Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-18-1974 City Council Minutes MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL TIME: WedneSday, September 18, 1974 -7:30 p.m. PLACE: Saratoga City Council ChamSers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California TYPE: Regular Meeting I. ORGANIZATION · "~ Ai ROLL CALL Present: Councilmen Bridges, Brigham, Diridon, Kraus and Smith Absent: None B. MINUTES It was moved by Councilman Bridges and seconded by Councilman Kraus the minutes 6f September 4, 1974 and September 10, 1974, be approved. The motion was carried. II. BIDS AND CONTRACTS A. DEMONSTRATION BICYCLE.ROUTE SYSTEM, VARIOUS ASPHALT WALKWAY PROJECTS It was moved by Councilman. Bridges and seconded by Councilman Brigham the staff be authorized to advertise for bids on this project. The motion was carried. B. AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE. CITY OF SARATOGA AND WEST VALLEY COM~ftrNITY COLLEGE ECOLOGY CLUB FOR OPERATION AND 'MAINTENANCE OF RECYCLE CENTER It was moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded by Councilman Brigham the M~yor be authorized to execute the ~ene~al~cOn6~a~tfor~an additional one-year period.. The motion was carried. C. FARWELL AVE. STORM DRAIN PROJECT The City Manager advised 4 bids were received for this project, ranging from $50,361.80 to $76,~400.60. The low bid received by Sanco Pipelines, inc. of Campbell was reported to be 1% o~er the engineer's estimate of $49,780.00. It was moved by Councilman Bridges and seconded by Councilman Kraus the contra~ for this project be ~warded to Sanco Pipelines, Inc. for the low bid of $50,361.80, and the May6r be authorized to execute the contract. The motion.was ~rried. D. SARATOGA AVENUE STORM DRAIN PROJECT (Near Seagraves) It was reported that one informal quote was.received on this project, from Tom Glag~ Underground of Campbell, in the amount of $3,220~'00. It was m6ved by Councilman Diridon and seconded by Councilman Brigham the contract be awarded to Tom Glage Underground of Campbell for their single bid of $3,220.00. The motion was carried. III. PETITIONS, ORDINANCES AND FORMAL RESOLUTIONS A. RESOLUTION NO. MV-81 Resolution Establishing Stop Intersection~at Via Roncole and Maureen Way It was moved by Councilman Bridges and seconded by Councilman Kraus Resolution MV-81 be adopted. Th~ motion was carried. B. ORDINANCE NO. 38.51 AnOrdinance of the City of Saratoga Amending Article V of Chapter 4 of the Saratoga City Code, Relating to Business Licenses (Cont'd. 7/17/74 & 9/4/74)! The Mayor pointed out the request by the Chamber of Commerce for the City's contribution of a percentage of funds derived from the business license fee for Chamber events, was considered at the previous hearing on this matter and a report would be forthcoming in the next 30 to 45 days; however, this contri- bution was not to be contingent on the passage of this ordinance. Mr. John Hellingsen of Los Gatos, ¥oi'ced _hi~ objection to the fact that self- employed individuals such as himself'(b~ih~ a painter) have to pay a separate fee if they cross' the street into another community. He indicated he might only have to paint one house in Saratoga during the year, and didn't feel it was fair he should have to PaY thi~ fee. Mr. Don Gerth, a resident and businessman of Saratoga, commented he thought the original idea of the $25.00 one-time business license'l~e was to keep "tabs" on those who were doing bhsiness legally or illegally in the city. Mr. Gerth indicated he Hadjread in the local newspaper that the City Manager has proposed the annual business license fee to bring an estimated $18,000 to the City. Mr. Gerth asked if the Council was going to hang $18,000 on the business p~ople of Saratoga . . . and asked "What about the other people?" He was of the opinion if more money is needed to pQlice business in Saratoga, the taxes should be raised; however, he did not feel it costs $18,000 to police the business people in Saratoga. · Mayor Smith felt to take one statement out of the newspaper without a full explanation is misconstruing a total.range of reasons why the City is proposing this tax. He also commented one of the purposes of this annual business licenm fee is an attempt to get revenue back into the community. Councilman Diridon explained that the Chamber of Commerce has continuously asked the City for funds forYa~ious~v'~and we would seriously like to be able to .~$~t~lwit~'~Fh~s~'~c.'Ff~t~s. He stated that this is'a way of gaining funds from ~hecommunity that benefits most by these types of activities. He further stated that one facit of the business comm~ity that does not pay prop~ty taxes currently uses our streets, takes advantage of the fine community we do have to carry on a business; however, they don't contribute to the tax Structure. This would include the milkman who is located in another community, the cleaners, tPe bread salesman, etc. Councitmanlblridon further stated Saratoga is the only city in the north state that doesn't ~ve this type of minimum business license fe~ Y~e'~i~.M~nl~er~i~d~opt-.the con6ept of this ordinance was covered back in May, and h~'had s6gg~t~d.a number of ways of raising additional revenue to fu~ the budget for the next fiscal year. One of these ways was modification of the business license fees. Another way, however, was to provide a better tool !~ in which to manage the business license program, as theone-time business license provides no way of knowing what businesses are operating illegally in the City of Saratoga. c-~-f~'Sated this approach would not be the"gr0s~ receipts" approach, and it would 'be a Very cheap program to operate. He also pointed out that 'only approximately 1.56% of the property tax goes to city government. Councilman Bridges indicated he felt this business license tax is extremely justified; however, he felt before adopting this ordinance, we should set down some guidelines before putting this money back into the community. It was moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded by Councilman Bridges Ordinance No. 38.51 be adopted. The motion'was carried, 4 to 1 in favor; Councilman Bridges opposed. - 2 - C. RESOLUTION NO. MV-82 Resolution Prohibiting Parking on Several City Streets The City Manager explained this resolution is being brought up particularly because of the parking problem at West Valley College. This resolution would impose temporary prohibition o£ parking in a~jaCept areas where there is no provision for such. This resolution would be effective only for a one-month period.following the opening of school, and signs would be posted at the indicated locations and specified hours