HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-15-1978 City Council Minutes MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TIME: Wednesday, February 15, 1978- 7:30 P.M~
PLACE: Saratoga City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, Calif.
TYPE: Regular Meeting
I. ORGANIZATION
A. ROLL CALL
Present: CounCilmen Brigham, Kraus, Corr, Bridges
Absent: Councilman Matteoni
B. MINUTES
Councilwoman Corr suggested that an amendment b'e'made to
page .1 RE: Acceptance of GiftsT- New Library, to reflec[
that the cushions donatedzwere custom made rather than
handmade; also to specify that these would be used ~n the
f-loor in the children's area.
It was then moved by Councilwoman C0rr, seconded by
Councilman Kraus the minu~es of February 1, 1978~. be approved
as amended. The motion was carried.*
II. SPECIAL BUSINESS
The.City Clerk administered the-Oath of Office to Richard Rose
for his term on the Saratoga Library CommiSsion.
Ill. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. COMPOSITION OF CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Bridges requested ~emoval of.item 5 from ~he Consent
Calendar, for consideration at the nex~ regular meeting on
MarCh 1, 1978. This was acceptable to the remaining members
on the Council.
It was further suggested the three financial reports be added
to the Consent Calendar -- Payment of Claims,.City Cl~rk's
Financial Report, City Treasurer's Report.
It was then moved by Councilman Br~gham and. seconded by
Councilman Kraus the Cons&nt Calendar composition be approved,
as amended. The motion was carried unanimously.
B. ITEMS FOR ICONSENT CALENDAR
1. Construction AcceptanCe
a) Tract 592]'~C~e~t~r,Ave./James Day (Release of Bond)
b) Tract 6074, Allendale & Serra Oaks/Osterlund (Release
of Bond)
2. Final ACceptance
a) SDR-976 Vickery Lane/Morehouse (Release of Certificate)
b) SDR-1092' Woodban~.Way/Mairose (Release of Bond)
c) SDR-1094 Prospec~ & Miller/Churehi_of Ascension (Release
of Bond)
d) SDR-1il8 Oriole Road/Johnson (Release of Bond)
e) SDR-1124 Mendelsohn Lane/Garcia (Release of Passbook)
f) SDR-1126 Gordon Court/Saratoga Foothills Development
Corp. (Release of Bond)
3. Final Map Approval - Tract 6199, Regan Lane/Hagan
4. Resolution 85-9.33, A Resolution Amending Resolution 85-9.30
and 85-9, Adding .tO Basic Salary Classes, Employment
Position Classifications and Compensation Schedule for
Employees of the City of S~ratoga
* 5. Resolution ~775-2, A Resolution Amending Resolution No.
775-'1 Establishing the Compensation for the City Manager
of the City of Saratoga
6. Pollard'Bridge Maintenance Agreement
7. Payment of Claims
8. City Treasurer's Report
9. City Clerk's Financial RepOrt
It was moved by Councilman Brigham and seconded by Councilman
approval of the items for the Consent Calendar, with the
exception of item 5~~_~d'~t'i~o~_~f'i~m_~Zy~a~n~_-~.~i%=
The motion was carried Unanim~sly. ' .....
IV. BIDS AND CONTRACTS
A. CROP AGREEMENT FOR FARMING AND MAINTENANCEOF CITY PROPERTY
LOCATED AT SARATOGA AND FRUITVALE AVENUES
It was moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded by Councilwoman
Corr approval of the CropzAgreement'between the City', Mathew
Novakovich, Walter Seagraves and William Seagraves.for one
crop year. The motion was carried unanimously.
B. AGREEMENT WITH JUN R. HATOYAMAAND ASSOCIATES FOR PLANS AND
SPECIFICATIONS FOR I~ROVEMENTS AT HAKONE GARDENS
Councilman Kraus suggested cont.inuing this item fo-~a~.Committee
of the Whole Meeting on February 21st to allow further study
of the plans. Th~s was acceptable to the other Council members.
Mayor Bridges, therefOre, announced that this item would be
agendized for the Committee of the Whole Meeting on February 21st.
