Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-18-1975 City Council Minutes MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL · TIME: Wednesday, June 18, 1975 - 7:30 P.M.i PLACE: Saratoga City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, California TYPE: Regular Meeting I. ORGANIZATION Present: Councilmen Brigham, Kraus, Corr, Matteoni Absenr: Councilman Bridges B. MINUTES - June 4, 1975 - Correction page 4, 5th paragraph, change Mr. Pulskampto Mrs. Pulskamp. Page 8, 2nd paragraph, change $45,000 to T4T5oo. It was moved by Councilwoman Corr and seconded by Councilman Brigham the mingtes of June 4, 1975, be approved as corrected. The motion was carried. June 10, 1975 - It was moved by Councilman Brigham and seconded byeCouncilwoman Corr the minutes of June lO, 1975, be approved. The motion was carried. C. APPOINTMENTS TO PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION The City Clerk administered the Oath of Office to the two newly-appointed Parks and Recreation Commissioners, Richard Konrad and Susan Buchan. II. BIDS AND CONTRACTS A. AGREEMENT TO COMPLETE MAINTENANCE OF LANDSCAPED AREAS ON CITY OWNED LANDS, CERTAIN RIGHTS-OF-WAY, AND CERTAIN ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS FOR THE CITY OF SARATOGA (DONALD J. SHOOTER) Upon the recommendation of the City Manager, it was moved by Councilman Brigham and seconded by Councilman 'Kraus to continue this agreement to Adjourned Regular Meeting on Tuesday, June 24, at which time more details regarding the t975-76 proposed budget would be available. The motion was carried. B. COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FOR THE INSTALLATION OF TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAL SYSTEM, SAFETY LIGHTING CHANNELIZATION, AND IMPROVEMENT~AT THE INTERSECTION OF REID LANE WITH STATE ROUTE 85 It was asked that this agreement be considered in conjunction with an item scheduled under III-B on the agenda, that being Resolution No. 736, entitled: A RESOLUTION DETERMINING THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND NECESSITY REOUIRE THE ~ ACQ O ~[~ e~C'E~SA I ~ jAN 6~' AN D ~D'~'~C~~ ~G'T8 ~'~T~T~G~O~ '~TN~T"D dMA I N PROCEEDINGS -- REID'L'ANE/HIGHWAY 85. It was moved by Councilman Brigham and seconded by Councilwoman Corr the Cooperative Agreement between the City of Saratoga and State of California be approved. The motion was carried, 4 to O. It was then moved by Councilman Matteoni and seconded by Councilman Brigham Resolution No. 736 be'adopted. The motion was carried, 4 to O. C. SARATOGA-LOS GATOS WALKWAY COLLISHAW CORPORATION). It was moved by Councilman Brigham~and seconded by Councilman Matteoni that Construction Acceptance b~approve~ and No.tice of Completion filed. Also, a final progress payment in the amount of $t15.50 be approved. The mDtion was carried. D. VARIOUS CITY BIKEWAYS (MC 6ARTHY AND SPIESMAN) It was moved by Councilman Brigham and secor~ded by Councilwoman Corr that Construction Acceptance be approved and Notice of Completion filed. Also, a final progress payment in the amount of $253.80 be approved. The motion was carried. III. PETITIONS, ORDINANCES AND FORMA~ RESOLUTIONS A. ORDINANCE NO. 38.54.1 (Second'Reading) An Ordinance Repealing Ordinance No. 38.54, which Ordinance Relates to Granting of a Cable Television Franchise to Saratoga Cable Television, Inc. The City Manager indicated he had no additional'comments regarding this ordinance. It was moved by Councilman Brigham.and seconded by!Counciiwoman Corr Ordinance No. 38.64.1 be adopted. The motion was carried. B. RESOLUTION NO. 736' A Resolution Authorizing Condemnation Proceedings '- Rodini Propert~ See agenda item II-B, page 1. ' IV. SUBDIVISIONS, BUILDING SITES AND ZONING REQUESTS . A. SDR~ll80 SYLVIA'JEAN,~ ASPESI DRIVE, 1 LOT (Cont'd. 6/4/75) The City Manager explained that this matter was referred back to the staff and Planning Commission at'.the.previous City Counci.1 meeting to see if the requirements imposed by the Water District could, be workedC~'~h'~"~ applicant for an acceptable area of dedication. He indica~'d~h'at~t~"~pli- cant's engineer has submitted revised plans to the Water District due to an error in the creek cross sections as originally submitted to the Water District, and the District has amended its original request for dedication, from 30 feet to 20 feet. He indicated the staff has recommended the amended requirement of the Water District be complied with in connection with Final Building Site Approval. Mrs. Jean, the applicant in this matter, addressed the Council and advised that she attended the Planning Commission meeting when this matter was dis- cussed, and she left the meeting with the understanding they could obtain final building site approval and fulfill the requirements as imposed by the Water District in the future. However, the staff later advised her it was necessary that the City work with the Water District on these matters, and it seemed to her the Water District can pretty much dictate what it wants of th~!s property. Mrs. Jean commented that'she feels the Water District is using new building permits as leverage in obtaining easements, and she indicated she~h~..