Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-21-1974 City Council Minutes MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL TIME: Wednesday, August 21, 1974 -7:30 p.M.~ PLACE: Saratoga City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, California TYPE: Regular Meeting I. ORGANIZATION A. ROLL CALL Present: Councilmen Bridges, ~righam, Diridon, Kraus and Smith Absent: None B. .MINUTES It was moved by Councilman Bridges and seconded by Councilman Kraus the minutes of August 7, 1974, be approved. o The motion was carried. II. ~BIDS AND CONTRACTS A. VILLAGE PARKING DISTRICT NO. 2 ~ It was moved by Councilman Bridges and seconded by Councilman Kraus that the Mayor be authorized to execute the contract for engineering services for design of the Village Parking District No. 2. The motion.was carried. B. BROOKGLEN PARK (Cont'd. from 8/7/74) It was moved by Councilman Diridon and seconded by Councilman Brig_ham the bid alternates for Brookglen Park development, in the amount of $8,090, be accepted, and the Kevin Mor~n Park drainage ($5.,000) and Wildwood Park barbeque area improvements ($5,000) be held as alternates to.the Capital Improvements Budget. The motion was carried. C. NORTHWEST ~ARATOGA TRXFFIC CIRCULATION STUDY The City Manager advised proposals had been. received from four engineering consultant firms and individual interviews have been conducted wieh repre- sentatives of each firm. He indicated it was his recommendation that the Council direct the staff to draft a letter agreement with DeLeuw, Cather and Co. for approval at the September 4th City Council Meeting. He advised slope conservation data which would affect the second phase of the traffic_~. circulation study is expected to be received in the next ninety days. It was moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded by Councilman Bridges the staff be authorized to draft a letter agreement which would allow the City to delineate the scop.e of work in Phase I and II of this study, and the Mayor be authorized to execute the contract with DeLeuw, Cather and Co. for $4,200 (Phase I);~wl~h"Fha~'.-I~~'iae~e~'~'afte~.~'~m~l~i~ni~b~ ph~s'~.~i, III, PETITIONS, ORDINANCES AND FORMAL RESOLUTIONS A. RESOLUTION NO, 653-1 Resolution Setting Forth Environmental Impact Report Criteria and Procedures for Private Land Projects in the Cit7 of Saratoga The City Manager explained this resolution is before the Council for two reasons: 1) to update the current resolution so the dates of various processes that must be filed with the ew c ~ are brought up to a guidelines; 2) changes the Resolution No. 653-1 (Cont'd.) existing process whereby the developer or applicant is responsible for obtaining his own firm for getting a development and the City has the responsibility of analyzing it; this would provide that the City keep a list of consultants who have not performed any workSthin the City for one year, and the applicant would pay for the Environmental Impact consultant, but the City would actually hire and guide the work of this consultant. He also pointed out the fee has been raised<) from $100 to $200. H~ also pointed out a change on the original draft On page 1, Section 2, sub-paragraph (1), adding to the final sentence . . . and/or retain by City Council, depending upon which body is the decision-making body in each case. It was moved by Councilman Brigham and seconded by Councilman Kraus Resolution No. 653-1 be adopted, as amended. The motion was carried. B. RESOLUTION NO. 32-~ Resolution Fixing the'Tax!Rates for,Fiscal Year 1974-75 The City Manager explained this is the annual resolution setting the tax rates for not only the general property tax rate for the City, but also the various special districts. He indicated the other tax rates reflect the cost for operating the various park maintenance districts in existence and that the City acts as middle-man to facilitate the collection of funds and expenditures for the work carried out in these various park maintenance districts. It was moved by Councilman Bridges ~nd seconded by Councilman Brigham Resolution No. 32-Q be adopted. The motion was carried. C. RESOLUTION NO. 85-9.16 'Resolution Amending Resolution 85-9 and 85-9.8, Revising Salary Ranges]~, Personnel Policy and Fringe Benefits for Non-Management Employees of the City of Saratoga ~ The City Manager advised the Memorandum of Understanding has been signed and ratified by both parties. It was moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded by Councilman Brigham Resolution No. 85-9.16 be adopted. The motion was carried. D. RESOLUTION NO. 707 Resolution Order~in~ Maximum Property Tax Rate Election for Manor Drive Park Maintenance District It was moved by Councilman Bridges and seconded by Councilman Diridon Resolution No. 707 be adopted. The motion was carried. E. RESOLUTION NO. ~08 Resolution Authorizing Transfer of Funds Between and/or Among Funds It was moved by Councilman Diridon and seconded by Councilman Bridges Resolution No. 708 be adopted. The motion was carried. F. RESOLUTION NO. 709 Resolution Fixin~ the Amount of Revenue from Property Taxes Necessary for the Support of the Departments of the City for Current Year and to Pay any Bonded or Other Indebtedness of the City~ and Fixing Amount of Revenue Sufficient to Pay the Estimated Costs for Said Fiscal Year for SCL District 1~ Azule Lighting District, Quito Lighting Districts FredericksburS?