Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-16-1975 City Council Minutes MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL TIME: Wednesday, July 16, 1975 - 7:30 P.M. PLACE: Saratoga City CouncilsSCrUbbers, 13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, California TYPE: Regular Meeting I. ORGANIZATION A. ROLL CALL Present: Councilmen Brigham, Corr, Kraus, Bridges, Matteoni Absent: None Councilman Kraus pointed out a correction on page 5 of the July 2nd minutes, final paragraph. Fifth suggestion should read: "With some additional thought such as that expressed by the Planning Director and the City Manager on the Consulting Geologist, additional economies are p'ossible." ~ ndi ~Bd '~ ~6Gi'd~i'~'h~K ~ 't~ ~p~ ~i~K=Co'~h~i'l m~n ~Ma°~t~(ni 'Is' i n attending the Transportation Meeting in Campbell. It was then moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded by Councilwoman Corr the minutes of June 18, 1975 and July 2, 1975 be approved. The motion was carried. II ~S A~Cd~T R'~T'S1 A. JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT FOR INTERGOVERNMENTAL EMPLOYEE RELATIONS SERVICES The City Manager explained this is a modified version of the present agree- ment with the County and a number of cities in the County, and indicated the City of Saratoga's committment amounts to $350.00. It was moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded by Councilman Brigham this agreement be approved. The motion was carried. III. q6~ITIONS, ORDINANCES AND FORMAL RESOLUTIONS A. RESOLUTION NO. 737 Resolution Approving~get for the City of Saratoga for Fiscal. Y~ar 1975-76 It was moved by Councilman Brigham and seconded by Councilwoman CO~r Resolution No. 737 be adopted. The motion was carried, 4 to 1 in favor -- Councilman Kraus in opposition., IV. ~UBDIVISIONS, BDILDING SITES AND ZONING REQUESTS A. SDR-1159 D. J. CAREY, FRUITVALE AVE. It is the staff's recommendation Building Site Approval be granted, conditional upon receiving the parcel map, which is in the process of being recorded. It was moved by Councilman KrauS and seconded by Councilman Brigham Resolution SDR-1159-1, granting Conditional Building Site Approval, be adopted. The motion was carried. B. TRACT 5693 R. J~U~M~ER, COMER DRIVE (Cont'd. 6/18 & 7/8/75) The City Manager indicated he had no additional comments on this matter, except to mention the letter enclosed in the Council's packet from the - 2- Soils Foundation indicating the results of recent ~geological investigations in this area, which conclude that no geologic factors indicatinglandslides are present on the subject site Robert Shook, Director of Public Works, reported that the final map on this subdivision is dee~d to be in conformance with the approved tentative map. Russell Crowther, 20788 Norada Court, presented slides and outlined some areas of concern relative to this subdivision,r~'T'.c~-~'i~l~d~d~o~'~'6f the proposed homes on the new plan; the deter~i~a~Tn't6~"~n~i~onmental impact repont is not required for this project and potential litigation in this regard; geological factors and position of fa~]~ lines a~nd pos~Ible land- ys3ide areas; soils ~e~ort as related to~x~'~i~ ~T~ to~th~l~ ~whi~h~'~'~r~l~Ti~l~n~i~T'l~l~area 6~'~l~g unit~i~ the~ew~ ~'~dinance~'6~t~h~V~6~i~'~d ~t~(~6~'b~Ti'ty~t~at one of the existing home sites is ona slope in excess of 40%. Ron Andrade representing MacKay and Somps,~g"ne~T6~"~ commented that MacKay and SOmps has worked lon~h~'~rd wi'{h<t~" ~(eloper to make sure everything was in accordance with the City ordinances and engineering requirements, and the end product is i.n conformance with what {~~p~dT~y?the City Planning'Commission and City Council. He ~dic~'M~K~n~'S6~ps has g~ne t~rough considerable time and expense to insure that this site is deve)opable. It was then moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded by Cou milman Brigham to adopt Resolution S~7~i~t~F~inal Map Approval, be adopted, and the Mayor be authorize~'~ute~'~h~'Contract for Improvement. The motion was carried, 4 to 0 -- Councilman Matteoni abstaining. C. SDR-1167 DENNIS BRYAN, BELLE VISTA AVE., 1 L~T It was moved by Councilman Brigham and seconded,by Councilman Kraus Resolution SDR-1167-1, granting Final Building Site Approval, be adopted. The motion was carried, 4 to 0 -- Council~n Matteoni' abstaining. D. SDR-1100 A. R. WOOLWORTH, B~NDYWINE DRIVE, 4 LOTS It was~h~c~i~]the staf~ thisBuildi.nq Site Approval be approved~d~{i~h~b~'6~'~eceipt o~ the recorded ~ap. It was moved by Councilman Brigham and seconded by Councilwoman Corr Resolution SDR-1100-1, granting Conditional Buil~ding Site Approval, be adopted. The motion was carried. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE NO. 60 - AN ORDINANCESREGULATING THE DESIGN AND IMPROVEMENT OF SINGLE LOTS, PARCELS AND SUBDIVISIONS OFLAND IN THE CITY OF SA~TOGA, AND SUPERSEDING AND.REPEALING ORDINANCE SERIES NS-5 RELATING THERETO {Cont'd. 6/18 & 7/8/75} The City Manager indicated that the one aj r area~eding clarification mo was related to page 7, Section 9.2, dealing withAppe~b~"6tT~in which there was a question whether or not the phraseology in the third line indicating Code sections should be taken out of the Government Code and placed in the Ordinance itself. He indicated it is proposed since reference is made to the specific Code sections, that if additions or deletions are made, the Ordinance would not have to be changed. Faber Johnston, City Attorney, advised' that the County has a sys~ of hand-outs,~wh~.ch are a syo~sis or summary of a~ changes. He suggested the~r~f :8 n '~ ~(i Fi ~ ~g~-S ~ ~F~ Ty~ i { ~f, ~h~ ~p~r ~a~' s~t'i~'~ '~hieh it~Tze'a~d speeif~O~ s~l'13~F~h~th~ig~hith'ar~ ap~eili61~i~'b~il~l~'f~h~d~t in' the City Planning Department. Ordinance 60 (Cont'd.) ~ 3 - , The City Manager indicated ~n~_h_'_er'jT~ea of concern was on page 25, con- cerning the 40% slope for the lot, and also, revised wording with regard to building sites. Another area Was the modification of fees under Section 4, page 4, which pertains to the fee for geological analysis, and Section 4.5-2 regarding departmental reports, and page 14, Sub~tion (F), as i t relates to geological analysis. Also modified is Ta616 Y'on page 48, Sub- sections (C), indicating a feeof $200.00 for geological analysis services, and this fee to be paid at the time of application, and would be used to.' pay a Consulting Geologist hired bY the City.on a retainer basis. Mayor Bridges indicated there were two areas which the Planning Commission was asked to give more input, and'did not feel it would be proper to adopt the Ordinance until a report has been received relevant to these items. The City Manager recommended, however, that the Ordinance be adopted this evening, and these amendments cou3d be inserted at a future time. Manty Van Duyn, Planhing Director, explained that these two items would be considered by the Commission along with the proposed Slope Conservation Ordinance. Co - unc~lman Matteon~ commented that he feels these .two seCtfon's being con- ~--sidere~-(or~modi'fi'c~tion by the Planning Commission are changes which the Council can take note of,-and he Would .hrefer to adopt the o~dinance as presented, but noting that ther~ is some further study in a couple of areas which the Council would like to expedite. The Mayor then opened the public hearing at 8:25 P.M. Dr. Nat Abrams, 19739 Edina Lane,,addressed the Council and commented with respect to fees on Professional lands. He indicated ~___F t~h'e~de~i~n~'~'~"]C~m~i!al'' ~ and "InduStrial" i'n the Government eodeF/ and thFi~'i~t~s t~'~ that parks are the responsibility of residences, and not other uses. He commented that,if the ~Qrding in the State 0rdinance2 specifie~ ~orBing for "Co~ercial~' and~"Indus~tria'l"~f~nd this relates to all non-residential,~that~'is fin~: HoweVer, if it is unclear, he f~els~{~e~i~ should identify ~hat it means. {Section~T3~) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' The City Attorney explained that this section states that "the following shall be e~empted from the provisi6ns of this section: (1) Subdivisions for commercial or industrial uses." H~ indicated this is pulled out of the Govern- ment Code, and he doesn't know what this means any more than anyone else does. However, he would assume that it means that "Residential" is included, and "Co~ercial" and "Industrial" uses are not included. Russell Crowther, 20788 Norada CoUrt, commented that he would like to applaOde those who wish to wait on Section 13, and felt i~f~the Councilpassed the Ordinance in its present form, this would change the numerator on the slope density to another number. He further indicated~he Arguello Homeowners Association has a petition they would like to have considered, which requests that development densi'ties in the Saratoga foothill~'~a'6e~~ 2.5 acre minimum.. He,indicated ~his petition consist' ~mately 92 ~gnatures. Mr.. Crowther indicated he had some further concerns relevant to previous discussions relating to criteria,.stating that it.is his understanding that Saratoga ordinances can be more restrictive than the State Law, and he wonders if explicity stressing these th~ngs in the Ordinance would allow the Ci ty~T~o~ r~]~t]~i~ih~ ~a't' Mayor Bridges co~ented that he thinks Mr. Crowther is confusihg "restrictive" with "allowance on something". Heasked that the City Attorney comment on this. Ordinance 60 (Cont'd.) - 4 - Mr. Johnston commented, that in answer to the question: "Coulidh't we allow more appeal basis than that designated in the present Code?" He replied that we could allow anybody in the City to~appeal anything they want. Mr. C~wther again stated'he would like to see this explici~l~'i~'Tur Ordinance, so that in the event the StateC[~'Tho'6'GTd:'(haTge~is' could be left in the City's Ordinance. Mr.'