~ery) strong word for this situation, that being "extortion", which she as "the misuse of authority to obtain p~operty of others". Mrs. Jean indi- cated she would like to ask that the Council waive the condition pertinent to the Water District's requirement for easement dedications that is attached to their Final Building Site Approval. - 2- SDR-1180 Sylvia Jean, Aspesi Drive (Co~t'd.) Mr. Jean then addressed the Council, indicating that it is his understanding the Water District wants this'easement 'so they will have access to service the creek to stop e~osion. Mr. Jean commented that the Water District currently has access to come up th'at creek bed, but to protect themselves, they ask that additional future land be reserved~ Mr. Jean felt the estimates~e~'~he Water District were inaccurate, parti~cularly with'respect to the h~c~f creek flow during the year. Councilman Matteoni indicated that it was his impression at the Council Meeting two weeks ago that there.was a condition of site approval which was rather vague and which the Jean'sThad asked for clarification, and the Council' had felt the way to handle this was'to refer the matter back to the Planning Commission to work with the District in obtaining clarification.of this condition. It then went before the Subdivision Committee and i~s~was recommended the substi-' tuted condition be imposed. Mr. Van Duyn, Planning Director, commented that' is was attempted at the Sub- division Committee Meeting to set a condition that wou.ld be satisfactory to Flood Control, but would allow the applicant to~ go ahead and obtain a building permit. However, they were unable to come up with a condition which would allow this. Mr. Johnston, City Attorney, commented that it is suggested that compliance with the Flood Control District requirements is a condition precedent to the applicant receiving a building permit; therefore, final site approval shall not become final until the conditions are complied with. However, he indi(ated if the same condi,tion~made a part of the Building Site Approval Agreement,.this would give the applicant the ability to get the building permit and start his home, and he eould work out the mechanics of what would or would not be reason- able to be imposed by the Flood Control District within the next year. He further commented that in the final analysis, what is or is not reasonable is up to the City to determine,. and not up to the Flood Control District '- reasonableness'being not i'n the amount of dedication, but whether or not the property owner should be required to give it as a gift or be' paid for it. He felt it was unfair for the City to. ask the developer in every case to negotiate with the Water District;-hOwever, the point in time must be reached when some- body has to make the decision, and it is up to the City Council. Mr. Johnston indicated it would be possible for~ the City to take the oonditi on and put it into the Building Site Approval Agreement, taking it out~as a condition before the final site approval is granted. In this way, the applicant could get his building permit and proceed with building their home. Mr. Johnston commented if the District is asking for.a certain dedication and says it would be willing to buy the remainder,-he wouldn't know why it would want to force the people to enter 'into an agreement and set a price now as to what they are going to purchase and sell that property for as a condition for obtaining a building permit. Following additional discussion ofthis matter, it was moved by Councilwoman Corr and seconded by Councilman Matteoni that the Council act On the City Attorney's suggestion,and eliminate Conditi on 1 'of Resoluti on SDR-1180-1, Granting Conditional Building Site Approval, and add Condition "D" to the Building Site Approval Agreement, requiring dedication of ~ight-of-way to the Santa Clara Valley Water District as hereafter determined reasonable by the Council (on the assumption that the applicant does not sub-divide this property). Inclusive within this motion was the requirement that the applicant post a bond with the City in an amount equal to the value of this land to assure performance of Condition "D". The motion was carried, 3 to O, Councilman Brigham abstai. ning from the voteC~ '~ ~ B. SDR-1065 KOCHER-TYLER, BIG BASIN WAY AT FIFTH STREET (Cont'd. 6/4/75 & 6/10/75) The City Manager explained that a( the Committee of the Whole Meeting one week ago, the Counci'l asked that certain items be included in the proposed ~mprove- ment agreement, and this addenda reflects those conditions, as follows: -3- SDR-1065 Kocher-Tyler, Big Basin Way at 5th Street (Cont'd.) 1) limit the