V. PETITIONS, ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS
A. CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENT OF 1974 GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION
ELEMENT THROUGH ADOPTION OF NORTHWEST SARATOGA CIRCULATION PLAN
Mr. Van Duyn reviewed the7Council's previous action concerning
the Northwest Circulation Plan,'to adopt Plan 2-A in concept,
with the provision that it be referred back to the Planning
Commission for review and comment. He reported that the
Planning Commission had considered Alternate 2-A as acceptable,
provided that the through'access from Prospect to Hillmoor be
provided, with a preferende to that connection over the
Kreisler Court connection. HoweVer, it was the concensus of
the Commission that Alternate 1 was the option that gave them
the most comprehensive opportunity for flexibility. He
further reported the Commission had requested the Council
adopt a policy concerning circulation in this area.
The Mayor acknowledged i~ms of correspondence received
relevant to this circulation plan, as follows:
Edwin H. Shaufler, urging 6he CouncilL~nOt approve
in principal a plan which would potentially make
Quarry Road a through circulation route without
also approving in principal that in order to imple-
ment such a plan, Quarry Road would need to be
brought up to city standards and dedicated.
Russell. L. Crowther, questioning the Council's
previous action 'concerning the Circulation Plan.
The issue'of the Hillmoore and!Kreisler connections was
discussed, and Mr. Van Du~n suggested the Council indicate
the connection of Hillmoor, with Kreisler shown as an option.
Councilwoman Corr indicated itswas her understandingsthe
Council's agreement was I~ ~_~!~sible to ~ut in
the Hillmoor connection ~'een"~'hi~'sch~6r'~0~rty ~a'~
developed, that~would be preferable; however, if this were
impossible, to open Kreisler until Hillmoor could be opened.
Mayor Bridges ~ed6mmended. including in the motion Mr.
Shaufler's suggestion that if Quarry Road is to be used as
a through road, it be acquired as a city street and brought
up to city'standards by the developer.
It was moved by Councilwoman Corr and seconded by Councilman
Kraus the adoption of Resolution 820.2, amending the
Circulation Element of the General Plan by adding a Northwest
Circulation Plan, including the following conditions:
1) If Quarry Road is used as a through street, it
be required to be brought up to City street
standards and dedicated and maintained as a
ppblic street; and
2) It is desirable to develop Hillmoor Drive first;
if, however, this iS not'possible at the time _
of development of the Fremon~ School District
property, the Kreisler Court connection be made.
Inherent.within .thistmo"8~on"_~'~is~the~adoption of th~____~
~,~_~'~D~'~i~ th~s proj ~t, '~'d~Ap_'~i~ 17,' .
in opposition.~
B. RESOLUTION..MV-129
Resolution~ DeSignating th~ Intersection of-Beaumont Avenue and
Saratoga Vista Court as a Stop Intersection
It was moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded by Councilman
Brigham Resolution MV-129 be adopted. The motion was carried
unanimously.
the Saratoga City Code ~y Establishing a Passenger Loading.
Zone on Glen Brae Drive
It was moved by'Councilman Brigham and seconded by Councilman
Kraus Ordinance 38.8~ be introduced,-and the reading waived.
The motion was carried unanimously.
D. RESOLUTION 399-6
Resolution of the City~Council of the City of Saratoga
Calling aPublic Hearing to Determine Whether Public
Necessity, Health, Safety or Welfare Requires the Formation
of an Underground~UtilityDist~{Ct on the East Side and
West Side of Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road between Saratoga Avenue
and Reid Lane
It was moved byCouncilman Brigham and seconded by Councilman
Kraus Resolution 399-6 be'adopted. The motion was carried
unanimously.
E. RESOLUTIONS842 "
A Resolution Of the City Council of the City of Saratoga
Commending Don Harris, Retir{ng Building Official
It was moved by Councilman ~'~-'j~:and seconded by Council~
unanimously. ~'~
F. ORDINANCE 38.7~-2
An Ordinance 'of the City of Saratoga Am&nding Chapter'. 9 of the
Saratoga City Code, which Chap~e~ is Entitled "Motor VehiCles
and Traffic" by Modifying. Section 9-203 Relating to Exemptions
It was moved by CoUncilman Brigham and seconded by Council-
woman Corr Ordihance 38.72-2 be introduced, and the reading
waived. The motionwas carried unanimously.
