Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-01-1976 City Council Minutes MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL TIME: Wednesday, December l, 1976 PLACE: Saratoga City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Ave.,,Saratoga, California TYPE: Regular Meeting I. ORGANIZATION A. ROLL CALL Present: Councilmen Brigham, Corr, Kraus, Bridges Absent: Councilman Matteoni (arrived later) B. MINUTES (November 3, 1976) Counci 1 woman Corr - Correc'~i'6~ '6~P~e"3T~em'~I I~T~ ~'~' ~ for Crossin~ Guard on Sa~t~'~n~ ~i~l'e'~e~ ~ 'Mr. Bu~ler as member of St. Andrews School Board, rather than Sacred Heart. It was moved by Councilwoman Corr and seconded by Councilman Brigham the minutes of November 3, 1976, be approved as corrected. ~He motion was carried. II. CONSENT CALENDAR A. COMPOSITION OF CONSENT CALENDAR It was moved by Councilman KraUs and seconded by Councilman Brigham the Consent Calendar .composition be approved. The motion was carried. B. 'ITEMS FOR CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Payment of Claims 2. CETA Title I Contract - Contract Between Santa Clara Valley Employment and Training Board and the City of Saratoga ~ 3. Resolution No. 796 - A Resolution Confirming~Canvass by the Registrar ? of Voters~of Santa Clara County of Special Municipal Election Consolidated with the General Election Held on November 2, 1976. 4. Resolution No. SDR-701-2, Vaquero Court Acceptance .I-~-It'was ~by' Cod~i'l~a~g~'~'~d~'s~6nded by Councilman Kraus approval a~ C~n~nt'Cal'enda~"m~t~io~rried~ III. BIDS AND CONIRACTS , A. STATE-LOCAL AGENCY AGREEMENT FOR FEDERAL AID IMPROVE~ENT PROJECTS It was moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded by Councilman Brigham the Mayor be authorized to execute the State Agreement for Federal Aid Improve- ment Projects. The moti.on was carried. IV. PETITIONS, ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS A. RESOLUTION NO. 797 Resolution'ChangingNam~ of Certain Street - Belle Vista It was moved by Councilman Kraus ~nd seconded by Councilman Brigham Resolution No. 797 be adopted. The motion was carried. VI. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS (Taken out of order) A. MAYOR B. COUNCIL AND COMMISSION REPORTS 1. Senior Citizen Housing Task Force Recommendation Re: Landbanking Recommendations for Utilization of HCDA Funds Allocated to Senior Ci.tizen Housing It was moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded by Councilman Brigham this recommendation be tabled, and considered along with~he Senior Citizens Housing Task Force at a future study session. The motion was carried. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. CONSIDERATION OFAPPEAL BY DIVIDEND INDUSTRIES, INC. OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION RELATIVE TO CONDITIONS OF TENTATIVE MAP APPROVAL, SPECIFICALLY CONCERNING BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION AND IMPROVEMENTS ALONG COX AVENUE AND SUMMER DRIVE (File SD-1254) (Cont'd~ 10/20, ll/3, 11/17) The Mayor opened the public hearing at 8:00 P.M. Walter Muir, President, Dividend Industries, Santa Clara, addressed the Council. Mr. Muir pointed out on the overhead map the location of the parcels affected by the bridge and street widening improvements on Cox Avenue and Summer Drive. Mr. Muir indicated that he had taken-the liberty of calling Public Works~ Directors and/or their assistants in the cities of Cupertino, Santa Clara, Sunnyvale, Mountain View, San Jose and Los Altos. He indicated that San Jose's policy in the past has been: City builds bridges; subdivider builds streets. However, in 6ne~nstanc~, a subdivision was put in in the Almaden area whereby the subdivider was responsible for the entire bridge improvement, due to the fact the bridge was within the subdivision itself. Mr. Muir indicated that out~ of six people he talked to, three of them pointed out that under the State Map Act, the.cities all have the right t~.a~ss~_e_~_~h existing homeowners in~an area where a bridge is going in.