use of the 800 square feet of retail spa~e presently unoccupied; 2) allowing some credit toward the,9 off-street parking spaces presently allocated to Kocher-Tyler and Village Parking District No. I; and 3) increasing the improvement bond t~approximately $20,000.00. He indicated these conditions would only be effective.in She event the Village Parking District No. 2 does not proceed. It was moved by Councilman Brigham and seconded by Councilwoman Corr this Addenda to the Improvement Agreement be approved. The motion was carried. C. SDR-1182 BERNARD TOUGAS, PARAMOUN~ DRIVE, 1 LOT It was moved by Councilman Brigham and seconded~by Councilman Matteoni Resolution SDR-1182~l, granting Final Building Site Approval, be adopted. The motion was carried. D. SDR-1169 CECIL CARPENTER, BOUNTIFUL ACRES/AUSTIN WAY It was moved by Councilman Brigham and seconded-by Councilman Matteoni Resolution SDR-1169-1, granting F~nal Building Site Approval, be adopted. The motion was carried. E. TRACT 5377 SARATOGA FOOTHILLS DEVELOPMENT CORP., SIXTH & BIG BASIN WAY It was moved by CounCilman Brigham'and seconded by Councilman Matteoni acceptance of improvements for construction be approved~ -ihe motion was carried. F. TRACT 5288 JOHN MARKULIN, MONTALVO AND HILL Mr. Shook, Director of PubliE Work~,'reques~ed this itembe withdrawn from the agenda at this time. G_.~ TRACT 4956 SARATOGA FOOTHILLS DEVELOPMENT CORP~, FRUITVALE AVE. AT CRISP It was moved by Councilman Brigham and secondedtby Councilman Matteoni acceptance of improvements for construction be ~pproved. The motion was carried. H. GUTHRIE SWARTZ, PI.KE ROAD It was moved by CouncHman Brigham and secondedby Councilwoman Co~r~he% ~'~ff~6T~U'{~h6=~d'~t~F~i~he~bond guaranteeing these road improv~ents. I. SDR-1175 MATT VOROS, MT. EDEN ROAD The City Manager explained Mr. Vor~s is ~Qp_ealing Condition "N" of Building Site Approval, which condition r~ads: C._~~ ~ N. Proposed dwelling must have a minimum recognized 6" water main capable of delivering 1,000 GPM for one (1) hour. He commented that the basic problem],s~that of~inadequate water service in the area, ahd he explained that-th~sam8 .~'6~tio~as been recommended (or the County for inclusion into their stand'TF'ds.~'T'~'~'~ndicated that the Fire District has stated a 6-inch line is not adequate, and they would have to put in a 12-inch line fort the enti~e area. The Council discussed this matter with Mr. Voros, recognizing that there is a similar problem ~n this entire area and the fact' that the County does not require this condition as a part of its standards. - 4- SDR-1175 Matt Voros, Mt. Eden Road (Cont'd.) Vice Mayor Kraus suggested this matter be investigated further and treated very carefully before any action is taken. The staff was therefore directed to investigate this matter with the local fire chiefs and also the County, and report to the Council at the next regular meeting. J. TRACT 5693 R. J. HUNTER, COMER DRIVE The City Manager brought to the Council's attention a letter from Russell L." C~owther, 20788 Norada Court, ~equesting the Council disapprove the final map on SDR-1037' Mr. Shook, Director of Public Works.i.ndicated that the completion date on this map approval is soon to expire, and asked that the Council consider granting an extension So thi.s applicantc~ould not be penalized. It was moved by Vice Mayor Kraus and seconded by Councilman Matteoni this matter be continued for consideration at the July 8th Committee of the Whole Meeting, and the final date be extended 30 days, to August 1, 1975. The motion was carried. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE NO. 60 - AN ORDINANCE REGULATING THE DESIGN AND IMPROVEMENT OF SINGLE LOTS, PARCELS AND SUBDIVISIONS OF LAND IN THE CITY OF SARATOGA, AND SUPERSEDING AND REPEALING ORDINANCE SERIES NS-5 RELATING THERETO The City Manager indicated that at the April 16th City Counci.1 Meeting, this ordinance was introduced and then referred to the Planning Commission for review and a recommendation back to the Council. He then brought to the attention of the Council recommendations from the Parks and Recreation Commission and also from the Planning Commission concerning modifications to this proposed ordinance. Recommended modifications from Parks and Recreation Commission: Section 12.4 - Requirement that dedication or easement for bicycle path~-t~ail or pedestrian/equestrian pathway be shown on the tentative map prior to approval by the advisory~.,~_~ agency. Section 13.3-17 - Recommendation that this section include reference to bicycle pathway' or trails, be they pedestrian or equestrian. Recommended modifications from the Planning Commission: Section 2 - No final Certificate 6f Occupancy as provided by Section 306 of the Uniform Building Coce shall be issued~_"~) until all curbs, gutters, driveway approaches, base rock and underground utilities servi'cing such lot or parcel, and all landscaping-improvements as may have been required~._~~ by the Advisory Agency, are satisfactorily installed and completed. Sec~tison-s13.