in the proposed resolution. Mayor Smith pointed out this resolution could be agendized prior to the spring semester to avoid a similar problem at that time. Mrs. Gia~l[son, a resident of Saratoga, indicated she had called the college and was told they are trying to form car pools for students and encourage ~' using the bus. They further advised her they had anticipated only 10,000 students, and the registration f{gure is 18,000. After hearing comments from several' other residents in the area ~[in~n~to this overflow of parking along specific residential streets, it wa~'~oved'by M~or77~mith and seconded by Councilman Bridges Resolution MV-82 be adopted with the following additional locations: 1) Westover Drive and Myren Court; 2) Myren Drive to Casa Blanca; 3) Shorthill Court to Ch~e§te~; and 4) Chester Ave. to Sobey Road. Inclusive in this motion was the directive that repre- sentative(s) of the City meet with the Board of Directors at the College as soon as possible to discuss the provisions as originally set out in the "gentlemen's agreement" between the two entities. The motion was carried= unanimously. IV. SUBDIVISIONS, BUILDING SITES AND ZONING REQUESTS~ A. SDR-908 FIERCE ROAD AT OLD OAKWAY (Cont'd. 9/4/74) Mayor Smith explained the critical issue here is whether or not the Council wants to authorize removal of a large Bay Tree reportedly creating a vision problem between Pierce Road and Old Oak Way. Mr. Neville, residing on Pierce Road, commented he felt this problem is a result of faulty engineering, and encouraged the Council to use restraint in the future by way of not allowing ~uch situations to become apparent from a traffic point of view. Re commented if future widening efforts are made on Pierce Road, this will encourage increased speed, and it will no longer be considered as a country road. It was moved by Councilman Bridges and seconded by Councilman Bridges Resolutim No. 710, Accepting Dedication of Right-of-Way, be adopted. The motion was carried. B. SDR-912 RUSSELL R. REED, SARATOGA-SUNNYVALE ROAD It was moved by Councilman Diridon and seconded by Councilman Bridges the Mayor be authorized to execute the Deferred Improvement Contract for this applicant. The motion was carried. C. TRACT 5288 JOHN MARKULIN, MONTALVO ROAD & HILL AVE. It was moved by Councilman Diridon and seconded by Councilman Bridges Resolution SD-1114-1, granting Final Map Approval, be adopted,~ and the Mayor be authorized to execute the contract for improvements on this tract. The motion was carried. - 3 - D. TRACT 5503 TWIN OAKS ASSOCIATION, OAK STREET~ The City,Manager advised this is a six-unit condominium development on Oak Street/~ the top 'of Fourth Street. ,He stated the proposed stairwellIIg~e~' from Oak'Street to the bottom of the hill into the Parking Assessment District. After these plans were filed with the Planning Department, the applicant' and another party filed a petition for the formation of a parking assessment'distr~6e'l, He indicated the boundaries proposed in that district would require the purchase of 12 to 13 feet to fit the ~xisting property. As is presently proposed for approval, the squar~ footage of the lot is not needed for the six units. Ther~ fore, if the parking 4istrict runs similar to the boundaries, it would be cr~a~ing a sub-standard lot' if that district i~'approved. · he c~d~[ib~'-~i~ali~r~: 'ai,~,' ~la[e the'improvement R!an~ for ihZ~' .F~d~tr~BB.:ste~s from .~ of~4~thlStieet~to t6ak.Str.&et; ~nd 2)_Exec.ute agree' ~_~_t an~ ~nf~'~roX~_~ B~Hdras~d~t~je~?by ~h~ Cit~ fo' cOnstrUct 'the '. ped~s~ri~n-walkway.'~-~ .... _ .... / ....... ~; It was moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded.by Councilman Brigh~m Resolution No. SD-1076-1, granting Conditional Final Map Approval, be adopted and the May~' be authorized to execute the contract for improvements on this tract. The motion wa~ carried. E. TRACT 5552 MALICHY J. MORAN, SARATOGA AVE. The condition for approval of this final map is that the Improvement Contract (Exhibit A) be executed. It was moved by Councilman Diridon and seconded by Councilman Bridges Resolution No. SD-1019-1, granting Conditional Final Map Approval, be adopted and the May~ be authorized to execute the contract for improvements 0n this tract. The motion was carried. F. TRACT5384 JIM DAY, WOODBANK WAY & QUITO ROAD It has been requested this item be withdrawn and agendized for the next regular City Council Meeting. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. VILLAGE FLAN, CITY OF SARATOGA The City Manager indicated the Village Plan, which is the last element of the 1973-74 General Plan, has been approved by the Planning Commission after several public hearings and work sessions. Re stated Mr. Ironside of the Planning Consultant firm of Williams and Mocine was present this evening to review Briefly the proposed Village Plan. He indicated it is the staff's recommendation that following this presentation, the hearing be continued to the October 2nd meeting, and also, a study session be scheduled for next Tuesday evening for discussion of the Plan. Mr. Robert Ironside addressed ,the Council and shmmorized briefly the report on the Village Plan. Mr. Ironside stated the Village doesn't really have a strategic location or an initial center. He further commented that there is a considerable amount of undeveloped land on Big Basin Way, and many of the properties are under- utilized, particularly the center of the Village. He indicated there is room for more commercial activity without any additional expansion. Mr. Ir6nside indicated that the report goes on to ev~luaee the roles of the City, and for comparison they used some data pertinent to shopping centers. He indicated there are essentially three types: 1) neighborhood; 2) community; and 3) regional. Mr. Ironside indicated that the Village has the character- - 4 - VILLAGE PLAN (Cont'd.) isticsof a community shoppxng center,'and he felt it would be ~eneficial to have some organization of which there could be a single management'voice coordinating activities in the V~llage. He further indicated that a major improvement would be that of parking, and one significant recommendation would be the reconstruction of Big Basin Way to see that parking comes off the street. He felt the solution here would be not to increase the travelled way, but to keep i6 one lane in each direction and provide turning lanes. Mr. Ironside stated 'there are a number of sketches included in the report that show what can be done if property owners will give individual attention to their stores. 