~rive Park Maintenance District, Manor Drive Park Maintenance District and Greenbriar Park Maintenance District It was moved by Councilman Diridon and. seconded by Councilman Bridges Resolution ~o,,~.~,;-7~b~~, The motion was carried. G. RESOLUTION NO. 451-F Resolution Approving Budget for the Village Parking Maintenance District No. 1 and Fixing Tax Rate for Fiscal Year'1974-75 It was moved by tOunoilman Diridon and seconded by Councilman B½idges Resolution No. 451-F be adopted. The motion was carried. IV. SUBDIVISIONS, BUILDING'SITES AND ZONING REQUESTS A. TRA~T 5582 AVCO COMMUNITY DEVELOPERS, COX AVE. The City Manager explained this is a request for final map approval, and the reason he wanted to bring it to the CounCil's attention is that the ~_A~ment has been modified to add a paragraph indicating that the Cit~s no oSl{gation to accept the street as a public street until,the State Highway Commission has approved the resoldtion adopted by the City Council, which requests ~'~e~Hfghway Commission's approval~o build a public street within the ~e~p~s~ freeway right-of-way. · ' ' It was moved by Councilman B~idges and seconded by Councilman Brigham Resolution No. SD-1101-1, granting Final Map A~proval, be adopted as revised. The motion was carried, 4 to 1.in favor:; Councilman Kraus opposed. B. PI · "The City Manager~e~plainedr.~at~ver~lt~ont~sj~rMr~ Cocciardi ~ame into~ ~, t_he :City Off ice 't~' a~k 'tha~hTCi~ acC~t'~' ~d' Bf'*Tru's~ 'ih -1 ieu r~idlar b6~d, which was denied. Since that time, the cost of improvements C~ has increased. He therefore indicated it is recommended final map approval be granted, subject to ~odification of the bond amount and paying ~..__~'~,~ional respective fees and providing the bond. This'would increase, the amount of improvements from $74,000 to approximately $165,000. It was moved by Councilman Bridges' and seconded by Councilman Kraus Resolution No. SD-1020-1, granting Final Map Approval, be adopted, sd~i~ct to the increased bond requirement. The motionswas darried. C. SDR-1026 OSTERLUND ENTERPRISES, ELDORADO CT. & HIGHWAY 85 It was moved by Councilman Diridon and seconded by Councilman Brigham the ~,F~i~lT, P~Irformance Bond in the amount of $2,80~ guaranteeing completion of the minimum access road, be released. The motion was carried. D. SDR-717 OLIVER & ALAMEDA, 'SARAT6GA-SUNNYVALE ROAD It was moved by Councilman Diridon and seconded by Councilman Brigham the Mayor be authorized to execute the Deferred Improvements Agreement guaranteeing the improvements required under buiiding site approval. The motion was carried. E. TRACT 5164 KUNKEL-THOFLAS, SOBEY ROAD & SOBEYMEADOWS It was moved by Councilman Diridon and seconded by Councilman Brigham the Council accept improvements on this tract for construction only. The motion was carrie~. F. SDR-931 JORDAN PENNOYER, VIA REGINA The staff has requested this item be~continued to the next regular City Council meeting. This request was approved by the City Council. -3 - G. SDR-1109 JOHN TERRIL, PIERCE ROAD It was moved by Councilman Diridon and seconded by Councilman Brigham Resolution SDR-1109-1, granting Final Building Site Approval, be adopted. The motion was carried. H. TRACT 5244 OSTERLUND ENTERPRISES, PALO OAKS CT. It was moved by Councilman Diridon and ~e~nded by Councilman Brigham the bond for $1~'~Q0, guaranteeing elimination of the Model Home Sales Office upon expiration of the Use Permit, be released. The motion was carried. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF CONDITIO~'~_.#6 RE: UNIMPROVED PATHWAY ON' DOUGLAS LANE (Cont'd. 7/17/74 and 8/7/74) The City Manager brought to the Council's attention several items of corres- pondence pertaining to this matter, from: Mr. and Mrs. James S. Morley, 196~7 Kenosha Court - expressing opposition. Miss Harriet Parsons, 2~01Broderick St., San Francisco~- expressing oppo- sition. Mrs. Gerald Browder, 19625 Douglass Lane - expressing opposition. Mrs. John C. Gingerich, 19573 Douglass Lane - expressing opposition. He indicated the Parks and RecreatiOn Commission is recommending the pathway be retained until the Trails and Pathways Task Force completes their study of a new master plan for trails and pathways. The Mayor then opened the public hearing at 8:25 p.m. Mr. William Filice, attorney representing George W. Day, stated that since his last appearance on July 17, 1974, he has had an opportunity to review this matter totally~'~ there is.definitely no pathway shown on the sub- division map, and apparently it was not put on any of the plans. Furthermore, the initia~ site plans were approve~ without the pathway, and the subdivision may was recorded without the pathway, and it would be legally impossible for George W. Day to construct this pathway at this time. Mr. Jim Dunn, 19521 Douglass Lane, stated when~ly purchase~ their home, they went to considerable effort to find out if there were any restrictions on the property. He stated he went to the County .Recorder~s office to check this, and there wasn't any indication of an easement in this location. Mr. Dunn stated he wouldn't enjoy having to take legal action on this matter, but he has been advised that he has considerable substance for taking legal action,~ if necessary. Mr. Dunn commented that it seems there have been an abundance of oversites,~ and as a result of these oversites, the people in this particular tract have experienced' undue harassment. ~_7~=a~d he was the £irs~!