~9~3~t-=NO'~i'te-shall-'be-approved~ which bears an a~erage ~" ~ope of over 40%, or in exce~'o~'40%~T6~ ~e~Fea on which any structure is to be built. He then outlined addi_tjonal modifications~T~S'~Po~dOrdinance ~'~=~ ~eTd~Y"'th~ Planning Commission 6~u~-e~ll~-~975. Th~se'~u~ined~-F sectibn' 5.2 - Added the following: "It shall be unlawful for any person to sell, lease for a period in excess of ten (10) years~. " - 5- ?roposed Ordinance No. 60 (Cont'd.) Section 5.2 (cont'd.) - Added to 4th line: "(or 5 or more lots coming within' any of the provisions of Government Code Section 66426) . " Section 6.2 - Added to 4th lin'e: "and all landscaping improvements as may have been required by the Advisory Agency . . ." Section 9.2 ~Appeal by Others - Added to~'dT1T~n~."~"o~ a s~"'~iS~o~.' and to 3~d"iTn'~i":"S~T~i~n~'66474'-S'. Section 9.3 Judicial Review -. 2nd line: Added word "approval";~d't~o C~]T~e: "or of the Planning *on approval, conditional approval or dis- approval of a parcel map on final site CZ~ approval . . "; 3rd line from botton,' added: one-hu ~red eighty (180) days after '~the date of such decision, or such sooner f~ time as Government Code Section 66498.37 may herewith be amended to set forth." Section lO.1 - Added to final sentence: "and any such.permit or certi- ficate which may be issued in conflict herewith shall be ~oid an~ of'no force or effect." Section 10.2 - Added 2nd, 3rd and 4th paragraphs, as follows: Such person shail be deemed gui'lty of a separate offense for each day during any portion of which a violation of this ordinance is committed or continued or permitted by such person, punishable as herein provided. Any building orstructure erected or constructed in violation of this ordinance whether done pursuant to permit or not shall be and is hereby declared unlawful and a public nuisance, and the City Attorney on direction of the City Council shall institete necessary legal proceedings for the abatement, removal or enjoinment thereof in the manner provided by law and shall take such other steps as may be necessary to accomplish these ends. All remedies provided for herein shall,be cumulative and not exclusive. Section 12.1 - Added to 3rd line: "Except as may otherwise be specificall.y set forth in Article Three of this ordinance . " Section 12.4(b) - Added second.sentence, as follows: "The proposed name is subject to approval by the Advisory Agency." Section 12.4(v) - Added to 1st line: "and orchard trees, including outline, centers and species having atrunk circumference of 40 inches or mo~e at a point 24 inches above natural grade." Section 13.3-4 - Added to 6th line: "in the opinion of the Advisory Agency . Section 13.7 - Added 4th paragraph, as follows: Except as hereafter set forth in Section 13.7-1, all such permits sh~ll be obtained in accord with Article IV of Chapter 8 of the Saratoga City Code (Sections 8-70 through 8-77). All references in the City Code Sections'8-76 to Section 3.8 of Ordinance NS-5 shall instead mean Section 13.7-1 of this ordinance. Section 13.7-1 - First paragraph was modified to add: "The approval of a tentative map by the Advisory Agency shall automatically con- stitute a permit . . ." -¸6- Proposed Ordinance No. 60 (Cont'd.) Section 13.8-3'- Added to 6th ~line: "which shall be in an amount equal to the City.. " Section 13.8-6 - Added to 4th line "credit of not to exceedsfifty (50) percent . . " Section 13.9-3. ~Standards of. Hillside Development - It was indicated this is one area the Planning Commiss4 on would like t6 give further considerati on. Section 13.9-4 - Added to 4th line the words: "Advisory~Agency . Section 14.3-3 -Added.to 2nd line~the words: "Advisory Agency . " Section'14.3-4 was'~dded, which states: The Subdivider shall connect said subdivision and each of the lots · thereof to the facilities of such sanitation or sanitary district as has jurisdiction,.by the installation of such additional mains and laterals as is necessary in the opinion of the Health'Officer to adequately sewer the same by sanitary sewers.~ In the event the subdivision or any part thereof is no~ within the boundaries of a sanitation or sanitary district; the Advisory Agency may require annexation to or otherwise inclusion in such a district as a condition of tentative map approval. Sanitary sewers sha~l be in- stalled to grades, standards, location, design, lengths and sizes,-as approved by the Sanitation Engineer for the dis- trict having jurisdiction, and in accord with all laws and regulations of said district. Other than as might be per- mitted under the provilsions of'Section 15 hereof, disposal ~of sanitary sewage may"not be by septi'c tank methods, or .any other method other thanby connection to a sanitary sewer system. Section 14.10 - Addedto 4th line: "the subdivider shall be required