HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-03-1968 City Council Minutes SARATOC-A CiTY C;CUNCIL
SU[,![.%IRY OF !{iS,~TES
TINS: WedneSday, July 3~ o
~L~CE: Saratoga City Co~ncii Chambers, 3-3777 Fruitvale'
TYPE: Regula~ meetir~
! C.E,GAN!L~TiON
Acth~S >~layor Kenneth Hartman called the neetitE to order
at 7:5! p.m.
~ °OL',' CALL
Tle
P~essnt: Councilmen Hartman, y r, Robbins, Smith
Absent: None
B. NO~NaTmOnvS FOR D;~YOR
Councilman Robbins nominated Councilman Hartman as :'nayor
Councilman of Saratoga to fill the post left vacant by the resigns,-
Earimam tion of former Mayor William Cqennon. The mot'ion was seconded
elected mayor by Councilman Smith~ and carried ,~nanimousty hy voice vote
of Councilmen Tyler, Smith a~ Robbins.
Councilnat_ L.Zayor'Ha~tman nominate~ Councilman Tyler to seFve as mayor
Tyler elec%e~ pro ~m, Councilman Smith seconded, and the motion carPied
mayor pro tern by voice vote of Councitmen. Hartman, Robbins a:~ Smith.
!viayet Hartman gave a s~d
..or~ speech of acceptance, stating
that P.e would do his vey~' best as did ~'he who 'oreceded
him, and conduct ~e office with dignity, decorum and
d!spatc~.He added that whatever is best for the cor. munity
!s that which he would endeavor to do to the best of his
ability.
C. NINUTES
Counci.lman Robbins suggested some corrections for the
::~_nu~s of June ].gth~ by cance]_iii%B the second ]b;'
man Smith on page 9, as the motion had not been seconded; to
correct page i0 by adalnE "or owners of the !eft hnk property";
ilinutes and to add to item 5 the statement:
"District to construct bridge equal to the pFesent
cons uc upstream
and downstream transitions as noosed."
Tlqe~e Zeiizg no furthe r coppoctions, Oo~ciirnan' r
moved, Councilman Smith seconded, approval of the ijinutes
of g~ne !9th as corrected, and the motion carried
unan im ous !y.
BIDS AND CONTEa. CTS
A.SARATOGA CA?';.PUS'AS~UESSMEi~ DISTRICT - CHANGE ORDEFj~
!]0. 8, Ne. 9, and Nee i0.
City i.ianager Huff explained that Change Order lye. 8 was
needed to rcco:nstract the Perimeter Road subgrade to provide
Change Orders a maximum lowering] of 2-3 feet between Stations 20 plus 50 and
8, 9 & !O 25 plyas OO so that the area would better conform ts recently
constructed adjacent turf area; that Change Order No. 9 was
Saratoga needed to constm~ct a water semite connection from the adja'cent
Camnus j-inch domestic-irrigation supply main to the ~ortheriy end of
Assessment the "Ca~!son" house to replace an exlstin5 water connection to
District the well supply to be abandoned in the college co:ostruction;
and that Change Order No. i0 was being requested to increase
Psrid~eter road paving thickness as required to meet the problem
of surfacing ground water found in the area.
Councilman Robbins said that he couM understand No. 10,
but wished to asked why Nee. 8 and .9 were necessary, - if
they we_~e an oversight on the part of the contractor. He said
he knew the costs were a charge against the assessment distric. t,
not the City, but they were still a cost to the taxpayer.
Mr. Huff replied that there was an oversgght on No. 9
where the architect b~d overlooked the need for a new con-
nection~ but that the other two were revealed during area work.
Councilman Robbins thenm0ved approval of Chang? orders
~, 9, ar~ i0. Councilman Tyler seconded the motion, and It
ca. Fried u :~nimous!y. ·
!Ii i~ETiTiONS, ORDINAl'ICES AND FOR~,~L~L .RESOLUTIONS
A. VERDE VISTA iMPROVEMENT PROj~T~T
Hr. Philip AsseT of the bonding attorneys firm then
p_~esented a series of six resolutions for the Counci!'s con-
Verde Vista sideration, and E~ayor Hartman asked if it were possible to
Project ~ass them in tote. i.!lr. Assa, freplied that it was possible if
Resolutions ~he minutes showed separate action on each. Councilman Robbins
said he would prefer in the liC.~t of history and possible
protest to consider the resolutions for separate action on each.
!.!{r.Assaf. first presented Resolution No. 434, titled
Ease No. 437-'.- ~'A Resolution Amendi~ Resolution No. 344 entitled 'A Resolu-
tion of Inte~nt to Acquire anti Construct Improvements'~, as
Amended", Verde Vista Improvement Project. Councilman Tyler
moved adoption of Resolution No. 434, Councilman Smith seconded,
in'response'to Counciimg. n Robbi~s,-i~i~.lssa_f replied that the
resolution as amended reflected a difference in cost estimates
between the original boundaries of the project that had formerly
been divided tetween two sides of the road, and were now
combined into one joint project for both sides of Verde Vista
Lane. k~r. Hartman then asked if the new resolution as
amended showed a reduction from the :~123,O00 figure originally
called for, and i.'~]r.Assai~ replied in ,the affirm, ative.
;flay or Hartman called for a vote, ar~ the 'motion carried
u~animous!y,
}ir. Ass~f then ores nted Resolution No ~DS~ "A Resolution
of Preliminary ~pprovai of ~nglneer's Report, Verde Vista
Res. Ne. improvement Project". He said that the eng~n er _ report was
~ on ~iis wi~ the City '~I rk, containing maps, arid o!ans as
Dirt of the engJnee'~'s report. in response to ~ lobbins, .
fir. Shook replied that he had worked with the engineer on
the report, and that he found all to be in order.
Councilman Robbins moved adoption of Resolution No. 435,
Councilman Smith seconded, and the motion'carried unanimously.
Resolution No. 436, "A Resolution Appcinting Timo and Pb. ce
of Hea~=ing Protests in Relation to Proposed Acquitions and
improvements, and Directing Notice, Verde Vista improvement
Rss. No. Pr ject" ~
436 o~ was presented by L~r. Ass~f who said ~qat the resoiu-
e the time at 7:30 in the Council Chambers =o~. ~ .....
7+h which would give the Clerk time to 6ive notice =~d send
l~a!.L;y~g to cwners~ o. publication, and postin6 of notices
within DO0 feet e~ the area in question.
~'a vo'~ {~ commented that it was ct~stoma~ to ho!l Dub!ic
hearings at 8 p.m. or as soon thereafter as feasible, and
Shook responded a that
_ :;0 time because.
th t he had advised the 7 ~
was when meetings began. iir, Hartman asked if the resolution
couM be amended to show the 'oub!ic'~,ear'~-~ time for ~
C .nci!m~n Smith
~'~ it was so moved by Councilman Robbins; ou a
seconded, and the motion to appr6ve~the resolution '&s.amended
to change the time set for public hea~i~ from 7:30 p.m. to
8;00 p.m. carried unanimously.
Resolution No. ~37, "A Resclution Estab!ishi~g Prevailing
~.','a~ Scale Verde Vista improvement ....
.rO~eOb '~'aS _
o~ ~ P ~ Dresented by
Res~ wn i'-~. Ass~f. Ccuncilman T
..~, -. _~].eF moved do= rich, Councilman Smith
seconded, and the vot~ v~as unanimous.