~one who was informed that there was going to be a g~e~nb~ll''~-- which wouldn't be very green without water. Mr. Dunn stated he didn't really[p_~d~stand the definition of "unimproved path- way", and he presented some pictures which he had taken of what he considers to be "unimproved paths" in the City, and it is hard for him to believe. the Planning Commission and the City Counci~ would allow these unsightly paths to go in. Mr. Dunn indicated he did not select these pictures because of any unusual amouht of depression, but these were typical pathways. He pointed out in one picture a horse trail running along an unimproved path through the back of the property, and indicated .~ouglass Lane is not the place for ~his kind of horse trail. -4 - Request for Reconsideration of Condition #6 - Douglas Lane Pathway Mr. Dunn~c~mm~that in discussing this with members' of the Council, they have indicated ~hey would like to keep the option of the pathway open. He stated, however, that as he has observed an abundance of locations, particularly along Saratoga~L~'~os~ ~o~d,~wh~a~hwa'~his natur~dould go in. Additionally, he mentioned.the possib~lit~'~f~'~'~lo~gthe orchard preserve next to City Hall, and he ~stated there are these and many other streets ~ich already have an unimproved path~ich should be considered. Mr. Dunn asked that the Council review his letter, dated July 16, 1974, for any further comments on th~s subject. Mayor Smith advised that this letter has been reviewed by the Council and has been made a~ p~rt of the file on this matter. ~a~then moved by Conncilman Diridon and seconded ~y ~ouncilman ~aus the public hearing be ~losed. The motion wa~. carried. Public hearing closed at 8:35 p.m. '~ Mayor Smith asked if 0n the existing or 1968 ~neral Plan there is any desig~V~ nation of a pathway along this street. Barbara S~mpson, Director of'.Community Services, indicated there is a desig- nation for a pathway on the '1968 Master Plan. ~he stated she would like to clarify the definition of "unimprOved pathway", She commented if the City is going to develop a trails and pathways sys~, it is also going to have the responsibility of maintaining ~ ~h~i~g the easiest definition 'of what could be considered an ,"equ~i~n~~'~pathway'' is simply a _ combination of gravel and crushed ro~k surround~dr~h~d~z~~/~ in place and provide slope for proper ~rainage~'~h~'~ w~l~a~t~ Be~'-deveI~ped, so in no way should the pathway be referred to as "unimproved". He further co~ented the "unimproved trails" are those ~ich you find the horse ~eople using, and if it is going to be an o~ficial city trail, it has to have some form of improvement in order to control it. Mayor Smith pointed out that the problem here is~that there is a "no notice" situation, and also, a bad definition of "unimproved pathway". It was his feeling that preserving this pathway open until the Trails and Pathways study is completed would only bring us back to'the same problem later. The City would also have to obtain con~ent from P.G.&E. for this use of the easement, as there is a ten-foot P.U.E. in this~location. Mr. Trinidad, ~sistant Director of~Pu~lic Wor~s, clarified the ten-foot area is public street right-of-way, and the P.U.E. area is behind this ten-foot area; therefore, to use an addition to the street right-of-wa~would require permission from the Utility Co. Councilman Diridon co~ented he would be very concern~d~ about using this P.G.&E. easement in conjunction with a pathway, and asked if the opposite side of the street would be available for this use. Mr. Trinidad advised tha~Saratoga Foothills has recently approved the tentative map for this subdivision, without the condition of an unimproved pathway. After some additional discussion of this matter by the Council and staff~ it was moved by Councilman Diridon and seconded by Councilman ~aus the City Council Waive Condition No. 6 as indicated 6n the Subdivision Committee Report, dated January 24, 1972, and grant this reques~ to delete the condition. The motion was carried. It was the feeling of the Council a better procedure to coordinate the tentative plans ~h the Final Map should be d~veloped to prevent this type of situation in the future. - 5 - B. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION RELEVANT TO V-409 FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IN ,A REAR YARD IN EXCESS OF 250 SQUARE FEET ON RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY AT 20341 CHATEAU DRIVE (Cont'd. 8/7/74) The Mayor presented two additional letters which had been received since the previous meeting, from:, Mr. and Mrs. Marco Trapanese, 20321 Chateau Dr. - expressing s~rong opposition to the proposed structure; and Robert P. Weiss, 20342 Fierce,Road - expressing opposition to proposed structure. The City Manager pointed out that t~{a' has~.beenfset for,hearing de novoth~s evening, and asked Mr. Van Duyn t~ briefly~rtiCHlatenthe'~vafi~n&e'and the basis of the appeal. Mr. Van Duyn indicated that the issue here is that sometime ago the backyar~ structure 'daved in, and 'the applicaht attempted to re'build ~iE'~!l{~>>o_r~ structure in its previous design. Without the benefit of a buil4ihg permit,~/ she contracted a licensed~ontractor to do the work, and soon after construction began, the City received complaints. The City's Code Enforcement Officer investigated and found the applican[ to be in violation of the City's Zoning ~ Ordinance and advised her she would have to come in and submit a plan which would meet meet the Ordinance requirements. She submitted a building plan which staff turned down on the basis that it exceeded the maximum 250 square foot allowable detached structure requirements, and she proceeded to file an application for variance to that requirement. The Variance Committee made'~n 9h-site evaluation, at at the July 10th Planning Commissio~ Meeting denied the request for the, variance. Mr. Van,Duyn indicated that subsequent to the Planning Commission denial, the applicant submitted an alternate plan which meets the Ordidance requirements. This plan was approved a~d a building permit was issued for the alternate plan. Miss Rozman, however still desires to have the original design for the structure; therefore, the reason for the appeal is y~t~[~he Council might consider the original structure which would be in variance to the Ordinance requirements. He indicated the actual variance involved is approximately 416 feet of that structure. He further stated that the Commission in its determination considered the fact that there were no grounds under the hardship clause in this situation, simply because a legal structure could be b~ilt ~n the back yard, and there were no grounds for a variance. The Commission therefore felt the applicant should abide by the Ordinance, which she could do with the modification of the plan. Mayor Smith inquired what the basic differences in the alternate plan and the variance pl, an were. Mr. Van Duyn explained that under the alternate plan if she moves in the posts to within ten feet and sets the posts eighteen inches apart for support, her, eaves area gives her a similar amount of coverage. However, under the specific content of the Ordinance, it is not included within the square footage of the buildable area requirements. Therefore, the'eave~is not counted as part of the overall sqUare-footage of the foyer --.wh~-is-count~d~s t~at-larea in between the posts, or wall-to-wall area. He i~d{~ated that basically, she has a series of eaves which still give her the amount of coverHge, and in actuality gives her even a little additional coverage. He indicated 6hat it still gives the same massive appearance to the structure. The Mayor o~ened the public hearing at 9:00 p.m. - 6 - Appeal of Planning Commission Decision Re: V-409 (Cont'd.) Miss Hottense Rozman addressed the Council, stating that the alternate plan is one foot higher than the variance structure, and one of her neighbors has objected with ~egard to height of the strhctue, She stated since this structure is ten feet back from the {ence~ it has a height of nine feet, and it does shade more. Otherwise, it basically covers the some ground. Mayor Smith inquired why Miss Rozman is asking for the variance structure if the alternate structure would cover the some ground. ~ Miss Rozman replied that the original structure is much more beautiful and that it has been designed by an architect. She stated one thing she dislikes about the alternate structure is not having posts out to the fence so she can have climbing roses, and because of the eaves, she cannot have roses because of the shade. Miss Rozman stated her original structure which was blown down was 4,000 square feet in area and 106 feet long. Additionally, the roof line was ten feet high everywhere, and thi~ structure is nine feet in one area and the portion!in back is eight feet. Also, it is open in the center and all around the sides, and it is a much more attractive structure. There being no further comments from the audience, it was moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded by Councilman Bridges the public he~ring be closed. The motion was carried. The public hearing was closed at 9:05 P.M. Mayor Smith commented that he thinks we should find a way to have. the Ordinance provide for fair treatment with regard to exterior structures. ·However, he indicated he would prefer to see the building much smaller than it is. Councilman Bridges expressed concern, however, that the alternate plan might have a larger impact on the neighbors than the plan which is against the present interpretation of the Ordinance. Following an additional brief discussion of this matter by the Council, it was moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded by Councilman Brigham the Council uphold the Planning Commission decision and deny this appea~. The motion