HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-03-1976 City Council Minutes MINUTES
SARATOGA C~TY COUNCIL MEETING
TIME: Wednesday, November 3, 1976 - 7:30 P..M.
PLACE: Saratoga City Council Chambers, 13777 Ffiuitvale Ave.~ Saratoga, California
TYPE: Regular Meeting
I. ORGANIZATION
A. ROLL CALL
Present: Councilmen Brigham, Corr, Kraus, Bridges~
Absent: M~t~Oni (arrived late~)
B. MINUTES '
It was moved byCouncilman Bri~ham and seconded by Councilwoman Corr the
minutes of October 6, O~tober 12,! and October2Obe approved. The motion
was carried unanimously.
II. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. COMPOSITION OF CONSENT CALENDAR
It was moved by CouDcilman Kraus'and seconded by Councilman Brigham
approval of the Consent Calendar2composition. The motion was carried
unanimously.
B. ITEMS FOR CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Final Acceptance
a) Tract 4954 - Saratoga FoOthills Development Corp.,
FrUitvale Ave. (Adopt Resolution 36-B-169)
b) Tract 4955 - Saratoga F~othills Development Corp.,
Fruitvale Ave. (Adopt Resolution 36-B-170)
c) Tract 4956 - Saratoga Fogthills Development Corp.,
Granite Way (Adopt Resolution 36-B-171)
2. Construction Acceptance
a) Tract 5583 - Saratoga Fo6thills Development Corp.,
Black Walnut Court
'~ 3. Final Approval'
a) Tract 5893 - Saratog~ Foothills Developmen~ Corp.,
Douglass Lane, 5 Lots
4. Approval of Publication of Basic Wage Rates
5. Payment of Claims
Councilman Brigham and seconded b Cou.cilman Kraus
"' ~ ~Be '~o~s~t Calendar be approved., The motion ~as carried unanimously.'
III. BIDS AND CONTRACTS
None.
IV.PETITIONS, ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS,
A. RESOLUTION 79~
Resolution Approving Addendum to. ~he Solid ~aste Management Nan
It was moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded by Councilman 'Brigham
[Reso,lution 794 be adopted. The motion ~as carried unanimously.
,__ ~
B. ORDINANCE NO. 38.71
Ordinance Relat.in~. to the Inspection of Housing Units on Re-sale
It was moved by Mayor Bridges and seconded by Councilman Brigham'Ordinance
No. 38.71 be i ntroduced,rt.~'ai~ w~a',' a.~d s e{'for '~blT~"fie~ ~n
'D/e~b~['' 1, '~ 976. ' . ' ...........
V. SUBDIVISIONS, BUILDING SITES AND ZONING REQUESTS
A. RECONSIDERATION OF USE PERMIT (LYNGSO GARDEN MATERIALS, UP-296)
Upon the recommendation of the City Attorney, it was moved. by Councilman
Kraus and seconded by Councilman Brigham the use permit in the matter of
Lyngso Garden Materials be referred back to the Planning Commission for
review and reconsideration. The motion was carried unanimously.
VI. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS (Taken out of order)
A. MAYOR
B. COUNCIL AND COMMISSION REPORTS
1. Parks and Recreation Commission Re: Conference Attendance
The City Manager referred to.a memorandum from W. G. Carlson, Chairman
of the Parks and Recreation CommisSion, requesting that one or more
Commission members be allowed to attend the annual meetings of the
California Pacific Southwest!Recreation Park Conference on a yearly
basis. Estimated cost would be $200, including air fare, registration
fee, and lodging.
Mn; Beyer indicated that mo~ey"had been cut out of this budget this
year, and theFe was presentl~ only $50 a~ailable for this purpose.
Councilman Matteoni suggested the Council review further th~sentire
issue of board and commission members attending conference~ at.'the
next Committee of the Whole Meeting, and the City Manager bring back
a proposed policy for conference attendance, as well as financial
data as to where funds for this purpose might be obtained. This
suggestion was acceptable to .the other members of the Council.
2. Planning Commission Report Re: Resolution on West Valley College'
Bleachers and Lights
The City Manager indicated it would be his recommendation the Council
take this report under consideration,-ahd set a public hearing for the
first City Council Meeting in December to hear any public input on this
matter.
Councilman Kraus indicated it' was his understanding the College is going
to act on this matter in the next week or two, and he would have some
concerns about delaying it. It was his feeling the Council should take
its action this evening~r~he,.~tan~po~nt:6~ 'th~ d],~us._sio~s~the .:.~'~
City~has had with West Valley' College.
Stan Marshall of the Saratoga. Planning Commission addressed the Council,
stating that this issue centers.around a design r.~_eview item. lie indicated
it was the consensus of the Cbmmission that: CI~('D~oc4~'6f'~oo~' ".
accepting this design, the Planning Commission Fei~eFjte its 'p6sitioh-6n
the use permit, specifically item number 7, wherein the term "large
scale stadium" is used. He indicated that while the Commission has
endorsed academically oriehted activities on the campus, they would con-
tinue to refuse to accept those non-academic oriented activities which
infringe or impinge on the cha~cter of the neighborhood surrounding-the
campus. He did not bea. ieve that any of the Commission members had
felt it was mandatory for the'City Council to establish a position for
the Commission. Rather, it was felt because of the prior involvement
-2-
West Valley College Bleachers/Lights (Cont'd.)
of the two membe~.'s of the Co6ncil, it would be beneficial to give the
Council the opportunity to either reopen those discussions with the
committee, or endorse the resolution from the Planning Commission. He
indicated he would ask that the Council ratify the Commission's resolution
so the College would know where the City is coming from.