Resolution No. ~=8 "t Resolution Calling eo~ Se~!e~ Y~oposais
_ 1xln, Liquidated Damages for Failure to CO~D~ =+= the =jork
within Time Specified Verde Vista improvement Project" was
F~es ~Tc. presented by i,~Tr. A~s~t~ who e~piained ~h~ it s t
. b.~ O e the t !me ~
bid opening on August ~th at two o'ciock, and t!~.t
~e reported to the Council ~.+ its meeting on ~u~.-,~ 7.
Eayor Hartman asked if it were normal to have bid oreflings
~- short time before +~= DUblie :Z~S'~'ng
~ SUCh .a .... . ......... , and ilr. Assaf.
s~-' ~ ha it so that ~f' bids ~me in ].cwer +~an estimatea
>-, ~.e engineer, changes c~ ~ ~ ~'~, ~'~quired,-'in: the
Councilman Tyler then asked if when the project was ~resented
?. bid, if the o' tract requirements ~Y~f~ set out, and
Assaf replied in the affirmative, including times for comple-
~ m~' fo'~ liquidation of dama6es. Answerin~ ~..i~.
:2r- Shook said that ~5 days were estimated for completion of
- D
of the project, and ;,*'r. i-',u'ff added that these were
v:ori,:ing days.
Hayor Hartman asked when the project work could start,
a~?, LZr. Shook reeDended that it could start by September let,
and t'aat he would look to mid or the end of October for
completion. Councilman Tyler asked about the effect of
rainy days, and Mro Huff replied in that case~ an eztenslcn
woul. d be granted.
Ceun. ci!man Robbins asked if the penalty clause was simi!a9
to the one for the parking district on Fourth Street, and -;'.(r.
Shook answered that it was similar, but that the penalty of
{$!8~.00 was ten times as great.
Councilman Robbins mcved, Coucilman Smith seconded, and
the vote was unanimous to accept P:eso!ution No.
Councilman Tyler commented that he would hope in the
future that next time the i}ublic Welfare Committee could have
the opportunity to lock over, and therefore better understand,
the contract terms, and ~;.o'~,or Hartman said that he saw no
eYejeer!on. Ccunci!man Robbins asked Xro Tyler if he meant
resolutions cn!y, or contracts, and the latter answ.~;~ed that
he meant familiarity with the contract terms. i'.[r, Shook said
that he could provide the Committee with forms of the sontract,
leaving blank some figures, and the Mayor said that it would
~;e a goc/t thing for at least one committee member to be
familiar with terms of the contract, arfi so ordered L-re Shook.
City Attorney Johnston commented tk~t while the City had '
stan,~ard forms, sometimes engineers. used their .own forms,
viich mi~t be different frcm those of the City.
Resolution No. ~-39; "A Resolution. Describing Property
Boundaries of Assessment District, Directing Fi].ing of
Re~ No. and DirectirC~ Recorder!on of No~ice of Assessment, Verde
ego t was introduced by Mr. Assaf.
A~o Vista improvement 2r '~c' ",
'-~ Councilman Tyler said that he noted the te~Tnlnology, "proposed
'courierice", and asked if this meant that the Council's action
was not irrevocable, ar.d iur. Assaz~_ replied that the boutScry
setting, resolution was subject to change at public hearings
if some property owners should be dropp~ out. ~.Zr. Tyler
moved, L:r. Smiti~: seconded approval of Eesolution
a:n,~ the motion carried unanimously-
L;ayor Hartman then noted that a letter dated july 2, 1968
A.G. Boyce from Allen Go and Jean R. Doyce was in'the file on the Verde
Letter Vista Project, and should pm~oper!y be brought up during the
public hearing on August 7, Mr. Boyce,'present in the audience,
said tba. t he was "a middle of the reader" on the matter, but
%hat he .-::ished to speak on the manner in which costs ware
L'aing assessed back on Droperty owners, and that leerhans they
':zero not equitable.
~r. Assaf said %!~.t one of the things at the hearing would be
t".o question of vrhether the method of spreading ti'*e assessment
was fair and equi. table~ and that the way the matter haj. proceeded
was ba'sed on the fact that initially there was one project
cqntempiated for one side of the road, and a second for ti,:e
other side. Z~-ese, said iur. Assaf, were now being cou.,--ined
- 4 -
into one project for a decrease in costs, especially for
,-such items as mai!iDg noticing, ~ng~ ~ r ~eport
llke which would be double if the proposed projects were
~.~ ~ ~, ~ate items.
"~'~'~ aS tWO
in response ~c A~ir. y s question ~. the amount being
assessed back on the property owners was propo~%ionate,
Shook said that
n~ costs were spread over both pz-t!tions, anad
~.~ i;iavor assured ~.~Z~ Boyce that these were matters that would
be closely checked.
Eoyce then said that as of the day before~ knowledge of the
· .~opose~ project had ~e'~, unavailable to him, althou~q his
wife had 'inquired in the City Offices. Y.~ir. Shook answered
+~ + ~'~ project had been considered as a ~in~{~-~
since tte previous April .... ~r. Assa'f explained theft'the
matter was erv
v ~ comDlex~ in that property owners on the
ncrtherXy half of the project had signed up, and that by
Ccuncii action on April !7~ !968, as stated in ~eao!utZon
No~ ~+17, Section I was ~,-~c~n~'ed but there were changes
for Section Ii, and that mere than gO percent of owners on
the southerly side had signed up. l.{ayor Ha:~tman said that
property owners received notice of the resolution describing
one side, and that was why there was some conm~.sion on the
matter. He added t~.t he was ghd that this question had
come to light now, and that it would be r~rt of the hearing
on uSu ~ yth.
Councilman Tyler said in reference to !~!r~ Boyce's question
z~e~garding distribution of costs that it was his understandi:~
that when the Council combined ~ e ~rojects in April it was
on the assurance of lowered costs, and that this information
should be available d~rin~ the public hearing- He was
assured by ~ir. Shook that the information would be ready
on t!~ date of the public hea~ing.
Ord, l~Yo. B. O~DI2~YANCE NO. 85-7
~5 -7
~.~avo-~ Hartman asked =~ this ordinance, estab!ishin~
sa!a~y for City Clerk-Administrator be held for an executive
...... ~, and t! at a time would be set.
C. O~iNANCE iqO. ~5
Lit. Huff said that copies of the 1968/69 budget had been
~ .~ ~ the
Ord. No. ~5 ~.~+ befon~ the Council at it~ last meeti:og, and ~n~,~
!96~/,Z~ lia~a6ement Committee had reviewed it, done considerable work,
-- . O
~udge~s and had a tel OFt to submit on some items of special signifi-
cance and other items that needed special attention and review.
YVayor Hartman said he would like to study the report further,
and to defer action to the next regular meeting for budget
approval. ~e~e be~.~g.no objection, action was de'fevered
be ~n~ ~ xt Council meeti:Og
E: RTSOLU[ iON MOo SDR 531-2
Res. No. l.'.ir. Hu~'f recommended adoption of the resolution to accept
SDR531-2 dedication! o? the ri~t of way v~hich was a cu! de sac street
off E! Car~ino Grande. Counci!man Tyler ~oved adoption of
th~ resoh~tion, Councilman Robbins seconded, and the motion
p~ssed un~.nimously.
P. OPjDiNA!'CE NO. 38.21
Or,'~. No.
58-21 :--r~ Huff recommended that this ordinance relative to
animal ma;ntsnance withi'r the ~*ty was closely -eeiat~d to
pets Ordi~ance No~ NS-3,Z5, scheduied ~ -~ hearinS later in
evening m~der public hearings, and recommended that both
proposed rdinances be considered together at that time.
