Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-30-1968 City Council Minutes SAraTOGA CITY COUNCIL SL~ARY OF TI~:~E: MONDAY, SEPTFIBER 30, 1968 - 7:30 P/'% PLACE: SAPJ~TOGA CITY COUNCIL C~T.~B~RS, 13777 FRUITVALE AVE., SAraTOGA, CALIF, TYPE: ADJOURI'IED REGULAR ~ZETING OF SEPTE~.!BER 18, 1968 II, ORGANIZATION ~ayor Tyler opened the meeting at 7:33 P.M. A. ROLL CALL Present: Councilmen Tyler, Robbins, Smith, Sanders, D~.~er Absent: None B. MI~JTES Councilman Robbins asked that on page 7, in ~he insert paragraph, follo~.~ Minutes ing the phrase "all previous bids" that the clause "re~.~rfte the specifi- cations for Gflsoniting and issue ne~ bid calls" be inserted. -T.~yor ~yler asked that the word "recessed" be used instead of "adJourned" the meetin~ in the first sentence of the final paragraph on pa~e~9. ~r. Robbins moved that the readin~ of the ~inutes be ~.yaived and that they be approved as corrected. ~r. Smith seconded the motion ~yhieh carried unanimously. II. SOUTHeiST AmmXATION A, ~Iayor Tyle~ sum~arized hi~' ehinkinq on Consideration of recommendations to LAFCO re~arding the DrYposed Sanitation District ~]o. 4 Annexation 1968-5 as follows: 1) The question to determine first was ~.yhether or not it was in the best interests of the City of Saratoga for it to control land devel- .'~opments in the hills; 2) That if so, should such controls be exercised by annexation, or by measures short of annexation; 3) Pending the answer to these questions, ho~ should it be accomplished. B, In response to ~!r. Tyler's question of did or did not Saratoga ~ant con- trols over land development, ?~r. Robbins stated that the City should have control, primarily because of the impact of develo?ments on the City, and for the other reasons presented in Planning Director ~alker's memo on the subject, The individual Council members indicated aFreement that the City control of land developments was desirable. C. On the possibility of whether or not the City wished to attempt controls short of annexation, the ~ayor commented that he understood it was not the ~lsh to enlarge in either population or area, but certainly there was a desire to see that development would be controlled, and the question should be explored. Mr. Smith commented that important to City control. of the area lyin~ within its sphere of influence was zonin~ control of densities, x~hich was well within the intent of the General Plan, as expressed by the citizen subcommittees ~hich asked that hillside development controls be undertake~, Mr. Robbins said tkat S~rato~a had positive thinFs to offer people in the way of plannln~, and that good plannin~ was an extension of the General Plan. ~1r. Sanders added that any measure short of annexation mf~ht provide a fe~ services, but would still fall short of the intent which lay behind the original incorporat~on of Saratoga, and that in the lop? run, City controls ~ould be of benefit ~o all, Mr. Dx-~er stated that he ~,ms satisfied that there was no useful, depend~','~', able way of ~.,.~orking through the County, and ~'~r. Tyler said that he ~ish- ed there were~ but it seemed not. The ~ayor~ x,;ithout o~]ection~ called for expression of opinien f~om the audience. D. Audience 1. P~. Christensen of Christensen }Iurseries, 16000 Sanb~m Road, express- ed opposition to any anexatlon at this time, sayinF he considered it premature~ although it might come 15 to 20 years from now, and he had also infomed the Sanitation District of his opposition. 2. Mr. 1,7iltia Keou~h, representing San Jose 1.7ater lJorks which holds 165 acres in the proposed annexation area~ said that his company was oppdsin~ District No. 4's annexation primarily because much of the area lay above the 1,7ater C~pany's service area, and that there was doubt that there was enough ~-~ateE now available for sewage functions. 3. }it. T~ Leong~ representing Paul ~,!asson Vineyards, stated tbat his company ~ms aKainst annexation by District 4, but that if it went throu~h~ they would be i~ favor of annexation by the City to exercise controls~. 4. Mr. Gary Giannini, said that he represented his mother and ~rs. C. Bailey who o~,med approXim~t~ly 80 acreS[ and som~ o~h~r small land- o~mers ~ho opposed annexa~i~n by District. ~, and by the City. 5. ~r, keo~h. said ~t ~,ms ~i~ ,aDi~ that pUmpS m{ght ~e needed at some site~ t0 force the s~.;a~a. d~'see~p ihcli~es, ~d that there uere errors of ~iSsi~n 6f ~e~ DroD~reie~ ih the D{st~ict 4 maD. 6. ~:~r. Dw{ght Prigkerr of ~e saratoga Land Co. s~id he spoke for h~ company and the Foundation for Christian Servfce~ in oD~Osin~ annex- atfon by the City, but that they would not oppose it if a ~a]ority Of lando~.mers wished to ~nex. He said that the area ~,~euld go backward for lack of sanitation ~d that he questioned the flare of only 22 percent who opposed .,~nnexation. TIr. Stephen Goodman, Chief engineer of Sanitation District }]o. 4 said the record showed only 22 percent of the o~mers within the proposed annexation area w~=e" in opposition to the District ann- exation. '{r. Pri&Kett added that the nature of the terrain ~.7ould prevent too ~reat a density in the mountain area. 7.. ~.