VI. SUBDIVISIONS, BUILDING SITES, ZONING REQUESTS
A. REQUEST FROM ~NT~ONY COCCIARDt FOR RELEASE OF ~0% OF BONDS
FOR TP~CT~5461
Upon the recommendation of the'City Attorney, it was moved
by Councilman Kraus_and seconded byeCouncilman Brigham to
deny this requeSt.~-The ~oo~io~"~'~i~d~hanimously.
VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS'
A.' CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF USE
PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A TENNIS COURT IN A
"PC" DISTRICT AT 14350 TAOS DRIVE, PER ORDINANCE NS-3, SECTIDN
3..2(h)
Mr. Van Duyn, Planning Director., explained that under the
provisions of the Recreational Court Ordinanca, areas in-
cluded within "PC" districts are requiredto obtain a
conditional use permit for consltruction of a tennis court.
The Planning Commission reviewed this matter at its last
regular meeting, and of main concern to the Commission was
the planned community concept on which the property is located.
Under this concept, there were designated areas to be held in
common with the homeowner's association, ~ith maintenance to
be handled under C.C.&R.'.S.
He.explained that when this property was subdivided, although
it was zoned !'PC", it cam~ as a 4-lot subdivision. The
Planning Commission at that time had had' serious doubts about
placing this into a common ownership situation when we were
only dealing with 4 lots, and it was determined that the area
would remain in fee titleto the property owner.
Mr. Van Duyn reported that Dr. Fong does meet the 15 percent
fencing requirement, as well as necessary setback and land-
scaping requirements for the p±oposed tennis court. However,
the Planning Commission had felt the common green area .would
have been a requirement irrespective of whether or not it is
in-Dr. Fong's ownership; therefore, th{s would not enable him
to obtain an exception of the inclusion of this area in his
measurement of the 15 percent fencing. Further, it was the
opinion of the Planning COmmission the tennfs court itself was
not a compatible use in aplan~ed community
The Mayor opened the public h~aring at 8:47 P.M.
Allen Fong, M.D., addressed the Council, sdating that he is
the owner of the lot in qpestion. Dr. Fong indicated that
there exists currently no law or regulation-forbidding the
existance of a tennis court ina planned community. Secondly,
he stated he is not setting a precedent in .the planned
community as there exists already a tennis court in a planned
community at..14100 Taos Drive, 'owned by Sam and Shirley Sells.
The measurements of this Court are 118 by 58 square feet,
representing approximately 6,844 square feet. The height of
fencing around this coUrt.measures 9 feet, except for ~hat
fencing which faces the house. Mr. Sell's lot represents
approximately ~8~'Tacres, and if you divide th'at into the total
square footage~f his cou~t, you come out with approximately
19 percent. A tennis court permit was issued (UP-243) by
the Planning Commission.
Dr. Fong commented that t~is particular green belt is unique
in that he owns it and is.totaIly responsible for its upkeep
and maintenance. He stated that the Tax Assessor's map shows
the common greens in the rest df the planned community are
in joint ownership by at least ~4 property owners, and this is
not so in his case.
With regard to the noise level!on the tennis court, Dr. Fong
advised that he is a Board Certified~yEar Surgeon, and he
would challenge anyone in an argument about the noise level
from a tennis court. He pointed'out that the decibels of a
tennis ball i'~parted from a tennis string does not approach
the~noise level of p~ojple diving into swimming
~{~S ~gard to view, Dr. Fong pointed out that very(~ew peopth
kno~ 0f the existence of the court at 14100 Taos Dri~e~l'r-
it ~s very difficult to see from the street and is quite
aesthetically pleasing. He indicated that should his appli-
cation be apprOved, he has hired the same contractor and'the
same landscaping people that did this court so well.
Dr. Fong indicated he has';with him this evening a list of
31 signatures of people supporting him in his application.
Also, he has a letter from Mr. Norman Mason who plays regularly
on this tennis court.
He further pointed out the court at 14100 Taos Drive repre-
sents approximately 19 percent of the fencing requirements.