Znere bed ~ no objection, the HayoP deferred co!eideration
of Ordina ce No. 38.21 as recommended by Mr. Hufz~.
iV. SU!ZDZViSiCN~ ~ BUiLDiNG SITES AND ZONiNC- PSQUESTS
SDR ==~ - George Akers
iublic 2orks Director. Robert Shook 'reported that final site
SDR 531 inspectlos indicated correction of all deficiencies co-::cerned
wlth SDR 53t had been completed and all was in order~
G. Akers .... u__ ~eoommended release of ~:[r. ~.e_s Bond. Councilman
Robblns moved reidate o2 %he bond for SDR
seconded, and %he mo%lon carried unanimously.
~. PiSOLU'i iON NO. Q~ 7''° ~ , ' ....
ou~,-.~,-_: ~2SC.L.UTION OF l~E CZTY CODiCiL
8DR 728-]- OF THE CTmV OF SiFiTO~% ........ .~ 13UT~DI
.A.M. Caprela C~4'''~ Administrator Huff recommended ao-orova! ~.e i~e
resolnticm', subject tc:the appli~ant'~ Signing an agreement
to' perforn - acts- fop which .he Was %onded., as. listed in the
2u~]d'l'G: ~, ~ rnm'tt-~e report
.~u~ uo m e of january S~ 1968 and to
_ _ ~o t~e from Hi~r,'ay 85-
provide fop improved access u .. property
Councilmar Smith asked for Z'urtheP exp!ana%ion of item
of %he Pea:oPt regarding limited access onto Highway Sg~ and
L/r... ~_ esponded %ha% 2% involved construction of a service
road and nd adequate paPkit6 area, as p. rking on
weuid no% b? permitted ir~ front of %he site when developed.
i.la:.'or Ha P%nl&n, inquired a ,b,n t% condition ~'. of ~ ......... '~*
and P!a, nni-n~- Director ':;a!ke~ answered ~h ~ the Flood Con%re!
District i('h% rec~uiPe an e,!semenz o drainage of seo~'m ~va%ers.
--P. Huff aid that accordinS %o & 'Flood Con%Pc! Dis%Pie% memo
~-,e C~aR as Creek indicated that the Dis%Pie% required a
i5-foo% right of way aFea~ and that no construction
+I-~+ &-re8 vsou!d be allowed. }liP. Walker oonInen%ed
· ,vouid not DPe~,en% uoo much problem as %he
~ . ~ ~ o, ,zzou!d
t~ke place at ~ ~ ~ + of +~
u~ ~_on~ ~.e property, and the e'reek r~n
Counciln' n Tyler then aslned NP. iluff if he
p~.ssage o the resolution,and l'fr. Huff answered yes,
subject t the applicant entori.ng into an agreement regarding
access as iescribed in Condition B. of the report, for access.
Counci!ma~ Smith moved, Counci!nnn Robbins seconded, and
the reso!' was adopted unanimous!y,
C C
, AVEi,i~E i.Z[. AB}~82~.iS, }IEDiCAL VILLAGE OF SA~%TOGA, ~SAPj~TOG.~
- RE%UEST FOR EXTENSION
lit. ilu:'f repoz-'ted that the applicant was requesting an
C-~}, extension of rezoning o~igina!].y Granted under'the conditional
D~. Abrams zoning or<.inance, wldich carried a condition fo'r completion,, and
that sevez:a! previous extensions of time had been granted, and
~equest for tl~.t the ~.eve!opmem% was app~oximate!y one-half complete at
the presen~t time. Zae Planning Commission had recommended
extension of denial of the ~'equest at its meeti~Z of jure 26,
Liedical Village Pna-~'~.~'~g Director V~a!ke~ ex~!ained '-~, ~ ~ real
...... ~ t !S u.~ yeason
~oo'n t~e d~ sial Was that Dr. A~ '. ms' re ~ s+ had been made on
..... oFa qae
zoning june !0, nd should have been made by June 6, under the ordir~nce
and tP~,t ,he Commission actually had no choice but to deny
the appli, sties. LCayor Hartman inquired !f the Council had
shy choic~ either. 0ity Attorney Johnston said that i~is copy of
NS-ZC-8'. didnJt set completion on any specific time o~ date,
, only that -~ne deve!ope~" should ail!gentiy pursue deve!opment?.
He added ~b~ t the Council had passed an ordinance that pe~mltted
it %o act on such matters, and that Drier to that oi~dii~nce,
!t was under a conditions subsequent sort of
lssumin8 lhe request hit the City offices after the expiration.
date, said }..!r. Johnston, we must ask expi~Zdn:'c date of what?-
time to ccmpietc- or what?
}ft. la!l~er asked if the subdivision map would be considered
as still Current, in reference to %~ne auest!on of a
on ye'zoni~'8. Lit. johnston asked if the final map had been
~' -_. o.~t only a portion was on record.
Xr. johnsion said that some ~pa~-t%~r..a' portion h~ expired, and
if so, and tlne ao;o!icant had not filed his final map, the
Council, had lost jui~!sdiction. ·
i~avor Haftman asked !f the -o~obiem -should be ~efer~ed to
only quesiion lay in ye8aied to Ze8ai effect- if
r,v~rted cn that poytlon, The !layer said that the maticy was ·
perlnaps b~st referred to the City Attorney to make a detGrmi~-
tics and eport back his f!i!ngs to the p!annlnS staff.
Dr. Abram then spoke f~om the audience and asked If ha could
zpond some time with the committee when !t-considered the
matter, a~ the mayor said he saw no objection.
-7 -
D. RELEASE OF ~iONUMENT BOD~ - TP~CT 4300
Mr. Shook reported that certificates of compliance had
Tract 4300 been ~ece ved from the developers, and monuments in the tract
i~ffonume nt '
had been f ecked and fou~ to be acceptable. P~r. Muff recommended
Bo~ release of Bond No. 523192 for~aratoga Foothills Development
release Co. Counci mam Smith moved release of Monument Bond, Tract No.
A300, Courcilman ~obbins seconded, and the vote was unanimous.
E.SD~ 68 L CL~ER PECK REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF P~CORD OF
SU~JEY REQUIRE~;~PF.
Mr. Huf~f read i~r. Peck's letter,dated June 26, ~6~ as~/i~g
tlnat he no~ be required at this time to survey hi~'~l[iot" ' .
Waiver of parcel, o~. which he was usi~ only one lot, and had no intention
Record of at this ti~e of subdividi~. L~r. Peck stated tb~t there was an
Su~ey, existing ld bOUndary survey done by a licensed engineer, but
C. Peck that due
o the age of the su~ey, and the death of the engineer,
the sure could not be receded by the County RecoVers Office.
i.~ir. Huff ommented that the su~ey would have to be done at
some late date when the property would be subdivldec, and
the hound ry survey, if done now, would not ~ wasted. i',ir. Walker
said that r. Peck understood the problem, but felt that the
old su~ey done in the 1930's should suffice. The Phnnlng
Commlssio~ had granted site app~val for one lot where !~Zr. Peck
had.his. own residence. ~r. Huff'qualified ~e statement, saying
the Commis~sion had granted conditional site approval.