- 'Los Alto~ ha~'~i~ their assessment is done on a share of cost and basis of benefit system. For instance, when the city feels itneeds a bridge for the benefit Of the city, the'city has the major responsibility of paying the cost. If it is put in'for the exclusive use of the subdivision, it would be the subdivision's responsibility. Bert Viskovich, Cupertino Public Works Director, indicated they sha~e~ ..... ,benefit on the basis of cost. Also, Mr. Viskovich had pointed this out in . ncilman. the State Map Act. Matteoni arrives')~'~ ~ ............... ' ..... Santa Clara and the City of S~nnyvale both have a policy whereby in resi- dential areas, the city pays for bridges, and in industrial areas, the " developer pays for ~t. ' The Assistant Public Works Director in Mountain View had indicated under the conditions described by Mr. Muir, the city would probably pay for the bridge; however, they are in a state of flux right now, due to financial problems. Mr. Muir stated that he feels the widening and the bridge on Cox should not be their responsibility, and if any of the responsibility on Summer Drive should be theirs, it should only be half. There being no further public comment on this matter, it was moved by Council- man Kraus and seconded by Councilm'an Brigham the public hearing be closed. The motion was carried. The public hearing was closed at 8:05 P.M. - 2- Appeal by Dividend Industries Cont'd. Councilman Matteoni indicated that he had made the comment previously that he saw a distinction between the Cox Avenue bridge and Summer Drive bridge, He~j~d~a~ed ~'i"~ '~v~s~h~u~3~r~cFi'~'t~6~ '~i~l'i~'dO'~'~'6{"~'~ any a~ti'6(t~o~n'T~"nd'T:~'~sk~"f(F'"Fal'i~f"fro~'bTl~}~." H~' s't~ted that t~e is sympathetic to the argument Mr. Muir has made as it applies to Cox Avenue. However, there may a differenc'e ih thinking o~ whether it is the complete north side of Cox Avenue or just one quadrant. He stated he Would be willing to relieve the developer of the responsibility for :the Cox Avenue bridge work in total. Councilman Matteoni then move~, and it was seconded by Councilwoman Corr to relieve the developer of the responsibility of the Cox Avenue bridge improvement in total, and there be no relief from the Summer Drive improve- ment requirements. The motion was carried unanimously. B. CONSI. DERATION OF ORDINANCE NO. 38.72, AN ORDiNAN"e'~SOF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING CHAPTER 9 OF THE SARATOGA CITY CODE W~H'CHAPTER IS ENTITLED "MOTOR VEHICLES AND llRAFFIC" BY ADDING ARTICLE IX THERETO REGULATING THE OFF-STREET OPERATION OF VEHICLES IN THE CITY. OF SARATOGA (Second Reading) The City Manager reviewed'the modifications to the ordinance since its first reading on November 17, 1976. These modifications were to: S~i~ 9-200, Tl~i~ 4, .added"ATV" after "RV"; Section 9-202(f), added wording 'to provide for certification by the Santa Clara County Sheriff; Section 9=203(C), revised wording; Section 9-.205(e), added wording; Section 9-206,.typographical; added Section 9-207, providing for a ........ _m!.nim. um_Pen. al~tY·_ Councilman Kraus questioned the wording in Section 9-203(c), indicating. he felt this would exem~;t anyone With a license from the ordinance, and would, therefore, defeat the purpose of same. The City Manager explained that the intent'of this section to clar. ifyTl~hat a vehicle ma':~ utilize a private ff,oad for vehicular purposes. The City Manager indicated it is ~urther recommended a oOZe.year review period be set on the ordinance, whereby on December 31, 1977, it would be reviewed and either terminated or' re-activated, based on staff analysis. The Mayor opened the public he~ring at 8:20 P.M. Mr. Heinrich Hunziker, 13925 Pierce Road, addressed the Council. He indicated that this proposed ordinance was_p.a~ter-n~e~d~ter~M. onte Sereno's ordinance, adopted in 1971; however, it~ (c) was added td S'Oc~iOn 9-203 by the Saratoga city staff, and it was his f~ll~"~h"i'~'~vaS' uhhe'c'essary and wobld invalidate the purpose of the ordinance. He commented that most of the trouble occurs on private drives and private roads. Mayor Bridges explained that in order to be exempted from the requirements under this section, the individual would have to own the private road.or have a private .easement. Mr. Johnston, City AttOrney, commented that h6 doesn't know if Monte Sereno has many roads which are used which have not been accepted as public streets; however, Sar, atoga has several streets which are not required to be dedicated as public ~treets. Therefore, the owners have a right to vehicular access accross these properties,. and it,would not be good to prohibit one type of vehicle vis-a-vis a~other. Mr. Hunziker further commented that he felt a minimum penalty should be incorporated,: as he has seen instances where dirt bikes are pulled over; however, the violation has to be committed several times before the citation is issued. It was his feeling unless there are strong'penalties imposed, this