Dr. Fong indicated that his proposed court would represent
approximately 12.3 percent of his total acreage. If the
other 1/3 acre is excluded, using a regulation size tennis
court, the percentage of enclosed fencing is 17 percent --
still less than the 19 percent which exists at 14100 Taos Drive.
At the request of CouncilWoman Corr, Dr. Fo~g pointed out
on the overhead map the l_6~atiOn of those residents who
signed the petition in support of the proposed tennis cour=t.-
Norma Norton, 19752 Minocqua Court, addressed.'the'Council.
She indicated her lot backs up to this 4-1ot. pareel.! Mrs.
Norton presented an overhead exhibit indicating in red those
owners who object to the tennis court, and in green the common
green areas. Also, she presented a letter from Mr.- Schm~l~'~e~
of this area, which she proceeded to read into the record:
"We wish to present opr protest to the constructi6n'
of a tennis court at 14350 Taos Drive.' Our residence
is exactly across the street from thi~ propertyl
Since the Saratoga Planning Commission has studied
this application and.fullyr agreed to-reject the re-
.. quest, we are hopeful that! the City council wilt
support Commission."
Mrs. Norton ~ndica~ed that Mr. Klein (lot #2) had ~ppl%ed.
for a permit for a tennis court previously, and at tha~ time,
there was a'petition with 26 signatures opposing it. However,.
this time, it was felt the main consideration would bethe
location of the neighbors opposing it.
Mrs. Norton commented she.would like to go back.to the
original ihtent of the ordinance-in zoning the 4-lot parcel
"R-i-40,000 PC". She indicated, that'by adding the planned
community, they added the open space requirements and fencing
restrictions. In researching the background of this change
of zoning, Mrs. Norton had co~e~across a letter from Rick
Perkins, Bay AreaCE_'j~ne~r=chitects and Planners' San
Jose dated May 26,'l~72~Slt~ti~g: '
"The proposed rezoning would create a'more compatible
use of the site,!with the.surrounding'area, which'
is zoned R-'l=40,00.0 PC'and partially developed. The
site would thus be in harmony with the City's General
Plan."
She explained that the planDed ~ommuni~y which Mr. Perkins
is referring to is this one.
Mrs. Norton referred to a Staff report, dated JulX 10, 1972,
on the request for change of zoning, i~h'i~h~i~-~-ta~tes:
"The planned community development will harmonize
with existing and proposed land uses in the vicinity."
Further, on FebrUary 1, 1972, Lynn Belanger sent a l~tter to the
City Council, stating:
"The good of all the people 0f Saratoga must take
precedence over any inconvenience to those who
profit from the consumption of our city's rapidly
dwindling remaining open space. The.proper use of
our land is a public~trust'."
In staff report minutes of AuguSt 13th a~d 14th, 1975,
regarding Frank Shephard,.Douglass Lane,'Building. Site ApprOval,.
under ConditiOn 'TU", it states:
"Provide for common green area along Douglass Lane,
as shown on said maps, with standard provisions'
for installation of landscaping and permanent
irrigation system. LandsCaping maintenance agree-
ment and/or maintenance through homeownerls
association and/or C.C.&R.'s all as part of sub-
division improvements,Ball to be set forth on
specific site development plan to be submitted and
approved at the timecof Design Review, and prior
to final approval."
Item "S" of this report states:
"Prior to final.approval, Design Review Approval
required for lots 1, 2, 3 and 4. House siting,
fencing and design to be determined at this time."
item "T" states:
"Provide landscaping a~d fencing for Lot A.
Landscaping and fencing for lot A subject to
Design Review Approval prio~ to final approval."
Mrs. Norton pointed out that they make a distinction between
lots 1, 2, 3 and 4, and lot A, which is the common green area.
Item "D" of this report s~ates:~
"Internal fencing on the individual lots shall be limited
to 15 percent of the lot, inaddition to protective
fencing for the immediate swimming po~l area."
Mrs. Norton indicated that clearly the intent is to treat
lots 1, 2, 3 and 4 similarly regarding fencing, and to
treat lot A, the common green area, separately.