was carried, 4 to 1 in favor, Councilman Bridges opposed. C. TRAFFIC CONTROL AND PROPOSED FOUR-WAY STOPS IN THE PRIDE~S CROSSING AREA OF SARATOGA . Mayor Smith indicated there have been several recent traffic problems on Miller Avenue, and there have been'requests by several residents in the area for additional signs. He indicated that the Director of Public Works has deve[dped a proposed integrated plan for installation of stop signs in the Prides Crossing area, and these have been circulated to residents in this area. As a result, the City has received letters commenting on the proposed sign installations, as well as suggestions for additional signs. The City Manager advised that this 'proposed plan was originally scheduled to go before the City Council on July 17, and at that time, it'was the staff~s recommendation that the proposed progrom (Traffic Interruption Study) be pre- sented to the residents of the Prides Crossing area' for comment, and then schedule the public hearing for this evening. He indicated that notice of the public heariDg, along with adrawing of the proposal for the stop signs, was' published in the newspaper, and some 639 notices were sent out tO the residents in this area. He indicated he has re6eived five letters from people or groups of people, one of which stated he liked the proposal (~Mr. A. L. Frendberg, 12546 Miller Ave.). He indicated there is one letterfromMr. Perkinson, 12138 Scully Ave., opposed to one qf the 4-way stop locations on Scully Ave.; a letter from Mrs. Carole Hoffman,'President, Brookview Homeowners' Assoc- iation, recommending stop sign controls at Homes and Brockton, the two-way stop at Woodside and Brookview remain as it is, and placement of a stop sign on the corner of Bellwood and Wood~ide; a petition' form several residents in this area requesting addition~of ~sign at the corner of Homes Drive and , Brockton Lane; and a letter from Charles F. Homilton requesting consideration · of a 4-way stop sign at the intersection of Somerville and Terrenee. - 7 - Traffic Control ~ Prides Crossing~Area (Cont'd.) The Mayor opened the public hearing at 9:20 p.m. Fir. Frank Perdichizzi, Pr~eTsident, Prides Crossing Homeowners Association, addressed the Council and indicated that last evening the homeowners association held ag~n'~_l~eeting for the residents in this area, and the membership authorized him to speak for them in accepting the proposal the City has recommended, and in addition, suggested some additional locations, as follows: 1 additional st_~p sign at Scully and Larchmont (facing Scully); sign at the corner of Solan.Sand Larehmont ~_e~X~going south; east on Solano) Mr. Perdichizzi ~ndicated these recommendations were voted on last night, and he had asked anyone opposed to these recommendations to be present this evening. He indicated he would like to comment on his own behalf with regard to signs in different locations: suggested the 3-way sign at Oakhaven and Scully should be placed at Viewridge, rather than Oakhaven, as traffic turning from Prospect onto ~/~jcully could be slowed down; proposed sign at Brockton and Titus would be more appropriate at Homes and Brockton; also a sign indicating "Not a Thru Street" at Rudy Court. Mr. McCluskey, who resides on the corner of Brockton and Titus, indicated his fence blocks the view of traffic c~ming down ~rockton and south on Titus; the~_efOre, he would sdpport the sign at this location. Mr. Perdi~hizzi commented that the homeowners only voted on the portion of that area which effects Prides Crossing; therefore, signs on Brookview were not cohsidered. Mrs. Joanne King, who resides on the corner of Miller and Somerville, stated she attended the meetings last summer when stop signs for the Prides Crossing area were discussed. Mrs. King indicated that the signs on her corner were very effective for about nine months; however, starting around last May, the signs no longer stopped the cars, and~hT~pt time, about 50% of the cars do not s~p at this corner. She s~F~d~s~' would like to caution the City on how many stop signs they put in'and how carefully they are placed. Mayor Smith asked Mrs. Kin~ if she ha~ observed the particular time of day when these care have not stopped. Mrs. King replied there is no particular time of day, and a large percentage of the time the cars come to a rolling stop only. One citizen commented this seems to occur for the most part/~dring late after- noon and evening hours. Mayor Smith asked Mrs. King if she has experienced a noise problem in having these stop signs ~t this corner. Mrs. King replied there is no real noise -- occasionally the sound of screeching brakes, ~ut this causes no problems~. Mr. Lawrence Podrasky, 19194 Brockton Lane, indicated he would strongly urge the ~~'6~?i~S at the corner of Homes Ave. and Brockton Lane. He stated ~ha~h'i~'~ eo be a thru street going from Cox to Homes, and on Brockton to Brookglen toProspect Avenue. Mr. PodraSky indicated that he has been on vacation, and he has noticed care going around the corner at a very high speed. He has mentioned this to the police department, and when they come out, they do not see the cars. Mr. Podrasky also pointed