'He indicated there is a vista behind the*stores which overlook th~ creek that is almost like a national park. Because of the unique quality of Saratoga, it is being suggested that re-emphasis be given to pedestrian acqeSs, re-organizing the.parking, and giving another face to each building so there is as much face to the backside as there is to the front. He indicated they are recommending activity occur southerly up the hill on the property between Oak Street and Big. Basin Way, and the chang~ of grade in this area be taken advantage of architectually. He further commented that the "Commercial" zoning which now extends westerly past Sixth Streetsshould be limited ~o Fifth Street to allow an easier walking distance to commercial development. He felt it would.help strengthen the Village if more residential structures were constructed near the Village, thereby giving it more activity and more vitality. The City Manager brought to~the'CoUncil~s atten~ion'a' letter received from Miles Rankin, indicating his comments with regard to the proposed Village Plan. The Mayor then ~opened the public hearing (9:04 p~m.) ~' Mr. Sam Hernandez, 14626 Big Basin Way, commented that he felt Mr. Ironside has some~ very good ideas; however, he stated he was against decreasing the "commercial" zone along Big Basin Way. He indicated that this property was zoned "commercial 5 or 6 years ago, and since that time taxes have gone up. He indicated that properties have been sold and converted into. businesses between Fifth and Sixth Streets; properties across the street have been sold and people are holding them to build. He lindic~t~d~that the owners of the remaining properties have bought in other parts ~f~e city and are renting these properties. Mr. Hernandez was in agreement that the beauty behind these old shacks is terrific, and he had tried to get the City to do something about this 8 or 9 years ago. However, this land was sold to a private individual and paved with asphalt. It was now his understanding the City had to buy back some -of that land for more than its value. Mr. Hernandez' indicated he didn't feel it was fair to 'cut down on "commercial". He stated these peopledon~t care they rent to, and it was his feeling these properties could be turned into very beautiful commercial establishments. Mr. Hernandez urged that before the Council takes action ~ this regard they come down and walk with him and allow him to point out these' ~atures. IHe..stated he w~nt to "commercial" zoning just so the man aextl~0or could have "commercial" zoning. He stated that he didn't need "commercial" zoning, and he has been paying more money all these years for having this zoning. Mr. Hernandez indicated he doesn't make any more money as a result of this zoning, and people don~t care if he has "commercial" zoning or not; however, he went to it because he felt it was the best thing for the town. The man the City hired at that time said it could go all the way tothe ~nd of the street; then that property was sold and then someone wanted to build condominiums and it changed again. VILLAGE PLAN (Cont'd.) Mayor Smith reminded Mr. Hernandez the recommended action this evening would be to continue the p~blic hearing to October 2nd, 1974, at which time furthe~ testimoney could be given; also a study session would be held next Tuesday, September 24th so that consideration could be given to the points Mr. Hernandez has raised. It was moved by 'Coun~iiman Diridon and seconded by Councilman Bridges the recommended action~b~ approved. The motion was carried. B. TRAFFIC CONTROL AND PROPOSED FOUR-WAY STOPS IN THE PRIDE'S CROSSING AREA OF,SARATOGA (Cont'd. from 8/21/74) The City Manager indicated'he would like the~Director of Public Works to comment and give his recommendationsas a result of his review of the comments at the previous hearing.on this matter. Mr. Shook, Director of Public Works, advised that the Staff has reviewed the suggestions from the first hearing and generally would recommend ..tb~p_F~e_~ which the plan was originally generated be accepted, with the suggested re- location of the one-stop intersection on Scully.fr~1therin~ica~d_'10cation-lon :~Via~ryidge; and the addition of a one-way stop at~Br6~ktO~" s[o~i~g at Homes DriVe, and the plan be implemented as originally shown and reviewed in-six months to determine the effect of that program in light of the suggested additional stops. Therefore, it would be their recommendation to move ahead with ,the original scheme and keep the matter under advisement. 'M~7~d~'~8~B~dk~ni~e,~'~7~ commented she felt there should be a t~r~e-~a~ Y~[ '~[~ ~orner ~f~ soAve~.~ ~d ~B~ockton, indicating that last week a car had come around this c~rner ~nh hit ~ ~ighbor's car. She indi- -cated she had call'ed the police; however, there was no response to the acciden~ It was her feeling that children are in danger at this corner even during day- light hours,.as well as anyone who parks his car in the street. She felt the stop signs would stop the thru-traffic; also, she felt an occasional police car at this location would be helpful. Mrs. Bev Burney, 12767 Homes Ave., cor~nented she has observed that at least 90% of the cars' will slow down at this corner (Homes and Brockton); however, she felt the greatest problem is on the corner of Brockton and Brookvie~. She didn't feel the one sign at Homes and Brockton would be that effective. Phyllis Bertossa, 19161BellwoodlDriVe, stated that at the beginning of the school year the traffic problems change. She felt the greatest problem they have is "hot-rodders", especially between 2:~5 and 5:00'p.m. She stated they come down Brookglen, turn right on Bellwood, or they come down Titus and turn left on Bellwood. By putting a stop sign at'Brookview and Woodside, this cuts them off at that part of their tracks, and she urged that this sign be left. Mrs. Bert~ sa indicated they have just lost their third cat, and twice the kidslhave gone out o{ their way to hit them . . . and it could be a child next time. She would, therefore, support the stop signs asproposed. One citizen asked if C.0n~i~ration has ever been given to putting stop signs on Cox Avenue, stating when cars turn onto Homes off Cox, they come clear over to the other side of the street. This is also a problem turning from SaratOga Avenue onto Cox.' Mayor Smith asked the Director of Public Works if,anything had been done with regard to Cox itself. Mr. Shook ~eplied that considerationShasn't been given to this location, because Cox is a thru thoroughfare and is designed to be carrying a heavier volume of traffic. - 6 - TRAFFIC CONTROL - PRIDE'S CROSSING AREA (Cont~d.) Mayor Smith suggested diverting some of the. traffic away from the subdivision. C~uncilman Diridon suggested