to · pay to the City to the account of the other subdivider actually constnucting the same as part of said subdivider's own subdivision improvements. Such costs shall in'no event exceed one-half of the total cost of said bordering sub= division street. Section 16 - Added Subsection (c), stating: Cul~de-sac, dead-end, or ~ other street not having a means of secondary access, where lsuch street services more than 15 lots or building sites. Section 18.4,-.Item (b)~! Subsitem (3) - Addedto 4th line: "the requisite monument bond guaranteeing payment of the cos!t of setting monuments (Government Code Section 66496),.and County certification that the requisite tax bond has been posted (Government Code Section -6493), .and such other agreements and bonds as may from time to t~me be required by law." Section 21 Site A ~ .. pprova'l...Requ~red - Th3s waS~lnd~cated~to be an'area Section 23.2-3 - Modified final sentence as follows: The aforesaid pay- ment to the City shall not impose upon the City~any obligation or liability to acquire such additional width, nor to improve the same, at any time, save and except that if the City has not commenced action to acquire such right-of-way as a public street and · to improve the same within fifteen f15) years, then and in that event the aforesaid funds paid to said City and on deposit shall be returned to the applicant. - 7- Proposed Ordinance No. 60 (Cont'd.) The City Manager indicated 'the only other recommended change would be to the table of fees, and this would be chanQe.of the appeal fee from $20.00 to $30.00. The Mayor then opened the public hearing at 10:4.3 P.M.- Mr. Russell Crowther,. 20788 Norada Court, addressed the ~ounci. 1, commenting that there have been a number of concerns expressed by the Arguello Homeowners Asso- ciation,~.~~o~S~' ~ He indicated that it appears that O~dinance NS-5, SectionS.2, does prevent granting exceptions to design and improvement requirements through the process of filing a report with the City Courtell, followed by a required City Council resolution authorizing t~i,s c~ception. 'NS,60, Section 15, permits such exceptions ~ithouttt~is process, and the Planning Co~ission may make' such exceptions ~ith- out City Council ap~roval~ ~r."C~o~thep commented he' ~elt~h~'~ke~{h~ Leas~~vi~the fact that less people are in~olved;~he~fet~t~th~ a~itioh~l~-ti~e spent ~as important in th~s assessmen't~ p~e.s~ .... ~r. Crowther furthe~ indicated he was somewhat concerned th~hl eveht .th~~ CommisSion would make exception/~ ~g~va~ia~'i~'i~c'l~e~t a citizen could appeal that actio~~i~'h~d~tanding the. State Law requires that elected officials-be responsible for. l~egisla~ive actS, and it was his feeling those kind of decisions shou.ld be left w~,th'the elected officials of the City of Saratoga. Nr. Crowther indicated the third item of concern relates ta~page 32, Section 15.2, again relating to exqeptions. Hb':indicated the present ordinance has similar criteria in that it states that the Planni.ng~om~ission c~Lrecommend exceptions only if~dTl')'~h~h~are. spe~ial ci~stance~or con- diti6ns affecting sa'i~prop'~rty;~and~)~h~e ~i'~n'is-~~or the preservation and ~njoyment of the substantial property rights of the petitioner. The new ordinance changes th~ word "and" to "or" and therefore, it no longer requires that both conditions be met, and only requirin~ that one condition be met. He indicated they were strongly opposed to this change. · He indicated another concern is that in the existing ordinance, Section 5.2, "non-exceptions", references Sections 3 and 4, and not ~ection 10, which ~is the subdivision section of the ordinance. In the new ordinance the standards for hillside developments are moved under Sections~)~T.-~_~'~refore, the standards for hillside development are subject to {h~T~a~'~o~ditions'as other areas of design and improvement. ~e indicated the homeownens ~ssociation doesn't believe'that lot sizes and number of lots are desi.gn and improvmen~, and should not be in this section, or subject to variance. He indicated they are somewhat concerned because Section 15 refers to Sections 13 and q4, which says they are subject to exception, 'and in addition, Section :13-9-3-states that t~is section is subject to the exception provisions, and it appears this is written in such.a ~a~ that. it is going to be used, and they are quite opposed to this. Another item of concern to Mr. Crowther pertained to Section '2.1, which" establishes a Land Development 6ommittee to approve subdivisions of 4 or less lots, this committee consisting of the Director- of Public Works, Planning Director, and-one member of the Planning Commission.. He indicated their major concerns here are: 1)' cost; and 2) shortening in the recruitment process. He indicated this Land Development Committee would' have to issue notices .of meetings, type mfnutes of the meetings, etc. Also, they feel that any' time you chan~e a co~ittee of 5 to 6 people to 3, the approvals wi'll go much faster and easier and encourage the kind of thing tha~ is 'happening 'on Bohlman Road. Mr. Crowthen indicated that on Page 41 of the ordinance~ it(~T~'~r u~de~: standing the :time limit was ten (10). years; however, the re~'~Td~d'i~(~' changes this to fifteen (15) years. 