out this location is near the Brookside Tennis Club, and he has seen a number of accidents in this area. Therefore, he stated he would strongly advocate a stop sign in that area, and that the Council not consider moving the sign around. Mr. Charles Grey, who r~sides at the northeast corner of Miller and Brockton, stated that prior to~installation of signs on Miller, traffic was astounding. - 8 - Mr. Grey stated that his personal observation is that the signs on Miller have been extremely effective. He indicated that prior to the installation of the sign at Brockton,'there were three accidents which occurred at the .corner of Miller and Brockton in two weeks.. Therefore, it was his feeling the stop sign at Brockton and the subsequent addition of signs on Miller have been extremely effective, and he would heartily endorse the additional stop sign o~ Miller. It .was his feeling also it would serve to additionally slow traffic on Miller, as well as prevent a lot of high-speed turns from Miller off of Cox and onto Brockton. Lee Perkinson, 12138 Scully Avenue,. stated when this plan was originally pro- posed, he didn't realize their home would be right in the center of this s~bp street, and that their driveway would be in the center of ~ three-way stop. It was, therefore, his recommendation a three-way stop be considered on Viewridge rather than the existing location on Scully Avenhe. Nancy Zorb, 12599 Titus, indicated she felt the problem on Titus and Bellwood should be considered a "people problem" rather than a traffic problem. She explained that the problem is the turn movement from Bellwood onto Titus, and she felt the solution for this corner would be to add a six-inch divider strip along Bellwood to force cars to slow down and make the appropriate left-hand turn. It was her feeling that before installing signs, other solutions should be explored. Gary Robillarde, who resides at Woodside and Bellwood, indicated that the residents in this area applaude the four-way stop signs at Brookview and Titus. He asked that consideration be given to signs on Woodside and Bellwood,~a~ traffic comes around this corner at a high rate of speed. He further indicated there are on the average of six to ten children playing in this area, between ages three to nine, and there areno sidewalks in this area. He stated that in considering the fact that the stop sign system would reduce the flow of traffic, the question of noise would not be as severe as that of safety. He asked: "Can you place the value of property and the noise problem over children's lives?" Mr. Robillarde also felt the Council should consider the fact that at least-they are looking at the problem now, rather than waiting until there is a tragedy in the area. Mr. Sheridan, who resides at the corner of Brockton and Titus, stated.he would .like to endorse keeping the stop sign at its present proposed location'on Brockton and Titus. He stated that at least half of the traffic'which goes around this corner is eastbound onto%Titus~ and is traveling at a high speed. He also felt a one-way stop at Homes Avenue would suffice at this location. A resident on the northwest corner of Cox and Miller stated he would highly endorse the stop sign proposed on the corner of Brockton and Miller for the reason ~hat trafftic coming off Cox onto Miller is traveling fast and is very dangerous. He indicated, also, there has been one death on this corner, which occurred approximately four months ago, and he felt this location was vital. Sidney Smith, 12591 Titus, commented that one thing which might be considered in the situation where we are talking about protecting kids in the area of Titus and Bellwood is consideration of where the 'school districts are, and which way the kid~ would have to cross streets on theirS.way to school. Mr. Smith indicated as he understands, that corner divides off the school districts, and the school bus pickup is on Titus Court; therefore, hewondered if the stop sign on the corner of Titus is most effective. He felt the previous gentlemen who commented with regard to a sign'at Bellwood and Woodside might have had a good point. Mr. Smith felt there ~hould be one other consideration given with regard to installation of stop signs, and that~is when a stop sign in put in and there are people who intend to go .~as~er than'the limit, in.som~ cases this system might cause the person to ignore the situation of ~hildren in the area, rather Traffic Control - Prides Crossing Area (Cont'd.) than making them more aware. He stated he w~s in agreement with the citizen on Somerville and Miller that the Council should carefully consider where these signs should be implemented. John Mikelonis, 19361 Be~wood Drive, stated they have a small problem at the corner of Be]-l~da~d Titus, in that there are teenagers in the neighborhood who speed around this cbrner. He indicated that on one corner there is a 6! fence approximately six and one-half feet (2) feet high, and no 6ne'can see around this corner. It was, therefore, his feeling there should be a stop sign in this location. Charles Huff, 12725 Miller Avenue, stated he has 'talked to ~everal neighbors in the Prides Crossing