It was then moved by Councilman Matteoni and seconded by Councilwoman
Corr the Council ratify the Planning Commission's Resolution PC-126, and
s direct the staff to prepare a letter to the College indicating that the
City Council ratifies the resolution, and that the Council views the
matter not on the basis of ~ a lesser intensive use of that
sports facility, but the College is free to modify its applfcation and
present it back to the City for appropriai~e public hearings. The motion
was carried unanimously.
VI.' PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE NS-3.35, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
SARATOGA AMENDING ORDINANCE NS-3, THE ZONING ORDINANCE, BY AMENDING SECTION
7.2 THEREOF RELATING TO PERMITTED USES WITHIN COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS (DRIVE-UP
SALES AND/OR SERVICE FACILITIES ) (Cont'~d. 10/6 & 10/20)
The City Manager ihdicated that at the last meeting, the Council had
quested the staff to verify whether or not there were other cities which
had ordinances in~whi.ch there were specific restrictions that affected
certain areas of town, as opp6sed to other areas. He indicated that the
only restriction which Palo Alto .now has in its ordinance pertains p_arti-
cularly ~t.~T~.d~veTd"i/'Tr'f~Csfao'd"e~l~i~6'~t~bl i'~hmen't~J' ~6S~ 'd~"'t'have
any controls ~6n'b~kS'~ ..... ~ "~
The Mayor re-opened the public h~aring at 8:32 P.M.
Connie Tiffany, President, NorthWest Saratoga Homeowners Association, addressed
the Council and presente~ a letter from the homeowners association to the
City Counci 1~ ~' ' = ........ ' .......... '
"The Northwest Saratoga Homeowners A~sociation has been following
the proposed ordinance to prohibit drive-up sales or service
facilities in co~ercial areas of the city. We would like the
Council to know that our homeowners association located at the
southern entrance to the city goes on record as fully supporting
this ordinance, with no excep'tions. We have seen extensive use
of this type of facility directly to the north of our residential
areaCi~n San Jose,a~d 6up~tino, and strongl~ feel that ~i.~'~
(e~i~6~e~l Ta6a~'~e~at ~Sa~a~a~,~town 'ana,T6Ountry ima~,~~
~9~e O~ i~t~Tl~{Ton' has~o place ~n'our to~,~6'.~some of' the specific
reasons we do not want drive-up installations include the following.
Basically, we feel these facilities would not':
Encourage shoppers to escape from their cars and enjoy
leisurely shopping.
Enhance the unique character of the Village.
Differentiate Sanatoga fro~ the neighboring co~ercial zones
up Saratoga-Sunnyvale.~
Allowsadequate space for landscaping ~6 differentiate parking
from the building.
Preserve Saratoga' s hi stori c values. ' '
Encourage shopping in the Vil:lage.
In summary, drive-up windows are out of character for our village and
the whole of Saratoga. They would disrupt the present rural atmosphere
and would interrupt the progress being made to attract shoppers so
vitally needed to perpetuate existence of "Our Village".
- 3-
Ordinance NS-3.35 Cont'd.)
Roger Haig, 19481 Scotland Drive, addressed the Council. Mr. Haig
indicated that he believes he is correct in assuming that every meeting
he has attended on this subject has started out with the idea that the
Council was going to discuss a general ordinance which would be applied
to all of the City of Saratoga. 'He stated that in every instance, the
discussion has turned out to revolve about one particular consideration
in one particular place. He indicated that he would respectfully request
that perhaps we could confine the subject to that which coverssthe entire
City of Saratoga.
Alexander Passovoy representing Security Pacific Bank, addressed the
Council. Mr. Passovoy stated that his request is that Item VI-A on the
agenda be deferred until Item VI~B can be heard.
There being no motion to defer Item VI-A, the hearing continued.
Robert Van der toorren, resident~of Horseshoe Drive, commented that he and
an a~sistant went out with a stop watch and visited some drive-up institutions.
One was directed to a financial institution, and one was directed to a food
institution. They found that on 4 visits on TueSday which took place be-
tween 2:30 and 5:00, it took an average of 7 minutes to go through the
financial institution's drive-up window; and it took an average of 1½ minutes
to go through the food institution window. OnWednesday, the same thing
was repeated, whereby it took ll minutes to go through the financial insti-
tution and less than 1 minute through the food institution. On Friday, it
took 21 minutes on 5 occasions averaging between 4~30 and 6:00 P.M. to go
through the drive-up institution's drive-up facility. Mr. Van der toorren
commented that it became obvious' to him that when this drive-up facility
was most used, it takes much longer than what is necessary.
He commented that even if they turn off their engines, they still have to
turn it back on every time the car moves forward. Mr. Van der toorren
stated that he believes thissis an acceptable condition, if there were a
time limit on the time they could spend there, or if the facility were so
far removed from any other facilities or removed from people in contact with
the open air, or i~f~iT~F~i~p~_~.~a'~O'~n~i~'~'6~n~ for some reason.
Mr. Van der toorren stated that he would be iln favor of~dopting an ordinance
which would eliminate a drive-up facility in the center of any city where
there is a desparate need for people to get out of the car and walk around-
A!so, it was his feeling the merchantsdesparately want.the foot traffic.
Mr. Van der toorren was of the opinion there was no other place in Saratoga
which is so different in circumstances that we would have to make exdeptions.