'He indicated these items concern them, mainly because they were not discussed,. and also, they do not feel they comply with the Subdivision Map 'Act., He indicated .they would prefer a process whereby these amendments could be better idqntified with the existing ordinance. - 8- prd~osed Ordinance No. 60 (Cont'd.) Councilman Matteoni commented he was in disagreement with Mr. Crow~her's statement regarding the es.tablishme~t of a Land Development Committee, as there is terrific burden on the part of the Planning Commission in processing some of the matters that are of a routine nature. It was his feeling this would ease the burden on the Planning Commission and make 'the processing a little easier, and allows the. Commission to be more'involved'in planning matterS, rather than just processing. He indicated.that any prob'lem-type matters would ~i~t back into the planning process. that-is p~esently used. Councilman Brigham directed the City Attorney, inqUi.ring if any of,thes~((j~]s were thrown oOt of cou~t, would they be thrown out of the Ordinance also? merely as a cross=referehce'so someB~e~'~'u'l~ know .i~ rb~q.q the bas~s of the sect~on~ then.~t Would not be thrown out; however, ~f we ~ncorporete by reference ~ code sect~on,'or ~f we don't say nnXth~ng, ~t makes no d~fference. Therefore, ~f ~t ~sthrown'out of Court, ~t.~s not nppl~cable ~o uS." Coundlman Br~gham then asked ~f th~s would also be true '~ we ~ncluded the section, plus e description. The C~ty Attorney ~nd~cated th~s would entail repeating .the ~nt~re Subdivision Hap Act, and ~f yoO hnd a section of the Subdivision Hap Act thet wes held to be reesoneble, for whatever reason,'by e cou~t. ~f. therewas ~ section of the Hop Act thet was held to be unreasonable"by 8 court, 8nd'~f you hove the ~dent~cel section, then the some logic would be applicable to th~s section.' Therefore, he f ~nd~ceted ~t becomes o.quest~on of whet ~s good draf~~ Coundlmen Br~gham ~nd.~c~ted the r~ason he asks th~s' question about the ~egal remn~f~cat~ons ~s that ~f ~ sect~on~were thrown out of court, would '~t make that section of the ordinance ~nval~d? The C~ty Attorney replied that if the Coundl ene~ted something hosed upon the provisions of the Hap Act, and the H~p Act were held ~nval~d, then so would the C~ty's provision b~sed upon.-~t, whether we had ~ specific cross=reference to or not, o~ whether we quoted it ~n full or not. N 93 ~ f ~t was ~ntended to be wd~d~d~ "Subdivisions for otBer than for res~dent~81 purposes ere exempted." The C~ty Attorney ~epl~ed that 'th~sZexempt~on ~s taken d~rec~ly out of t~e enabling provisions, and co~erc~a] or industrial-type subd~v~s~'ons cannot be required to dedicate' or pay'fees, a~d s~nce ~t ~s something brand new, felt ~t should be put ~n verbetumuBder exceptionS.'*. Cher~el Oensen,~13717(6~Road, esked why the tree standards, relating to the removal nnd plnnt~ng o~]Kees, are being changed. Hr. Van Duyn, Plenn~ng D~rector, explained that the tree standards ere not being changed, and the m~nimum requ~r~ents are ~ncluded under another ord~nence. It wos then moved by Counc~lman Hatteon~ end seconded by CoUndlman Br~ghom the henring be continued to n Co~ttee of the ~hole Heet~ng on ~u1~,'8, 1975. The motion was carried. B. CONSiDERATiON OF DEHOL~TION OF STRUCTURE LOCATED AT 14631B~G BASiNWAY (~nfor- mnt~onel Public He~r~ng) The C~ty Hahnget ~nd~c~t~ that the~purpose of th~s hearing '~s to b~ng the Coundl up to date on the building located et .14631' B~g Basin Ney. He ~nd~cated that the'C~ty's Building Off~c~e] hns declared th~s.a "dongerous building" ~n ~ccord w~th Sect~on30~ of the Building Code. -9- Demolition - Lynch Structure, Big Basin Way (Cont'd.) In relating the history of this building, the City Manager indicated Mr. Lynch was served notice on this building on March 12, 1975,~...~:lT~the buil~ng or appeal the' decision of the Building'Official to the Cl'ty'Cdu~i,1 within~a.T~T~ 30-day period. He indicated that in Mar~ch, ]972, this'building was Heclare~ problem; ~r. Lynch appealed~the matter; ~?i~?~e matter to the Planning Commission and aliowedM~., Lynch ~aPh'~foP~T~tati'v~ Site Approval and make improvements to the building so it ~ould not have to be demolished. He ~as given 18 months to do this and receive Final Approval. He did not receive Final Approval; therefore, Tentative Approval' expired. Then he applied fop Final Approval before the Planning COmmission, and it ~as denied. The City Manager indicated that the basic reco~endation' this evening i~s to approve the expenditure of $825.00 to demolish this building,,and a special assessment or 'lien agai.nst the property be approved. He then~ Mr Peters~on of'the County~Fipe Marshall.'s~Off~ce to comment regarding ~i~'~fin~i~S~'6n:~iF6Di~l'ding~'~'~'~. '~" Mr. Peterson addressed the Council, stating that he.has dete~ined this building to be a fire hazard, and one which attracts children. He Commented that it is just a matter of time~when this. building burns down. He referenced City Ordinance 38.58 ,.