Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-04-1974 City Council Minutes MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL TIME: Wednesday, September 4, 1974 - 7:30 P.M. PLACE: Saratoga City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale.lAve., Saratoga, California TYPE: Regular Meeting I.. ORGANIZATION A. ROLL CALL Present: CoUncilmen Bridges,-!~DDj~idon, Kraus 'aDz j~fth'~ Absent: ;C~un~ilman Brigham '-~'~ .......... ~" ~ B. 'MINUTES It was moved by Councilman Bridges and seconded by Councilman Kraus the minutes of August 21, 1974, be app~oved. The motion was carried. II. BIDS AND CONTRACTS A. MANAGING GARDENER AGREEMENT - COMMUNITY GARDEN Agreement between the City of Saratoga and John Dotter for Professional Services Rendered as a Horticultural Specialist and Garden Manager for Community Gardens The City Manager explained that approximately two weeks ago the previous Garden Manager resigned, and now the staff is ~p~D~oSing~t~e-City enter into a new agreement with John Dotter, an instructor at West Valley with ~ntensive gardening training. This proposal would be on a six-month basis and the City would work , toward a "phase-out" to a non-profit corporation, WhiCh would assume responsi-~!r~'~/ bility for the entire operation of the garden. He indicated it is also the staff's recommendation to indicate to the International Order of Odd Fellows willingness to renew the Groun~ Lease for another year, until September 1, 1975. Mr. Robert Van der tooten addressed the Council indicating that he has been retained by the Garden Committee to help them with some of their' problems, and stated he would like to work out a good communications policy with the City. He further r~Tt~d Mr. Dotter's salary be approved retroactive to August 1, 1974. Councilman Bridges commented on the staff memorandum, dated August 28, 1974, which enumerates steps to be taken to make this transition, he felt item No. 6 -pdr~i~ti~i~f-=exce§s foods from the Garden should be eliminated. He moved ~h~'~eeC~d~6il approve~he Staff Report, dated August 28, 1974, with the exception of item number 6, and the Mayor be authorized to execute the agreement between the City of Saratoga and John Dotter; also, the GrOund Lease with the I.O.O.F. be renewed for a one-year period. Councilman Diridon seconded the motion, and it was.carried unanimously. B. CROP AGREEMENT - AZULE PARK SIT~ A~reement between the City of Saratoga and George J. Wightman for Farming of Approximately 4.0 Acres of Real Property on Geleta Avenue It was moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded by Councilman Bridges the Mayo~ be authorized to execute the contract with Mr. Wightman. The motion was carried. C. AMENDMENT TO JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT FOR INTERGOVERNI~ENTAL EMPLOYEE RELATIONS SERVICES The City Manager explained this amendment provides for'establishment of an Executive Board to the existing Program. It was moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded by Councilman Diridon the Mayor be authorized to execute th~s contract amendment. The motion was carried. D. BAY SLURRY SEAL CO. - SEAL COATING & OVERLAYING, VARIOUS CITY STREETS It was moved by Councilman Bridges add seconded by Councilman Kraus the work on this pro~ect be accepted and the staff be authorized to file the Notice of Completion. The motion was carried. · IIf~Y~ETITIONS, ORDINANCES AND FORMAL RESOLUTIONS IV. SUBDIVISIONS, BOILDING SITES AND ZONING REQUESTS 'A. SDR-908 PIERCE ROAD AT OLD OAR WAY The City Manager explained this isa request to accept the Offer of Dedi- cation on the southerly twenty feet of an easement on Pierce Road and Old Oak.Way in order to improve this 16cation. He further explained it is pro- proposeH in order to eliminate the sight distance problem a bay tree 'lbe removed and the bank in this location be cut back, and it is the staff'~s recommendation this be accomplished. Mayor Smith suggested before approving this acceptance of right-of-way, the Council go out and observe this location. This was acceptable with the Council; therefore, this matter will be agendized for September 18th. , B. TRACT 5233~ AVCO COMMUNITY DEVELOPERS, LARCH~0NT AVE. & NEEDHAM It was moved by Cou~cilma~'Diridon'and seconded by ~9~gilman Bridges the construction of improvements iB this tract~6~e~ed',~xae~t~ng the A.C. pavement, per the recommendation of the Director 8~H~fi=C'~rks. The motion C. TRACT 5069 AVCO COMMUNITY DEVELOPERS, PROSPECT AVE. & PLUMAS DRIVE It was moved by CouncilmaniDi~idon and seconded by Councilman Bridges con- struction of i~provements be accepted in this tract. The motion was carried. D. TRACT 4575 PRIDES CROSSING, UNIT #3, COX & MILLER Mr. Charles Huff, 12725 Miller Avenue, complained that a_portion of th~ side- walk in this tract has been cracked,¢~nd' ~lso~'.a-~o~1~ 6~ ~plants have died' __. , therefore, he a~ked that the Council del~yy~ranting-'fih~f acceptance at this time. A representative of Brown and Kauffmann, developer in this tract, commented this deficiency is not in Unit No. 3, but in Unit'No. 1.