Therefore, he would be very m~ch i~ favo~of eliminating'all drive-up
facilities from the plan< F~rth'6r, he sta~Gd!that in most cases, deve~pme~t}~_
of a drive-in facility a~ontro~led by the af~T~ectu~aT'b~rd.~
Marge Bunyard, a Saratoga resident, addressed the Council. Mrs. Bunyard
indicated she is very much for the ordinance in that she has a constant
acquaintence with the drive-up facility at the Quito~ Shopping Center. She
felt the major problems with this facility are thoSe'df pollution and con-
gestion, particularly during peak'times. She indicated that the lines get
quite long du~i'ng these times andl.spi~l out into the public street, and
children on bicycles and pedestrians weave in and out of these cars, which
runs the risk of danger and makes.it difficult for someone to turn into the
Quito Shopping Center. It was her opinion it would have to be a very isolated
area where something. like this could exist.
Walter Muir, 14156 Shorthill Court, addressed the Council. Mr. ~uir indicated
he becomes disturbed when people come in and comment about what the nlanners
need to do. He stated that the fact the people are using these facilities
testifies that there is a need for them. Also, he didn't feel the facilities
are really hurting anyone. Mr. Muir indicated that Saratoga is nothing more
than an urban community, and we s~ould plan the community for the people who
want'to live here so they can live comfortably and utilize it.
-4-
Ordinance NS-3.35 (Cont'.d.)
Mrs. Bunyard again addressed the. Council, stating that in the Draft
California Transportation Plan of the State, the following statement
exists:
"There are harmful cumulativ~ effects from a series of regional
or local actions that individually appear insignificant."
Therefore, she felt that cumulatively things mount up.
There being no further comments ~rom the audience, ~it was moved by
Councilman Brigham and seconded bY Councilman Kraus the public hearing
be closed. The motion was carried unanimously. The public hearing was
closed at 8:50 P.M.
Councilman B~igham ~o~d the adoption of Ordinance NS-3.35,'with no
exceptions; Councilwoman Corr seconded the motion.
Councilman Kraus indicated he would like to see this ordinance adopted,
but on a use permit basis.
Mayor Bridges commented that he would share the feeling that in the Village,
under almost all circumstances, drive-up windows would be inappropriate;
however, he could visualize~here drive-up facilities in financial instituti~ons
might bec~me ne(essary, espec~ !~'i
The Mayor then asked for a vote on the motion. Councilmen Brigham, Corr and
Matteoni voted in favor of the motion; Councilmen Bridges and Kraus in
opposition. The motion was therefore carried.
Recess and reconvene
B. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION ~ECISION RELATING TO CONDIT'IONS IMPOSED ON
TENTATIVE SITE APPROVAL OF APPLICATIONSDR-1250, SECURITY PACIFIC NATIONAL
BANK, BIG BASIN WAY
The City Manager explained that this hearing would be concerned only with
Conditions VI-A and VI-B of this~Tentative Site Approval. Condition VI-A
reads:
"Prior to Final Building Site Approval, this property. must.~enter
into a signed agreement to participate in Parking Assessment
District #2."
ConditionVI-B reads~:
"No drive-up facility shall be incorporated into improvements
approved under this site approval."
The Mayor then opened the public, hearing at 9:24 P.M.
A. E. PassoVoy addressed the Council. Wfth respect t~,.'the requirement that
the bank enter into an agreement for the Parking District prior to receiving
approval, Mr. Passovoy stated that they have agreed many times t~at they
would enter into an agreement to join the Parking District, but there is
no agreement. He commented that'what this provision requires is that they
agree to agree, which they cannot do. Mr. Passovoy stated that there is an
element of credability here which they must face up to, and o~ce an agree-
ment of all property owners has been established and if it is feasible,
the bank will'lean over backwards to assist in the formation of that
Parking District. Mr. Passovoy ~ndicated that they are donating 52 percent
of the property for'this assessment district, and 25 percent of the funds,
which is a rather substantial'amount. However, until all of the individuals
concerned are in full agreement, they~should not be forced to put on a
blindfold and say "youwill. agree".
Appeal Re: SDR-1250 (Cont'd.)
The City Manager asked Mr. Passovoy if he was correct in his understanding
that the bank has indicated the agreement which has been worked out for the
Parking District is acceptable, but is contingent on whether or not site
approval is workable.
Mr. Passovoy replied that this is correct. However, in the interim,
Mr. McKin~ey has voiced an opposition to joining the Parking District.
Therefore, what they would have is an isolated area, an island, with the
balance of the property forming the Parking District. So there would not'
be a contiguous piece of property. Mr. Passovoy stated that once all the
property owners sign the agreement, the City has the bank's agreement that
they too would sign it. However, they have not set a limitation on this
as yet.
Mr. Vah_Duyn~ Pl~hning Director, explained tha~ what the City is trying to
avoid here is the problem iLL. ran into with the Tyler building some years
back.
Don Dole of Security Pacific Bank commented that he believes the difference
between the Tyler property vs the bank property is that the bank does have
sufficient parking.to meet the City requirements. He indicated that it is
the bank's position that~'~tG~l'~'~t~on of the agreement is Unfair as
a condition of site approval.
Councilman Matteoni asked how long such an agreement stands, if the District
isn't formed for some period of time if the other people do not execut~
similar agreements.
Mr. Johnston, City Attorney, repiied that he wasn,t aware until this evening
there was any seri ous.~'nte~ ok 'on the' '~ank' s' ~(~T=6~ 6oi ~t "~A"" ~"t~a~ 'the
form of agreement that'~s ~tis~a~tory £o'the"b~ and t~City ~ finally
worked out sometime ago. Also, he pointed out that this condition doesn't
require that everyone sign the agreemeOt -- only that the bank signs it.
