Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-18-1970 City Council Minutes SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MINUTES TIME: WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 1970 - 7:30 PLACE: SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL CHAI~BERS, 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE, SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA. TYPE: REGULAR MEETING I. ORGANIZATION A. ROLL CALL - The meeting was called~ to order at 7:3b P.M. Present: Councilmen Dwyer, Robbins, Smith and Tyler. Councilmen Sanders Arrived later in the meeting. B, MINUTES - Moved by Mr. Robbins, seconded by Mr. Dwyer that the minutes of February 4 be approved .as mailed with the following amendment. Final Page, Item B.2.. Paragraph 2 should read: "Mr. Dwyer recommended that all public b~dies*find more effective ways.to keep their citizens informed't. Carried an4 so ordered. II. BIDS & CONTRACTS A. ADMINISTRATIVE WING- 1969 ADMIN. Mr. Huff referred to a letter from War~en Heid, Architect, dated February 17 WING in which he recommended acceptance ~f'~nstruc~n, su~b~E'to t 1969 correction of a few details.during the lien period. With regard to a question regarding the 35 day lien period, Mr. Huff stated that as a matter of actual practice, we would withold the final payment on each sub-contract item until 35 days after its final completion. Regarding the penalty, we are about 90 days into the penalty clause at thepresent time at a rate of $50.00~.per day, Mr. Huff stated that t~e c0ntract~r'i~ aware that there is ~ penalty but does not agree with the full amonnt. He suggested that we could accept the agree- ment with the condition that the penalty .up to this date is uncontested. Max Butler, ~eprese~ting S & D. Construction, stated that he had forwarded a letter to Warren Heidstating that, weather permitting, they will repair the roof damage which has.been found. The proble~ has been located. The Planning Department ceiling will be ~epainted, to Mr. Heid's specifications. Councilman Sanders cj~l~he meeting atI this point. Mr. Johnston explained that according to Mr. Heid's letter one of the reasons for proceeding with adceptance is to stop the running of the $50.00 per day penalty, provided the contractor doesn't starchier that he does not agree with the penalty. Mr. Johns[on felt this was ~'~g~asonable r~quirement. Moved by Mr.~S"mit'~h, seconded by Mr. Robbins that the City agree to accept the construction ~s~bst~ntially complete conditional upon contractor waiving any claim to contest applicability of!$50~00 per day accruing up t6 date of acceptance. Carried and so ordered. Later in the meeting, Olin Shanro~ck, the President of S & D constru~i~py~ addressed the Council, stating tWat it had come to his knowledge that there had been a discussion regarding l'iquidated damages. He had not been informed by the architect that these were going to be assessed. He pointed out that City staff had beneficial occupancy of the project and that his firm had cooperated fully to help people move,.etc. He also pointed out that the items in question were all punchYlist items. Mr. Johnston pointed out that inlmatters such as 'this there were two types of delays - avoidable and unavoidable. In talking with Mr. Heid, it had been his opinion that the delay had b~en an avoidable one which was the contractor's responsibility. The purpose of tonight's discussion had been to stop the $50.00 per day penalty clause. Mr. Johnston suggested that if this particular phase of the contract was tO be ~iscussed, the architect should be present at the meeting. Mayor Tyler suggested that S & D Construction put their request in writing~ at which time a meeting could be arranged with the architect and staff me~}ers as well as the construction company. ~"n~,~ rn y for Construction pointed out that there had Mr. Harry Fel ma Atto e S & D CITY COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 18, 1970 - . ? been problems on this job and as late as February I~ the architect and engineers had been worRing on the ~ir~conditioning system. He understood that the CB~ncil had ac'cepted the jo~ f~r the retention period so that the contractors and sub-contractors could be paid their 10 per cent. He felt also that the architect and__J~engineers should be present at any further dis- . I ~ . , - , . . . . d h t the C u,~ b f cussion an t a o ncll should decide, after hearxng t e discussion rom all persons who are interested, What penalty should be assessed, if any~ Mr. Feldon pointed out that admittedly there had been problems with one or two sub-contractors but that S & D had no control over this. He stressed that they were notin agreement with the ~enalty of 90 days. Without objection, the~,m~.~ter was referred lto the Management Con~nittee. The City Manager was instructed to inform S & D Construction of time of meeting. III. PETITIONS, ORDINANCES & FORMAL RESOLUTIONS .. A. 