~ir~ F'~ ~c~"'Cg~cil felt, however, this complaint should be investigated and theI~at.t_el. 5 {~ne~[~Un&xt regular City Council Meeting. It was also requested the Public Works ~[Kf~prepare a report for this meeting. - 2 - E. SDR-931 JORDAN PENNOYER (PIERRE LEUTHOLD), CUMBERLAND DR. 1 LOT It was moved by Councilman Diridon' and seponded by Councilman Bridges Resolution SDR-93!-II, granting Final Building ~ite Apprq~a~ be adopted. The motion was carried. F. SDR-976 MELVIN DE SELLE, VICKERY AVE. 1 LOT It was moved by Councilman Diridon and seconded by Councilman Bridges Resolution SDR-976-1, granting Final Building Site Approval, be adopted. The motion was carried. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. ORDINANCE NO. 38.51 (Revised) An Ordinance of the City of Saratoga Amending Article V of Chapter 4 of the saratoga city Code~ Relating to Business Licenses (Cont~d. from July 17) The~'Cit~'~a~e~&~fai~e~7,~p~d'~'~usiness License Ordinance was ori~i~ll~ ~F6d~a'~,~A~ ,19~'~974~'~nd a public hearing set for July 17. 'He indicated the public hearing was continued as a result of meetings between the staff and representatives of the Chamber of Commerce, and the ordinance has been revised. He stated it is' therefore being.recommended the revised ordinance be re-introduced this evening. The City Manager explained the revised ordinance provideslfo:~:l-.1) annual ~, Business License fee of $35.00 per year; and 2) any busine~0~posed of 8 or more employees would pay an additional fee of $25.00 per year. The Mayor then opened the public hearing (8:10 p.m.) Miles Rankih, representing the Saratoga Chamber of Commerce, addressed the Council and then proceeded to pass out information sheets~outlining specific activities of the Chamber, wit~ a breakdown of hours spent on these various activities. Mr. Rankin explained the idea behind this time breakdown was to determine how much time is being spent on Chamber activities and how much time is beingspent providing general information about City functions. Mr. Rankin .indicated it 'seems apparent the secretary at the Chamber office spends from 50-65% of her time on things other than Chamber business. He stated that the other in'formation sheet is the 1974-75 Chamber of Commerce' proposed budget. He indicated the fd~r i~nnu~l~ih~'~of i~ ~cham~r ~s-~pp~oxi- ~ately $11,000. M~. Rankin stated that'Saratoga is the only ~ity~hin~the County'that doesn't have an annual business license tax, and by the same token, it is the only 6ity which the Chamber bf Commerce doesn't receive any appreciable amount of money from the City. He further stated, as an example, the Cupertino Chamber receive~ $12,000,!f~om the City from business license fees; Los Gatos receives $20,000; Campbell receives $12,000; Los Altos receives $6,000; and Milpitas receive~ $6,000. Mr. Rankin stated he is proposing a certain percentage of the Chamber's annual budget be comprised of fund~ received from the Business License tax. He suggested 5~% of funds received by the City for this tax be contributed to the Chamber of Commerce. Mayor Smith commented that one of the reasons this proposed ordinance is being considered is to bring revenues back into the community~ and the fixed formula as it exists does restrict the Cit~, aswell as business in the community. - 3 - ORDINANCE NO. 38.51 RE: BUSINESS LICENSE 'F~E~ ~ Mr. Rankin again emphasized that 50% of the administrative personnel's functions is in answering calls of a general nature. He indicated there were many inquiries with regard ~o the Saratoga Parade and Festival. Councilman Diridon asked if this included ~he amount of time the secretaries spend on the information referrrals. Mr. Rankin replied it does not, and that it includes only the four hours each day at the Chamber Office. It was then moved by Councilman Diridon and seconded by Councilman Kraus the public hearing be closed. The motion was carried. Public hearing closed at 8:20 p.m. Mayor Smith suggested that Mr. Rankin's comments be incorporated into a continued discussion between the City Manager and the Chamber in an attempt to reach an agreement and formulate a policy in working with the Chamber's program in this regard. The City Manager stated he didn't feel, however, this policy should not be included in the ordinance, as this is a revenue source for the City of Saratoga and he felt the Council should designate how these funds are spent. Councilman Bridges indicated he had no objection to re-introducing this ordinance; however, it was his f~eling since this is still in the talking stage and the policy couldn't be added once the ordinance has been introduced, action should be postponed until this is resolved. Following some additional discussion