Loading...
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?