She referred to the Planning Commission minutes of
January 25,1978, where it states:
"Commissioner Marshall'pointed out that when Lot 4
subdivision was developed, the Commission agreed
to put the common green at the end lot, and at
that time, it was decided by the City that it made
more sense to make the land a part of the corner
lot than to require that a maintenance district
be se~.up. Since it was the City's intent that
the common green be the developed area held
commonly be all the people for green space, and
that the residual portion be that portion to
which the 15 percent fencing limitation applied,
it would seem to me that the corner lot should be
assessed upon its net, minus the common green.
Otherwise, we are granting a special privilege
to the owner on the corner."
Mrs. Norton indicated that on F~bruary 10th, she spoke to
James Day and asked him about the backgroudd of this 4-lot
parcel and why the common green' area was now called a
"scenic easement", since all the historical references
talk about a "common green area".
Mr. Day had told her since the area was zoned planned
community, he had first inquired if he could set up a home-
owner's association for this parcel that would be part of
the existing homeowner's association. Mr. Day was told this
would not be possible. Since there were many problems
encountered in the maintenance district set up between the
City and the developer,'James Day had asked his attorney
if he could draw up an open space easement which would
accomplish the same purposes as the common green area, but
minus the headaches for him. The City had agreed, as indicated
in the previous quote by CommiSsioner Marshall.
Mrs. Norto~C,referred to Dr. Fo~g's letter to'the-City Council
dated February.l, in which he states:
"The purchase.price of the house and property in-
cluded the common green belt and the cost of
landscaping itl I furnisb the water, electricity,
and other maintenance of this greenbelT."
Mrs. Norton sta~ed that in thefr pianned_co~nunity which
backs up to this parcel, the pdrchase price of the lots.in-
cluded ownership ~n the common green area, the cost .of land-
scaping and irrigation, and they individually pay taxes on
this land. The ongoing expenses of utilities, insurance
and maintenance will be paid b~ the homeowners. They cannot
include any of the acreage as a basis for~a.computation and
setback determinations. She stated the same should hold true
for Dr. F0ng since the 4-acre parcel was zoned planned
community, and he should not be permitted to use' the common
green area in calculating his fencing.
She further quoted from Dr. Fong's letter to the Council,
as follows:
"There exists a tennis court in the planned
community also on Taos at this time.. I~would,
therefore, not be setting a precedent."
Mrs. Norton commented that according to the staff-report
of June 26, 1974, it states:
'The applicant, Mr. Sells, was present and stated
that the tennis court would not be a standard tennis
court size."
"Fencing shall not enclose more th.an 15 percent lot
coverage."
"Fence height be limited to 7 feet around the perimeters
and to 3 feet in height in the center of the side
section paralleling the house."
She stated s'he~~yery concerned, and
strongly protest ~ gra~n~{~[i~' use permit. FUrther,
she would hope the Oity Council denies the appeal so the
o~iginal intent of planne~ community zoning with theseLre-
striction~ can be preserved.
Cornell Spiro, 19753 Minocqua Drive, addressed. the Council,
indicating that he is one of the homeowneys__s.j_n~i_no~Rosition
to the~truction of'this tennis court~i~ this"~r'~aor"~
Mr. Spiro indicated he wo~ld like to share in the views of
Mrs. Norton that the original intent was that the green area
would be the common green area under the homeowner"s association
However, he stated that it was not practical ~o form the
homeowner's association for this subdivision, lHowever, he
does not believe the original intent has been changed, and
under this original intent, the tennis court would exceed
the 15 percent 'fencing restriction in the planned cormmuni~yiD
area. Mr. Sp~ro further commented that this is an open area,
and if tennis courts are allowed in the area, the landscaping
of the entire area will chan~e, as wo;uld the value of the
properties. He indicated. his reason fdr purchasing this
property was the fact that it was zoned planned community
and he felt'certain therezwould be no tennis courts in this
area. He therefore urged that the Council deny this appeal.
· Dr. Fong again addressed the Council, §tating that if his
permit is granted, he wouid be willing to submit the same.
specifications~and the same measurements as exist on the
court at 14100 TaoS Drive.