by the Council, it was moved by Councilman Diridon and seconded by Councilman Kraus Ordinance No. 38.51 be re-introduced and the reading waived; also, the City Manager be directed to meet with repre- sentatives of the Chamber to try to work out an agreement with regard to the Business License fees. The matter would then be considered at the next regular meeting of September 18th for possible adoption. The motion was carried, 3 to 1 in favor, Councilman Bridges expressing opposition. B. ORDINANCE NO. 38.59 (Second Reading) An Ordinance of the City of Saratoga Amending Chapter 3 of the Saratoga City Cod~ by AddinS.Article VII ThereofF' Captioned "Miscellaneous Provisions"~ and Addin~ Section 3-50 Thereto~ ET Seq. Re: The Fencin$ of Swimming Pools and Open Bodies of Water Mayor Smith advised this proposed ordinance was prompted by a petition submitted to %the City several months ago. It was considered by the City Council in May, and referred to the staff for consideration. He-indicated several letters have been received on this proposed ordinance, as follows: Nancy Ellen Yeargain, 14300 Saratoga Ave., favoring adoption of proposed ordinance. FLr~. Jay Bloom, 14150 Squirrel Hollow Lane, favoring adoption of proposed ordinance and indicati.ng3~l-foot height is not adequate. ~, Mrs. John S. Langwill, 15210 Bolhman Road, recommending a provision ~,~ be added to exclude single-family ~esidences in which the land area exceeds a stated minimum from fencing requirements~ Petition from "Supporters of Adequate Pool Fencing",supporting fencing of swimming pools and reconmaending the ~equirement be made retroactive; also~ requiring 6 foot minimum height. -4 - ORDINANCE 38.59 RE: SWIMMING POOL FENCING (Cont'd.) Mr. and Mrs. Howard L. Brooks, ~9370 Saratoga-LosjGatos Road, recommending a provision be added to exclude single-family residences in which the land area exceeds a stated minimum. Geraldine L. Barrett, 14050 Marilyn Lane, supporting the proposed ordinance and the 3½-foot fencing requirement. Mayor Smith felt the two issues seem to be: 1) the required height of the fence, as indicated in Section 3-50.2; and 2) a provision which talks about a pool ~ sits on a large tract of land and is not accessible by the public. He indicated that Section 3-50-4 - Variances, would C~Ver the procedure to be undergone in cases of unusual circumstances or unnecessary hardship, whereby the Board of Appeals would have the power to permit modifications or deviations from the fencing regulations as set forth. The Mayor then opened the public hearing (8:25 p.m.) Mr. Robert. Van der Toorren, 14555 Horseshoe Drive, addressed the Council~and stated he would like to address the Council's attention to the term "body of water", suggesting that it be changed to "unattended body of water". It was his feeling the requirement of self-closing doors to be in operationat all times would be a nuisance, and it should not apply to private clubs or wherever there are lifeguards on duty. With regard to Section 3-50.2, stating that every body of water be completelyj~ enclosed by a fence, Mr. Van derToorren felt it should be specifically stated where it should be enclosed, whether it must surrDund the pool itself or it this refers to all the property. He felt that some structural criteria should be included so that some basis could be used for issuing building permits. Mr. Van der Toorren felt, also, a 3½-foot fence might tend to give a total sense of false security, whereby ~arent might leave a child unattended since there is a fence surrounding the ~'6f. TherefpF~,.he_fel~ if the fence is not not_constructed well or is not high enough,/~egwoulduhave .dond~i~br~t%. con~hte ~'][o al2~p~ger6qs~ situation than if there were no!'~de at'~iij 'I~r. van d~ Ta0rren further 'suggested it be specified where this fe~e~height is being taken from, and it should be specified either on the inside or outside of the finished grade. Mr. Van der Toorren commented with respect to size of holes or openings, stating he felt 4 inches in dim&nsion might tend to be very heavy, and felt perhaps 6 or even 7 inches might be more feasible. With regard to the requirement that the gate in the fence be self-closing and self-latching, Mr. Van der Toorren felt it should be specified that the latch be 4, 5 or 6 feet, or a safe distance from the ground. Mr?' ~an d~FToor~h ~t&~&~ he~f&lt'~ight must be specified for those fences, ~W~fi~,=~d~l~'~'~pletely surround a lot, in order to protect a child from th~861'~D~dd-the 'pr6vision of self closing and self-latching doors should be applicable to f~n~/walls surrounding a lot. In closing, Mr. Van der Tooren stated he felt if a child is determined to get into a pool, he will get in, regardless of the height of the fence; however, he felt 3! feet is too low, and 5 or 6 feet would be a good height. Richard Thomas, 14357 Saratoga Avenue, stated he is totally sympathetic