Mr. Dole commented that it seems.to him the mechanism of this Parking
District initiallg~'is an agreement between the property owners for the
creation and construction of the District. Upon completion, it is then
turned over to the City.
Councilwoman Corr asked if in the previous agreement, Security Pacific
came to the City and asked if they could include parking in their own
plan, as long as it didn't do anything to hamper the establishment of the
Parking District?
Mr. Dole replied that he believes they reserved parking in the original
proposal for 8 spaces which they would retain fee ownership of and wOQld
be for their exclusive customer parking.
The City Manager commented that we have been in the position on this
Parking District for 2 to 3 years waiting for the other person to sign
the document, and he believes if there are points in the agreement for
the ~ro~ision of the property owners to get together and bQild the parking
facility and then have the City take it over and form an assessment district,
we can proceed to get that worked out. However, he believes if this does
not move ahead fairly rapidly, he would be willing to proceed to re-submit
a petition to form the assessment district.
Mr. Passovoy stated that if they'build the bank in Saratoga, they will go
on record as signing the agreement.
Councilman Matteoni suggested the Council leave the condition as stated,
but they describe the context in which the signature is being asked for,
whereby if the other signatures didn't come forth or if a petition was not
reesUbmitted, we would not have a district with only one property.
-'6-
Appeal Re: SDR-1250 (Cont'd.)
Mr. Passovoy responded tO this, stating that all they are asking is that
the Council ~ccept their word that upon the agreement by all of the other
property owners, the bank would be first to sign the agreement~ and there
is an elemen~ of credability here.
Mr. Beyer explained that the agreement is only a p~oc~dural thing, if ~the
property owners are goingto agree among themselves t6 build the parking
facility first and then turn it over to the City. Ultimately, there is
going to be an assessment district eithe~ way because there has to be the
assessment district in order to pay off the bonds.. Therefore, in any case,
the bank is going to have to bel6ng to that parking district. He continued
that if the property owhers can't get together and sign an agreement among
themselves, the City should re-petition and go wi~h the assessment district.
Councilman Brigham commented thai he fails to see the problem with Conditionl
A, and he doesn't see any reason,why the City should take it out.
Mr. Passovoy commented that he doesn't believe the entire subject of th~
assessment dist~ictis something that shouldbeimposed as a condition of
obtaining the permit, especially,since the bank has gone on record, as well
as all of t.he other propertyowners, as favoring and promoting it. What
they~_~a~a~e asking is that this provision be set aside in good faith!~M~
/~ov69'~tated that they would actively persue the formation of ~h~
p~rk3~ist~ict, but they do no~ wish to be forced into it w~thout knowing
what all the rules are.
Councilman Kraus suggested revising the wording'in the condition to state:
"Prior to Final Building Site Approval, this property must enter into a
signed agreement to participate in Parking Assessment District 2, if it is
formed."
Mr. Passovoy indicated that they'would accept-this.
Mayor Bri~dges indicated this wou~d put us back whe~e~we started.
The City Manager expl ai ned that
dition of Building Site Approval'~O'6~il~
the parking district. The question is: What is the best way of getting this?
Councilwoman COrr asked Mr. Passovoy if it would be satisfactory to him to
add the words "withsthe City" after agreement,;under Condition A.
Mr~ Passovoy replied that this would be asking the bank to agree with the
City that they would enter into an agreement, the terms of which have not
been definitely settled. Again he advised the City Council that the bank
would actively pu.rsue, once Secunity Pacific decides to build a bank, with
great speed and deliberation ~oward the ~ormation of this parking district.
Mayor Bridges pointed out if
not withhold the building permit~ ~d'f~"C~t~'~n~t due fhis.
Stan Marshall, Saratoga Planning Commissioner, addressed the Council,
stating that Mr. Passovoy has indicated that he will not ask for or expect
a building permit unless or until. he has settled on the Parking Assessment
District. He indicated that Condition VI-A statesSthisF~therefore,.he can
do everything up to the point of getting a building permit without signing
the agreement, but he cannot get a building permit until he does indicate.
a willingness to joint the assessment district~
It was then moved by Councilman Matteoni and seconded by Councilman Kraus
to deny the appeal with regard to condition VI-A, and the words be added
to the condition indicating "that the intent of VI~A is that the agreement
be with the City". The motion was carried unanimously.
~7-
Appeal Re: SDR-1250 (Cont'd.)
The hearing then proceeded to condition VI-B, relating to the drive-up
facility.
Mr. Passovoy stated that he has listened to several people appear before
this body and voice theiropposition -- a mother appeared before the Council
two weeks ago, and indicated.she felt the drive-up window would cause a
direct danger to the children cooing home. Mr. Passovoy stated that he
recognizes this is a sincere concern. Another individual had indicated
a drive-up facility produces a tremendous amount of smog.and congestion.
He stated that they are in a very difficult position in that they are
having to defend both the automobile and pollution, both of which are un-
defensible.
Mr. Passovoy stated the bank's position is that it is a service facility;
they are not in the same category as Jack-in-the~Box or any of the other
fast-food facilities. He indicated that the drive-up facility as pro-
posed is not visible from the street; it is an architectural component
that will be hidden from Big Basin Way. Also, they have attempted to add
an abundance of landscaping, and people who drive past Big Basin Way will
see a residentially designed facility with no indication of a drive-up.