consideration be given to a divider in the middle of Homes or some type of island. Lawrence Podrasky, 19194. B~ockton Lane, indicated he supported a sign at Homes and Brockton and one at Brookglen and Brockton. Mr. Podrasky indicated that he saw the accident earlier discussed this evening, and his question was: "How do you get the police put there?" He indicated that he called the police, and the~ advised him that unless they actually observe the adcident, they can't do anything. Mr. Podrasky asked who he could callto get some action. When asked how much damage was done as a result of the accident, he replied that the w[~ole front end of the moving.car was smashed; however, the parked car was not damaged to any extent. ~ The City Manager indicated he didn't recall alreport of this particular pr. o61_~em; however, if it is a general speeding problem an~d ~f~the approximate time ~I. _ day this is occuring is known, we could try to have a patrol car out there. Mayor Smith indicated he would like to obtain a full report concerning this accident and the Sheriff's reply. Councilman Diridon advised Mr. Podrasky not to hesitate to callone of the councilmen if a situation like this should arise, as they would be glad to follow up on this. He also suggested when calling the Sheriff's Office to be 'sure to get the name of the pe~on who answers the'complaint. The City Manager indicated he has had discussions with the Sheriff concerning alternatives to resolving this type ~f problem, and the Sheriff has indicated if additional enforcement is needed, we could get ali~atrp.l~ carlin this area. Councilman Kraus asked if there is a'problem with the Sheriff not coming out in the case of a non-injury accident. The City Manager indicated he is not aware of this, and he would obtain clarification on this and have a report for the Council. The Mayor suggested setting this issue for a Committee of the Whole Meeting. This was acceptable to the Council and homeowners. Mr. G. Carlson, who resides at the corner of Brookglen Drive. and Lynbrook Court, indicated he would strongly support the proposed plan and the additional 3-way stop at Homes and Brockton. It was his feeling, also, that a 4-way stop was necessary on Brookview and Woodside Drive and that a Z~way stop at ~his inter- section would not curb the problem. Frank Perdichizzi, President Prides Crossing Homeowners Association, stated that the members of the homeowners association are supportive of the proposed plan; however, they have requested consideration be given also to a 3-way s~op at the corner of Larchmont and Solana~ due to the fact this is a blind corner. Mr. Perdichizzi indicated that several people have mentioned the corner of Homes and Brockton, as this seems to be a bad corner. He stated that traffic makes a fast turn Off of Brookglen onto Brockton, as there is plenty of oppor- .tunity to get up a good speed along this strip. He indicated that he would ' support a.iB}way stop at Homes and Brockton. Charles Huff, 1272~ Miller Ave., stated he and his wife have observed people taking the corner of Brookglen and Brockton as rapidly as they can. Another corner where this occurs quite often is the corner of Brockton and Titus Ave. - 7 - TRAFFIC CONTROL - PRIDE'S CROSSING AREA (Cont'd. Jim Na~e, 12072 Ingrid Court, stated that undoubtedly, the problems which have occurred here were brought about by the stop signs on Miller. He commented that he believes all of these problems outlined this evening could have been predicted well in advance. Mr. Na~gle commented if you put an equal amount of stop signs on any path through the subdivision, there are still areas where one can bypass and zig-zag, and come out with one less stop szgn. Therefore, the logical end would be to puta stop sign at every intersection in the subdivision-- maybe in every driveway -- however, he was not suggesting this. Mr. Naugle indicated that in his t'rips through the-subdivision, he has rarely witnessed a complete.stop on Miller, but_rather, the California "rolling stop"5 at about 5 M~P.H. Mr. Naugle felt that the original plan by the City's traffic consultant, making Miller Avenue less wide'and nq stop signs, looked likela good thing, and he felt that right now the'City has lset up such a barrier-t~at he cannot enjoy riding his bicycle in Saratoga, but has to go to San Jose. To add s few words in opposition, he felt it was a nuisance .toNput more stop signs in when it is the people in the subdivision who are causing the problem, and not really the majority of thru traffic. Mr. Robillarde, 12565 Wo6dside Drive, indicated he is pleased to hear that most of the homeowners present this evening are in favor of this plan. He commented that last week at 10:00 p.m., his neighbor had followed a car which proceeded at a high rate of speed along~Titus, Brockton, and all the way out to Prospect Avenue. The police were called and he was-stopped, but this individual's only comment was "there weren't any kids in the street". Mr. Robillarde indicated that when he approached his neighbor across the street, his comment was: "Put a sign at every corner", thinking this would make it more difficult for speeders to get through the tract. Mr. Perdichizzi again addressed the Council, stating the feeling of 6he home-' owners in the Pride's Corssing Homeowners Assocfation was that the stop signs would slow down traffic, and not be a hindrence to the people in the area. ~ft'7_.Was moved by Councilman Bridges and seconded bX Councilman Kraus the public h be closed. The public hearing was closed at ~ earxng The motion was carried. '~'~50 p~m. Following some further discussion by the Council, it was moved by Councilman Diridon and seconded by Councilman Bridges to accept the p~an as proposed by the Public Works Director, with'3 additional amendments, as follows: l) 3-way stop at Solano and Larchmont; 2) 3-way stop at Homes and Brockton; and 3) 3-way stop at Brockton and Brookglen. The motion was carried. The City Manager advised. a formal resolution would be drafted setting out this action for presentation and adoptioh at the next regular meeting on Octobe~ 2, 1974. Recess and Reconveyne C. ORDINANCE NO. 38.58 (Cont'd. 7/17 and 8/21/74) Ordinance of 'the City Of saratoga Repealing Chapter B 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 S~rato~aCity Code Relating to Fire Prevention and Adopting by Reference the 1973 Uniform Fire-Code with Certain Modifications, Deletions and Additions The City Manager a~ised that the revised ordinance reflects changes discussed at a Committee of the Whole Meeting,.as follows: - 8 - ORDINANCE NO. 38.59 (Cont'd.) Page 2, Sec. 1.202, paragraph 1, word "supervision" changed to "coor- dination". Page 2, Sec. 1.202, paragraph 4, last sentence, add: "including, but not limited to Sections 13801 through 13998 of the Health and ~fety Code". Page 14, Sec. 15.103, item (c), changed twenty (20) to five (5). Page 18, add: new section 3. The Mayor then opened the public hearing.