to some kind of fencing around open pools in the neighborhood where small toddlers. However, he indicated he lives in a complex of 23 condominiums centered around a pool, in accordance with requirements of the Planning Commission, and the pool is the centerpiece of the complex. He indicated that the proper fencing would require 7 of the 23 units to go through the'~p5ol fence to get into their front door. Mr. Thomas stated they have never had a~c~'of_~mall~Chil~ coming into the vicinity of the pool, as far as anyone ~j~b~r.' ~e indicated all the people he has talked tof?in this area are against fencing something that causes this trouble if the~e are no children in the area and no demonstrated hazards. - 5 - ORDINANCE 38.59 RE: SWIMMING POOL FENCING (Cont'd.) Mr. Thomas stated there is a 15-year-old age minimum in th~se units, and when you take the situation where people have moved in here to do something and to live as they hope to live under the circumstances, such as age and other conditions, you put them on the defensive by not allowing them to live as they want to live. Mr. Thomas pointed out that there is adequate insurance on these units, and the insurance carrier did not require a pool fence in order to issue insurance. He felt this was a unique situation, and it is their purpose to ask the Council in considering this ordinance how this kind of situation can be met. Mr. Thomas stated there are a lot of street corners in the city, and we do not put stop lights on every corner because they are not needed. Mayor Smith felt that~e'~Ue here seems to be ~ra~d~'~' ~'~i~n of the variance procedure and~he-u~Usual situation here. Afs0,~M~% Thomas" pgi~'of "no demonstrated danger" should be considered. He felt the ke~{~[eBe to try to be to better define thelanguage under the Variance section of the ordinance to cover these indivfdual situations. Mr. Thomas commented if the Variance procedure in the ordinance is enacted, he would hope this procedure would be liberal. Mayor Smith assured him this wasn't th~ classical variance which, incidentally, is very ~_~ffi~lt to bbtain in Saratoga. Mr. Bill Wishart, Pres{dent of Saratoga Vineyards Homeowners Association, addressed the Council, stating the Vineyards has 2 large swimming pools, as well as reflecting ponds and lagoons. Mr. Wishart stated he would hope the Council would give consideration to the unique circumstances in this condominium He further stated the homeowners association would not object to the fence itself, but the height, and he stated they already have fencing around one pool 4 feet in height. Another problem would be the reflecting ponds and the large lagoons, and he asked that the Cpuncil~k~,into consideration cormmunities such as this. Mr. Gary Hart, a Saratoga resident, asked ~{'f~We~a~debating the wording of the ordinance this evening or the ordinance its~f~"i~ng that it was his interpretation that the Council is'accepting the fact there will be a swimming pool fencing ordinance. Mayor Smith replied the Council is considering both the issue of an ordinance, as well as the wording. Mr. Hart then asked if the Council was acting on this to cause hardship to people by requiring fencing around pools to protect the~CI~y~ from personal liability. Mayor Smith replied the,City~s intent is to protect young'children. Mr. Hart argued thae one of the letters of objection stated that a child could climb a fence, wh~ther it was 5 feet or 7 feet in height, and asked if we are talking ~bout a child climbing a fence unsupervised. Mayor Smith replied that there is no fence which would prevent a child from gaining access to a pool; however, one would conclude they.would be'in far greater danger with an unfenced pool. Mr. Hart~s~d if the City is trying to protect a child who is really lacking supervision. ~ Councilman Diridon commented if we followed this gentlemen~s line of reasoning, we wouldn't have crosswalks~nn streets because the youngsters~ parents should be walking across the street, and the other ~F~tections a good society should provide for those people who can't take car~ of themselves. - 6 - ORDINANCE 38.59 RE: SWIMMING POOL FENCING (Cont'd.) Mr. Frank Perdichizzi, president o~ Prides Crossing Homeowners Association, commented that the ordinance seems to indicate that walls of a building may be considered as a part of the fencing. He felt that ordinarily, the walls of the building would be considered as a part of the house, and the matter of self-cloSing doors would then become a real problem. Another problem is that sometimes the entrance to the back yard is a garage door, and sometimes there are two doorways to pass through before entering the back yard, and the sliding se~f-closing door would be a problem if this were the situation. Mr. Perdichizzi suggested if the wall itself is to be considered as a part of the fencing, i~he' wording should be changed to include the