~. Tler ~ e
.... y as~ d what objection there would be to D.~r. Peck's
request, a~d ~r. Walker responded that it might set a precedent,
but th&t the difference hy in the fact t~t the situation was
di r ~t m he
ffe .e~ ~ t~ usual, in that the applicant was using only
one acre o~ a 21-acre parcel.
that it would establish a legal lot, duly recorded,
and was a 'o e accurate means of setti~ lot lines
m r .
r man
LTayor Ha t asked if any real problem existed o:q ~r. Peck's
own bour~a~y lines, and Mr. Walker answered that the aooii~ant
at this tine, since he had no intention to subdivide~
Answeri~ Douncilman Smi~'s question about survey costs,
Shook said it' could be several hundred or even a thousand dollars.
Councilman Ro~bi~ moved to grant Mr. Peck a waiver of su~ey
on the basis that the entire property was so much larger than
needed, an~ t~t such waiver would not be considered tc set
a preceden~ for similar exc~tiO~s~ CounCilman Tyler seconded'
the motlone which carried unanimously.
. ~, ;' ~/~... ~ ~[ ............... . ..... ..... . ....
F. PoESOLUTION NO. SDR-749-1 - APPROVING BUILDING SITE OF
MISSION TRAIL I~ILD~RS
Mr. ' uff stated that all conditions as lie bed in the
SDR-749 Building ~ite Committee Report dated 13 May 1968 had been
met by the developers for one lot on Elva Avenue, an~3 that
Bldg. site he recommended adoption of the resolution. Mr. Tyler moved,
approval, Lit. ~o i~'~s seconded, and the vote was unanimous to adopt
Rb~
Mission Trail Resolutio~ No..SDR-749-1.
Buildiers ~ ·
' rim n, noting that Dr. Malcolm Forbes was present
Mayo r Ha . a .
in the audience, said that since the report on his request
Dr. For~es, regarding [traffic egress from Austin Way onto Highway 9
Austin Way was not reiady, it would not be necessary for him to wait.
Dr. Forbe~ thanked the Mayor, but asked if he could be present
when the H~ealth and Welfare Committee studied the matter.
Co no' ~
u mlman Smith said that Dr. Forbes would be more than
w~lcome to~ attend, adding that he was sorry the committee was
not yet prepared, as work on the City budget has comsumed
their time[. ' '*
" .i~ayor Hartman told Dr. Forbes that he would be notified.
by Mr. Huf~f of the time for committee meeting on the matter.
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. C-114 ' GEORGE' W. DAY, FAE~VELL AND FRUITVALE AVEi~UES
RF~QUEST~ FOR CHANGE OF ZONING FROM "A" (AGRICULTURAL)
C-1t4 TO "R-1-40,O00" (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDEI~FIAL)
G.W. Day Co.
Fa~.~elt Ave. [ ·
PEa. ing Directa~ Walker explained that the proposed
rezonin6 rezoning of the 20-acre parcel was in accord with the General
Plan, had ~een approved by the Planning Commission, and the
subdivisioh map was also approved, subject to the rezoning-
He said that road improvements on Farwell 'would be required
in front of the George Day parcel only. Councilman Tyler
moved to close the public hearing, Councilman Robbins
se~ i , ~ ' ' ·
9nded nd the Councm! so voted
Mayor Hartman directed t~at Ordinance No. NS-3-ZC-41 be
introduced and placed on the July 17 ageride f~ second
readin~.
B. C-111 -JWAYNE F. PENDERGRAFT, CALAPAZAS CREEK AND FOOTHILL
C-111 LANE - REQUEST FOR CitANGE OF ZONING FROM "R-I-40,00"
Zone change (SINGLE [FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) TO "R-1-20,O00" (SINGLE
req~est- FAMILY P~SIDE~%TIAL) ·
W.F. Pen- Mayor H rtman opened the public hearing at 8:52 p.m.
dergraft Kenneth F rls th, attorney representing the applicant, referred
o e ,r' ;
to his letter of June 5, 1968, on file in the City Offices,
calling the~ Council's attention to the third paragraph which he
felt contel.ned fair statements of fact regarding the zoni,~E
~ ementsl
of contiguo s properties, and that there were some misstat
of fact contained in the Staff report. He argued that his
client, an ~ld settler, had inadvertently created his own
- 9 -
problem at the time, of earlier subdividing, but that the
lot in question, the last lot in the pai~cel, backed onto
Calabazas·Creek, that reaoning could not set a precedent
or downgrade. the City, and that the actual physical lot
next door was 2~,OO0 square feet, and the other was 33,000 square
feet. He added that he regarded the action of the Planning
Commission in denying the rezoning amounted to confiscation.
In response to questions from Councilmen Robbins and Smith,
T~'~r. Huff said that contiguous lots were built upon, and that·
only Nr. Pendergraft's lot, the one in question, was empty.
Councilm~n'Tyler asked· if this could be considered as a legal
nonconf0rming use, and Mr. Walker replied in the negative,
as at the time of subdividing, acre lot sizes had already
been zoned, and when ~r. Pendergraft sold' off parcels, there
was left a angle illegal lot,less than an acre.
There being no further comment from the audience, Councilman
Smith ·moved, Councilman Robbins seconded, and the public
hearing was closed at 9:04 p.m.
Councilman Robbins asked if there were other ~-~.areas for'
which a precedent could be set if the ~ouncil approved Dir.
Pendergraft's request, and ~r. Walker replied that there 'were
not many, but that some persons might sell off a one acre site,
and then ask for use .of a remaining 3/4-acre site in areas
zoned R-1-40,O00.
Councilman Tyler suggested that the. problem be referred to
the P]anning Committee, possibly meeting in joint study session
with the Planning Commission committee to get more of their
thoughts on this and other situations where sites might be
near o~her smaller lots.
Councilman l~obbins moved acceptance of COuncilman Tyler's
' suggestl. on, Councilman Smith seconded, and the motion carried'.
The pub,lic hearing was Lhen-~.~Q.laredt?r~o~ene. d;a~nd' cQntinueld_.
· to.the next regular meeting.
C. ORDINANCE NO. NS-3.15 AN ORDINANCE A~,~ENDING ORDINANCE NS-3,
THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA, PROVIDING FOR
· CERTAIN SMALL ANIMALS AS PETS IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS.
~r. Huff stated..that the ordinance hearing had been duly
Amendment to noticed, and there were letters in. the file on it. In response
Zoning Ord. to .~f. ayor Hartman's request, i~r. Huff then read. trs ordinance in
NS-3.15 'its entirety, as well as companion Ordinance '38.21, although'
small pets noting that' the latter did not require a public rsaring.
in residential
areas, & Ord. ~,~ayor Hartman opened the public hearing at'9:15, and the'
38.21 letters from citizens were introduc. ed as evidence. ~.,.~.~ '~ .~ .~..
Nrs. Js. ck Levin of 13780. Ravenswood Drive asked for an
explanation of the ordinance as it pertained to cats, stating
that she considered it impossible to train cats, except from
birth, or to keep them caged~ although she could understand
a leash law for dogs. . .I
. .. .., . :
Nayor Hartman explained that the ordinance had been hard to
put together in such ~. manner as to satisfy cat and dog lovers,
but that there were' people in the City whose animals had become
bothersome. He said the City did not have a law to correct
the. situation, as he understood it, and that the ordinance
would give the City authority, if there were complaints, to
demand that owners do something about their pets.
Audience ij, rs Levin' s~i~ she was still confiased ~bout the ordinance, and
that other cities did not require that cats be contained, and
the R~ayor said that might be so, but that the proposed ordinance
would give the City authority, upon written complaints as
stated in the ordinance, to put a stop to a nuisance cat.