~mp~{Sn~y~ di~F~'~l'~h~plann~j~communitX was Eeally
serving its purpose. He felt~/'~~i~o~dY~%~-Ii~p.~,~to the
individual to judge whether o½~'~h~ c~Y~h'~'{s~hg
court on Taos Drive.
Mrs. Klein, 14328 Taos Drive, addressed the Council. She
commented that this scenic easement does belong to Dr. Fong.
With regard to the comments relative to the other court on
Taos being a foot smaller on each end, she commented that
this foot is hardly noticeaBle.to a tennis player. Third,
Dr. Fong does meet all,the requirements set up by the City of
Saratoga for setbacks. She further commented that she believes
people Who'Lhave pools should feel lucky that they have it so
easy.
It was then'moved by Councilman KrauS and seconded by
Councilman Brigham the public hearingl'-be closed. The motion
was carried. The public hearing was~losed at 9:15 A.M.
FSl~owing a brief discussion by the Council, it was moved
by Councilman Kraus to deny this appeal on the basis that
it would be granting a specialprivilege to<~h~i~ri~'ant.
The City Attorney suggested the Council-defer its action on
this matter until he has had an' opportunity to further re~'
search it. This was acceptable to the Council, and Councilman
Kraus withdrew the motion.
Mayor Bridges indicated the matter would be deferred until
the next regular meeting of the Council.
B. ABANDONMENT OF THE SLOPE EASEMENT LOCATED ON LOT 55, TRACT 3439,
SARAHILLS UNIT NO. 2~ CITY OF SARATOGA
Mr. Shook, Director.of Public Works, reported that this lot
is located at the corner of Sarahills Drive and Pierce Road,
and several years ago, there was a slide of considerable
magnitude on the lot. The slide has been corrected; however,
in so doing, the building pad is not located in its same
location, and the slope easement defined on the map is no
longer indicative of the 7location of the slope.
He advised that the LandJDevelopment Committee has conditioned
the site approval on the lot s~ch that in exchange for the
abandonment of the slope easement, the owner will provide
the City with a scenic easement over the entire lot, with
the exception of the actn2al building site. It' is the staff's
recommendation the Council authorize staff to proceed to
abandon the slope easement on Lot 55, Tract 3439.
The Mayor opened the public hearing on this issue at 9:27 P.M.
There being nO comments from members in the audience, it was
moved by Councilman Krauszand seconded by Councilman Brigham
the public hearing be closed. The motion was carried; the
public hearing was closed at 9:27 P.M.
It was then moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded by
Councilman Brigham to adopt Resolution 841, Ordering
Vacation and Abandonment of a Slope Easement. The motion
was carried unanimously.
C. CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION
RELEVANT TO VARIANCE ALLOWING A~4-FOOT REDUCTION IN THE RE-
QUIRED SIDEYARD SETBACK TO ALLOW FOR AN EXISTING STRUCTURE
TO REMAIN WITH THE DECREASED SIDEYARD AT 14777 MONTALVO ROAD
Mr. Van Duyn explained that th~2Plann~g Commission denied
this request for a variance to allow an ll-foot sideyard
setback in lieu of the reqp~5-foot setback for a~i~re
~ds~Zwai_~f_e~~d'~f~z~ce ~Li~. This action was taken on
The Mayor~nowledged anitempJSorrespondence'rece~ved ~ .~
on this matt~Y~fr~M~'d~S% ' P~'d~L~i{~g~2'0804~O~l~'~
Montalvo, requesting that the City Council deny this appeal.
The Mayor then opened the public hearing at 9:33"P.M.
Don Miller, 14740 Cody Lane, addressed the Council. Mr.
Miller advised that his back yard faces the side yard. He
indicated that when he put in his fence in the back yard, he
put the fence approximately 4 $nches back on the inside of
his property. When the cementscontractor poured the foundation
for the guest house and g~rage, he took the 15-foot setback
from Mr.~[~J~fence, and not from the boundary. Therefore,
when the~ou~tion was p'oured and the partial framing was
completed, he ran a line .on the boundary, and established the
fact that the garage and guest house were extending into the
side yard.