residence, and also indicate that all doors be self-latching. Another point ~aised by Mr. Perdichizzi is that unless the latches are unaccess- ible~a certain height or you have .to reach over the top of the fence, any toddler can open these fences. ~P~i stated another thing with Self-latching locks on the gates is that they sometimes have loops on them. Mr. Perdichizzi felt a toddler could easily reach over a 3! foot fence, and he felt the minimum height ~equirement should be .4 feet, and that it should specify that the fence cannot be e~sily clim~'~.fromthe outside. Mel Jacobs of 211851Haymeadow Driv~ presented.the Council with a petition con- taining approximately 311~g~tures in support of the proposed pool-fence ordinance. Howard Summers, 14800 Andrew Court, stated he ~s convinced this issue is an important problem, and the~8~m'~=~hich hayS,been heard this evening would indicate there needs to be a ....... ~-sw~mm~lfenci~g~r~nce. Mr. Summers stated he would like to comp~e ~f~h~i~s~f~is fencing to some of the disadvantages: One of the benefits would be protection of the young children; however, he~realized that fences are no barrier to school-age children. He pointed oU~ in Saratpga, a ~ood portion ~6f>resid~nces consist of acre zoning, and ~a~?~is~.7~h~'~~ t~&~i!s:b~F~16~.~?-~'b~&~l~ (~rs Ee~t~the~diSa~va~tag~Se~uf~,D~e~hA~'~thiS fencing~Would ~e un-.f. f~lf"th~'~f~fi~l~~ wndf~ restrict movement of certain wildlife in the area. In conclusion~ Mr. Summers stated he is recommending against acceptan~ of the ordinance'on the basis that it is unnecessary. Sam Herrill, residing on Sobey Road, commented it appeared to him the arguments ~ff~s ~?~V~n raised around whether or not 3~ feet is the proper height for ~in~%"R~ questioned if the particular language available meets the need with- out imposing restriction. Mr. Herrill was bf the opinion in Saratoga this is not the greatest area of danger to the. children. He stated in his neighborhood the highest danger is the streets in front of the homes and also, walking to and from school bus stops. He further commented that this fencing could.,~reate~a situation whereby%~is~own ~hild woh~d be unable to re-enter onto his o~ prop~t~ Mr. ~Herrill's recommendation was that pre-existing dwellings in low density areas of ~ acre or more should only be required to fence if there is a demonstrated hazard existing on this property. Secondly, he suggested that landscaping barriers such as pyracantha or oleanders be accepted as barriers, or anything reasonable which prevents a toddler from entering the pool. A resident of Michael Drive addressed the Council, stating that there are no '~r~children in his area, and it would be quite a nuisance to have to fence each pool in this neighborhood. He asked the question: "~at are we actually trying to stop?" and stated that ~ff~id=~4'~5~a~'~ wants to climb a fence, he will cli~. Therefore, it ~a~h~e~li~ ~ '~lly thinking of the - 7 - ORDINANCE 38.59 RE: SWIMMING POOL FENCING Cont'd.) toddler who cannot defend himself, .and a small fence would be adequate. Also, Mayor Smith felt the variance procedure as outlined in the ordinance should have to be undergone.for each individual dituation~here the resident is requesting exemption. Mrs. Elsie Buckley, 15300~E1Camino Grande, commented that she has a small child, and they reside on 2 acres of land. She stated that most of the homes surrounding theirs far~f~uated on 2, 3 or 4 acres, and one of her neighbors has recently buil~'~z~d~' Which is not fenced. Mrs. Buckley indicated this was previously a neighborhood consisting primarily of older people; however, recently there has been a ~omplete changeoyeZ. Mrs. Buckley stated when she looks out her window she sees small children-- 2, 3 and 4 years in age -- running over to this pool, circling around it,' throwing stones into it, etc. She stated she would favor passing this ordinance. Mr. Charles Huff, 12725 Miller Aven~e, pointed out that a 3-5 year-old'can be gone the minute his parents turn their back, and if there is no kind of fence around a swimming pool a child can drown in 2-3 minutes. Secondly, Mr. Huff felt if the question of hardship with building a fence should come up, he would recommend moving, as the cost of the fence is very .in~i~hi~ia~.~o~pp~ed ~t-~.~j~0st of the home. "" ~ ' ' ' ''" Mr. Huff felt that a 3~'foot fence could be climbed very easily by a child, and a chain-link fence can be climbed very quickly. He further Yco~ented that an older child, perhaps 7 or 8, who is visiting may well cross into a neighbor's yard, but he wouldn't climb a fence; however, if there is no fence he would cross the yard to the pool, He further stated he ~re faced with the problem of the 3-year-old who tries to enter through the gate into the back yard, he wouldn't have this problem anyway because he 'wouldn't leave that child uns~je~j~ running around with a pool. in the back yard. His. answer to this would ~5~ to go through the garage door or the front door of the house. With regard to exceptions to the requ~ements in the= ordinance, ~. Huff stated he ~rf~ei;F ~f~ strongl~'=th~Y~t~Q~ia~j~%'~vi~i~-~s~i~Ba~:utilized for each ~s. McI~erny of Monte Vista ~ive, stated they have submitted a petition with approximately 81 names, in support of this ordinance; however, it is their feeling there should be 51'~o 6-foot fences around new po61s. ~erefore, she stated they would request an amendment to Section 3-50.2, to change 3i feet to ~ . 