Mrs. Barrett of Marilyn Lane said that the ordinance was
unrealistic,- that only cranks would keep cats on a leash or
in .a cage.
kva~or Hartman read aloud letters from children, including
those from Brent Barrett and Gary Smith, protestin~ the
ordinance in reference to cats. Noting, that thetiketters' showed,
opinion was about evenly divided for and against~ the tlayor
.'asked Planning Commissioner Frederick G. Crisp, present in
the audience, for his comment, regarding the Commission's "
thinking on the cat 'portion of the ordinance.
Commissioner Crisp said that the Commission had held about
Planning six public hearings, both formal and informal, during which
Eommissioner objections to cats were primarily related to cats running wild,
F.G. Crisp with their overproduction ~inundatJjng~ local property. Quail,
where there used to be coveys, had completely disappeared, due
he thought to wild cats, not domestica~d=~ cats. The ordinance
was intended .for control of animals that were running wild,
and that although he was not the in~tigat0r, .he would gc along
with it ~
Mrs. Ruth Owen' spoke from the audience stating that quail in
her area had almost disappeared, and that she found baby quail
feathers in her front yard, from b~by quail caught by the
".- neighbor's cat.
In answer to a question from the audience regarding animal
contre].~n large parcels, and if the problem was similar to
the Eeeping of horses on acreages., Mayor Hartman said there
was no limit on numbers, - only that pets be kept in reasonable'
number s. -'
Councilman Robblns moved to close the hearing and extend it
Hearing to a future date saying that he had some misgivings about dogs
Cont · to
anti lot sizes. ouncilman Smith stated he wanted to go on .
Aug. 21 record as appreciating the hard Work put in by the Planning
-' Commission. ~;~yor Hartman said he agreed in wanting the
ordinance to be meaningful, and put over the public hearing
until the ordinance could be studied by the Public Welfare
Committee. l~r.-Johnston said. it would have t.o be continued
a definite date, and the Mayor,, in the absence of obJection~
set August 21 as the date for the-c. onti~nued ipublic ihe~ring ·
· ~ !' 11'- '"
D. UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICT NO. 2
'~ity Administrator Huff explained that the hearing was
Nndergnd on th~ proposed formation of an underground utility district on
Uti2[ity the north and south sides of Verde Vista Lane between Saratoga-
District Sunnyvale noad and Tract 4253; ~that such undergrounding was
No. 2 considered to be in the public interest because it would avoid
Verde Vista or eliminate a heavy concentration of overhead distribution
facilities, including poles, overhead wires and structures
used for transmission of voltages in excess of 34,500 volts, ·
and equipment and supporting str~ctures used for communication
services; and that affected property owners had been duly
noticed, and affidavits of mailing were on file. ~ ·
~ ~'~r. Huff said that· it was anticipated that the bulk of
' the project cost would be borne by the utilities by virtue of
.·' -I the allocations approved by the Public Utilities Commission;
that· the City of Saratoga's share of such funds amounted to
approximately $20,000 annually. The original cost estimate
. had been about $28,000, but that this would be inc~eased by
about $15,000, due to inclusion Of a part of Sar~ Hills Drive,
as shown on the map for proposed Saratoga Underground'Utility. r-~[
" District No. 2.
He said that alternately, the project could be done in
segments, or the Cit~ could contribute the difference between
its allotment for 1- years, and the estimated $·43,000 cost.
The half-year allocation reserved from this year's amount·
for the Allendale project could be used for District No. 2.
.I ~.I.~ Part of the $15,000 increase was. caused by the ~fact that
.% PG~E had lines Joining at the rear along corridor lots.
.... ~yor Hartman declared the public hearing open at 9:35 p.m.
Charles Overton of 20667 Verde Vista Lane.I, said he_Was on a
corridor lot, and asked how much the project would cost him.
'Audience Nr. Huff replied that he would have to run a line only from the
~·. ! last pole near his lot, plus trenching on the property up to
the connection box. Nr. Overton stated that he did not regard
the three poles as detrimental, and that trenching on his land
· ... would require removal of established plants, ·that he objected
-~- to the proposal, and would ask to have his property exempted
from the District.
~,{r. D.R. Van RosSen of 2065~ Verde Vista Lane said that he
~ and Nr. Overton were the only two lots on the corridor, that
.,.'. . he had no objection to the appearance of the poles and would
also. like to be exempted.
Nr. A.G. Boyce, of Boyce Lane stated that he protested on
the grounds that he had received no notice, and also that he
thought undergroundlng was an obligation for new subdivisions.
~rs. Boyce said she thought the general policy was excellent
for new areas, 'bUt unfair for established homes.
~yor Hartman answered that the City was committed to
a policy to see that as many utility poles as possible be
removed from the community as being unsightly. There was nothing
new in undergr. ounding, that it' was a~so the concern of other
'(').. cities to such an extent that the utility companies and ·
the PUC were working with cities to establish a formula to lff/
"' ]1~; aid such proJ~.cts, especially in older communities. As L'ir.
:""- ' Huff had stated. the i~yor continued, Saratoga's allocation -;"
~ is approximately $90,000 per year, and it was hoped by all
' :.'. of us in the long pull that urfiergounding would be done at
"'~ minimum expense to property owners, a~ t~t the tree cost
~ to private ew~rs'is limited to the hookup from the nearest -...
', .' pole. ~aere was, said ivlr. Hart~n, no~ing really new
~- . about u~ergroundi~ utilities.
in response to questions fmm the audience regarding location
- and costs ~r mnmi~ foot, Mr. Shook replied that location
. ~ was an engineering problem. Mr. Cowan, local manager of
~ ". :., P~E in the Saratoga area, said ~at costs varied, each prope~y
had to be checked by the contractor doing the work, includi~
~ ~ ~ ' trenching, going u~er brick or concrete walks or ~tios, ....
-. moving plants. and'~e like, so that costs could ~n from
..-../' "' two to ten dollars a. ~nning foot.
· . Mr- Boyce spoke again from the audience asking about poles
.~ of Verde Vista and Boyce ~ne, where lines se~ed five or
. .:l': six.people, a~ Mr. Huff replied that a line could be mn
-$.~,.~. ' underground at the corner, or a pole could be erected outside.
'-,..// . :. or the district could be extended to include other -peepS.
-~. ~a:r;'f .' .( ~ · '; '. Mayor Hartman inquired if the re was a~ b~akdo~ of costs
"~;,.!~ U~ .. ~.. .'to the lndividua~ ow~rs on Fruitvale for undergrounding,. and
.'fUf'.'~: '.;.. Mr. Huff answered that he didn't think any estimates ~d been
~ - , sent to the six owners on Fmitvale~ addi~ ~t pe~aps the
,' matter could be continued to the next meetir~, to allow an
...
. .'. estimate of costs, and also notice those owners who 'said they
.: .... had not received notice. In rega~ to notices, said Mr. Huff,
· """.[:.", "they are sent' by mail to' owners as listed on the most recent ~"
'~'.~,..,":".' County Assessment rolls on file in City Offices.
f':~., .., ..
~ ......' Mayor Hartman said he would li~ some more information before '
.... ~'.- passing on the resolution, and Mr. Huff suggested that it mi~t-
." "'.~' also be. appropriate to amend the wordi~ of ~e r~solution to
.,,'.--.. · include property on Boyce Lane which could take advantage of
' t ~. : the pro je c t.
-. '.'-' Councilman Tyler asked if the P~E advamed ~ money to the City
' -~ ~ ahead of the pro~ct, a~ Mr. Huff said the iiications were
.':: . · that ~e utility company would' not make an advance, but that
:'. the work could be done in two segments· "
.. :' Ere. Maxins Tmman, livi~ next door to the Horticultural
.'~. Station, said ~.t she thought t~t only looks and appearance
,.--" were involved, not health, welfare and safety. She said ~at
.... she ~d been tryi~ to get an a~ndoned ditch cleaned up. ..