Mr. Miller indicated at t~e January 25th Planning Commission,
he felt the Commission was not'arbitrary in ~&ir treatment
of all the cases he hear~ that~evening. The Commission granted
the variance on the garage and the guest house, and denied the
variance on the little mechanical shed, which he feels is fair.
It is, therefore, his recommendation this appeal be denied.
There being no further discussion on this issue, it was moved
by Councilwoman Corr and seconded by Councilman Brigham the
public hearing be closed.~ The motion was carried; the public
hearing was closed at 9i35 P.M.
It was then moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded by Councilman
Brigham to support the Planning Commission decision relative
to this variance, and deny the appeal. The motion was carried
unanimously.
Recess and reconvene
VIII. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS
A. MAYOR
B. COUNCIL AND COMMISSION/REPORTS
1. Councilman Brigham Re: HCRD Element in "PD" Ordinance
It was the concensds of the Council to schedule a
Committee of the Whole Meeting with the Village Merchants
to discuss this ordinance. The staff was directed to
make arrangements for th~s meeting,ipreferably in the
Village itself.
2. Parks and RecreationCommission Re: Re,commendation to
ContinUe Consideration of Abandonment of Pedestrian/
Equestrian EasemenC at Rear of Properties of Sobey
Meadows Court - Tract 5164 (Cont'd. 12/7/77)
This recommendation was continued to the next regular
City Council Meeting of ~arch 1, 1978.
3. Planning Comm£ssion Re:
a) Northwest Saratoga Circulation Element - Considered
as part of the!pUbli~ hearing on this matter.
b) Amending the Land Use Element of the 1974 General
Plan from Medium Density to Planned Development
(Lattanzio and Jones)
This matter wa~ set for public hearing on March 15,
1978.
C.. DEPARTMENT'HEADS AND OFFICERS
1. Director-of Public Works Re: Request~.O~.,F.
to Deviate from Normal Procedure in Obf'a~n.~B~ilding
Permit for Proposed Development.
It Was moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded by
.Councilman Brigham'to approve the staff recommendation
to approve this 'request, with the re~uirement that
improvement plans be submittedCt~~_~ithin six
months. The motion was carried~nni~s'i~.~ ·
D. CITY MANAGER
1. Report Re: Unemployment Compensation Insurance
Upon the recommendation of the staff, it was moved
by Councilma'n Kraus and ~econded by Councilman Brigham
to adopt the individual reimbursement account method
of financing the City's liability, and respond to-: the
State of California regarding this intent. The motion
was carried unanimously.i
IX. COMMUNICATIONS
A. WRITTEN
1. Mayor Janet Gray Hayes,.re~uesting the Saratoga City
Council authorizea referendum for placement on the
November 1978 ballot concerning public housing assistance.
It was agreed to schedule this item for discussion
at a Committee of the Whole Meeting.
2. GeorgeS. H. Dais, Architect to.Mr. and Mrs. James ~iou,e
21027 Comer Ave., requesting'to modify the existing
building envelope area for construction of a new pool
cabana structure at 21027 ComerrDrive.
Referred to Planning Commission to review plans for
improvements within this building area.
3. Arpetition from Saratoga Sunset.Club in favor of
low-cost housing for senior citizens in Saratoga. - Noted
and filed.
4. Mr. and Mrs. William Wyant, 13991 Saratoga Ave., in
opposition to rezoning of commercial property at 14599
Big Basin Way'I'-
Referred to the Planning Commission for consideration.
5. Resolution Nol 8866 from the City of Alameda, re-
affirming City council's opposition to entrance of the
Concorde SSTY'~hnto the San Francisco Bay Area'Market. - Noted
and filed.
B. ORAL
C. PUBLIC GROUP REPRESENTATIVES
The Mayor acknowledged the ~resence of public'group
representatives this evening as follows:
Stan Marshall, Saratoga.Planning Commission
Everett Bryant, GoOd Government Group
Ann Hexemer, A.A.U.~=~=
and Recreation Commission
~ ~ry
ADJOURNMENT
It was moved by Councilman Brigham and seconded by Councilwoman
Corr the meeting be,adjourned. The motion was carried; the
meeting was adjourned at 10:50P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Robert F. Beyer
City Clerk