~O~h~F'i~di~d~'page'3~,/ Section 6 of NS-5, there is considerable criteria relevant to development standards, and a number of these.criteria~the present ordinance under Section 16, are not there and have been replaced by the reference tothis 66474, which does not ~nclude provisions of the previous ordinance. It was his feeling these conditions are~so important that they should be so stated in the new ordinance. Councilman Matteoni commented that by. qUoting from the Subdivision Map Act, if there is some modification to that language by a subsequent appeal at the state level, it was his feeling that the City's language quoting that there ~'T, 6~'~T~e~{i~'~'-~h~e piece would be in jeopardy, subject to challenge, qS~ou~d makelit more'~es~F~tive. He indicated he would prefer we examine "~h~ p~'Ft'i~r'~rea~ f6~ consistency, and then adopt our own restrictions, and indicate handouts would be available. Mr. Crowther asked if theCCouncii felt the public would have adequate prior knowledge if they were planning to appeal a matter. Councilman Matteoni indicated that the Subdivision Map Ac~ has always been a major legislative item, and there ~ould be a great deal of lead time. Mr. Crowther indicated another c6mment he would have would be relevant to the Land Development Committee. He indicated that he fully understands the arguments in favor of this committee; however, the Historical Committee was turned down on the basis of costs, and he wondered if that trade-off was considered. Mr. Crowther stated that the City of Saratoga has been operating for a number of~)ears without a Land Development Committee and feels, for the most part, it has~turned out. rather well. He indicated he would like to ask that this be done on"a gradual ba~3s, and'hillside sub- division matters not be considered by the ~and Development Committee until the Committee has proven itself.~ He' further suggested putting wording in the ordinance to require that any subdivisions which result in lot sizes that are greater than the minimum allowable lot size be considered by the Planning Commissionlfor approval., Mr. Crowther stated that he is concerned about legislative acts by non-elected officials, and also, the Planning Commission should recommend poli~y, but not make policy, and the City Council should be responsible for all legislative acts. Mr. Crowther indicated the homeowners association is ~:so concerned that Ordinance 60 allows for an assessment, and they are very concerned about this since it was indicated'by the Planning'~Commission'that flooding prob- lems downstream on the Packer Ranch might be handled by a mini-assessessment district. He indicated they would like to receive further clarification on how these mini-assessment districts would be used. He further indicated the homeowners association is concerned that some of the things the Map Act does permit are not included in the City's ordinance. These are: 1) making it possible for any subdivider to dedicate land to school districts; 2) approval of.a subdivision which does not provide(p_i~i~, access for dedication of easements upstream to a oublic right-of-way; 3) Section 66484 states that the city may pass an'ordinanc~~ithe maintenance to defray costs on bridge or major thorofare improvements. In response to Mr. Crowther's statement relevant to the Land Development Committee ,~Counci~ manM~M,~atatteoni~ommented thatr'i~h_'g~ ~o~y~i'~of ,~[he'~a,n~d~ev~l o"Fm~en~_'~_ Co_mmi'~G~i :.~_ feel s i t i s no'{'~'~ ~me th~'Hi~%~6~F{'8~l'C6'n~i ~t'~'F-,a'~-th'~'F'e are requirements for addi ti ona 1 personnel to staff the Historical Committee. Further, he commented that the existing Ordinance 60 Cont'd.) ~ 5 - Subdivision Committee does coststhe City a substantial amount of time and money. It was his feeling 'if we 'are able to make the Planning Commission more efficient~iTh~d'~'~h~i~j6~:!