5 feet. . d . e a~ not t o create has sel s in z case ~ z~re _f~Z a~e t~ready ;U~'~d 'del~yje~c~{~~'L ='~ the fencing requirement o~ ~[l th~ 0~en pools in th~rea. '~" Mayor Smith indicated there are really several subject areas to look at in considering this issue: 1) there should be a concensus from the Council as to whether or not they want to proceed with this ordinance; 2) whether or not .we want to give greater definition as to what the fence means; 3) heigh~ 4) whether or not we want to stay with the present variance procedure; and 5) whether pre- existing fences should have some pre-existing right. Mayor Smith asked the City Attorney if he had any comments about the definition of fencing. Mr. Johnston stated that it would depend primarily on what the Council wanted. He indicated' that this criteria is not unique, as it came from the Building Inspector after his analysis and his report to the Council that these were his recommendations. He-indicated there'was no intent that fences surrounding a lot or walls of a building or any combination be less than'3~, and if there is some - 8 - ORDINANCE 3B.59 RE: SWIMMING POOL FENCING (Cont'd.) ambiguity there, we can make sure that that is covered. Mr. Johnston con- tinued there was no intent that if was a residential building which it was part of, the sliding doors would have to be self-latching; however, he stated he would have to have input from the Council as to which way it leans on these points, and if desired, they could be made more specific. With regard to the s~elf-latching device, the City Attorney commented latches can be placed as low as possible on the idside so someone can't reach around and open them. Mayor Smith asked if it was the intent of the Council to go ahead with this ordinance. The Council unanimously voted to proceed with the ordinance. .The Mayor then asked if the Council felt the variance procedure in Section 3-50.4 was sufficient in cases of unusual circumstances. The Council was in agreement that this section was adequate. The Mayor then asked the Councilfs opinion regarding height of the fence. After some discussion, it was the concensus of the Council that a 5-foot fenc~ing requirement would be most feasible. He asked lhow the Council felt about pre-existing fences.an~ whether or not they felt this could be covered under the variance procedure. ~hel C~ty'~tforney commented that he felt the City would be processing a lot of applications for variances, and if the Council grane~d)on~, it would have to grant them all. Therefore, he felt the Council should decide this policy and include .~t in the ordinance; however, he thought ~minimum height should be stated, even on an existing fence. The City Manager pointed out at the present time the City doesn.~t require a building permit to construct a fence~ therefore, itwould be ~ifficult to determine when the fence was installed. ~o~n~lm~n~Bridge~_q~mme~ed he ~kd~'t fe~l .thp ~t~en6ftt~' o~d~n~c~fw~s~sd~hu~'ha~ its~an~bet~i~d,-and h~Tdidn't~ fe~l. it=was~lth~ City's~rol~zto go ou[ ~nd inspect every fence% ...... With regard tO ~Ci~g~required, hefelt there should be greater definition given to this se~[i~n~ for instance, specifying that the height of the fence be measured from the outside grade. Councilman 'Bridges felt.we should reduce the size of the opening if it is to be the wire mesh variety, or add some wording that.would take into consideration some type 6f protective cover to prevent s~ilcb~ldren f~om~dlimbing over the fence. Councilman Kraus asked if something like pyracantha could be taken care of in the varience procedure. The City Attorney replied that 'it could be'~i~lu~a; however, he s~ggest~d if the Council agreed that heavy hedges should ~ualif~, m~ybe this should be stated. Mayor Smith asked if was the concensus of the Council~that this matter be con- tinued to the next regular meeting, and the City Attorney be directed to provide clearer definition with regard to Section 3-50.4, pertaining to the variance procedure. It was moved by Councilman Bridges this hearing be continued to the next regular meeting, at which time the ~nance and revised language be ~onsidereh for possible adoption. The motion was carried. - 9 - C. DONALD PERATA, PIKE ROAD Appeal of Plannin~ Commission Decision to Deny Application for Buildinn Site Approval (SDR-1130) The