ordinance would not be very effective. -3 - Appeal by Dividend Industries (Cont'd.): Mr. Hunziker urged that the Council adopt this ordinance, including the two changes which he has suggested. Allen Mac Lean, 18628 Paseo Tierra, Stated he is here as a concerned citizen to voice his opposition about people considering laws that are fictitious. and are already covered by the Vehicle Code as it is Written. For instance, he stated a violation of the VehiCle Code in the State of California imposes a fine of $50 for the first offense, $100 for the second offence, and $250 for the third. Also, he indicated that the parents are responsible for anyone under age. Mr. Mac Lean indicated that he is concerned about fici~ious laws that will be impossible to enforce, and it is a citizen's duty to report violations of the law. Mr. ~Lean stated that on private property rights, all one has to do is post a sign;and then enforce the sign. With regard to 'registration, Mr in this area that would not beregG~6d~'b~regi~ered. ordi n~c'e h~i~'~6'd(~Tth'~m~s ,' safety helmet", and asked the question: "Who is going to approve them?" He further ~ndi.c~tedLthat the State of California does not have a helm~ law. Mr. Van Duyn, Planning Director, ~ndicated that the State Vehicle Code does contain standards for an acceptable safety hel~,t. Mr. Mac Lean stressed the fact, h6wever, that the State of Oaliforni.a does not ~ve a law requiring the wearing of these helmets..He further indicated that helmets for different~ridingpurposes ar~ available: Mr. Mac Lean commented that instead of creating animosities in passing laws to control something that nobody knows anything about or has any interest in, why not go the other route. ~He suggested contacting a representative of the American Motorcycle Association t~'instruct these peo~. It was his opinion because of the energy cnisis, there are going tobe more motorcycle~ ~on the road. Also, he felt ~he citizens should report these violations, rather than the City passing a law every time something upsets the citizens. He felt there are already too~many laws in existence which are not being enforced, and it was his feeling th~s is a Waste of time~ Councilman Matteoni inquired if in the Motor Vehicle Code sections Mr. Mac Lean has referenced, there is. anything that re~'at~s ~o motorbikes off. public streets, and the ability of the Sheriff's Office to control that type of use up ih the hillside that is otherwise on private property. Mr. Mac Lean referenced a section in the ~ehicle Code: Who is Responsible for Enforcement? .This states that the California Highway Patrol will be involved in the enforcement of off-highway vehicles sections of the Vehicle. Code for any violations occuring on the highway. Also, it states that mini bikes, go ~rts and motorized bicycles are required to be registered and license -S~they have to have the off-highway vehicl~ registration sticker. He indicated that this is all contained within'the California Drivers Hand- book.' Mayor Bridges explained that this ordinance is not intended in any way to p~enalize the A.M.A. or anyone else, but when you have Citizens who are constantly bedevilled by people riding motorcycles up and .down the hills on people's property, the City has tO find a way to help people who live in these open areas. He eommented that th'is not only pertains to motorcycles -- it's automobiles, recreational vehicles, A.T.V., four wheel drive vehicles, as well. Also, by the time a citizen calls the Sheriff on a particular violation, the automobile is gone and nobody can make an arrest and impose the fine. Bob Johnson, 13463 Old Oak way, ~,~iT~(h~'tT~re~.~b~nT~..~f. ci.~i~en 7a d Sheriff' s Department than they like to remember. Also, he commented that in order to enforce a noise level ordinance, you have to be able to measure the noise at the time, - 4 - Appeal b~ Dividend Industries (Cont'd.)' and this has proven to be essentially unenforceable, and this is one of the prime motivations for the law being considered. With regard to Section~9-203(c), he believes that rathe~ than attempt to just throw it out, perhaps it should be expanded to say "reasonable an'd customary manner" to avoid the problem of running up and down the road, and also, explain the point about what "license" means. The City Attorney explained that this involves a technical difference. He ~'ndicated that an easement is considered to be an interest in land, and would normally be for any group of people who have a particular easement, whereas a |icense is cons'ideredyto be personal to the user, and is u~ually for a limited period of time. Mr. Johnson (citizen) then inquired if Section (c) would essentially elimin- ate the requirement for registration by-omission of saying anything about registration.' The Cit~ Attorney replied that this'is'true, e~cept for'the fact that in '~(6)'6~'~'~ti~'~§S~it is a separate offense not to comply with Section -. 