~r. Don Skinner~ who stated that he o~,med more th~ 43 acres of Bf~ Basin !Jay said he opposed the District 4 proposal because of the costs to property o~mers for connection ~o trunk sewer lines, and as to City annexation~ he ~.7ould rather have Saratoga than San Jose, and that he would not consider subdividing his property for another 10 to 20 years. E. ~iayor Tyler asked that speakers from the audience address themselves to the question of what controls should the Cit), impose if Sanitation District No. 4's annexation were authorized. 1. A S~ Jose resideuts TIt, Dan HuttlinRer of Uinchester Road stated that he considered the County ordinances on subdf~isf~ buildin~ and grading pemits to be simi%ar to those of Saratoga; tbat he kne~,~ of no use peruits ~ranted ~.yhen Saratoga objected; and that any fears that the County woutd allow inappropriate uses was unfounded; and that any attempt to annex at this time ~.;as foredoomed to failure. 2. ~lr. Don TIoss, a Saratoga resident and o~.mer in the area stated opposi- tion to both proposed annexations. 3. }Ir. Albert Puccinelli, a resident of Red~,~ood City, but whose f~ily had o~,med property in the proposed annexation area for more than qO years spoke of the effect of slashtn~ hillsides fo~ roads and buildin~ site pads, especially during periods of hea~ rainfalI ~.~hich caused severe d~a~e fr~ landslides and erosion. He said that in most years water in the area was not really sufficient, but when hea,ry rains fell ~ravol e~d debris were washed dOx.m the creek bed, and that whole hills could sl'~p when saturated, especially during periods when as much as 100 inches of rainfall had been recorded. 4.; ~{r. Herbert C~an, president of the Foundation for Christain Services, stated that the proposed development near the former Pick Laboratories would include road improvements, and that developments currently under consideration included not only individual homesi~es but also a camp for underprivileged youth; and that the Foundation would hot be opposed to annexation by Saratoga if the majority Of the people concerned were not opposed. F. Sanitation Services and Earth Faults Mr. Dwyer asked Mr. Goodman if the District ~as satisfied that it coul~ provide sanitation services ~ithin the area, cad if the District had consulted earth scientists re~ardin~ earthquake conditions and fault lines within the proposed annexation area. Mr. Goodman answered that the whole area as proposed fo~the Sanitation District was essenCially tributary downhill to the main se~.?er line, and that some properties lying t~ ~he north side' mi~t need pumpin~ for sewage from a few low~ints. to ~he se~.yer~ bUtthat alternate routes for the lines could be found alon~ parallel .~dad~ that could he built, and be routed to subsidiary lines to the trunk at.!o~r points. ~ie stated that in reference to fault lines,.t~ Cd~t of replacino se~.yer ii~s ~.~as n0~ ~rohibiti~e;'that the COst estimated.for ~nstallat~on ~.~ere dpp~oxima~i~ ~224 ~er hcre f~r t~e :basic trhnk~ a~d! ab~t $1000 per ~C~ ~ ~de~ti~,s~. H~ s~iStbe ~neral situa~{on:~was comparable to sew~ 1{~ {~aiiak{~h~ ~ ~Se iliii Road in Pal~ Aito. G. City Versus County Control of Hillside Development Mayor Tyler called for expression of Council opinion on ~.~hether or not the City should attempt to exercise control over hitlside area develop- ' ment, or if some reliable arrangement with the County could be reached. 1. Councilman Smith stated that he thought Saratoga should control future development, not the County, especially in reference to problems concerned with the watershed, and specific services. 2. Councilman Sanders said that he a~reed with ~Ir. Smith, in that he was not persuaded that County planning would be sufficient, nor equal to Saratoga City Planning. Furtker, he ~.ould like the question put to LAFCO, that if it agreed that hillside development lay within the City's sphere of influence, if there should not be some adjustment of the boundaries and confi~uration of the annexation area as presently proposed by District 4. 