'RESOLUTION NO. 523 - Resolutionlof the City of Saratoga Urging the Santa Clara County Inter-City Council to coordinate efforts toward county-wide uniformity Of construction codes. , RESLN'N 523 Mr. Huff Stated tha~ this is a R~solution suggested by the Inter-city UNIFORMITY Council the aim of which is to try to improve the ability of builders OF CONSTRUCTION and contractors to work within ehe various JurisdiCtions within' the CODES County and thereby provide more uniform building codes~ Mr. Harris, the Chief Building Inspector, felt that in effect this is what we try to do, although he~Dnecessarily;agree with the current scheduling of introduction~'n~ codes. .' Mr.~Robbins felt that the basic idea was a good one; however,.if Saratoga wants to have standards, would this still be possible? Mayor Tyler replied that this waZs a Resolution of intention to cooperate but did not mean a blind cormnitment. He stated that the City would still have the option of 'adopting higher standards. Moved by Mr. Robbins, seconded b~ Mr. Smith for adoption of ResOlution No. 523. Carried and so ordered. ' B. RESOLUTION NO. 519 - Resolution Ordering Formatio~ of. Fredericksburg Drive Park Maintenance District RESL'N 519 Mr. Huff stated that the Public Hearing was closed at the last meetin~ and FREDERICKSBURG Mr. Assaf, Attorney for Wilson, 3ones, Morton & ~ynch took the recommendations DRIVE PARK of the Council and consolidated them into a revised resolution which restricted MAINTENANCE the scope of the original resolution of intention as requested by the residents DISTRICT of the area involved. This resolution now represents the formation of the district in accord with desires' of'the citizens of that area. A copy of the Resolution was presented to a representative from the residents. Later, Mr. Huff stated that this was 'exactly what they had in mind except that the resolution contains nothing ~tating that the City agrees to cooperate with the Homeowners Association. Mr. IHuff advised him that' this cannot be included in the Resolution but that the Council had agreed to consult with 'the Associati~ in administering the district. Moved by Mr. S~ith, seconded by Mr.! Sanders\'f'5~ adoption of Resolution 519. Carried and so ordered. C. ORDINANCE NO. NS.-5.20 - Ordinanc~ Amending Ordinance NS-5, the Subdivision Ordinance of the City of S~ratogaRelating to Site Approval Requirements and Exceptions Thereto.' : ORD. INS-5.20 M~. Huff stated that this puts into more specific terms the applicability of ~ITE APPROVAL exceptions to site approval requirements when additions or alterations are REQUIREMENTS - constructed. This Ordinance was drawn up by the City Attorney at thez,request ADDITIONS OR of Mr. Walker. ~ ALTERATIONS With regard t6 ~xception (c)-(1), MrC Sanders wondered whether such value referred to the'original value of the construction before the remodelling took place. The~City Attorney replied that this all related to the preceding paragraph which relates to value at the time of reconstruction. He reconm~ended CITY COUNCIL MiNUTES FIEBRUARY 18, 1970 that Section 1, Paragraph 2 be amended ~o' read: ' "For the purpose of Exception (c~ (1) above, an addition, expansion or reconstruction shall be consideredto exceed 50% of the value of existing structure where the work of construction or improvement is done at different time intervals requiring two or mere building permits, within a.p.eriod of five (5) year~, each for a project of less than 50% of the value of the original strhcture but which combined total more than 50% of such value of such structure as existing prior to commence- ment of the alterations, additions to or expansion thereof. .Moved by Mr. Sanders, seconded by Mr. Robbins f~ introduction of Ordinance N.S.-5.20 as amended by the CitylAttorney and that reading be waived. Carried and so ordered. IV. SUBDIVISIONS, BUILDING SITES & ZONING REQUESTS A. SDR.839 SARATOGA FOOTHILLS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY - MiLJEVICH DRIVE - Request for Reconsideration of Conditions. SDR-839 Mr. HUff reported that this was'in regard to a condition of subdivision SARATOGA approval'which was imposed on SD 839 on Highway 85 and Miljevich Drive FOOTHILLS which was to ~dd an 11 ft. travel lane to the highway frontage. The 'RECONSIDERATION applicant had~obj ected on the grounds that'when the first unit of the same OF ~ONUITIONS subdivision was developed the 7City had asked for an 11 ft. lane and 7 ft. shoulder and this was constructed. It was the recommendation of the Planning Commission that, upon consideration of the matter, following the request of the developer, ,that he be relieved of this requirement. The staff concurred wi'th this recommendation. Moved by Mr. Dwyer, seconded by Mr. Sanders that the request for re- consideration be approved and ~the requirement in question be deleted. Carried and so ordered. B. TRACT 4548 -CONSTRUCTION ACCEPTANCE TR. 4548 The Director of Public Works ~eported that improvements in the abo~'e tract CONSTRUCTION have been satisfactorily completed and recommepded acceptance of improve- ACCEPTANCE merits for construction only. Moved by Mr. Smith, seconded by Mr. Robbins. Carried and so ordered. C. SDR-831 - RALPH At~DERSON, QUITO RD. - Request for Exception of Condition SDR-831 Mr.