~'~bdi.visions andissues that require more study, hew'6'GlI~'lTk~ee~th~C~nd Development Committee get underway. Thomas Sawyer, 20790 Norada Court, addressed the Council, stating that it was his understanding in conversations with members of the Council that one of its major desires was for reduced density in the hillsides. He commented that some representatives~on theCounci.1 have indicated this~is~a_P}.an~g ~i~i~n i s ~poi ~tTd~f~i~'~'a nd ~6t~'~ ~1~'~ ~b'n e~'~he-Ci~h~i'l ~h'bel~'~'~'~'~o~ia~lin~ ~F~he Commission to give them a scope within to work. He stated'that he has had very little opposition to the belief that reducing density in the hillsides is going to save the beauty and money of the city. Roger Lueck, 20016 Winter Lane, addressed the Council on behalf of the Good Government Group, and asked the question: "Do the.provisions of ~he Zoning Ordinance NS-3A override the provisions of a Subdiv'ision Ordinance where there are restrictions?" The City Attorney replied that "subdi.vision" relates to development, and C~"relates' to'what'is or-is not permitted. Mr. Lueck then asked: ."Do they override if they are less restrictive?" Mr. Johnston replied that if the;zoning regulations are less restrictive, but the development standards are more restrictive, then you must comply with the development standards. Mr. Lueck then indicated on page25 the formula for minimum land area per dwelling is quite different than that considered by the Planning CommiSsion under NS-3A. He commented that the Planning Commission's proposal is quite a bit more restrictive; however, if the Planning Commissio~'s formula will override this, then he would have The City Attorney then readinto 'the record Section 13.9.3 of ~he proposed ordinance, and explained that if the zoning district has more restrictive regulations, it supersedes thesedevelopment standards. Mr. Leuck then commented that he.understands some modifications of Ordinance 60 are in the wind, and the Good Government Group would be opposed to adopting the ordinance until' the,Planning Commission has provided its recommendation regarding these modifications. It was then moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded by Councilwoman Corr the Public Hearing be closed. The motion was carried., The<p~lTd'h~arinq was closed at 8:55 P.M. ' "~ Councilman Matteo ~' commented that he is not in favor of putting adoption of this ordinance off, as this is a 'very lengthy document, and also, the Council is only talking about two sections that might be modified -- one dealing with the ~lope ~ensity formula, which:he commented he has difficulty looking at in the Subdivision Ordinance. The other item of possible modification has to do with the amount of paving o~ driveways. He indicated'he feels there are several provisions in this ordinance whichhe feels are worthwhile-aHd can put in motion tonight. Councilman Brigham indicated he is not in favor.of Voting on this ordinance at this time, as he understands there was a very close vote of the Planning Commission on these two i-tems ~ei'ng considered for modification, and he would like to have their comments before voting. Ordinance 60 (Cont'd.I) - 6 ~. Councilwoman Corr indicated it was mentioned in the Planning Commission minutes about the mini assessment districts, and she would l'ike to have further explanation from the City Attorney concerning installation of fire hydrants, etc. Also, with respect to Section 13.9-3, she indicated it was her understanding this would apply only to those districts that are not zoned for the hillside conservation area. She indicated her concern in this area is greater that the slape density and size of the lots. Therefore, she indicated she would be willing to accept this, with the expectation that the zoning or slope conservation'would be more restrictive Councilman Kraus commented that he felt the Land Development group is a good one, and there is a representative of the Planning Commissi'on who sits on this committee. He further commented that he feels the Council should keep in mind this is a Subdivision Ordinance, and.not a Zoning Ordinance. Mayor Bridges commented that he agrees there are some~things in the ordinance the Council could proceed with; bowever, he is notprepared,to vote for the ordinance with the 40% slope factor, or'without including the 2½-acre minimum lot size requirement. He suggested the Council proceed to make the necessary amendments and then go ahead and adopt the ordinance. He further suggested that the Council amend the 40% factor t6 35%, and the minimum lot size be set ate2½ acres. Mr. Van Duyn, Planning Director, commented that he Believes it has been the