Mr. Passovoy indicated that they.are asking the City of Saratoga to allow
them to play ball with the City's rules and the City's ball, and this
facility is going to cost approximately $60,000. He indicated that.the
bank is willing to lay this money on the line and have the Council establish
the parameters, if in fact it does create the pollution, the hazard, the
congestion, noise, etc.
With respect to Mr. Van der toorren's comments indicating that he timed
a drive-up facility whereby people waited an average of 21 minutes, Mr.
Passovoy indicated that on the basis of the bank's experience, they will
not allow a branch drive-up facility to remain in operation if it does in
fact create disturbance or inconvenience to its customers. He stated that
the purpose of a drive~up facility is to meet the needs of the community.
Mr. Passovoy commented that for the Council to insist that everyone become
pedestrian oriented and utilize that facility on a pedestrian basis, he
personally feels this is not warrented.
He further commented that if onelcompares the design of this facility with
what exists in Saratoga presently, there is no comparison -- one was built
in the early stages of drive-up facilities and uses archaic equipment.
They are now using high-speed terminals, directional lights, etc.
Another element which Mr. Passovoy felt was extremely important ~'~h~
that b~f~ ~i~ ba~ can actually become ~in~nc~lly viab~ ~nd-p~y for
itself, it will take approximately 9 years. W~thout the facility, it is
highly questionable whether or not they can build the bank. He stated"
it is a fact that 30 percent of the customers will at one time or another
use the drive-up facility, and if they cannot, they will seek another bank.
He felt the emphasis should not be on the 30 percent who occasionally use
it, but on the 70 percent who park their cars and walk into the bank.
Mr. Passovoy was of the opinion that in all instances, Security Pacific
Bank has leaned over backwards to accommodate the City of Saratoga; however,
the only way they can build this bank and add to that area on Big Basin Way
is to make it financially feasible. He indicated that they have deliberately
scaled this building down to have a residential atmosphere; it will blend
in with the rest of the community.
Mr. Passovoy commented that on the basis of some 520 branches and with proper
design, they would ask that the City Council or staff prepare the ground
rules under which the bank can operate, and not arbitrarily deny them the
right to have a drive-up facility when others do exist in town.
-8-
Appeal Re: SDR-1250 (Cont'd.)
Mr. Passovoy indicated that one bit of information has been presented to
him, and this has been prepared as guidelines for air quality impact analysis
of projects by the Bay Area Air Pollution Control District. According to
the analysis, currently an idling vehicle emission factor will produce
approximately 12.2 parts per million of carbon monoxide. By 1984, from
12.2,the automobiles will be producing 4.5. He felt this was a significant
factor to consider.
Councilman Brigham asked Mr. Passovoy if in his projections into'~the
future, he took into consideration the fact that we may not have gasoline
enough for those cars to drive through the drive-up windows.
Mr. Passovoy replied that there.is some form of measuring the fact that it
takes~as much gasoline to park a car, start it up, back it up and drive it
out, as it does to go through a high-speed drive-up facility.
Councilwoman Corr indicated that she does not see any facility for a walk-Up
window.
Mr. Passovoy pointed out on the model the location of the walk-up facility,
or what is known as "patio banking", and this is for extended hours.
It was then moved by Councilman B~igham and seconded by Councilman Kraus
to close the public heae~ng. The motion was carried; the public hearing
was closed at 10:20 P.M.
Councilwoman Corr commented that she was very symp~theti~ ~ith the a~guments
Mr. Passovoy has made con~ih'~'~h'~'dr.'i~u~Twi!~db~__ho~_e~, she would be
opposed to any drive~u~'~acT1Tt'iTs~he"VTl~l~.
Councilman Brigham indicated he would still have a problem with air Dollution,.
and is also concerned that an ~nergy crisis may appear again, requiring use
of mass transit.
Councilman Matteoni was of the opinion there are particular circumstances
here which make this plan incompatible with the Village area and the General
Plan, which minimizes the use of vehicles in the Village.
Councilman Kraus indicated his concern initially was with the Controller of
the Currency allowing an additional bank in Saratoga; he also had had mixed
emoti ons~ ~r%~'_~'~po~t_~Hat~ .h~_~ql~t.~he' '~k wa~._be} n~' ~r~a~d s6m~hA~
unfairly in reference to the fact that they had dO~e a great ~1' of planning,
and the City came in with this change afterwards. However, he also talked to
the merchants, and they had indi(ated they would like to have the bank without
the drive-up facility, and this tended to change his feeling on the matter.
Mayor Bridges agreed that he would be inclined to deny this appeal also on
the basis that it is against the General Plan for. the Village.
It was then moved by Councilman Brigham and seconded by Councilwoman Corr
to deny the appeal on Condition VI-B of this application. The motion was
carried unanimously.
C. CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL BY DIVIDEND INDUSTRIES, INC. OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S
DECISION RELATIVE TO CONDITIONS OF TENTATIVE MAP APPROVAL, SPECIFICALLY
CONCERNING BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION AND IMPROVEMENT ALONG COX AVENUE AND ALONG
SUMMER DRIVE (File SD-1254)
The City Manager explained that ~r. Muir is appealing 2 conditions of his
building site approval for the property at the corner of Cox and Saratoga-
Sunnyvale Road. These requirements are: II-K; to construct a bridge (culvert)
over Rodeo Creek on Summer Drive to provide 36 feet of pavement plus railing
on both sides of street; II-L, to widen or reconstruct bridge (culvert) over
Rodeo Creek on Cox Avenue to provide 40 feet of pavement.
The Mayor opened the public hearing at 10:30 P.M.