~Robbins reported that at the last Council meeting the Council had RALPH ANDERSON agreed that the width of the road was not a question but only whether the REQUEST FOR road was to remain private oribecome a dedicated public street. The E~EEPTION OF Planning Commission felt that'the Ordinance mandated that it be a public CONDITION road, but the City ~ttorney advised that the Council had the final say in the matter. The Planning Committee reconmended that the road become a public street. Mr. Smith reported that the Public Weifare Committee 'joined in the recommendation. A letter from Mr. Anderson pointed out that many homes in Saratoga were served by streets narrower than 26 feet wide. He also addressed the Council on this matter, and'referred to the Subdivision Ordinance, Page 45, Table 2-A with regard to street right-of-way and pavement widths where itrecomm~nds a total of 36 ft. width with two 10 ft. travel lanes and two 8 ft. parking lanes. He stated that they proposed to have a 20 ft. travel way with ~dequate off street parking. He felt there was enough width and.that the intene of the code could be met as far as safety was 'concerned. In response to a comment by MF. Smith that at the last meeting the \ primary thrust of Mr. Anderson's argument was. not directed at the w~dth-~I~ of the street, Mr. Anderson responded that at the last meeting the in- dication t~ the residents had~been that they had no alternative but to ~CITY COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 18, 1970 g~ along with the 26 ft. ~idth if' they wanted a private street. Mayor Tyler explained that both C~nyon View Drive and Farwell Avenue were public streets. He pointed out that mistakes had been_made in the past and that it was the Council~s intention not to compound them. Mr. Anderson wondred whether Mr. Day or other people were required to purchase property, for example, connecting Farwell to Fruitvale, and Mr. Huff replied that several developers had been required to purchase rights-of-way for access purposes. Mr. Shbok pointed out that Farweli was a public street of' long standing. It is one of the neighborhood streets,'but when we go from private to public street we, of. necessity, require that private streets be brought up to public street standards. Howard Bennion stated that they had purchased their home because of the private lane and country atmosphere. They have given Mr. Anderson ingress and egress and are willing to widen the road to 26 ft. However, he still wished ~,keep it a private road. Mr. Anderson stated that before the property was purchased they had been assured by the City that if they bought the property and upgraded the area this would be looked at very carefully by the City Council and Planning Commission. He stated that he did not buy the property on speculation. Mr. Sanders pointed out that City staff really cannot speak for the City Council and that we could~ not l~er City standards on this basis. Mr. Anderson stated that the 6nly exception they would like to ask for is off street parking. They would t~rn over to the City a 20 ft. travelling lane and all properties would deed a full length drive with private off street parking for all of the roads. Mayor Tyler pointed out that the Council was considering the conditions as sit down by the Planning Conmlssion. He felt that it w~ necessary to address ourselves to the precise situation that has bee~ought to us. He felt that the Council position on this is that We must deny the request for relief from this condition~ Mr. Smith stated that the conmittee had spent enough time to review the various possibilities to conserVe the trees and natural condition of the area and had come up.with a compromise situation. " Mr. Robbins stated that the Committee and Planning Commission had spent a great deal, of time considering this matter. He would like to.see some kind of a statement on the general poli~y with regard to street widths to tie it together so that it iS available fgr people such as Mr. Anderson so they know what the situation is before coming to the city for advice. The City staff cannot speak for the Council.or the Planning Commission. With regard~t~~ack to the Planning Commission, M . Anderson sta e Planning Commission meeting there were two proposals - the preferred one and the one that was passed.. The alternative was that a 20 ft. access be maintained~ from Quito Road to the Bennion andiAnderson property and then going to 30 ft. Mr. Anderson was perplexed as to the reason for the second alternative and felt it forced them into an untenable position. He felt there were violations and exceptions in contrast to what is stated in the report. He again stated that he did not think safety was a consideration. Moved by Mr. Dwyer, seconded by Mr. Smith for'adoption of the Planning Committee report dated February 17, 1970 which upheld the Planning Commission's recon~nendation that Mr. Anderson's~request to retain a private road be denied. Carried and so ordered. -4~ V. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. C-125 - KATE C. PRONGER -Request for Change of Zoning From "R-i-10,00~' and "R-1-40,00~' (Single-Family Residential) to "R-i,20,000" (Single- Family Residential). Mr. Huff reported there was no new correspondence. Public Hearing opened at 8:58 P.M. No one in the audienced~ished to speak on the matter. Moved by Mr. Smith, seconded by Mr. Dwyer to close the Public Hearing. Public Hearing closed at 8:59 P.M. Moved by Mr. Smith for introduction'of Ordinance NS ~ZC-50 and waive the reading. Seconded by Mr. Robbins; carried and so ordered. B. ORDINANCE NS-3.24 - Hearing on Proposed Amendment to Zoning Ordinance Adding Definitions, Eliminating Multi-Family Uses from "P-A" Zones and Adding Provisions re "P-C" Zones. Mr. Huff reported that this was the time set for the Public Hearihg on this Ordinancewhich'was introduced January 7. Mayor Tyler stated that it was his intention to ask the Planning Conmittee to look into the reasoning behind this proposed amendment. Public Hearing opened at 9:08 P.M. Without objection, Public Hearing continued to March 18 and referred to the Planning Committee. Mayor Tyler called for a Recess at 9:12 P.M. and the meeting re-convened at 9:33 P.M. VI. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS A. MAYOR - No Report. B. FINANCE i. Payment of Claims The City Attorney requested that Warrant No. 11970 be amended to read payable to Faber L. Johnston, Jr. Trustee. Moved by Mr. Sanders, secqnded by Mr. Robbins for approval of Warrant Nos. 11971 to 12022 dated February 18, 1970 totalling $54,795.51 and that the Mayor be authorized to sign them. Carried and so ordered. 2. City Clerk's Financial Report - Noted and filed. 3. Treasurer's Report - Noted and filed. C. COUNCIL COMMITTEES AND COMMISSION REPORTS 1. Accumulated Vacation - City Manager Moved b~y._~.__Rpbbins, seconded by Mr. Dwyer to accept the recommendations of the~,~Managam~n~ Committee dated February 16, 1970 that the City Manager be allo~d'to'~e vacation time accumulated in excess of the 160 hour maximum at the rate of no more than one or two days per week to complete the preparation' of his thesis. Carried and so ordered. 2. Drainage Problem ~ Park Drive Mr. Shook ~.~l~d~th~t~at~Tth~ ~as~i~unc{l- ~ee~iflg~. c~n~nicatioH , CITY COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 18, 1970 PARK had been received from residents on Park Drive with regard,to the drainage DRIVE situation there. The Public Works'Department has been.exploring various ,DRAINAGE solutions to the problem. In previous. years there had been consent on the part of one of the property owners to allow surface water tO flow through his property. The new owner is not interested in this procedure. The problem created is to find anotherTroute. There are two possibilities - both running from ten ,to fifteen thousand dollars in cost. One is to install pipes along Park Drive towards Highway 9 and eventually down Mendelsohn to the Creek. The other is to obtain an easement through privatm property from Park Drive to the Creek. This item was not budgeted nor is there any authorization to go to contract. It is rather an unusual situation to have such a large project come up in the middle of the fiscal year. Mr. Shook stated~thatif the Council wished his department could prepare the necessary documentation and go to bid on these projects. Mr. Dwyer stated that this critical situation was produced by real flood' problems. One of the residents pointed out that they were not able to get garbage service because the water was over one half a foot deep and the Scavenger Company would not come in. In response to a~question from MayOr Tyler with regard to negotiations with the residents, Mr. Shook stated that the residents had been most.outspoken that we find a place to'drain off ~he water. Mr. Huff suggested a cooperative project on a two-thirds, one-third basis similar to Vickery Lane. Mr. smith stated that he had passed the area today and there were sand bags for 200 if'. It'was obvious that several of the residents along Park Drive ha~e had to have sand bags on their driveways. Mr. Robbins felt we should direct the staff to expeditiously find the best solution and have the Public Welfare Con~nittee decide how it should be financed. Mr. Huff suggested that it might be appropriate to hav~ authorization, with Mr. Shook's concurrence, to accept ]bids at the meeting on~ month from tonight. Dr. Pugno, 15003 Park Drive offered to cooperate in every way possible. He explained that in the past the water had collected in the back yard of the Watrous property. Moved by Mr. Smith, seconded By Mr. Robbin~ that the~',mat~e~ be-referred to the Public Welfare Committee and staff and that'citizenS expressing interest be notified; also that the Director of Public Works be authorized to go to bid March 18 subject to the Public Welfare Committee'.s approval. Carried and so ordered. ., " ' ' E. CITY MANAGER !.' 