9~205~'-P~it Re~Qi~ments and SpeCifications. He suggested the following wording to Section 9-203: "Exempt from the requirements of Section 9-201(a) are the following:". Mr. HUnziker again addressed the Council. He-indicated that the central issue here is that these off-street motorcycles have been disturbing the peace in their area. He indicated that the current regulations of the City, the Noise Ordinance, ~s ineffective at solvin. g this problem. He felt this ordinance presents a more practical way of soTving this noise problem. Another point mentioned by Mr. Hunziker related'to the safety he!ml~t. He indicated'that this does.not address the central issue, whi. ch is disturbance of the p~ace. Mr.'Hunziker s~ated that he is st~ll concerned about operation on private driveways, and felt.something haslto be re-worded so private streets, ease- ments and driveways cannot be used as motorcycle'cuts, but can only be used for ingress and egress.' There being no further comments b~ the audience, it was moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded by Councilman Brigham the public hearing be closed. The motion was carried. The public hearing was clo~d at 8:56 P.M. Councilwoman Corr indicated she is concerned with regard to Section 203(c), in that she did not feel it was answering the original co~plaint that was brought before the Council, which dealt with peop~ riding motorbikes on private roads and annoying the neighbors:. "M~T'~6h~t6~ s~a~a ~h~t'~6'a'i~li'~s seeing any ~ih~'6~i~l'l~be be based on what somebody'S interpretation is of'"reasonable" or "unreasonable", however, this could be added, if ~t is the Council's desire] Councilwoman Corr-was of th~ feeling th.i~.~would gi'~e cause to bringing charges. It was then moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded by Councilman Brigham to adopt Ordinance 38.72, Setti. Ons9-200 through 9-208, making the following changes: Delete SeCtion 9-261(c)'; Section 9-203,.add: "E~empt from the regulations of 201(a) are the following:";' Section 9-207, make~.the sum~$5Ofor th~ fir§~ offen~? and $100 for the second o~fense.. .o The motion was carried, 4 to 1, Councilwoman'~or~ in opposition.in that she desired the change to 903(c). - 5- C. CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE NO. 38.71, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING CHAPTER 3 OF THE SARATOGA CITY CODE BY ADDING SECTIONS 3-60 TO ARTICLE VII THEREOF, RELATING TO INSPECTION OF HOUSING UNITS ON RE-SALE (Second Reading) The City Manager indicated that this ordinance has been introduced, and his only recommendation would be that~it be indicated under Section 3-60.2,'~'_"~ ~A~n"6~R~l~ions, the date of December 31, 1977, at which time ~is would be reviewed and a report ~ack to the Council prior to any further action on this program. The Mayor then opened the public hearing at 9:13 P.M. There being no comments from the~audience at thisstime, it was moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded by ~uncilman Brigham the public hearing be cl:bsed. The motion was carried. The public hearing was closed at 9:14 P.M. It was moved by Councilman Brigham and seconded by Councilwoman Corr the adoption of Ordinance 38.71, adding to Section 3-60 the date of December 3117 1977. The motion was carried unanimously. Recess and reconveyne VI. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS (Cont'd.) B. COUNCIL AND COMMISSION REPORTS .~2. Parks and Recreation Commission Re: Conference Attendance It was moved by Councilman Bri~ham and seconded by Councilwoman Corr approval of the request of W. G. Carlson to attend the California and Pacific Southwest Recreation and Parks. Conference in March, 1977. The motion was carried, 4 to 1, Councilman Kraus in.opposition. C. DEPARTMENT HEADS AND OFFICERS 1. Director of Public Works Report Re: "No Parking" Signs on Radoyka Drive ~r'T'S~k'~'D~t~f'P~l~T~kTi~d that the staff has reviewed this request and. finds no traffic engineering need for such~_ _proh_ibition; a .... ~ ..... ~h~W~v~ Re~l~tiOn.MV~l'19'h~S'5~n ~6~id~d,'~hoUl~ ~-~ouncil approve this request. It was moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded by Councilman Brigham to deny this request on the basis of: l) the difficulty of enforcement; and 2)the principal of putti~g'~d~r~i~g~e~ generall.v i~~ residential areas. The motion was carried, 4 to 1.' Mayor Bridges voted in opposition to the motion, due to the fact it'has been the policy of the Council tO accommodate the homeowner when parking problems have existed. 