-9-
App~I by Dividend Industries, Inc. (cont.'d.)
walter Muir, President, Dividend IndustrieS, addressed the Council. Mr.
Muir pointed out the fact that he is present this evening because he would
like some form of explanation offCity policy as to who is going to pay for
the bridges and how, He indicated that his experience over the years has
been that if the bridge falls within the subdivision and is an intrical part
of the development of that subdivision, then it becomes the responsibility
'of that developer. However, i~ ft is on the exterior, as C~'~h'i~a'~'is
.'C6~~ A~enue, for the~6~'~Fa'd~i~d '~4~ ~"~'6~c6~C(f Con~ru~ ng~!~ ~" ~ ' -~
la b~idge across Cox Av~nU~,'t~i~'!fS'~mething '~he~'Sv~ld'~ve'so~ ~e~y' "
serious questions about.
With regard to Summer AvenQe, their attitude would be that Tract 5944 can
easily be developed without the'connection to Summer. He felt that the
requirement that the property owners pay for both sides'of Rodeo Creek is
unfair. ,~- :
Mr. Muir commented that if the street is a major carrier such as Cox,'
generally speaking, this would become the responsibility of the City. In
this case, they feel this should be wholly the responsibility of the City
in that they don't even generatesany traffic onto Cox.
Mr. Shook, DirectOr 6f Public Works, commented that with regard tO the'bridge
on Summer, there have been similar conditions in which stub street has been
run out.to a creek, and the deyeloper of that stub street has not been required
to participate in the crossing. 'Also, any subsequent development has been
required to bear the total cost of the crossing. With regard to Cox Avenue,
Mr. Shook advised that at least 1~/4 of the bridge is on the frontage of this
property and is no different than the other improvements required on the land.
He further advised that one quadnantis also fronting on the prior sub-
division, and there have been no ~provisions made by the developer of that
tract to participate in the cost of the widening.
Mr. Shook stated that he would recommend if any improvmeent is made, the
widening on both sides of Cox takes place as a single project, With the City
participating in the Cost on the south side. He indicated that the precident
has been established whereby the second site developer has been required to
produce the crossing.
Mayor Bridges asked if the Summer. part is a question of access.
Mr. Beyer indicated that it is a secondary access,road because of the
prohibition that is being imposed. on this tract for limited access from
Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road; therefore, it is acting as an ~mergency'or secondary
access road.
Mr. Muir commented that it is their feeling bridges should be treated very
similarly to that o~ oversizing sewer lines, and it is there to serve a whole
slew of people, and not just to serve the 48 homes i.n Tract 5944. Mr. Muir
the bridge on Cox is one which is'on a major carriCh that has nothing to do
with this subjection~ He felt thata city policy needs to be adopted for this
type of situation. He indicated the-~e~ld~F'~6~lT~ ~fi'ling to pay their
half on Summer and let the C.ity pay ~tS h~l'~'6~ ~u'm~,,'~dwe~er, as far as
Cox is concerned, they.believe that should be a city-wide responsibility.
Mayor Bridges asked the Director of POblic Works what kind of improvement
was being proposed for.the bridge.on Cox Avenue.
Mr. Shook replied it is proposed the bridge pavement'be widened to 40 feet,
with pedestrian facilities on both sides, which would be almost doubling in
size the existing pavement. He pointed out the fact that there are communities
that pick up the total cost of these bridges, and they are only asking that
the City do this on those bridges:which are major'carriers; such as Cox.
Councilman Matteoni indicated he i~ sypathetic to Mr. Muir's point in regard
to Cox Avenue, and hehas not bee~ able tO find any burden in which the proposed
subdivision places on Cox Avenue. He indicated he would treat Summer in a
different category than Cox, and agrees there is some problem in the City's
consistency in handl.ing these improvements. Therefore, he would be in a
Appeal by Dividend Industries, Inc. (Cont'd.)
position to either adopt a policy that would exempt the developer either
totally on Cox, or make some contribution on one quadrant, with the City
picking 3/4 of the bridge work. '
Councilman Brigham commented he would like to receive an estimate of how
much these b~idges would cost.
Mr. Muir +nterjected that what they are arguing this eVefling is not cost,'
put policy and ethics.
Councilman Brigham clarified that he was curious to find out what the costs
would be that would burden the developer. Also, it is their feeling that it
is not right that these 48 homes ~should bear the cost for widening Cox, as
- this is a city street and should 'be considered a city function. Further,
they have no argument with the widening, but only the bridge.
It was ~be_Consensusc6f..the. e6unCil this matter warrented further discussion
at a Committee of the Whole Me~ti~ng~. It was_agreed t9 ageg~ize this for
...... Hovember 9th. ' ..........
It was moved by Councilman Brigham and seconded by Council m an Kraus to ~s~'
continue this public hearing to the next regular meeting on November 17, 1976.
The motion was carried unanimously.
D. THE HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1974 (~ont'd. 10/20/76)
The City Manager explained the purpose of this public hearing is to review?
the ~i~as~ear.p'ro~'w~Ch'~eCe 6?iginally proposed and approved by the'
Counci'l, which'are ~6t proposed to'be changed unless there is public input
or the Council decides to make any changes in this third-year program.
This includes basically two programs: 1) Senior Citizen Housing Program
and 2) Neighborhood Improvement Program.
The Mayor r~=~en~ ~Q~'~'c'h6~ng on this'n~e~at 10:52 P.M.
There being no public comment, it was moved by Councilman KraUs and seconded
by Councilman Brigham the public hearing be continued to the next regular
meeting on November 17~h. The motion was. carried unanimously.