1. Drop~in Center, DROP-IN Mr. Huff reported that Adm. Crisp wished to call to the Council's attention CENTER that th~ drop-in center will be before the Planning Commission on Tuesday evening, February 24, as a request dfrom Communications West, Inc. Adm. ~'~' Crisp felt strongly that some Councilmen should be in attendance. 2. Miljevich Property MILJEVICH Agreement drawn by City Attorney for purchase of Miljevich property at the corner of Cox Avenue and Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road which puts into written form the agreement authorized by Council at the last meeting. Moved by Mr. Robbins, seconded :by M~ Smith that the Mayor be authorized to sign the agreement. Carried and so ordered. ,- 6 - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 18, 1970 VII. COMMUNICATIONS A0 Written LEAGUE OF 1. Mr. Huff reminded memb'ers of the League of California Cities' CITIES meeting on Thursday,'February 26 at the Hyatt House in Palo Alto. Guest Speaker: John Knox. 2. Letter from Janet R. McGovney & Mr. & Mrs. Leo P. Kibby calling attention to a precarious situation existing at the intersection of Pepper Lane' and Highway 9. Mr. Shook reported that reflectors had previously been installed which may be in disrepair at the moment. Referred to the Policy Committee to consider with'street lighting study and to Director of Public Works to study effectiveness of reflectors. 3. Letter from J.M. Kane regarding police protection in the Argonaut Shopping'Center B. Oral 1. Spring Clean-up SPRING CLEAN~UP Mr. Jim Naugle requested that the Council consider appointing a date for the annual trash collection. Residents of Prides Crossing Homeowners Association 'suggested that it be the week of March 30 to April 4, the week immediately following Easter Va~iBn. His Association has been c6mmunicating with the other Home~ners~ Associations so that tRey will have an opportunity to consider this and submit their feelings as to the date. 2. California Cable T.V. CATV Mr. Day Carman, Californi~ Cable T.V. addressed the Council. His purposelin attending t~e meeting with other. i~m~ers from California Cable T.V. was to answer any questions the Council may have and to request an .extension of time to enable the franchisee to complete undergronnd cable t.v..service in the City~_In t__h__is regard he was prepared to discuss any' points that the 'CitycCounci. l~might have. The entire system will ~ot be completed, ~ i~{~ated in his letter, but initial service will be provided by July 1, 1970. In the normal course of events, the entire system should be completed by the end of'the year. %here are certain points that have been discussed on numerous o~casions between the City and the engineering representatives of the Company concerning one or two points that a~e not 'total~y'res01ved. One is the question to what extent open trenching as opposed to boring may be permitted? Mayor Tyler pointed out that it had been the concensus of the ~ouncil that there would be no boring unless approved by the Director of Public Works. Mr. Kelly, Manager, California Cable T.V. stated that during the past four months he had'discussed this matter with the City Manager, Mr. Shook and the Cor~aittee. He felt that soil conditions and geological problems would not permit boring. Mr. Shook explained that the ~oposed plans have not been approved because this question is still being pursued by California Cable T.V. as to whether open cuts will be allowed. Mr. Smith would like the Public Welfare Cormnittee to look at the first plan to help develop guidelines if the first plan is of a typical area. Mr~ Ca~man explained that the head end is in the County with the City limit two miles down and the present plan is to bring it over- head down to the City and ask permission of the City to bring it overhead down to approximately the uphill side of the cemetary. It would be extremely expensive to trench it in this area and mare ., CI~ CO~C~ ~TES FEBRUbY 18, 1970 i~ortant, the hill itself has slide possibilities. Their plan has been sub~tted to the County Planning Commission. There All he two fifty foot mtching t~ers and the nearest ho~ is ~proximtel~ 750 ft. The area is 1500 sq. ft., 30 ft. wide, 50 ft. long. There will be a lath fence surroundi~ the t~ers. Without objection, the mtter was referred to the Public Welfare Committee for continuing study. Mr. Carman ashred the Council that they would deliver a new bond to the City by the end of the we~, meeting the s~e requirements as to existing bond which has been cancelled by the surety. VIII. ~JRNME~ ~yor Tyler ackn~ledged the presence of Adm. Crisp, Pinning'Commissioner, Mrs. Sitney, Jim Naugle, ~s. SlOe, Joe C~a~, P.G. &~E. ahd Mrs. Brand of the Good Govem~nt Group, who provided the coffee. The meeting adjourned at 10:33 P.M. Respectfully s~tted, JRH: r