(10:25 p.m.) Chief Kraule of the Saratoga Fire District commented that in Section 1.202,. page 2, should isle modified to indicate that the Fire Marshall be under the coordination of the City Manager and 'Chief of the fire district. Mayor Smith explained~that all the coded sections of the ordinance are still applicable, and there is nothing here that would deprive the fire districts of their authority. He felt the language should be kept as broad as possible in order to keep one focal point. Chief Kraule indicated he would Withdraw the previous statement and s~R~ort ~'~nance fully. It was moved by Councilman Bridges and seconded by Councilman Kraus the public hearing be closed. The motion was carried. The public hearing was closed at 10:28 p.m. It was moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded by Coundilman Br~gham Ordinance No. 38.58 be adopted. The motion was carried.r~ D. ORDINANCE NO. 38.59 (Cont'd. 9/4/74) Ordinance of the City of Saratoga Amending Chapter 3 of the Saratoga City Code by Adding Article VIE Thereof, Captioned "Miscel~aneious Provisions", and Adding Section 3-50 Thereto, Et Seq. Re: The Fencing of Swimming Po~ls and Open Bodies of Water The City Manager indicated ~that based on the comments-at the last public hearing on this matter, modifications have be~n made to the proposed ordinance, as follows: Section 3-50.1 Body of ?Water, the words "natUral" and "artificial" in front of "lake". Section 3-50.2. Fence Required, height of the fence has been modified to 5 feet in height from finish grade measured on the outside of such fenca An additional sentence has been added to this section, as follows: "Where the building or one or more walls thereof constitutes a part of such en- closure, doors in. the building leading from the pool area to the interior of such building need not be self-closing and self-latching. SectionS3-50.3 Retroactivity, a sentence has been added,'as follows: "Swimming pools and wading pools which as of the date of adoption of this Ordinance are already enclosed by a fence of not less that ** 'ft. in height as so measured from finish grade, and which have self-closing and setf-latching doors and gates, shall not be required to further comply with the provisions of this Ordinance." : ** exact height limitation to be determined. - 9 - ORDINANCE NO. 38.59 (Cont'd,) ~ The Mayor then opened the public hearing (i0:30 p.m.) The Vice President of the Gatehouse Condom~nium addressed the Council, stating he has a little difficulty with this ordinance in that: 1) He felt there was a fairly dubious safety factor and he could not believe there is that much of a_~p_r_~blem with artificial lakes or switching pools, as opposed to other bodies of water, such as Saratoga Creek. It was also his feeling this money could be better spent in oth~r areas, such as'traffic problems, as he could not recall any drownings which have occurred in Saratoga. 2) The application of this pro- posed ordinance, specifically as it relates to the Gatehouse Condominium, He indicated at one time there was a fence 4! feet in height, but the condominium was forced to cut it down to 3 feet, and since the height of existing fences is left blank in the proposed ordinance, he did not know if the 3-foot fence which was imposed on them by the City of Saratoga would qualify. 3) Because of the Saratoga Creek which runs along one side of the complex, and the ease- ment of the pathway runs along there, they are not allowed to build a fence completely around the complex. _~i~i~idual pointed out the fact that this is an all-adult community, and t~'~l~way someone could get to the pool is by wandering a significant dis- tance from Fourth Street. He further pointed there are rules at the complex that any under-age person who uses the pool must be accompanied by'an adult . Gary Hart, 14187 Sobey Meadows Court, indicated he would like to raise 3 items of opposition to this ordinance: 1~ He had consulted what he considered to be ~h~most knowledgable people, particularly as far as liability is concerned, and that is the insurance companies. He indicated he had contacted i0 insuran~ companies and specifically asked them for a premium on $300,000 liability and ~ a $100,000 home in Saratoga. When qdoted the amount of the premium, Mr. Hart had asked if the premium would increase if he were to put in a pool. The answer had been '~o". Then he asked if it would increase if he were to put in a pool which was unfenced, and again the answer was "no". 2) Mr. Hart asked how it would be determined who should receive this '~ariance% He didn't feel it was right to put anything in the ordinance like this which is going to be subject to interpretation later on, and he felt the item of a "variance" was a means to soften the ordinance. 3) He indicated his wife had spent 3 hours in the County Coroner's office, and he paraphrased a few of the ~Coroner~s notes: "There were 11 children under 12 years old who drowned in Santa Clara County last season, and out of the 11, 6 drowned in swimming pools, and 1 child drowned in 1 foot of water." He indicated the drownings occurred as follows: found in beetom of own pool wading increek whirlpool - apartment face down in water in duck pond ~ pool on apartment playground pool on school grounds .2 feet of water in own dough-boy pool bottom of own pool in Santa Clara 3 feet of water in own dough-b~y pool Mr. Hart indicated there were no deaths of children under 12 which occurred in someone else's pool, and 5 out of.6 drownings occurred in home pools in San Jom . He further stated the fact that his neighbor has his pool fenced with a 5-foot fence does not stop his child from drowning in his own pool. Mr. Hart then presented a petitfen with 114 names of people he indicated do~'~ not want this ordinance. He commented he didn't think the City had' received a petition ~ith this amount of signatures in support of the proposed.ordinance. ORDINANCE NO. 38.59 (Cont'd.) Mr. Sam Cohen, 14700 Farwell Avenue, addressed the Council and asked if there were any facts that showed the necessity for such an ordinance. Heindicated that the gentl~m__~ who preceded him had presented some known factS, and it seemed to him there was no showing that there isa reasonable relationship between wh~ the Council is proposing and the need of the community for adopting this ordinance. Mr. Cohen