E. CONSIDERATION OF LIGHT RAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY
The-City Manager explained this ~ublic hearing has been scheduled to gather
any additional community input which might guide the Council's response to
the study, and in making its comments to the Transit'District Board. He
indicated there were 5 corridors included in the feasibility study and .~
alternative analysis, those being: l) West Valley Transportation Corridor
(De Anza branch study corridor);'2) Southern Pacific Commuter Railroad
Corridor; 3) Monterey Highway S.P, alternate; 4) Guadalupe Transportation
Corridor; 5)inter-connecting~o~rr3~gys. The Transit District Board is
asking for input on<T~G~.b~issues~gs: ~' '~I~'~n~tern&'tiT~s~6F6 ~o 6e~osen
for the West Valley, ~otential im6~E~'for such ~ S~ste~,'a~"~ether' Or
not the community is willing to deal with these impacts.
He then outlined the policy issues which the Council disCusSed at its Committee
of the Whole Meeting on October 26th. Those issues are:
1) Which transit alternative should receive top priority for
commencement, in concert with the 516 bus plan?
2) Where should the firstsusable segment 6f any approv~d transit
alternative be located?
3) What is the role of light rail transit in Santa Clara County
in solving transportation needs and in the foreseeable future?
4) Is there a willingness~to considerTmodifications to current
general plans and zoning laws which would reinforce transit
in selected and mutually agreed upon areas?
- ll -
Light Rail Feasibility Study (Cont'd.)
5) Should innovative financing mechanisms be pursued so that
new property values at selected locations can be partially
assigned to help pay for the local share of the system, and
should the West Valley and Guadalupe transportation corridors
be preserved for futureitransportation options?
The Mayor then ,opened the public hearing at 10:58 P.M~
Marge Bunyard, a re'Sident of Saratoga, addressed the Council, Mrs~ Bunyard
commented that she is very interested in the proposals that are made, and
that she feels perhapsin this section of Santa Clara County the proposal
for this particular segment seems to be most beneficial cost-Wise. It was
her.feeling this is an alternative which aims toward our future, and she
would hope the Council would consider this.
Mrs. Bunyard commented that if the Council does take a position positively
in support of the plan as'presented, 'the Couhcil should address th~.M.T.C.
Wi~h negard to their transit-first policy. She advised that the M.T.C. has
not planned to spend money for transit in the first few years. Therefore,
she commented that this whole think hinges on being able to get federal
funding and state funding for this particular project, and~e~d~o~spea~'
out and say we need this and act as advocates in Other bodies that affect
our local decisions. Therefore, She would say "lets proceed with the light
rail proposals in a supporti~e.~position", and as far as the West Valley
Corridor is concerned, if it meant that there was going to be public trans-
portation developed there, she would be in favor of preserving that corridor
~or this purpose. ~s. Bunyard Commented that we need to solve our pollution
and congestion problems, and this is one good .place to start in Santa Clara
County.
Robert Van der tOorren, a resident of Horseshoe Drive, commented that he
has looked around and has talked 'to many other people in Saratoga, and has
found among his friends and acquaintenances that almost all of them were in
his position. Very few indicated'when they had mass transportion, either by
bus or by rail, they would give up one of their cars or drive much less.
Mr. Van der toorren commented that
as long as we put ihtO the stu'd~th'~~arat6~~ plann~'dev'~lopm~6t
in which we have eliminated or taken out of the residential area all of the
in~n'or t~h~i~h~'and's~r~i'e~ f~Cil~ti~.'M~;'V~n der toOr~en:~'tatedtha'~'
he could not imagine anyone in any of the Council's professions, for instance,
to take a mass transit vehicle to his office. Therefore, he would question
who is going to use these facilities. Therefore, he suggested the City
be very careful before bringing a study of Santa Clara County into Saratoga.
He further commented that he doesn't believe ~ system which brings people
into Saratoga is in the City's Master Plan.
There being no additional public'input on this matter, it was moved by
Councilman Matteoni and secondedlby'Councilman Kraus the public hearing be
continued to the next regular meeting on November 17. The motion was carried
unanimously.
F. CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENT TO CITY ZONING ORDINANCE, SECTION 3.3, ENTITLED
CONDITIONAL USES, ONE-FAMILY'~ESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS"; SECTION 5.3 ENTITLED
"CONDITIONAL USES, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS" BY ADDING THERETO
FAMILY CARE HOMES AS A CONDITIONAL USE
The City Manager explained that this item had been referred to the Council
by the Planning Commission, who had recently adopted Resolution GF-310,
which would allow family care homes in residential zoning districts,
provided there is a condition use permit.
The Mayor opened the public hearing at 11:14 P.M. There being no public
comment on this issue, it was moved by Councilman K~aus and seconded by
Councilman Brigham the pQblic hearing be closed. The motion was carried.
~' Fa~i ly Care Homes Cont' d. ) ' "
It was then moved by Councilman M~tteoni and seconded by Councilwoman Corr
the adoption of Ordinance No. NSu3.36, amending the City Zoning Ordinance by
adding Sections 3.3.and 5.3 providing for family care homes as a.conditional
use in R1 and RM zoning districts. The motion was 'carried unanimously.
VII. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS (Cont'd.)
C. DEPARTMENT HEADS AND OFFICERS
1. Director of PUblic Works Report Re: Request for Crossing Guard at_thee__
Intersection of Saratoga and Fruitvale Avenues. - It was ther~ommendation
of the Director of Public Works to-~ally eliminate the crossWalk a~
Saratoga Avenue on the southw6steriy side of the intersection, and encourage
the use of the corsswalk provided on the northeasterly side of the
intersection through placement of signs.