City Manager asked Mr. Van Duyn, Planning Director, to review the action of the Planning Commissioh~ Mr. Vay Duyn advised that most of the information relative to this site has been covered in the appeal, and the Council has received a copy of the minutes and staff report. However, he stated that basically this involves'a split of property into two building sites, making it necessary for the Slope Density Conservation Ordinance to be expanded on the property which Mr. Perata originally received building site approval. Subsequently, however, the Slope Density Ordinance was changed, andwhen'the tentative map approval expired, Mr. Perata came back in and received a three-lot building site approval, and he now has purchased additional land which meets the new slope density ordinance, and he is attempting to split the property into two additional lots. Mr. Van Duyn indicated.that the Subhivision Committee had met and discussed at length this proposalEadd had asked Mr. Perata to come in and revise the map. The Committee advised Mr. Perata they were not at all happy with the map, and the three membe~sslof the Subdivision Committee unified their position in recommending that it be denied. He stated at the time the matter was brought to the Planning Commission, the Subdivision Committee made their report and recommende~ site approval be denied, and there was a motion of denial by the Planning Commission, with 4 voting to deny, 2 abstaining, and 1 absent. The Planning Director stated that one of the basic reasons this was denied is the Commission didn't like the fact that additional land was purchased to pro- vide Mr j Perata the ability to meet the slope density portion of the Ordinance. He further stated that when this originally came in it was a three-lot subdivision; then it was subsequently recorded as a four-lot subdivision. Now Mr. Perata is asking that this one lot be split. He indicated that Mr. Perata purchased the rectangular piece to meet the letter of the Ordinance. Councilman Kraus asked if the driveways meet the Ordinance as far as the grades, etc. Mr. Van Duyn indicated this is a minimum access road, and minimum improvements are required; Mr. Perata would, however, be required to meet the slope density requirements. The Mayor then opened the public hearing (9:50 p.m.) Mr. Perata, 19195 Parkwood Drive~#4, Cupertino, addressed the Council, stating that as he understands, he does meet all the ordinances and policies, and yet, he was denied this approval on the basis of poor planning. Mr. Perata indicated that he originally purchased this property in 1965, and at that time, he was granted a 4-lot approval. He stated that anyone who wanted to develop at that time had to widen Pike ~rom the bottom of their property to the top of their neighbores fence. Mr. Perata stated when his site approval expired, he re-applied in 1971, and he came back with the ~xact same map; however, he was turned down because he was told he~didn't meet ~he slope density requirement. Since that time, he has been able to pdrchase some land which meets the slope density requirements, and therefore, feels he should be able to receive approval. There being no further 'comments, it'was moved by Councilman Bridges a~seconded by Councilman Kraus the public hearing be closed. The motion was carried; the public hearing was closed at 9:55 p.m. Mayor Smith commented that it is his feeling if a proposal meets the Ordinance and all the guidelines, regardless of how we got there, he sees no reason to deny it. - 10 - DONALD PERATAAPPEAL, PIKE ROAD (Cont~d.) COuncilman Brid~es asked Mr. Van Duyn in the case Of flag lotc~wh~t length would the access road to the back of the lots be required to be. Mr. Van Duyn replied that he didn't_th~? there was any specific mention with regard,to length -- only width is specified. Mr. Robert Shook, Director of~F~blic Works,I verified this, stating he didn't believe there was' ~ ~,~{~'~'reqdi~t '~7~mfni~ access road. Mr. Bridges stated that he is 'referring to this as a driveway, and this lot is like a flag lot, and whenever there is a flag situation there is no secondary access to [heSe homes.' He ~[h~f~f~r~ .indicated he wa~ not satisfied this sil~ltion~meets the O~dinance requirements. The'City Attorney.explain~dthat the Ordinance states that cul-de-sac ~treets are to be no,longer than 40D feet of the intersection of the'hOB cul-de-sac street, but this definition½elateslto "public streets". It also says that ". . . except that a length in excess of 400 feet is permitted and it is the only method of d~velo~ing the proper~y." IMr. Johnston stated ~his is a guide- fine rather than a strict.rule,,andit is aimed at a typical cul-de-s~c street. After some further discussion by th& Council on this issue, it was moved by . Councilman Diridon and seconded by Councilman Kraus that this appeal be granted,Q subject to those conditions imposed at the staff level. The motion was carried, 3 to 1 in favor, Councilman Bridges voting in opposition, Councilman Brigham - absent. VI. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS A. MAYOR 1. Announced Executive Session following this meeting to discuss matters of Personnel and Potential Litation. B. FINANCE 1. It was moved by Councilman Bridges and seconded by Councilman Kraus the list of disbursements, 19865 thru 19930 be approved, and the Mayor be .authorized to sign the warrants. The motion was 'carried. C. COUNCIL AND~COMMiSSION REPORTS None. J D. DEPARTMENT HEADS ~ OFFICERS ~. None. E. CITY MANAGER 1. Announced Village Plan presentation and hearing scheduled for September 18th; 'discussiSn at Committee 'of the Whole M~eting on SeptemBer 24th; and hearing and final adoption.scheduled on October '2nd. 2. Report Re: Manpower Advisory Council - It was moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded by Councilman'_Bridges'the City Manager be authorized to represent the City of Saratoga on the Advisory Council. The motion was carried. 3. Amendment to previous claim submitted for accident on Reid Lane and Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. -'It was moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded by Councilman Bridgesthis'amended claim be rejected and forwarded to the City's insurance 'carrier for handling. The motion was carried. - 11 - 4. Progress Report Re: Opening a city street across the State right-of-way (Highway 85). - State Highway Commission to agendize this matter for a meeting in.September. 5. Request for Council to adjourn to an A~journed Regular Meeting next Tuesday, if appropriate, as a result of the Executive Session this evening. - Itwas moved by Councilman Bridges and seconded by Councilman Kraus adjournment to an Adjourned Regular Meeting ~uesday, September 10th, be approved. The motion was carried. VII. COMMUNICATIONS A. WRITTEN Letters Re: Proposed Ordinance No. ,38.59, Re: ~@.ncing of Swimming Pools: 1. Mr. and Mrs. John S. Langwill, 15210 Bohlman Road 2. "Supporters'of Adequate Pool Fencing ~City of Saratoga" (petition) 3. Mr. and Mrs. Howard L. Brooks, 19370 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road 4. Geraldine L. Barrett, 14050 Marilyn Lane 5. Nancy Ellen Yeargain, 14300' Saratoga Ave. 6. Mrs. Jay M. Bloom, 14150 Squirrel Hollow Lane 7. Mr. and Mrs. Allan Boyce, 20900 Boyce Lane These letters will bec0mea part of the file. on this matter, and the City Manager will respond individually. MiScellaneous Communications 1. Raymond Schneyer, Chairman, Brookside Swim Committee, Brookside Club of Saratoga, requesting permission to hold a special swim relay the weekend of October 4th thru 6th. - It was moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded .by Councilman Diridon to approve the swim relay October 4th thru 6th, conditional to~notifying residents in this area of the event. The motion was carried. / 2. H. P. Seitter, P. O. Box 342, Saratoga, Re: Proposed Business'License '~ Ordinance. - Noted and filed; City Manager to respond. 3. Miles Rankin, Member 1973-74 General Plan Committee, commending the City Staff, Planning Commission, and City Council for its efforts in the formd~tion of the revised Saratoga General Plan. - Noted and filed. 4. Mr. Melvin G. Hart, 14187 Sobey Meadows ICourt and residents o~ Sobey Meadows Court, requesting the Council's~consideration in approving abandoning7' ment of a wal~way easement across the rear of their property. - City Manager to respond. B.ORAL None. VIII. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Councilman Diridon and seconded by Councilman Bridges the meeting be adjourned to an Executive Session this evening and an Adjourned Regular Meeting on September 10, 1974. The motion was carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:15 p.m. IX. EXECUTIVE SESSION X. RECONVEYAI{CE The Council reconveyned following the Executive Session and took the following action: t. It was moved by Councilman Diridon and seconded by councilman Bridges the City Attorney be authorized to commence legal proceedings to abate and enjoin the ongoing violations at the Margolis/Seagraves property at Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, regarding the use of practice of law in a Residential zoning district. The motion was carried. I~ was reported that similar action had been taken three years previous and the use had ceased bey6nd permitted limits. 2. It was moved by Councilman Bridges and Seconded by Councilman Kraus an expenditure of an additional $1,000 for cedar grape stake of the privacy fence for construction of the bicycle path on Sarat6ga · Lo~tos Road, be approved. The motion was carried. XI. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Councilman Bridges and seconded by Councilman Kraus the Reconveyned Meeting be adjourned. The motion was carried. spectfully submitted, Robert