: '.'.,- and Mr. Huff answered t~ot th~ ditch was ~e responsibility of'
...~. the su~lvider. Mrs.jOverton said t~t ~ere was a dirt heap (~.
: '.~ that was a haza~ to traffic on Verde. Vis~, and that she ..-
.. considered thg' li~t poles installed on Sara Hills Drive to
;"' be unattractive.
..:.. Mayor Hartman said that the li~t. po~es there were a step in
· '. the' right .direction to try to get 'new types of li~t poles.
· ._... ~F.-~
. , . ,,. . . .. ~ ,"~/~
· _ ~. . ·
· .~..' .. ",~ . .- .. '., . f -., .
.? :. ~. -.,
~'-'~' Councilman Tyler stated that the underground allocation
; money was intended,to be put 'to use by the City in areas
'~/, where major road work was to be done, where the City could
~, . get more for its money, and added that eventually it was
'~ir, hoped that all lines would be undergrOunded in Saratoga.
.-.. H~ 'su~gestedp~that~jthe 'money~ b~ hs~l.,'i~"ottier areas,~/i~erhaps~on a
. ~aJ or: thb~o~ghfare.ff i-f peopl.e".on'-~.Ve~rde..~i~ta..~did: no~'tj wa'ntLiit'~ay','
Referred May~r Hartman said. that he agreed with I~r, Tyler, but that
to Public there were some additional figures on cost that should be ~
W~lfare ~ obtained, and also that people should be notified and given . ·
;Committee
. a chance to speak, . Since there was no objection, the mayor-
'j./. referred the matter to the Public Welfare Committee, which
.' .,. is to report back at the next meeting, ~
The Mayor aleblared a recess until iO':R5 p,~',."; ' " !
" VI. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS/' . j' .'.
1), Mr Hartman reported that the F~,od Control and Water
Nominees ConServation District had asked for Saratoga's nomifi~tionS:for
for Flood Water commissiOnS, and'i.nominated MrTyler ~s"representative. ",', '- .;.I~.
Control. and ?ubllc 'Works Directe~ as 'hls'·al~cernate. The Council approved
District the nominations and the Mayor confirmed t118 appointments.
Advisory 2) I~-ayor Hartman nominated'Mr.-Bei~t- :Raw~k.~:, who ,had previous-(f,'
Committ. ees ' ly served two years prior to reorgani~ffl~n of' the former County.L]:
water conservation district,to membership on the North
"'.IT, . :~ ~' Central Zone flood advisory committee, and that he would ask
..., ,.. ,.: ~*.. .;:-i':!r Rawa:k to report back after meetings of the group, especialk~
"'in regard'to s e~nific problems concerning Saratoga. With Counc . ..-.~
· "" ' 'a prova], the yo~ appointed Mr. Rawak as ~enreSen~ative-
e Oity on-~ther ad~iaory ~omm!~,t~,~ Cent!-ral Flood, ':Zone .i .-' ~'~. * ',
" . -'3.), Th~i!~ay~. rem.lnded!. th~se~l:~reSfl.n.t -~f: ~be~f6'r~thcomirg. :-ICG.,t~.i~,~
' ' : meeting i' 'A'nd' M~, Hurry a~d" 'M'r,' Ead~~ ~ki'a '~6hey ~'ig~' ·attend',
.~! .' B, FII'~NCE ~ .- ' · .= ~'[~'
" Payment Of claims ' ' ' '
.: 'Bills
· , Councilman Robbins ques~i0ned ~arrant No', 97~,6, and Mr-
.-~'..~-.. ! Huff said the amount of ~201,00 was for.the latest copy of
-/.!j~'/' '. the County ~ssessors Rolls, and that No, 97~8 was for the
.... :~' purchase of Polaroid camera film for up to date record shots
(:'~:'!/' of City work as necessary, 2ueriedabout N0, 9766, to the
-f Copenhaver Constn~ction Co,, Mr, Shook answered that the City
'. had on hand the ten percent retention fee, amounti~6 to
approximately .~7500, and that a note requesting final inspection'
of the work for Village Parking District No, 1 had been
received from.the contractor, indicating that' it was very
close to completion, · ' ":'
Payment. of..c.laims totalllng $106~889,40 was moved by ' : '
"~o~'ncilm~n"Rol~bins~,""~seconded ~ C. ouncilman Smith, and voted
, ': unanimously · ·: . -, '
: ,! .. ,,..I U .-".'~':.'.
/.~7-~-ff~'~ ~ -- ...
,.
..~.,; . ..- . C, GOUNGTt, GO~T~TT~ES
'~' ' ' 1 ) 'Management Committee ""
:? Councilman Robbins referred to the committee report, .<...'
· ~-' dated July 3, 1968, saying he · thought it was self-explanatory,':
','> "and was intended to be used in conjunction with Council review.
;' of the proposed 1968/69 budget. '-
:= C ou nt~y ~ " ....'-'.
He also submitted a report on the request for funds
. Safety by the County Safety CoUncil, recommending ·that the request~
· Council be denied, in view of the tight budget situation, although
".. "" recognizing the worthwhile work done.jby the. Council.
Mayor Hartman, in tl:e absence of any objection, directed:
-':', that the report be accepted, and that Mr. Huff notify the ,
-.:. County Safety Council of the City's.action. .
.,.' D. DEPARTMENT HEADS AND OFFICERS ""
· ..~. 1) Planning Director Walker reported On a street z~ame
..... change for a small cul de sac called Britannia Court,
,.. Via Roncole . to become Via Roncole of. which it was a spur..He said that
· ~ name change the name change was acceptable to the developers of Tracts - -~:
.-.-from Brit- .4056 anti 43~5, Granada Hills, and Tract 4508, Pheasant Ridge;
'tania Ct. · that the revision would provide more adequate street numberin~ .'
.,'i.' '. arfi less confusir6 street names considering existing and
' ~'~ ~'" future homes frontirE along the future collector street.
' ~t ..: In answer to questions from Councilmen Robbins and Smith, ~..- ,..
"~;.I.. Mr. Walker .said that only one house had b,een built on the ;;..
~ street thus far, and it was not occ~upied. :"
'... Councilman Robbins moved, and Councilman Smith seconded .'.'
'. ' the motion approving the street name charn~ee from Britannia '.--'..,
j." ~ Court to Via Roncole. and ~he motion car d unanimously.
". · '.'" 2) City Attorney Johnston reported that his reports were
· -, all in writiDg except that only yesterday the litigants
-'. "' "' ' on the Van Aredale matter on Third Street, after long and '
..' 'City Arty involved litigation, accepted the ruling of Judge Evans in
,' favor of Mr. Johnston who had moved for dismissal with prejudice,'
";:/ "' against opposing counsel's motion for dismissal without prejudice,
'~ ~:: and that they had finally signed the agreement which had been
.-,~, worked out several months ago. '-
"~' 3) Public Works Director Shook reported that the College
" Assessment District Costs total was found to be less than
,~ ..,. Public estimated, but had gone to bond with some excess funds left ..
:: Works over fc~ possible contingencies. . · .,;
, Director · '
Mr. Shook also reported that the College was proposing ,
,,.~/,' small traffic islands on Allendale that could be landscaped. ·
and established if the City would be willing to hndertake '
: future maintenance. The College would install sprinklers" '
Allendale which would be manual until later electrical connections could.
ave. islands bernado, and that blank conduits would be placed underground
fop such fUture connection.