policy of the Council to put ~._t'~faith in the Planning process, and the Planning Commission is presently'~nvestigating the Slope'Conservation Ordinance. He agreed that th~'~'~'~-o~T~lope formula is a zonin~ issue, and is not necessarily applicable' the S~b'di~ision Ordinance, but s~rves mainly as a "stop-ga~" measure. ~It was his feelingif the Council adopted this ordinance asC~i~ggested, it would' throw-the whole ordinance back to the drawing ~d~'~ .... ~ Councilman Matteoni indicated he would favor ~l__~_~.ting this section altogether for tonight, and take action on it at a joint meeting with the Planning Commission. City Attorney Faber Johnston commented that he agrees with Mr. Matteoni in that the staff didn't want to.put in Section 13 in the first place. However, they knew the Slope ConservationsOrdinance was in the planning process, and it was thrown in almost as an aftethought as a "stop-gap" in. the event that any parcels that we~'~z~ in, the Slope Conservation Zone would come in and make application.~'~c~d~y, he commented that this is more ~estrictive than!~h~S-5 formula a~ the present time. He indicated that if~C~'d~Eil~ leaV~'(6is out completely and repeals NS-5, then there would be no s~ope~ conservation formula applicable until the Slope Conservation Ordinance is adopted. Mr. Johnston then indicated he would like to respond to Councilwoman Corr's earlier~estion with respect t6 mini assessment districts. He indicated that Sections 66485 and 66487 of the new Map Act now permit an.additional' method of financing or oversizing. He indicated' that the City is entitled to have a subdivision reimbursement agreement ~'~'T~l~developer, whereby the City agrees that as each developer comes i~, w i'l extract "x" number of dollars from him and'reimburs~ the first developer for the oversizing that would help his tract. The new Map Act,. however, doesn't limit these improvements, and it leaves at the discretion of the City alternate ways to finance these improvements~--'it can still use an old reimbursement agreement, or it can use an assessment district procede~g to spread the cost and recoup i~ to the subdivider. Linda Callon, Planning Commissioner, added as a point of information the fact that the Planning Commission wants to restrict the number of homes, and she is not sure ~t~t~_~'~T~o'~6~ to control the formula percentage. Ordinance 60 (Cont'd.) - 7 ~ It was then moved by Councilman M~tteoni and seconded by Councilman Brigham the Council adopt Ordinance 60, d~leting Section 13.9-3 and indicating this section as "Reserved", and adopt an ihterim resolution to serve as a "stop- gap" measure to allow the ~lanning.~rOCess~take place in adopting the Slope Conservation Ordinance. Als'o ~fo~tfi~e be added at the'end of Section 13, stating that "Summari~s~facsimili~s of .the above code sections containing an i temization of the matters appealable will be available to the public at the City Offices:" Inclusive Within this motion was to accept corrections as submitted, to~h'~l~Towing sections: Section 4. Fees. Page 4; Section 12.5-2. "De~rt~eental Reports, Page 14, modification to SubseCtion (F); Table I - Fees, Pa~e 48, addition o~ Sub- section(C) Senvice Fee; and Table I - Fees, Pa~e 49,50, and 51. The motion was carried unanimously. It wasindicated the interim resolution would be prepared for consideration by the Council at the August 6th meeting. -~ ORDiNANCE---~_~ The City Manager indicated there is a report in the Counci3.packet from the Director of Public Works concerning the Weed Abatement-Program this year. He indicated that under Ordinance 38.63, the Council must start a public hearing on the potential liens against the property, ba~ed on the costs for doing the weed abatement work. 'He stated that due to the tardiness in getting the bills back from the farmer who did the work,'he would recommend the public hearing be opened and continued to the August 6th meeting to allow anyone who has questions~n]hg the bills to appea~L The Mayor declared the publ4c he~ring open at 9:43 P.M. It was then moved by Councilman Bri~ham and seconded by!Councilwoman Corr the public hearing be continued to August 6th. The motion was carried. C. CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST BY AVCO COMMUNITY DEVELOPERS FOR REVERSION TO ACREAGE OF TRACT NO. 5582 AND 5620 IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER 6, ARTICLE SECTION 66499.15, THE STATE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT The City Manager explained that this is the property i n the proposed freeway right-of-way, and after going through the whole process of court action and final approval of these tracts,.the State has indicated its intention to buy the property and negotiate with AVCO. He indicated'the process to follow in terms of the request i~ to have the public hearing, and if the Council so desires, approve the. reversion of the final map. It would then be necessary to~rescind the agreements for improvements and release the improvement bonds, and to approve the refund of fees (approximately $8,410). He commented that approximately $458.00 has already been expended against these projects, and this amount is being deducted~.