felt a~ relationship has to be shown between the construction of this fencing and the safeguard of children, and he felt the 'Council was~ assuming a fact that hasn't yet been verified, and it seemed to him this assumption was erroneous. He further stated widhout facts you cannot exercise. police, p~wer. Mr. Cohen indicated that the cost Of'this fencing in Saratoga is going to be greater than in other neighborhoods,.as the lot sizes here are larger than in. other communities. Mayor Smith commented that approximately 65% of the people in Saratoga liv~ in neighborhoods which are relatively dense. He stated that the problem with drawing zones is that you might have a situation where there is an acre lot where the pool is extremely close to the public right-of-wayl He further indicated this variance procedure is not intended to be the .classic and harsh standard of a zoning variance. Mr. Cohen felt ~he ~reas of Sa~atoga~which are more in the open are the areas which would be most affected, andthose people more burdened. He again indicated he didn't see any factual basis for the conclusion that this would eliminate any s c ~v b m and ba a~.izhasn b s type of in pro pet' e pro le , ~ ~s~j~thi ordinance other communities has eliminated ~{'~ kyp~5~ problem. Mr. Cohen~'aj'_~o~__._Fommented that he feI[ this ordinance would be subjec,t ~o a lot of interpretation, and he asked if the term "body of water" (Sec. 3-50.1) could include Wildcat Creek. Also, he felt Section 3-50.2 was ambiguous in that there was the requirement of a fence not less than 5 feet in height; however, further down it states "fences complet~l~ surrounding a lot, site or.parcel, etc. shall constitute compliance with the within provisions as to fencing". Mr. Cohen indicated he would take this to mean if anyone has a fence already, it Wou~d meet the requirement. The City Manager adviSed. this question is dealt with in Section 3-50.3,.which states that "Swimming pools and wading pools which as~pof the date of adoption of this Ordinance are ~lready enclosed by a fence . shall not be required to further comply with the provisions of this Ordinance." Therefore, on a 1/4- acre or 1-acre lot if there is a f~n~e around the pool as of the~date of adoption of this ordinaBce, this would meet the intent of the ordinance. Mr. Cohen also commented with regard!to ehe language.~n'Section 3-50.3, Stating there is a question of whether or not gates all have to be self-closing or sel~ latching, and if existing fences are{Bot self-closing or seif-closing whether or not they would comRly. It was also his feeling the terms "unusual circum- .stances" and~J~unneSs~ry hardship" were i~rb.~joundly ambiguous. Mr. Cohen suggested with respect to the retroactivity clause to have. an insertion as to foot size of 3 feet. \ MayorS~ilthc_~o~mented it would be ideal if we coul~ take into account pro eure w s goxng t~'h~d?~ done with recordin~and with consistency. Mr. Cook, who indicatedhe was one of 112 residents at the Gatehouse Condomin~um, stated that ~ere he lives is close to the Fourth Street bridge, and it is within public right-of~way. He stated it. is a little boy's delight to play in this creek, and he failed to see ~y Saratoga Creek is under the control of the Flood Control bistrict. Mr. Cook felt this ordinance may have merit, but it has to be applied equally throughout the city. ORDINANCE NO. 38.59 (Cont'd.) Mrs. Hart, 148~~ Sobey Meadows Court,%indicated that the statistics which she had gathered at the County Coroner's office were for the whole Santa Clara County and approximately 1,700 pools. She stated there were no drownings in Saratoga pools. She also indicated that approximately 65% of the City of Saratoga is small parcels, and most of these small parcels are already fenced. It was her feeling that .everyone who signed the petition submitted this evening lives on Sacre or more, and she felt if the Council had to adopt this ordinan~ they should exempt ~-acre parcels or better. a resident of Saratoga, stated he felt the Council 'should look the cost of this ordinance in~lerms of a trade-off. He indicated that in checking the records, you find accidents with pedestrians, bicycles, automo- biles, and even bathtubs; however, lives are not currently being lost in swimming pools in Saratoga. Mr. McClure further stated the unsightline~s this would bring to some of the most beautiful areas in Santa Clara County should be considered, as well as the fact that many people have spent a s~bstantial amount of money landscaping their~roperty, and this fencing would destroy the landscaping. He didn't think it was unreasonable to have an ordinance which would affect different areas of the city, as there are some areas which can have horses and others which can't. Mr. McClure indicated i~heir own pool is not in sight of a public thBroughfare~ it is located o~ a 1-acre lot on a,cdl-de-sac,.and the pool overlooks the Vall~ and there is a 3-foot h~dge surrounding it.- He indicated there are no small children in the immediate area; however, his neighbor has a pool (unfenced) and a child 7 years old;' another neighbor.has a 4-year old child and also has an unfenced pool. He indicated he would hate to see this type of restriction . imposed. ~nthony Chiodo, a new resident of Saratoga, addressed the Council and advised that his family had moved into their home on August 30th. A couple of weeks later someon~ knocked on his door with a petition and advisedChUm that on his acre of property he had to build a 5-foot fence. Mr. Chiodo indicated that surrounding his property he has $5,000 worth of shrubbery. He further indicat~ his house is an '~" shape and you cannot see the~'6~000 pool he is building. He stated he paid $150,000 for his home, and he is not) going to put up a fence around his property~ Mr. Chiodo stated he has a couple of proposals he would like to suggest: He indicated he has a couple of neighbors ~ho have horses, and stated: "Lets~m~ake a~proposal to wipe out these horses in residential areas." He indicated he had another proposal, and asked: "Does anybody know how many kids were killed running off the lawn into the street?" He stated that he has a report that 105 were kindled because the mothers and fathers didn't take care of their kids, and the kids walked off their lawns and speeder~s. coming down the street killed or hurt the child, and he stated "so le[~ build fences along the cur~ and sidewal~J' Mr. Chiodo asked "Who are the rebels who thr. e_~.~h~is~'~th~dP-=~and as intelligent as you men ar~, you should have t~own"~h~t~i~t' w~%en they presented it.". He sta~ed this doesn't have any merit at all. He further indicated his property ~f~a_~.sright into a Creek,' and he stated: "F~dcle the creek." He indicated he ~and his wife have raised three thildren and it ~'~.