~d~he~s. ecti on which .pertains to Unsafe bui 1 ~i ngs, stati that this buildin~O~l'd'fall into this classification. The City Manager then brought to the Council's attention a letter from Anna Loze, 146~5 Big Basin Way, concerning the conditions of this property. Willard Lynch, 14260 Lutheria Way, ~ddressed the Council. and commented that in answer to the statement of the fire department, 'he would like to state, that only twice has he be~n informed,in Writing or othe~ise, by the CoUnty Fire Department that there was a fire hazard or .fire problems. He indicated that several times in the past 2~ to 3 years he has met with the County Fire Depart- ment on the property and listened t6 everything they reco~ended be done and has done everything they recommended. However, with regard to the"{ire hazard, he indicated he has had no notice from the Fire Department for at least a year, or fnom the City, except for the notice of d~olition. Mr. Lynch commented that he i~ple~ the Council has given him the opportunity to be heard on this mattered--He~nted t~~ he'~~6~i~hrouoh the Planning CO~iss,ion-in an att~pt to~restore this building, an~'he is some- what appalled tha,t' at one end of town M~les Rankiln js-taking. up collections to .try and pestore some oftheold original 'buildings. M~. ~ynch indicated thathe cannot understand why, the City is so insistent, and the Planning Commission, contrar~ to the Planning Department~ of the City of Saratoga, has been'.~hin~D tear this building down. Mr. Lynch then related to the CouncilLback~round informatfOn'on this bu'ld ~h~~~i'~h~the City since ~'Ti~'~'-~Unc~ased-~'the~'st~O~tu~(.'S He fU~{hiP'prese~t~d't~ Counci 1 with arti facts~(~ a lengthy dissertation docb~enting his reasons should be considered as having historical value. Councilman Kraus co~ented that he is amazed Mr. Lynch could not look at this building and not see that a fire hazard exists, He further co~ented that he was on ~he Council two'~years ago when he heard the ~ire chief point'out the fire problems on this property, and ~e felt Mr. Lynch had had adequate oppor~ tunity to improve the situation. Councilman Brigham inquired how old this building was. Mr. Lynch replied.that it is 125 years old. Demolition - Lynch Structure, Big Basin Way (Cont'd.) Mr. Van Duyn, Planning Director, addressed the Counci.1, stating that Mr. Lynch did receive T. entative Site Approval~a~ .h~6Te~u~u~"~{~-l~'~l~l~ww~Y.i'~'~T"~:iL-lding Site Approval expire. He further' c~t"6~'~th'~f~Pl~i~'C~mis~'i~did not feel the plans which Mr. Lynch had submitted would a'dd restoration to the building. It was then discovered'that the .property was in a commercial zone, which doesn't allow for single-family units. Therefore, the Commission was very reluctant to grant.a non-conforming use. Anna Loze, 14645 Big Basin Way, indicated that she is a neighbor of Mr. Lynch's property and has lived therefor 29 years. She co~ented that she would like to see the City do something about ~his piece of property. It was then moved by Councilman Matteoni and seconded by Councilman Brigham to close the public hearing. The motion was carried. ~he public hearing was closed at 11:05 P.M. It was then moved by Councilman (~t~ and~6~TC~l~an Brigham the request for fu ~s to demol is~h~t~'be_app~ov. ed,~an~ the charges ~6r this demolition be assessed against the land. The motion was carried. C. CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED 1975-76 FISCAL YEAR BUDGET .(Codt'd. 6/4/75) The City Manager brought to the Cou'nc~'s attention items of correspondence which had been receiv~ pertaining to "the proposed budget: Mr. and Mrs. Donald Aarestad,~Re: inclusion of funds for develop- ment of Foothill Park. Mrs. Zander Collier, 20645 Rei~ Lane, Re: Budget a~location for Foothil 1 Park development. Frank Perdichizzi, ~resident, Prides Crossing Homeowners and Tax- payers Association, requesting the Council take action to limit property taxes, etc. · Mr. and Mrs. Bob Goff, 21298 S~rahills Ave. Re: allocation of budget funds for development of Foothi 11 Park. Mr. and Mrs. Ousley, 20707 Seaton Ave. Re: Budget allocation for , Foothi 11 Park dev el opment. Mr. Russell L. Crowther, 20788'Norada Court, supporting Frank Perdichizzi's letter re: Saratoga taxes which appeared in the Saratoga News. The public hearing Was opened at ll:lO P.M. There being no additional comments on tha~proposed 1975-76 Budget, it was moved by Councilman Brigham and seconded by ~ouncilman Matteoni the public hearing be continued to the July 2nd City Council Meeting, and further dis- cussion be set for a Committee of the Whole Meeting on JUne 24, 1975. The motion was carried. VI. ADMINISIRATIVE ~TTERS A. MAYOR 1. The Mayor announced an Executive Session b6 ,held following this evening's meeting to discuss personnel matters. ~11- B. FINANCE 1. Payment of Claims It was moved by Councilman Brigham and seconded by Councilman Matteoni the list of disbursements, 21459 thou 21508, be approved, and the Mayor be authorized to sign the warrants. The motion was carried. 