~om the total. The next step would be to abandon the(~'~e~~!~:~'TT'~. councilman Kraus asked i p6 si ? i' -AttorneY' to col le~t The City Attorney replied that under the new Map Act we are required on reversion to acreage to refund all fees, and if i~ were related in some fashion, it might be possible to,recover these costs. The Mayor then opened the public.hearing at 9:39 P.M. It was then moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded b~ Councilman Bri~ham to continue this matter to the August 20th regular meeting, to allow the staff to come back with some answers relative to recovering costs in this reversion. The motion was carried. Recess and Reconveyne VI. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS A. MAYOR 1. Indicated he had received a communication from Mayor Hammer of Campbell and Supervisor Diridon urging Council's support for con- cept of rai'l transit along Southern Pacific railway. It was moved by Councilman Matteoni and seconded by Councilman Brigham the Council support the concept of. utilizing the Vasona Branch Line for rail passenger serv~'ce, expressing the Council's concerns related to unguarded crossings, interfacing w~'th vehicular traffic, and whether or not this has been' determined-as the best branch demonstration system. The motion was carried. B. FINANCE 1. Payment of Claims It was moved by Councilman K~aus andsecdnded by Councilman Brigham the list of disbursements, 21626 thru 21693, be approved, and the Mayor be authorized to sign the warrants. The motion was carried. 2. City Clerk's Financial Report - Noted & filed.. 3. City Treasurer's Report - Noted & filed. C. COUNCIL AND COMMISSION REPORTS 1. Councilman Kraus e ~ regarding the Grand Auto Store's ~p~e~1 his concern appearance; i.e., signs and ad~ in the window. - It was indicated the Code Enforcement Officer would follow this up and report at the next City Council Meeting. D. DEPARTMENT HEADS AND OFFICERS 1. Director of Planning - Report Re: Request by James Day Re: Emergency Access Road, Subdivision No. 5384 (Cont'd. 7/2/75) It, was moved by Councilman Matteoni and seconded by Councilman Brig'ham to uphold the Planning Staff's recommendation to approve the ~limin- ation of the emergency access road requirement from thfs final map. The motion was carried. 2.~' Director of Public Works - Report Re: Village Parking District No. 2 Staff to meet again with property owners, and report for Tuesday, July 22nd Committee of the Whole Meeting. 3. Director of Public Works - Status of Lynch structure Advised that a purchase order has been issued for the demolition of this structure next Thursday,: July 24th. E. CITY MANAGER 1. Consideration of Modifications on Flood Boundaries Map Following the City Manager's status report, it was moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded by CouncilWoman Corr that the staff be authorized to write a letter to HUD objecting to the boundaries as outlined by them, and approving those established by Santa Clara Valley Water District. The motion was carried. City Manager Reports I(Cont'd.) - 9 - 2. Consideration of Report on S~ting of Swannee Building It W~e__~d by Councilwoman Corr and seconded by Councilman Brigham to(~onc~tual'ly'~app~ove.~he plot plan as presented by the .staff as it rela"~'~'to~h~'s'itih~'oT the Swanee Building. .The motion was carried. 3. Claim for Accident - Intersection of Fourth Street and Canyon View Drive It was moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded by Councilman Brigham this claim in the amount of $932 be denied, and'referred to the City's insurance carrier for handling. The motion was carried. Claims for Personal Injuries - Donald G. Foss and Salvador P. Tarantino It was moved by Councilman Kr~us and seconded by Councilman Brigham these two claims, eachin the amount of $50,000, be denied, and referred to the City's insurance carrier for handling. The motion was carried. 