. . . · The islands were narrow, varying from 12 feet in width
· for islands "A" and "C" to 3 feet for islands. "B" and "D"
· ~,.' Future costs of hookup and automatic .sprinkler units were
]?' not considered to be high, although. unknown at present, .said
· "" ' ~r. Shook. , ' ' :
.>- - 15-. .. . I.
. . ...... ... ...'..~ ?- ·
'.~ ~-~-: Councilman Smith commented that the landscapirg would be :
!',: "'~' attractive and avoid the seal of asphalt appearance, but
.:~,~..-~·. Councilman Robbins said he would like some information on
~ ~. cost of maintenance. Mr. Shook said in response to the iv~ayor
".:'~' that he was offerir~ the idea for consideration, and that no
" action was required immediately. He said that he would try
~.. to obtain costs information, and if the Council approved,
· ~' the idea could be embodied in a change order.
!... Change Order Mr. Shook also reported on Change Order No. 4 for the Village ~
No. 4, Parking District, for $250 to replace access steps and extend
I~ Village them .to curb, and regrade to provide for support of footing
, Parking that~ because of the slope~was in Jeopardy. Councilman Tyler.·
~-IDistrict . moved acceptance of C~ange Order No. 4 on the basis of the
staff recommendation, ~ouncilman Smith seconded, and the
:~.~. ' motion ~arried unanimously.
'/"':" "4) City Administrator Huff submitted a memo dated June 26,. 1968,"[!
~.' regardir~ loitering by "hippies" in the Village area where
. :'Hippie merchants' complaints were being investigated by Sgt. Tamm off,~ .[.::
· ~ Loitering , the Sheriff's Del~rtment.
!'--:' Problem
~/....q.. In response to Mr. Johnston, Mr. Huff replied that some · .: ;"
.... ;.. 25 or 30 would congregate at one time, in front of stores
· ..:',(. or at Blaney Plaza, and that they occupied parking spaces
· -... almost continuously, for as soon as one of their number drove
.... '.' · out of a l~rking space, another would drive in, and the "'
"~. " shopping public had no space open f~ parking.
-. , ~;.,. -, ·
.... ,~ ,,:. ~ Officer Hummel, representirg the. Sheriff's Department said-
:, Z!!~;ii~.].'l~, .;' .. that there had been two arrests in ten days, one involving
. ~ .~ ....~ , . a curfew violation, and .the other a minor with possession of.Wine~
~ .~0 ~.. ~ He. read from a patrol deputy's report on the situation
· If~.fi.~-..r.... 'near Blaney Plaz~ where a group of hippies, 14 to 21 years ~
· .~!.,~:~:~!... . , age or older,Whose grisly..'appearance frightened passersby, I,.o
· ~'~' .,' ' especially sin~e one of the youths carried a hunting knife
?/~:'.' 'in his belt, with no scabbard f~ the blade. Pe0pls, said the '?'~'
· .~.,,~,.~.~~, . report, were afraid to walk by the Plaza for fear of beirg
!:.;, ~ . accosted, and that there were some signs with legends such
· .,r.-I ~.1,:.~....,.. as drop the cops" being exhibited.
.')~.~:'J ' ' ~ayor Hartman asked Officer Hummel if there was a solution
~ .%~::.' ' , to the problem, and the latter replied that it-was a matter
~"~-~'~"' ' being on the spot at the right time ne said that some of
~.,..~ .... "the- hippies had admitted to making contacts for narcotics
· ,"~'f~ at the Plaza, but denied passing any drugs there. A continuing
· "'-', Study was being conducted, said the officer.
·" The MayOr then commented that the problem deserved good,
' 'hard study, and application of laws as needed to protect people,
and that the hippies should be made aware of being watched, '.'.~.
, observed,. and' picked up by the police, if warranted. A possible
~ '~ ' · solution, he said, might evolve as information was derived from
· ' .-'~' more watching, and Officer Hummel agreed.
· '. :- ;:'Councllman Smith asked if the arrests; involved transients
... ,'.~.'~ or residents of Saratoga, and the. Officer answered that he did
not have the arrest report on hand, but that' he knew one of
· ... · the arrests. involved a person l'giving a Peac,~,:Hlll, Saratoga . :
.' address. ':: '::', ;" ' ' _ ,, "-.. 'T'. ;.~:~ ,. _ :[ ~:
· '\ ' '.-"~..' 't" ' . ,I' """ ' ' '. :' '1 'V.:/· .
· .: ';) .. '., ... . ': ~ ".': .. .
i j ' :" '/: '" '. · 'U. -
~'Doer-to- 3) Mr Huff then r, sported on the-letter of June' 28, ~1968, on
I City Attorney s, summary of cases on door-to-door solicitatio~l!
!b~: door solici.: after dark, and that it was his opinion that the' City
~ :/' tation -.! .
·-.?.. ~.~/.. could enact an ordinance prohibiting .such solicitation, .
· .~,, ~.. '; that it would be constitutional, and.that the courts were
· i?~: ~ ~ mainly concerned with the protection of free Speech and free
'%,-~.,~ ~ ,~ dissemination of religious beliefs. '-~:
~ ii.~,[("'j ~' : ~' After some discussion by the Council regardi~ complaints'
"" ' about uninvited ~hrowa~a~s~he ~yor asked the Cit~
~:~.~ 'Z~. to prepa~ an ordinance that would combine regulations ,.
'. '~' regaling both after-dark solicitation from door to door."Y::~'~,
-~ ' " a~ uninvited throwaways, for consideration by the 'b).~ '.n,~ri~:
. .~:: , Council' at a ~ture meeti~. ~ '
~,- . ~) ~e question of the railroad grade crossing at Glen Brae
"' Drive was described i'n the City Administmtor's memo of
"'~ Glen Brae July 3, 1968, in which he stated that the Southern Pacific ,
'j~ ~ Crossing --' insisted upon installing ~.,~' gates for crossi~ protection.
;, ;~"sig~ls '~ claimi~ that.flashi~ signals were insufficient, and that
[:),~. ',.,[ if the City persisted in requiring flashing li~ts only, ,.
,[,.[ ~,/'] .- ~' the S.P. would delay crossing work until the ~C reviewed 'j
the question, involvi~ a dehy .of 5no. and a half to two
· : .~.~..~ ','~ years.
"~' Council Robbi~ mov~ to accept the Staff recomendation
' ~"',.." " -~ ~at ~rtinent statistics be obtaine~ from ~e railroad
· ' ....' ' "" a~ st~ied in connection with data from independent
~- .~.. ~o~ces, to prepare a case for presen~tion to ~e PUC.
· .../. -~. ~ Councilamn Smith seconded the motion iich carried u~nimously
'~qf ? 7~ Mr. Huff said there ~as a request for a cost of livi~ rise'
~ C.O.L. :' in ~he- pensions of retired employees, ~at only two ~rsons
~/.. rise, were involved, 'and the cost was estimated to be
~'~' reiired ./ per year for ~e two. "
~ ~rsonnel Mayor Hartman directed t~t the matter be.held f~
-" ~rsonnel session. ..
VII.. COmmUNICATIONS
"?~' A. WRITTEN
~', GOV. ~ ~yor. Hartran read aloud the con~nts of a ~ tter dated
..~:~ Reagan . June 17, 1968 from Governor Ro~ld Reagan coEe~ding'the City
.' comendatlon .Saratoga for its work in obtaining official desi~ation
of Hi~way '9 as a scenic corridor.