2. City Clerk's Financial Report - Noted and filed. 3. City Treasurer's Report - Noted and filed. C. COUNCIL AND COMMISSION REPORTS 1. Parks and Recreation - Recommendation Re: SubdiVision Ordinance Revision - See comments, Public Hearings, Item V-A. 2. Planning CommissiOn - Recommendation Re: Subdivision Ordinance - See comments, Public Hearings, Item V-A. 3. CP~_,_~k~'~S;~ecreation Commission- Recommendatign Re: AB-997 (Local Govern- · ment Recreation Program Bill). It was moved by Councilman Brigham~nd seconded by Counci'lman Matteoni the Council endorse and support AB-997. The motion wa~ carried. C __ ~. a Brigham - Request by League of California Cities for endorsement 4. ~ ounc lm n of AB-378. It was moved by Councilman Brigham and seconded, by Councilman Matteoni AB-378 be endorsed and supportedby the Council. The motion was carried. 5. Councilman Brigham - Request by League of California Cities for endorsement of AB-523, Re: Agricultural Preserves. The Council agreed to further discuss this bill and concerns that had been expressed by Senator Smilthat an Adjourned Regular Meeting next Tuesday, June 24th. D. DEPARTMENT HEADS AND OFFICERS 1. Director of Public Works - Request for Approval to Submit Application for Traffic Safety Funds It was moved by Councilman Brigham and seconded'by Councilwoman Corr the Council approve the application for a $16,500 grant from the Traffic Safety to accomplish a Traffic Control Device Inventory. The motion was carried. E. CITY MANAGER 1. Draft Policy Resolution No. 735, Re: Smoking Control Ordinance It was moved by CDuncilman Matteoni and seconded by Councilman Brigham Resolution No. 735 be adopted and distributed to the various restaurant operations in Saratoga along wi,th'a cover letter explaininglthe purpose of implementing such a resolution, and inviting the restaurant owners' comments~The'motion was carried. 2. Requests for 4th'of July Block Parties, Chalet Lane and Maria Lane~ It was moved by Councilwoman Corr and seconded by Councilman Brigham these requests be approved. Th~ motion was carried. -12- VII. COMMUNICATIONS A. WRITTEN 1. Forrest D. Rees, 18817 Casa Blanca Lane, requesting three-way stop at Casa Blanca Lane and Bonnett Way. -Referred to staff for report back to the Council. Mardi Gu~ltie~i, Chairman, Santa Clara County HistoriCal Heritage Commission, requesting the Council delayLdemolitionof theIBrewer Store at-14265 Saratoga Avenue until alternative action can be investigated by the citizens of Santa ~: Clara County - Referred to staff for report back to the Council. 3. Jim FisherL's~88~4Casa'Bl~nca Lane, requesting three-way stop at the inter- section of Casa Blanca Lanesand Bonnett Way..- Referred to staff for report back to the ~ouncil. 4.' Frank Escobar, Director, Human Relations Commission, Santa Clara County, Re: Invocations at City Council meetings. - Noted and filed. 5. M~"J~an'Wa~d~F~~~a~-Ta~.~i~rat~~~g ."Citizen ~of the Yea~'! award. =~Noted-ana fite~i'CTty-'Manager~t~-re~bndT'~ 6. Ms. Anna L. Loze, 14645 Big Basin Way, expressing complaint Re: conditions of the Lynch property on Big Basin Wa~. - Noted & f~led; City Manager'to re= spond. 7. Mr. Leo J. Hasbrouck, 13076 Glen. Brae Drive, Re: speeding situation on Glen Brae Drive in front of the Congress Springs School. - Referred to staf~ for report back to the Council. 8. Mr. Russell L. Crowther, 20788 Norada Court, requesting disapproval o~ the final map for Hunter and Associates development (SDR-1037). - Noted & filed, 9. Mr. and Mrs. John Vance, 19363~Athos Place, stating opposition to the proposed athletic stadium at West Valley College. - Noted and f~led. B. ORAL The Mayor indicated he would like-to acknowledge the presence of public· group representatives presen~ in the'audi·ence, a~ fol-lows: Gene Zambetti, Saratoga Planning Commission; Frank Perdichizzi, ~-- · President-Pride's. Crossing Homeowners & Taxpayers Association; Russ CroWther, Greater Arguelld Homeowners Association;. Roger Luecks, Good Government Group;·Marjorie Foote, A.A.U.W.; John Powers, Saratoga ~amber df Commerce; Ruth Tyler, Coffee Service, Good Government'Group. VIII. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by CounCilman Brigham and seconded'by Councilwoman Corr the meeting be adjourned to Executive Session and to an Adjourned Regular Meeting onTuesday, June 24, 1975. The motion was carried: The meeting was ~djourned at 11:50 P.M.