4. Arts and Crafts Fair, June26~h & 27th The City Manager advised this~Fai,r would be sponsored by. the Saratoga Village Merchants Association, and the request has been reviewed by the City's Code Enforcement O~fice, Sheriff's Office, and Fire Department, ? and found to'be in order. Also, all additional .patrolmen will be paid for by the Merchants Association. Followi.ng some discussion of this request, it was moved by~B~g~s and seconded by Council~'~L I Corr the Arts 'and Crafts Fair ~n JO'~26th and 27th be approved, w~(h~ the understanding that~i~ri~h~f~way will not be inhibited. The m6tion was carried. .Sa~..Cla~a. ValTey. Water DistH~thas approached. ~heCity ~egarding the Districti~ purchase ~ th~ Be~k pr6per~y on Waln~t A~'enue, and'~hether 6r~not so~eti!me. 14n ~the future!the C~t~would-be interested ~-n purchasing this land for'open space and park use. -Ihe Pa~ks and Recreation Commission has ~nd~cate"~ its fi~'a~iiity to cu~lit iL~lfto-Che pb~-cha~thi~time, 'and thishas. beeh ~nd~eated .to th~ District. The. District has advised this eoOld be appro~edfo~ ~utu~e ~urchase by.~he City, on the condition that the Oi~y ~agre~s to take ca~e of the annual maintenance on the property. It was moved by"CoOncilman' Brig~am and seCOnded by' Coun~'lman Krabs the City support this purchase by'the Water District, and the City assume maintenance of the property, donsisting of two discings per year, at the 'approximat~cost of $300.00. .The motion was carried. VII. COMMUNICATIONS A. WRITTEN 1. Max Barrot'~ 20411 Walnut Ave.~ Re: weed abatement problem. - Director of Public Works advised that this problem is on the Beck property, on which the City will be taking over maintenance responsibility (discing). 2. Copy of letter to Planning-Commission from Mrs. Caryl Symonds, 20753 Norada Court, Re: development of PainleSs Parker Ranch. - Noted and filed. 3. Copy of letter from Charles Lentz, 910 N. First Street, San Jose, Re: presentation of the City's Budget. 4. Alan Rubnitz, Attorney, 100 N. Winchester Blvd., San Jose, expressing opposition to proposed Pjrking Assessment'District No. 2.'- Noted and filed. Written Commu6ications (Cont'd. - lO - 5~ Jo~Svilich, Chairman, Saratoga Festival and Parade Commi~ttee, requesting City direct a letter to the State indicating its pepmission to tempor- arily interrupt the flow of traffic on State Highway 85 for the Tenth Annual Fall Festival and Parade on Saturday, September 20, 1975. It was moved by Councilwoman Corrand seconded by Councilman Kraus that · the designated portion of Highway 85 be approved for closure on this date for the Annual Fall Festival and Parade, and the City Manager be authorized to submit a 'lette~ to the State Department of Transportation indicating this approval. The motion was carr. ied. 6. Mrs. John G. Jorgensen, 13631 Saratoga Ave., Re: condition of city-owned proper.ty on Saratoga Ave. and Fruitvale Ave. (Seagraves pr6perty). - City Manager reported the problems spoken to.are under control. Also, City's Code Enforcement Officer has!.inspected the complaint of the outbuildings being used as "bunk houses", and finds no evidence that this is so. 7. William E. Heiss, Jennings-McDermott-Heiss, Inc., e~gineers for Blackwell Homes, Re: Parker Ranch and cl:uster zoning.. Noted and filed. ~. ORAL 1. Nat Abrams, 19739 Edina Lane~ representing Prides Crossing Homeowners Association, asking that the Council be open to suggestions by the Homeowners Association throughout the year on ways to reduce budget ~e~t~:- Council indicated it would be open for suO,estions through- 2. Dr. Abrams presented his latest drawing as'submitted by his architect fo~ the proposed. library andSrevised location,' pointing out modifications to the previous plan. - Council indicated it would give this plan con- sideration and advise Dr. Abrams. . The Mayor then acknowledged the.presence of public group .represe~tativesf.~n'~'~ the audience, as follows~' ' ~"~ ' ~ L~nda Callon, Planning CommisSio6er; Russell Crowther, President, Greater Arguello Homeowner's Association; Dorothy Parker~ Good Government Group; Nancy MacDonald, Needs Assessment Task'Force; John Powers, Saratoga Chamber of Commerce; Nat Abrams, President,. Pride's CrossingHomeowners Association; Jim Isaak; Library Co~niss!oner; R6ger. Luecks, Good Govern- ment Group; Jo Ann Runyen, American Association of University Women; April Barrett, League of-Women.VOters; and Eve Bryant, Good Government Group. ~ VIII. ADJOURNMENT I-t was moved by Councilman Brigham a~d seconded by Councilman Kraus the meeting be adjourned to an Executive Session: The motion was carried. The' meeting was adjourned at 11:05 P.M. ubmittedityCle~