Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-15-1978 City Council Minutes MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL TIME: Wednesday, March 15, 1978 - 7: 30~P.~M. PLACE: Saratoga City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, California TYPE: Regular Meeting I. ORGANIZATION A. ROLL CALL Present: Councilmen Callon, Corr, Kalb, Matteoni, Kraus Absent: None B. MINUTES Councilman Kalb pointed out an error on page 3 relevant to the Grading Ordinance, in which. it refers to Section 3-402. This should be Section 40-2. It was then moved by Councilwoman Corr and seconded by Councilman Matteoni the minutes be adopted, as corrected. The motion was carried, 4 to 1, with Councilwoman Callon abstaining from the vote. IIo ,CONSENT CALENDAR A. COMPOSITION OF CONSENT CALENDAR It was moved by Councilwoman Corr and seconded by Councilwoman Callon approval of the Consent Calendar composition. The motion was carried unanimously. B. ITEMS FOR CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Termination of Social Security for the City of Saratoga 2. Resolution 844, Abandorkng a Portion of Public Utility Easement,. 20080 Pierce Court 3. Payment of Claims 4. Cit~ Treasurer's Report 5. City Clerk's Report It was moved by Councilman Matteoni and seconded by Councilwoman Corr approval of the items for the ConSent Calendar. The motion was carried u~animously. III. BIDS AND CONTRACTS ~ A. REPORT OF BID OPENING ON DISPOSAL OF ARCO SITE Mayor Kraus requested that this matter be held in abeyance. until after the public hearing relevant to ~the Arco'site. This was acceptable to the other members of the Council. IV. PETITIONS, ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS V. SUBDIVISIONS,' BUILDING SITES, ZONING REQUESTS A. REQUEST TO ABANDON WALKWAYIEA~EMENT FOR PEDESTRIAN/EQUESTRIAN ACCESS - SOBEY MEADOWS COURT, TRACT 5164 (Cont'd. 3/1/78, 2/15/78, 12/.7/77, 11/2/77, 10/19777) The City Manager indicated!that at the last regular meeting of theCouncil,~a question. came Up as to ~ possible provision in the~Map Act whereby if an easement. is offered for dedication andI notacdepted within a five-year period, it would no longer be valid. The Council has requested the City Attorney to determine whether this was in fact the case, and the City" Attorney has responded that there is no such section.as it pertains to this situation; however, there is a section which provides a limitation on Offers of dedication for access from a public highway to a.public waterway, but this does not apply in this case. Therefore, it is the City Attorney's opinion that there is no such provision in terms of the City having to accept the offer of dedication for a trail Orjpathway within a specific period of time. The City Manager further reported that since the~[i~'~f~=~~ dla~'~re~lar meeting, it has been found that an er~oof'h~'b~e~ ~l~d~ the staking of the pathway. Mr. Bill Heiss, Civil Engineer representing Jennings, McDermitt and Heiss, e~plained that in staking_6ut the boundary lines of the walkway easement, an erroneous ~on~waS made in the vicinity of the~i~iFg~ cb~f~gdfa!fion bf the true easement. This results in more area than originally thought with regard to the position of the westerly line M~. Beyer indicated that based on the information received, a quick estimate was prepared in terms of improving this easement as modified. This was estimated at approximately $15,000. Mr. Shook, Director of Public Works, explained that this estimate of $15,000~o_~ot"i~volve planting andother'amenities that were included~i~"th'~ original estimate of $29,000, and if in- cluded, this would amount to approximately $22,000. John Pope, 14070 Arcadia Palms Drive, indicated he is an attorney representing si~ families onSobey Meadows Court, and he presented to.!the Council the original petition signed by these families. Mr. PoRe commented that in walking the trail again this evening, ~hi___~g~~s ~h~jos.e '__~ proximity of the westerly side-of the trail to the cree~"edge. Mr. Pope commented~wt~t h%y~es isnth~ t~ngth of this proposedi section, the cost i~d,'~nd~the-co~t~n~s~i~7'i~ terms of ongoing police enforcement and maintenance problems, as well as aggravation to the residents involved. He urged that the easement be abandoned, removed and erased. Mr. Pope stated that in walking the proposed trail, he observed the configuration and depths at various pointS,.~and the eminent danger not to residents, but to the people using the trail for pleasure purposes. Mr. Pope further commented that it is his opinion the continued striking by force~ wateY~,%~' Eh'~ '~bankment 7 of~ ~h~~ stream, will erode this .portiOn' ~rY[~'cr~k~ea'S'e~e~tT' ' Sobey Meadows Court (Cont'd.) W. G. Carlson, Chairman of the Saratoga Parks and Recreation Commission, addressed the. Council, indicati~_~he would like to review some of the backgro..u~.d~ concerning t~ trail easement. He exp. lained that~aft'~h'~l~ing two pu~'i'c.