~le~%cost $300 to teach them how to swim. Walter Muir, 14156 Shorthill Court, indicated that he is one of ~ix residents on the hill, ~fou"j~'~of~which have swimming pools and none which have fences. He indicated that all of them have lived on lots before surrounded by six-foot fences. Mr. Muf~ advised that this is a delightful experience because for the ORDINANCE NO. 38.59 (Cont'd.) 'first time, the families have been able to communicate with each other. He stated there are 16 children on this, court, from age 16 to 11 months, and he was hopeful this type of develo~ment' would not be required to put up a fence, and asked if he was safe in assuming the variance procedure'would take care of this type of situation. Mayor Smith indicated-he is convinced the City should proceed with this ordinance, and felt if it can't be dealt with in zones, maybe the City should try to formulate guidelines and discuss how we are going to make judgments on this ~ar~a'~'hce procedure. It was his feeling, also, we are going to have to' ~epend on some of these unusual cases to help the Council set up standards for granting this variance. Mrs. McInerny, 19175 Monte Vista Drive, urged that the Council vote this evening on the re-written ordinance, and she fell the variance se~ti0n covers the exceptions. Mrs. McInerny felt that if the Council starts defining too much, they are going to get into a bind on this ordinance, and she felt exceptions can be taken into account by the Council. Mr. Richard Thomas, 14357 Saratoga A~enue, indicated the only thing he would like to suggest is if the Council does decide to work on some general guide- lines for this variance procedure, he would like to make sure he would have an opportunity~i~f~'fd~'~g~s~com~'~'before the' Planning Commission for consideration,'~o~R~s6m~"inp~o~hat~roup. Mayor Smith advised Mr. ~omas to conEact the City Officeand ~dvise the~ to send a notice of these hearings. Mr. Charnley again addressed the Council, stating that there was a petition of 21 signatures which initiated this ordinance, and tonight the Council received a petition of 114 signatures. Also at the last ~eneral meeting of the Gatehouse, approximately 40 members were present, and he didOnot hear one comment in favor of this ordinance. Mayor Smith reminded Mr. Charnley this ordinance is b~ing considered strictly on fihe merit~ and not numbers. Mr. Charnley felt that-'when the CounCil cons.iders~an.ordinanCe 'which is going to affect a lot of peopl~ financiarly and you have a lot of variables, you have to define these variables. He'didn~t feel the Council should leave this expen- diture of $1,000 to the "whim" of 5 men. Mr. Cohen addressed Ithe Council a~ain, stating that he has come to the conclusion that the only people webare trying to protect here ~re little tots, as almost every 4 or 5-year old can swim, and these little kxds_are generally under fami~ f ~ supervision. Mr. Cohen indicated there are no acts to justify this ordinance -- only an assumption that is not based on any facts. Mr. Cohen stated that one of the big, problems in this society is the atomizati~n of individuals; however, in Saratoga this rule doesn't exist, inasmuch as there is open space and we can see our neighbors. Therefore, he felt every little fence which is built is'a way to atomize individuals, and he felt.this ordinance should be subject to a good test, as well as facts. There being no further comments from the audience concerning this matter, Councilman Brigham suggested the hearing be continued to the next regular City Council Meeting, and in the meantime, he would like to find out what fencing would occur on' Wildcat Creek. Mayor Smith suggested that the City Attorney be asked to take into consideration a petition, dated September 16, 1974 signed by 15 Saratoga Residents, which elaborates 5 suggested criteria to be used in considering.a variance under this ordinance. Also, the question pertinent to .Flood_Cont'rol~s'ju~sdic~ipn_in._ ~r~/~'~lation~t~ '~;C~d ~' e~lored and a report made. ORDINANCE NO. 38.59 (Cont'd.) The City Manager advised ~dy_~_~!~! cur~nfI~'5elng un}~'~{_~?~_d. ertF~f~n BX tH~~ staff to try to ascertain what Flood Control has control over and what the City might want to consider taking control over. He stated the Flood Control District has recently adopted a new policyon the types of st~m drain facilities they will maintain. Therefore, there are specifiq cases under review at this time that the City may have to assume responsibility for. Councilman Bridges indicated he had no objection to continuing this hearing, and coEented that he was a little concerned that in setting out this criteria we are going to be taking.care of fences we know about, but locking out the ones we don't know about by setting do~ hard and fast rules. Councilman ~aus felt it might be good fo put in some of this criteria; howev~ver, he felt more could be learned through the individual experiences. Also, he didn't feel it was the Ci~y's intent to fence the stre~s. The City~ager presented~itten communications which had been received on this matter since the previous City Council Meeting, as follows: William E. Glennon, expressing opposition to proposed ord'inance; Marcia Norris, expressing support of proposed ordinance; ~s. Donald Hambey, urging consideration of a variance for existing pooB; Ginny Sampson, congratulating the Council re: proposed ordinance; PetitigF~rom 15 residents ou[lining suggestions re: variance procedure; Howard L. Brooks re: variance procedure to proposed ordinance. It was then moved by Councilman Diridon and seconded by Councilman Brigham the public heari~e continued to the next regular meeting on October 2nd and the issue of the Flood Control District's holdings~be ~iewed, as well as what criteria might be formulated into the ordinance for granting a variance. ~e moti~n was carried. F. ~~TYjB~%~R~ACE ~IT NO. 3 Appeal of the Plannin~ Commission ~ecision to Deny Tentative Map ~pr0val of Summerplace Unit No. 3, City of Saratoga~ No. SDR-1138 The City ~nager asked Mr. Van Duyn,.Planning Director to review this appeal.. Mr. Van Duyn explained that the Planning Commission on August 28, 1974, voted to deny building site approv~ on this 3-lot addition to the 18-lot subdivision, which is located within the West Valley rl~jway corridor. He indicated as he understands it, the 3 lots were in the making by Avco for several months; however,~theyhad difficulty in purchasing additional land. They w~re later able to purchase the land and f~hi~m~with a better design ~ich would better compl~ment the subdivision~ngT2~lots and cleaning up 1 lot. Also, it was the Planning Commission~s feeling this development ~uld be in variance to the length ~d~the~n~m~e~of ~ots~the~Cit~wohld~';allow on a cul-de-sac, ipdicating that the ~neral Plan specifically mentions "nothing to exceed 15 lots". It was also their .feeling this development ~uld not provide of the 3 lots would only compound the situation. However, ~. Van Duyn indicated he didn't feel the additional 3 lots would have that much ~ffect on the propos~ improvements. Mr. Van Duyn pointed o~t the Commission felt their action to deny this request was consistant with their previous action to deny this 18-lot subdivisionl - 14 - AVCO COMMUNITY DEVELOPERS, SUMMERPLACE UNIT NO. ~ (Cont'd.) The Mayor then opened the public hearing at 11:45 p.m. Mr. Andersen, Assistant Vice President and General Manager, MacKay and Somps, addressed the Council and indicated he would be happy to answer any questions the Council might have on this matter. Councilman Bridges commented that as he recalls, there was little logic Which went into the Planning Commission~s denial of this development, except that it would affect the cul-de-sac and the number of lofs on the cuI-de-sac. However, he stated, this is really an unfinished street which will eventually was his feeling this ~og'{~'~"~"~'~'~ link with Kevin Moran Park, and it pointed out. Mr. Van Duyn pointed out that if this area is left in its present condition, it would still be landlocked to a certain extent, and this would not be as desirable a solution. Councilman Kraus indicated he was against the original subdivision approval and it was his feeling we should not ~.x.~d_j~a 1,200 foot cul-de-sac. Councilman Diridon stated he is not happy with the cul-de-sac, but he is just as much opposed to connecting the street to the other side because he fears this would result in the same type of ~c~ng whichr~bki~ce in the Brookview and Pride~s Crossing area to prevent cutting ehfo~h!. It was then moved by Councilman Diridon and seconded by Councilman Bridges the public hearing be closed and the Council reverse the Planning Commission~s de~ision in this building site approval and grant the appeal. The motion was carried, 4 to 1 in favor, Councilman!Kraus opposed. (Public hearing closed at 11:50 p.m.) A. MAYOR 1. Presented recommended policies Re: Public Notice of Council, Commission, Task Force Committee Meetings and Sub-Committee Meetings. It was moved by Councilman Bridges and seconded by Councilman Diridon the policies regarding publication of open meetings, dated September 18, 1974, be approved. The motion was carried. B. FINANCE 1. Payment of Claims It was moved by Councilman Diridon and seconded by Councilman Brigham the and the Mayor be The 2. City Clerk's Financial Report - Noted and filed. 3. City Treasurer's Report - Noted and filed. C. COUNCIL AND COMMISSION REPORTS 1. Parks and Recreation Commission - Report Re: Open Space Action Program - It was moved by Councilman Diri~on and seconded by Councilman Kraus that the City indicate its endorsement of,the Program to the County Planning Commission, along with a copy of the memorandum, dated Septmber 10, 1974, from the Parks and Recreation Commission. The motion was carried. 2. Transportation Corridor and Use of FAU Funds ~ Councilman Bridges reportedI the status regarding imple- mentation of the FAU Program in Santa Clara County. Following some discuss~'on by the Council, ~t was agreed to set this matte~_rfor additional consideration a~d~p'~6'd~i~l~?~on at an ~d'Y~rn~d~regu~"iar ~eeting ne~t Tue~da~,~September 24th. D. DEP~E~ ~S ~D OFFICERS 1. Planning Director - Recommendation Re: Approved Lis't of E.I.R. Consultants, in Confor~ance with Resolution 653-1. - It was moved by Councilman ~aus and seconded by Councilman Bridges to approve the list of E.I.R. consultants, as recommended by the Planning Director. The motion was carried. 2. Director of Public Works - ~oposal from State for placement of left-hand turn lanes on Saratoga-Los Gatos Road. - Scheduled for further review at a~C~~f~'~M~ing. E. CI~ ~AGER 1. Recommendation Re: Senior Citizen/Youth ~visory Commission - Proposal scheduled for discussion ~t Committee of the ~ole Meeting on September 24th. 2. Reco~endation Re: ~chitect Selection for Ne~ Library Facility - It was moved by Mayor Smith and seconded by Councilman Brigham approval be granted to advance funds in an amount not to exceed $14,000 for the hiring of an architect and preliminary design work, and Councilmen Bridges and Kraus be appointed to serve on the Architect Selection Committee. The motion was carried. " ' ~.' Re~o~nd~tio~'~:"For~tio~ o~ ~ive-Member Task ~orce 'Committee fo~ Specific Recommendations on Senior Citizen Housing in Saratoga. - Scheduled for Committee of the ~ole Meetihg on September 24th. VII. COnVICtIONS A. ~ITTEN 1. William E. Glennon, Aftorney at Law, 110 North Third Street, San Jose, requesting the Council not adopt Ordinance No. 38.59 Re: Fencing of ~i~ing Pools. - Noted and filed. 2. Marcia Norris, 13222 Via Grande Court, expressing support of proposed Swiping Pool Fencing Ordinance.'- Noted and filed. 3. ~s. Donald H~bey, 18600 Vessing Road, urging the Council to consider a variance to th~posed Swimming Pool Fencing Ordinance for existing pools. - Noted and filed. ~ 4. ~raldine L. Barrett, 14050 Mari~yn Lane, favoring implementation of safe walking and bike paths on Quito Road. - Referred to staff. 5. Verlin J. Smith, Principal, Congress Springs School, expressing thanks for blocking off Cox Lane for safer walking to and from school. - Noted and filed. 6.O. L. Johns, 14531 Horseshoe Drive, Re: Water drainage from Horseshoe Drive to private property. - Referred to staff. 7. Miles Rankin, President-Saratoga ~amber of Commerce Re: Reco~endations on Saratoga Village Plan. - Noted and filed. - 16 - 8. Ginny Sampson, 19045 Sunnyside D~ive, congratulating the City Council on its handling of the proposed Swimming Pool Fencing Ordinance. - Noted and filed. 9. Petition from 15 Saratoga residents outlining suggestions relevant to variance procedure iB proposed Swimming Pool Fencing Ordinance. - Noted and filed. 10. -Howard L. Brooks, 19370 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, Re: V~riance procedure in proposed Swimming Pool Fencing Ordinance. - Noted and filed. B. ORAL None. VIII. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Councilman Bridges and seconded by Councilman Diridon the meeting be adjourned to an Adjourned Regular Meeting on September 24, 1974. The motion was carried. The meeting was adjourned at 12:30 ~.m. Respectfully submitted, · ty - - 17 -