin? caretaker Caretaker at Ilakone Gardens at a cost of $225. per month and use of the cotta%e Hakone Gardens until such time that the City is prepared to mahe the best per- manent arrangements. It was moved by Councilma!l Drake, seconded by Councilman Burry and Unanimously carried to authorize retention of the existing caretaker, as recop~nendEd. (3) The City Administrator reported that the City cannot reasonably Hakone Gardens expect to let the contract for the lTigh~,ay ~5 landscspinF~ Dro~ect Substituted for Drier to the end of this fiscal year and will therEforE not qualify H~.~, 85 Landscaping ~or Federal beautification funds in accordance with t~e City's Project prior application. As a substitute, Mr. Henley requestaf~ author- ization to request allocation of Federal funds for t'~E I~akone Gardens improvements in lieu of the !li~hway ~5 landscapin~ Project which ~.~as one of the five Dro~ects listed in the Ctty's beautifica'! tion fund application. It ~.yas moved by Councilman Tyler, seconded by Councilman Drake and unaninouslv carried to authorize the City Administrator to request this substitution on t~e Cfty's anulica- tion. VII CO~L~IICATIONS A. I,~RITTEN Stop Signs (i) A le[t~r from Mrs~ i~ary Guth, submitt~nFl in writin~ her D~eViOUSly Reid Lane & Canyon expressed request fSr stud signs in the Reid ~ane, CanyS~ V~ew Drive View Drive area, was re~erred to the Director of Public i~0rks for study Of the suggested traffic control measures and consultat{on with the Chief of Police and Sberiff's Department. Request for (2) The Council acknowledged a letter from .'{rs. P. L. Petersen, Secre- Greater Efforts intary of the Foothill School P.T.A., requestin~ ~reater efforts in the field of safety studies an~ sup-Restin~ a city ~yide camDai~ Traffic Safety for safety. Mayor Glennon requested that a copy of the ~!ilbur Smith school traffic study be transmitted to ~rs. Petersen. Traffic Noise (3) A letter from T~iss Leona Vau~han of 145160 Oak Street regarding traffic noise problems was referred to the staff to alert the on Oak St. Sheriff's Department and ask for extra surveillance durin~ the times these disturbances ~,~ere reDerred to occur. Pro-School (4) A letter was received from I~otre Dame ~.'onte~sori Pre-Sc~bol lnvitin~ the Council to attend an open house on ~'~ay 22nd.I Open House (5) A request for storm drainage fee credits in connection with Tract Tract 4090 4090 was referred to the Director of Public I.Yorks. Request for (6) Mr. Hanley read a petition sicned by ~noroxt~.ately 10 residents of Change of Street Miljevich Drive to chan~e the street name to one of six alternates Na~ on MilJevich 'approved by them. ~r. L. U. !!~tlson spoke on behalf of the request ~°Drive and indicated that of the 14 homes 1 is vacant an~ the other two owners have a~reed to approve whatever the Council decides. With no objection, the matter was referred to the PlanninF Director to check with the home owners who did not sign the petition and to check the suggested street names with the street name committee for their approval. -7- SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL T!IT.IUTES - May 18, 1966 S.J. Water (7) ~!r. Henley called attention to a notice from the Public Utilities Works Increase in Commission of an annlication by the San Jose Uater ~rks for in- Rates creased rates charZed for ~ater service in order to offset certain R~ound water extraction char~es. Bequest of (8) Copies of a letter were distributed to the Council, for information, Miss Cunningham relative to the bequest of ~ss Cunningham to the City of ~2,000 to be applied to the building fund of a Saratoga Puseu~ or ~useum room. This letter was directed to ~!r. Willvs Peck, President of the Saratoga Historical Society from ~{r. Alfred Ara~ Trustee of the estate. The City Attorney and ~. Peck discussed this letter briefly and the City Attorney indicated that be ~ill investigate the questions raised regardinF this bequest. B. ORAL (I) ~Ir. Willys Peck described an old residence which is currently on City Participation the property of Paul Flanna~an and proposed to be demolished by in }~vin~One June 1 to allow for ~. Flanna~an's Dronesod develogment. ~. Peck Buildfn~ from outlined the historical background of this buildin~ and reported Flannagan Property that the buildin~ has been offered to the Historical Society~ sub- to Civic Center Ject to its removal, Drier to June 1, at no expense to the donor. Site Pledges of funds amounting to approximately $500. have been received from the Fistorical Society, Rotary Club and an interested individual, toward the cost of movin~ this structure to e~e Civic Center Site or some other City-o~med orepetty until it can be ner~anently placed and utilized by the Historical Society as a museum or other related fadiltty. ~. Peck requested permission to.~ove the buiId- ins to city property and also asl{ed for City narticiDatton in the costs of moving up to a maximum of $400. }~. Peck advised the City Attorney that the Utstorical Society ~ould o~m the build~n~ and would assume responsibility for fire insurance; liability would be included under the City's basic liability policy. After discussion, Councilman Drake moved, seconded by Councilp3n Tyler that the City participate in the cost of movin? the buildin~ to ~ temporary location on the Civic Center Site; participation to amount to the difference in the presently estimated available fund of $500. and the actual costs of moving, but in no event to exceed $400. cost to the City. ~tion carried unanimously. (2) Mr. Richard Bennett expressed concern about the widesnread O~k tree Oak Tree infestation throughout the City ~nd described a n~ber of instances Infestatlon of public misunderstandin~ and misinformation reFardin~ the best treatment, timing of treatment and its effectiveness. ~{r. Bennett suggested that the City make efforts to aHvlse the public of the nature of this infestation, the best knobm treatFont, the City's legal position re~arding trees on private oreperry an~ the Citv's efforts to control the problem. Durin~ discussion of this matter the Director of Public Works reoorte~ that local tree surgeons and firms have indicated that the problem is so widespread that they are using full crews to fulfill their contract services and have been unable to respond to all the calls for individual tree service.: Mr. }~anley reported that the sDrayin~ DroRram which t~e City has been conductinF involves a type and ~ethod of treatment that Council- man Hartman, based on the latest information from the Aoricultural Association reports, reRards as the best available. r~itb Council approval, P~r. Henley states that the staff will co~p. tle the infor- marion available from experts in this field and ~ill ~ake every effort to advise the public of the fasts, through the medium of the Fruitvale- F r n t n · study Saratoga Avenue to provide safe crossln? for t~e many ~cboot cbi!~ren ,~o will be Intersection erossing at this intersection. ~ayor ~lennon advised ~{rs. Schoenbourq that the staff will check the rldns for this location carefully and submit any recommendations for pedestrian safety to the Council. -8- SARATOGA CITY COI~CIL ~,qMIJTES - .~ay !R, 1966 (4) There bein~ no one else oresent ~yho ~ls~ea to sneak, '~avor Glennon acknox~led~ed, x~'ith pleasure, the presence of PlanninR Cormnissioner Eellure, .'Jrs. Mc0uire, who serve~ coffee on behalf of the Good Government Group; Don Bush of the Charn~er of Com'~erce, and closed his cormments ~th an expression of ~.ratitude to Mr. and ~{rs, Paul Gardiner. VIII ADJOURNmeNT It was moved by Councilman Burry, seconded by Councilman Tyler and unan- mously carried to adjourn the ~eetin~ ~t 11:55 P. ~.~. Respectfully submi~ted, Uilliam C. Hanley, City C1/rk -9-