area, and the one complaint which is always outstanding is speeding. The general feeling is that Titus is a straight area, and people tend to speed along this street; so if there were a stop sign somewhere along this street, it would to break up the straight stretch. With regard to the ~top sign at Brockton and Miller, Mr. Huff stated cars/" taking the corner from Brockton onto Miller take up the street to the point that they are on the wrong side of the street when they complete the turn, so if there were a stop' sign at this 'location, it would force them to slow down to make this turn. He stated this is a very blind corner at Bellwood, and again, it would tend to break up the straight stretch on Titus. Mr. Huff advised that approximately' one to two years ago, a survey was taken which showed the 85th percentile varied from 33 to 37 m.p.h.; however, the interesting statistic was that 90% of the cars were traveling over 25 m.p.h. He indicated that the corner of Bellwood and Brookglen is also a blind corner, and he would tend to agree a stop sign is needed at Homes .Drive and Bellwood, as thi~ is another corner which is taken at high speeds. With regard to the corner of Brockton and Titus, Mr. Huff indicated when walking in this area, you must approach it very carefully because cars come around this corner at high speed also. He pointed out that the State Law ~ates-b~fQrezy6uqan enforce radar? you must survey the street, and if there is an'8~th'percentile at 36,. you can sign it at 35, or you can enforce the law. Mr. Huff indicated he did not feel it was practical to use radar patrol in a residential area because.no one would want a street signed at 35 m.poh. With regard to the problem of people running stop signs, he felt consideration should be given to adding one more deputy sheriff. His opinion was that if we these stop signs are enforced and a number of tickets issued, people would start stopping. Mayor Smith stressed the difficulty in enforcing radar is that there is a long study process which must be undergone. He stated, however, with the implemen- tation of these signs, the City could direct the Sheriff~s Office to go out and spend some time in a particular area, and if necessary, issue some tickets. The question was asked whether or not any consideration has been given to putting stop signs or lights on Cox Avenue between Saratoga Avenue and Highway 9. The Mayor replied there has not been consideration given to this location; however, we could ask the Public Works Director about this location. Mr. Perdichizzi indicated he would like to reinforce the comment with regard to Somerville and Miller, in that many times traffic only comes to a rolling stop at this sign. Dr. Nat' Abrams commented that he feels parents have equal%responsibility to keep their childrenoff!the streets and find places for them to play safely. Mayor Smith advised that all of the con~nents heard this evening would be passed on to the Director of Public Works, with a request for a report back to the Council, taking into consideration those comments raised this evening. He indicated a public hearing would aga'in be scheduled and residents of this area noticed. - 10 - The City Manager indicated this hearing could be scheduled for the second regular meeting in September (September 18~, and a staff report forthcoming at that time. The Council continued the hearing to September 18th. D. ORDINANCE NO. 38.58 (Second Reading - Cont'd. July 17 Mtg.) Ordinance of the City of Saratoga Repealing Chapter 6 of the Saratoga City Code and Those Portions of Title 8 of the Santa Clara County Ordinance Code, and Adding a New Chapter 6 to the Saratoga City Code Relatin~ to Fire Prevention and Adopting by Reference the 1973 Uniform Fire Code with Certain Modifications, Deletions and Additions Mayor Smith indicated that due to ~he fact there have been some revisions in this ordinance draft and all parties have not had an opportunity to review these changes, it is recommended the revised ordinance be introduced and 6'ontinue~ to a future meeting. The City Manager stated he would recommend the proposed ordinance be discussed at a Committee of the Whole Meeting on September lOth, and a continued public hearing set for September 18th. It was then moved by Councilman Bridges and seconded by Councilman Kraus Ordinance No. 38.58 be re-introduced and'~ontin~d for public hearing on September 18th. The motion was carried. Recess and Reconveyne VI. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS A. MAYOR 1.Announced adjournment of this meeting to an Executive Session for discussion regarding "Personnel". B. FINANCE 1. Payment Of Claims It was moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded by Councilman Brigham the list of disbursements, 19792 thru 19862, be approved and the Mayor be authorized to sign the warrants. The motion was carried° 2. City Clerk's Financial Report - Noted and filed. 3. City Treasurer~s Report - Noted and filed. C. COUNCIL AND COMMISSION REPORTS ~Parks and ~Recreation~ Commissi~h~ ~'~R~co~mend~tion Re: ~Al ternate -~%d~ for ' ~ '-Brookglen.Park ~=Noted and filed. 2. Parks and Recreation Commission - Recommendation Re: Unimproved Path on Douglass Lane - Noted and filed. 