Mr. Bdt~er, res'ide~t of Saratoga and member of the
Board, requested the City Coun'cil keep this matter 6~nn
further study, as it was his feeling this inter~ection ~equire~ additional
patrol
It was indicated the matter of the crossing guard would be given further
consideration, and the staff would p~ovi'de a report atthe next regular
meeting.
2. Director of Public Works Report Re: Sidewalk Repair Policy
It was moved by Councilman K~aUs and seconded by Councilman Brigham the
City approve a policy whereby ~he property owner is responsible for
maintenance and repair of the sidewalk and planing area, including trees
up to, but'not including, the curb, and the City assume responsibility for
maintenance of the curb and gutter. The motion was carried unanimously.
3. Director of Public Works Repor~ Re: Saratoga Avenue Railway Crossing
Improvements
It was moved by Councilman Kra~s and seconded by Councilman Brigham the
staff be authorized to submit ~ letter to the State indicati~n~t~i~ntent
to contribute matching funds to .the ~xtent of 10% toward installation of
safety devices under federal funding. The motion was carried unanimously.
4. City Attorney Re]. Illegal Accessory StrUcture at 12516 Saratoga Avenue..
The City Attorney requested th~ Council re-affirm its action directing
the staff to remove this illegal accessory structure.
It was moved by Councilman Brigham and seconded by CounCilman Kraus the
staff be authorized to proceed to abate this nuisance ands.the property
be liened for this expense. The motion was carried unanimously.
.~ D. CITY MANAGER
1.Claim A~ainst the City Re: Complaint to RecoVer Damages Incurred to~
Mrs. Walker's Automobile on Prospect Road
It was moved by CounCilman Kraus and seconded by Councilman Brigham
this claim be denied and referred to the City's insurance carrier for
consideration. The motion was carried unanimously.
2. Consideration of'Request t6 Ma~e a $100 Contribution for the Appeal to.
the U.S. Supreme Court Re: Ruling of City of Redwood City's Sign Ordinance
It was moved.by Councilman Kra~s and seconded by Councilman Br~gham
authorization to expend $100 t6ward this appeal. The motion was carried.
IC~t~ Manager Reports (Cont'd.)
3.Report Re: Proposed Demonstration Project Application for Solar
Energy System for Saratoga Community Library
The City Manager advised thathe had been contacted by the firm of
Mechanics Research, Inc. regarding their solar energy and conservation
program and the possibility of the City going in as a member of a project
team an~ making__a~p_lication So ERDA ~En~gy Research and p~velqpment.
Administration). He recomm~e~at .the City indicate its ,support of
.th}s.pn~je~t, participating pp to $35,000, to be taken from federal
~ev~nue sharing'fund~i It ~ estimated"th~stOt~lLcOst~ 6f.~his ~rdjedt
would be $115,000.
It was moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded by Councilwoman Corr the
City Manager be authorized to,draft a letter of intent to participate
in this project with Mechanics Research, Inc.. The motion was carried
unanimously. .
4. Recommendation Re: Removal of'bus stop on Prospect near Miller Ave.
P~r the recommendation of the City Manager., it was moved by Councilman
Kraus and seconded by CouncilWoman Corr to recommend to the Transit
District removal of the bus stop on Prospect and Miller Avenue. .The
motion was carried unanimously.
VIII. COMMUNICATIONS
A. WRITTEN
1. Nonette G. Hanko, President, Board of Directors, Midpeninsula Regional
Park District, expresssing support of Proposition 2. - Noted and filed.
2. Mrs. Edward O'Leske, 12379 Fr6dericksburg Drive, expressing concern that
the stairs located at Guava Court and Lido Drive are a hazard to the Blue
Hills Elementary School children. - Referred to'staff ~or a report back to
the Council in 30 days.
3.Sharon K. Pilie, expressing support of Measure O, and asking for the
support of all Saratogans. - Mayor Bridges to respond.
4. Jerry Kaufman, 12300 Radoyka D.rive, requesting the City of Saratoga
to post a "No Parking" sign on their side of the street due to congestion
which is caused by Brookview Elementary and Prospect High Schools.
Referred to staff for a reportl back to the Council in 30 days.
5. Dan McCorquoda]e, Supervisor, Third District, requesting attendance and
supprot at the BASSA Meeting concerning the dissolving of Bay Area
Sewage Services Agency. - Note~ and filed.
6. Velma Million, Santa Clara County Transportation Commissioner and Director
df the Council, requesting the City of Saratoga's position on the
California Transportation Plan. - Agreed to schedule for future Committee
of the Whole Meeting.
7. Nicholas A. Frank, President, West Valley Taxpayers and Environment
Association, expressing opposition to the West Valley College stadium
project. - Noted and filed. ~
B. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF. PUBLIC GROUPSREPRESeNTATIVES '
The Mayor acknowledged the presence of public group representatives this
evening, as follows:
G. Carlson, Chairman, Parks an~.Recreation Commission
Connie Tiffany, President, Northwest Saratoga Homeowners Association
Cindy Morris, League of Women Voters
Sal.ly Carlson, Good Government Group
Stan Marshall, Saratoga Planning Commission
- 14 -
IX. ADJOURNMENT
It was moved by Councilman Brigham an~ seconded by Councilwoman Corr the meeting
be adjourned. The motion was carried. The moti,6n was carried~ The meeting was
adjoQnned at 12:10 P.M.
pectf ~s itted,
R?