2.Director of Public Works Report Re: Authorization to Make Application for Funding It was moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded by Councilman Brigham authorization to submit the application for funding for Federal Aid improvement projects, to include: 1) Pavement Marking Demonstration Program -$5,500 2) Safer Roads Demonstration Program - $21,000 3) Highway Safety Programs (a) Quito/Vessing realignment - $30,000 (b) Prospect Road thru freeway alignment widening - $45,000 (c) GQardrai.ls at bridg~ ends - Quito, Pierce, Prospect, Allendale and Herriman - $45,000 (d) Quito/Allendale - relocate traffic signal poles and remove islands from intersection - $15,000 The motion was carried unanimously. -6- D. CITY'MANAGER 1. Report Re: Illegal Structure at 12516 Saratoga Avenue' Upon the recommendatis6n, of th~ City Manager, it was moved by Council- man Matteoni and seconded by Councilman Brigham t6 grant Mr. FoSter a 60-day extension to remove the structure on a voluntary basis (to February 28, 1977). The motion was carried, 4 to 1, Councilman Kraus in opposition. 2. Recommendation Re: Departmentlof Housing and Community Development Housing Element Guidelines for General Plan It was the City Manager's recommendation the Council go on record as opposing the guidelines as proposed, and the Staff be authorized to submit a letter indicating the City's objectionsto specific parts of the proposal, and commenting on how this m~ght be improved. It was moved by CounCilman ~r~us.and seconded,~y Councilman Brigham to submit a letter to the State Department of Housing and Community Develop- ment indicating the City's views on this proposal. The motion was carried unanimously. 3.Information Re:Development/T~ansportatiOn Alternati!ves - Santa Clara Valley Corridor Evaluation ' Followinglas~eview of the Development/TranSportation Alternatives, the Council indicated its consensus to support the recommended approaches, and indicate this support to the Joint Pol'icy Committee prior to.its December 22, 1976 meeting. The motion was carried unanimously. 4. Recommendation Re: Light Ra~l!Feas'ibilit~ Study Alternatives. It was moved by Councilman Brigham and seconded by Councilwoman Corr to forward to the Tran~i,t District Board of Directors the City Manager's letter, dated November 24, 1976, as the City of Saratoga'S official position on the Light Rail Feasibility Study and Alternatives Analysis. The motion was carried unanimously. VII. COMMUNICATIONS A. WRITTEN 1. St. Andrew's School, 13601 Saratoga Avenue, making several proposals on a solution to the traffic problem which promoted the request of a crossing guard at the intersection of Saratoga and FrUitvale Avenues. It was moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded by Councilman Brigham to approve funding for the school orossing guard, as recommended, through the end of the current school,year. The motion was carried unanimously. 2. Mr. and Mrs. W. S. Wolff, expressing opposition to the CityCouncil's decision regarding' responsibility for lifting of sidewalk in front~of their home. This matter.was continued for:discuSsion at the Committee of the Whole Meeting on December 7th. B. ORAL 1. Elmer Lamb, 20397 Pierce Road~ regarding installation of 1. andscape barrier. Expressed opposition to agreement between_the Lambs and Rosses which ~ul~_j~..lace a lien~ainst their ~ro ert ~i'f'maihtenance~a~ 'nbt carriTd o"6'Q'~.'-""Th~t'~er ~ ~i~L~o~'~i~ion at ~hTC~itt~ of the Whole Meeting on December 7th. 2. City Attorney advised that he had received the Temporary Restraining Order on West Valley College, and the preliminary injunction hearing will be on December 14, 1976.: C. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF PUBLIC S~RVICE REPRESENTATIVES The Mayor recognized the presence of Eunice Stark of the Good Government Group this evening. VIII. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded by Councilwoman Corr the meeting beadjourned The motion was carriedL The meeting was adjourned at 10:40 P.M. espectf mitted,