3. t!Councilman Diridon - Advised Rome Rules Committee of A.B.A.G. voted down the recommended new version of AB-2040, which would support the concept of a fully-appointed membership. Recommended the Council not endorse this new legislation. 4. Councilman Brigham - Advised at last Tuesday's meeting of the Resolution Committee, three of the resolutions which he had presented were adopted, pertinent to: 1) Amtrak Improving Inter- City Rail Service; 2) Providing Funds for Urban-Wide Bicycle Route System; and 3) Non-Smoking Legislation. - 11 - D. DEPARTMENT FIEADS AND OFFICERS 1. Public Works ~ Corinthian Studios "No Parking" Zone Mr. Trinidad, Assistant Director'of Public Works, reported this resolution (Resolution No. MV-74) comes up now after a six-month observation period, and recommended that since this problem seems to have been resolved the resolution be set aside. 2. Planning - Ordinance Re: Slope Conservation Zone Mr. Van Duyn, Planning Director, reported the staff hastcompleted its first preliminary draft of the Hillside Conservation P~an; however, it has not yet been drafted in its legal form. He reported this draft will be going before the Planning Commission at its next regular meeting and study sessions will be established~for the purpose of receiving more input for inclusion into the ordinance. E. CITY MANAGER 1. Rejection of Claims The City Manager advised he has received three claims f~rrda~ages ~nd ~ personal injuries, which~ 'is recommending the Council reje~i' O~ ....... claim is for $40.00%e~Tr~a'i~ .~ipu~ctured gas tank as a result of a tree which fell acroS~=~'st~'~'g~ Fruitvale Avenue in front of his car. Another claim is for $50,000 for injuries and damages sustained as a result ~'i~f an accident at Saratoga~Sunnyvale Road and Reid Lane. Another claim is for $200,000 for an injury which took place on July 11, 1974, at the Community Garden. It was moved by.'Councilman Bridges and seconded by Coundilman Kraus to reject these three hlai~s and notify the City's insurance carrier accordingly. The motion was carried. ~ ~'7_~_' '.~;~7~j~y Lease Agreement Reported that the County Board 6f Supervisors has approved the Lease Agreement for the new lf~raF~ facility, and he would be getting a recommendation to the Cou~Y{1 in the near future with regard to selection of an architect committee. VII. COMMUNICATIONS A. WRITTEN 1. Warren Palmer, 20069 Chateau Drive, Re: Traffic problem on Shadow Mountains" Drive. --Referred to Public Works for a report back. 2. Copy of letter from Nicholas J. Barisich, 108 Montclair Road, Los Gatos, Re: Traffic conditions on Quito Road from Pollard Road to Highway 9. - Referred to Public Works for a report back. 3. A. L. Frendberg, 12546 Miller Ave., Re; Proposed four-way stops in Prides~' "~ Crossing area. - NOted and filed; City Manager to respond. 4. Petition from residents in Prides Crossing subdivision, encouraging the Council to consider a stop sign at the corner of Homes Drive and Brockton Lane. - Noted and file; City Manager to respond. - 12 - Written Communications 5. Charles F. Hamilton, ~9723 Somerville Court, requesting the Council consider a four-way stop sign at the intersection of Somerville and Terrence. - Noted and filed; City Manager to respond. 6. Al~tha M. Powers, Acting Director, Youth Science Institute, 16260 Alum Rock Ave., San Jose, requesting support frbm Saratoga ~ity Council for obtaining fund~ to remodel Institute on Tully Road. - It was moved by Councilman Diridon and seconded ~by Councilman Bridges the Council endorse this request and the City Manager direct a letter to the Institute reflecting this support. The motion was carried. 7. Hortense Rozman, 20341 Chateau Dr., Re: Appeal of Planning Commissiom decision relevant to V~409. - Noted and filed. 8. V. Lee Perkinson, 12138 Scully Avenue, Re: Traffic control and proposed -~6~'~way stops in the Pride's Crossing area. - Noted ~nd filed. 9. Mrs. Carole Hoffman, President,'Brookview'Homeowners' Association, Re: Traffic control and proposed four-way stops in the Prides Crossing area of Saratoga. - Noted and filed. 10. Mr. and Mrs. James S. Morley, 19607 Kenosha Court, Re: Unimproved Pathway on Douglass Lane. - Noted and filed. 11. Miss Harriet Parsons, 2901 Brod~rick St., Sad Francisco, Re: Unimproved ~athway on Douglass Lane. - Noted and filed. 12. Mrs. Gerald Browder, 19625 Douglass Lane, Re: Unimproved pathway on Douglass '~e~I- Noted and filed. 13. Saratoga Employees' Association., Re: Salary and benefit adjustments. - Noted and filed. 14. Mrs. John C. Gingerich, 195~3 Douglass Lane, Re: Unimproved pathway Douglass Lane. - Noted and filed. 15. Mr. and Mrs. Marco Trapanese, 20321 Chateau Dr., Re: Appeal of Planning Commission'decision relevant to V-409. - Noted and filed. 16. Robert P. Weiss, 20342 Pierce Road, Re: Appeal of Planning Commission decision relevant to V-409. - Noted and filed. B. ORAL VIII. ADJOURNMENT It'was moved by Councilman Bridges and seconded by Councilman Brigham the meeting be adjourned to an Executive Session. 'The motion was carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:55 p.m.  submitted, Cxty Cler~ - 13 -