3~. Mayor Tyler stated that he had discussed the boundaries questioned with City Administrator Huff, and that ~.~hile some future cbanqes might be advisable, the question was not pertinent at this time, since -the problem under consideration was related to the proposed annex- ation area as mapped by Sanitation District ~o.~ 4, and it was nec- essary4~ tbi~ time to ~o alonS with their configuration. 4. ~r, Robbins commented that, even so, it might be feasible for Saratoga to start its o~.m annexation proceedings, independently. 5. Mayor Tyier con~aented that it was his understandfn~ that the people of Saratoga were not interested in stopping pro~.ress nor in develop- inF the hills south~.~st of Saratoga, but that they ~.~ere interested that they be developed properly, and that during the 12 years since incorporation, the people had spoken' for even tighter controls than the City had imposed, and had expressed a desire for City control over future hillside area develoOments, and in the quality of such development. In reference to an earlier comment from the audience regarding County City relations, Mr. Tyler said that there had been several instances wher~ the County .had overruled the City's recommendations. -3- 6, Councilsnan D~,~yer said that a key Point Y.ms the quality of development and that his inquired, reEardin~ the Uic!'.iup development shoY~ad that it was attractive, hut that the large lots Y,yere bein.~ built on slo~,ly, over a lon~ period of ti~e, with some problems bain~ le[t ~o be dealt with by the next %eneration. H. ~SOL~ION NO. 454 - ~SOLUT!ON REOUESTI}]G LOCAL AGENCY FO~TIOM CO~,~{ISSION TO CO~ITION APPP. OVAL OF COU~Y SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 4 Res. 454 A~TION 1968-5 UPON CO~IPLETION OF A~!~TION OF THE ~INCORPO~TED AR~ =N THE .'TE~[T~RY TO T~ CITY OF SA~TOGA. City Administrator Huff stated that he had prepared altemate resolutions in anticipation of pessible action by the Council, and that if he under- stood the consensus of the Council, Resolution No. 454 was ready for consideration. Councilman S~th moved adopti~ of Resolution No. 454, and Councilman Robb{ns seconded the motion which was adopted unanimously.. The Mayor requested PIt. Huff to present the resolution to ~FCO at its meetin~ of October first, for discussion ~d decision. III. ~T~IVE ~ORGANfZATIONS:,[OR ,COUNt. T~NSf[ Mayor Tyler ~referred ~o the interim study report of Santa Clara COunty Transportati~ ~Planning study which included two alternates. After discussion of the two proposals to 'fom ~ C6Unty t~ansit d~triC~, the ~t. Co~cil at~e~tea Mr. Shook in repre~entin~ Sarato~ a~ th~ O~gan. meeting to indidate ~h~t the City favored f0m~ti~df.~ for CoUnty County Charter ~endme~t rather ~h~ u~d~ a ~istr~St ~&med throuR~ t~e Transit State Legislature. IV. ~MINIST~TIVE ~TTERS A. }fayor I.C.C.. 1. Mr. Tyler said that he ~d Mr. Huff would attend Mtg. Gilroy.on October 3, 1968. N~A 2. In reference to the NASA invitation to attend the l~th Anniversary '~ of the Sp~ce ProRr~ at Ames Laboratory, ~r. Sandsrs. Mr. ~o~.~, P~ogr~ ~ r~r. D~,~er and ~r.. Muff said they would attend~ Prop.9 3. Mr. Tyler read the letter from the County Board of Supe~isors re Discussion the county-x.yide meetin~ at the Fair Grounds on October 8, 19~8 for discussion of Proposition 9. ~n. Plan 4. The Mayor directed that some possible oversi~hts in the General Plan add'~. for specific zonin~s for such se~ice organizations as plumbinF and Zohes electrical services be referred to the Plannin~ Co~ission for study and reco~endation. 5. Referrin~ to the ~ountz'of time bei~sDent by the Plannin~ Use Pemits in cot~u~t!m~ FuDIlC ~earin~s on requests for use pcmits by nursery Study schools, rest homes and ~imil~r ~-aps for lo~tion of their estab- lishments in R-1 zones, the Mayor directed this problem also to the Plannin% Commission for study and review. B.~ FINANCE None C. COt~NCIL CO~.~ITTEES Ai~ REPORTS None D. DEPAR~ ~ADS AI~ OFFICERS Loitering 1. The City Attomey~s letter concemin~ the ~u,~stion of an ordinance Ordinance on street loiterin~ ~as referred to tbs Public !~Yelfare Co~fttae. -4- SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - Cone. Sept, 30, 1968 V. CO~.~JNICA~IOMS A. !,Iritten The letter from Mr. Gary B. Cla~%~120665 Lomtta, Saratoga favorin~ the possible annexation ofki!lside areas by the City ~qas~ead. B. O~al None VI. ADJOUR~4ENT The T{ayor expressed thanks to ~[rs. Stark and }{rs. Parker of the Good Government Group ef Saratoga for se~;ing coffee. Mr. Robblns moved~ and Mr. Smith seconded that the meettn~ be ad]ourned~ and the motion uarried.. The meetin~ ended at 9:55 P. ~. Respectfully submitted, J. '~ HUFF, CITY -5-