Y 2) In reference to a meeting scheduled ~or ~ursday, July 11,
· " Air Pollution by ~e ~y Area Air Pollution Control District in San jose.
~a~ meeting. the ~yor directed that the proper staff mem~rs atte~
the meeting, in regard to the burning of backyard rubbish..
~ 3) ~e Mayor also directed that a letter be sent to ·
Lomba~i, declining an offer to sell Some property tb. '
the city for a recreation site, on the basis that ~e
offer did not fit into present plans.
Dog licenses 4) A letter from the County Health Department advised that
." fees the dog licensi~ fee would be raised from two dollars to:
'a '~ree dollar charge, ai' aski~ t~t the City ~ss
.', a similar amendment regarding Control of exotic '~ls./~
' City AttOrney Johnston said possibly ~e matter shoUld~ ~'
"~ -. · ~ -17 - . .. ' · , ,' .~ '
· I~, referred to the committee working on the sm~ll pet ordinance,~'
but tt~t he would check into the matter also. . ,' -I
~'! Union Sch.-~ 5) In reference to the letter from Saratoga Union School
,District District, June 26, 1968, relative to an exchange of property a' ;~
:' .ltr re between the school and the City which was now becoming urgentr~[
?I~,. property because the District was drawing final plans for the new
exchange school site, Mayor Hartman commented that this exchange of
· ~with City property would be one of the first considerations of the. .~Ii.
,.~,~I.: Park Commission, an~ that appointments to it might be made "~
~ ~- by the next meeting~ and asked Mr. Huff to so adViSe the ~
~"'li School District ~uperintendent. '
· ~I 6~ Two letters regarding property adjacent to the access
?f~ road to Brookside Glen Apartments and Neale's Hollow
· . Neale's Hell. were considered briefly, and referred to. the Policy Committee
~.<1, & Bastianelli fa~ study. , One letter, dated June 18, 1968 was signed by .. ,.
· ~ letters Richard A. Elbrecht, attorney for Mr. J.M Bastianelli"
~L i~ ' and the other by Clarence W. Neale, dated .July l, 196~. ';'
I~' ,' · ~ B. ORAL CO~UNICATIONS ·
~.~. f' 1) Mr. Boyce then spoke again from the audience, claiming'
a ~breakdown of communication between Council and property "'
· . ~j~ '~ owners that might be cured if notices of formation of assess-
!l Problem of I.~. merit districts were sent by certified mail.
~'t~-notifyirg Mr. Huff replied that the City files an affidavit of ,=,
~. residents mailing, but does not send such notices by certified mail·,
!~L~,~ re proposed~ am that the City relied upon the latest list of proper~y
'-/district owners as given on the County Assessor's rolls. Councilman
~ ;* projects.. '~ Tyler commented that certified mail would not improve the
,~!V . :~ , I ' " Situation if the list were somehow incorrect or in some error....
~.. ~./.~ ~I~.~ ~ ~. Boyc~ said he was requesting relief from financial
!~..~ ..~..!:~u~I b~l.! . ~. liability for the Verde Vista' project in connection with ·
..~ ~.~lq~.~C..., .. ~ a road construction, where he said he obtained a copy of the .-'. '!k
~I.,,I .~ ~ notice only by chance from a.nelghbor who is now subdividing.I
-',~.A~ 'j" r. Huff asked if this was the access road construction tQ
'.'-'~<'~..' ." Sara Hills drive by Russell Bates Boyce replied that he had
..... '! -- · . already paid for a road in one district, and was now being
~'~it~.':~ ~ ' '~ ~ asked to pay f~' another, and he thought the procedure was
. .~' underhanded.~.N~yor Hart~n advise~l Mr~cBoyce that neither ~-
,.~. , I~ ' the Council nor the City Administration would countenance ~,~u~'...
~-. ,'~.~ . ' ~ underhanded deals, and Mr. Boyce said T~mt perhaps it was '~L'
· ~"*:'/- ' : an administrative error, but that relief should be given "=~
u~.j!~:,,, .. property owners from such liability.
~,~. ~I~),... ~ Nayor Hartman said that he would have to find out more
,.,,,~.~I " regarding legal requirements in the matter. Boyce responded
~."-~"~.' ..... that he wouldn't spend others money without letting them
- ' ',:"~ know about it. The Mayor answered that neither would the
f~""'>'~' City, and that it was quite discouraging when people don~t
'-!~, .". turn out for'publichearings, even when they are published
· ~" and publicized widely, and should be present.
Mayor Hartman ~hen asked the City Administrator to prepare
~u'j-~j' a report based upon actual facts and figures' fc~' the Council
· ~. ~, and Mr. Boyce .expressed hi s thanks · F · '
.~ ~ ' , ' ' - .18- ,, , ....
"'i' ~ ri" ' ""' ' ' 'f ;" ~ ' ~ '' ~ :'
.! ~.:~.,, I,. In responso to the i'~iayor, City Attorney Johnston said
""'+~ """ ~" ,tj~ere were differ~n~ legal requirements regarding noticing
i',..'':~''''''''!'''~"; of different kinds of assessment districts, which laws
,'~' were not set up by the City but by other bodies, and that '.. '
.:~.;".. '-~ certified mail was not required to be sent out, only an ~'~'
[ "~' ':' affidavit of mailing. He added that sometimes owners' names ::, -:'
,:... .... . may be missing from the CoUnty Assessor's rolls, in that it
was the responsibility of purchasers to notify the County
,~., ., '. of a change of ovrnership, and if they did not, the new owner's .
.' .~' ~.,'~ ~ ,:' · .
; !.: name would not appear on the rolls.
""' ' , ' Nr. Johnston said that in the case of people who should
· .,~ . ,.. ~.,.,.~.._
· · ,.~ ..,.... ,' have been notified, but were just overlooked, there was an
' """ "in rem" type of proceeding- against property, not people. '- ·
'~ '., '. ' He added that he knew of no legal responsibility now for
:.-=',*;~.~ ': the City'towards a district formed 'several years ~go. 'L"
· ;3.>,~. L.=~;~. '.' .
.-"-;~.~;~'~ .-~-~':' Nr. Ralph"~ooley'of 20511 Verde Vista Lane asked if property'; '
i,.~.~ .., owners coul'd"'~t with the City '~taff on problems, and the
,.:~,~.' .:. ,~ay~ said he thought it would be a good idea to get people ' ':-
',..,,'-~!;~j.~i'.:' together for clarification. --...I
=~'~',,.:, '~ In view of the lateness of the hour, the executive session.';,~"!'~-~.
"' .... of the Council was adjourned to July 8 in the conference
' '??;~"',' room of the City Hall, to consider personnel m~tters and
.. !?.. ~ salary ranges. Following close of the executive session, ..:
.... k?~I the Nayc~ said the Council would continue its budget study.
'~ ~ ' The meeting adjourned at 11:48~ with the Nayor noting with ,,
..' ~..'4. Council approval that the meeting would be continued-at ~.-
., ~ ', ..... a speeial meeting set for 7:30 p.m. in the City offices..-. ;L~.~..,:;:~,!
~., '.~ ~ '. ,, "~.'-7,.' '~' Respectfully submitted;
,'. . .: ...., .,.. =,. -., ~j ~;' '.'.~
·
: '~ " -' · " .R. HUFF, CITY CLERE, ' ,.~ .....
i~ (,-;.~', -:. ;--.. -.,.-; -,
. . , ~ "-,,-.. , ...... .- .. -....,
--