~h'~i~,'~'~ndse'~fl ch u~ani~o~'~eco~ended the 'easement be ~etained. M~. Carlson further co~ented that in view of the significant co~unity interest in this section of trail, the Co~ission believes there will be significant co~unity involvement, and there are already indications of potential voluntary help whihh could reduce 'the costs to the City to less than $10,000. The Eo~ission had agreed that it was extremel~ important that action be taken .con- cerning this issue. Mr. Carlson advised that 'the Co~ission is now developing, co~unity involvement and will develop a final plan for' Council consideration, including co~ts to the City,,~within 90 days. of the availability of construction drawings from the city staff. ~ The- purpose of this was to allow the Council to have an opportunity to review within a 90-day:period exactly what part of the work could be done by volunteer labor. It was also reco~ended that during this time interval '.the trail easement be closed until' development is actually 'initiated. Further, the Co~ission reco~ends that the Council initiate action to 3.311 square feet of additional proper~y necessary~to make the crossing to Arcadia Palms., Mr..Carlson indicated ~that the Co~ission's intent was to try and reach resolution at min{mal cost ~o the City, and within a time framework that would be finitei He co~ented that they would hope after the amoUnt.of work that ha~. gone ~nto thls by a great man~ people, the Council would Cohsider and support. it. In response to Councilman Kalb's inquiry concerning anticipated expense in preparing drawings for Council review, the City Manager' replied'that he does not hav~ a 'specific dollar amount; however, it would cause a ~hifting of priorities within the Public Works Department.. Further, as mentioned in a previous report from him, the issue of. trails in terms of development was not included this year -- there were no funds allocated, unless they were to be taken from another project, for improve- ments. He indicated he Would have to report back at a future meeting for specific dolla~ amounts. Mr. Carlson indicated that'what the Co~ission would'~p~opose is that within the funded program that presently exist~ for the Parks Co~ission, the actual budgetary changes that can occur within the total budget are such that a small program such as this might be funded from within a current program. They are'- not expecting any additional funding to do this. Councilwoman Callon co~ented that she wonders wh~, of all the places on the Master Trails, one would want to start with this piece, as it is her understanding there are.many more important avenues in which to begin., She wondered if it was the pre- cipitation of asking not to be part of the trail system that triggered the interest. Mr. Beyer replied that~ the initial response to this section of trails came after the public hearings and the amendment to the circulation element oftthe General Plan, at which time, the trails and pathways section was amended, based on the work of the~-~ails--and~Ba~hways~-Task~F~ce~ ~ ~-- Sobey Meadows Court (Cont'd.) In 1974, a letter had been received from residents in this area asking for consideration of abandonment of this easement. This was delayed until after the general plan proceedings. Following amendment to thelGeneral Plan, the question of whether or not the easement should remain a part of the trails system, was referred to the Parks and RecreationSCommission. Councilman Matteoni commented that at this point,. even though there are offers of assistance, he does not feel the City is in a position to move on this kind of implementation; rather, he feels priorities need to be looked at on a broader scale. Councilwoman Callon indicated she is not prepared at this 'time to commit funds to the development of this particular part of the trails and pathways system. However, she would like to urge the Commission,andzthe staff to begin looking for ways to fund the system. She commented that there is possible funding through other sources to develop the trails system. Further, she wouldlike to separate the~issue~of development from actually accepting or denying the Offer of Dedication. It was her suggestion to accept the easement at this time, close it to public access, and take no further steps until the Council can~hear the entire Master Plan with some possible funding, and at that time, consider development. Councilman Kalb commented he would like to~see the entire Trails and Pathways program brought out into'the open. He stated the ori inal esti~m~te was that it would cost $200,000 ~patrol, This proD6~l' i~Volve~=~pehdi~g';$20,000~fand-ea.t-±ng felt the Council really needs to address the'question: "Will we ever be wi=lting to spend $5,000 a year to-.maintain a 900-foot section of trail, esped~ally'~onsidering'that there are options proposed in the paths and trailways for F-2, which would provide another loop?" He indicated that he personally would not be willing to spend this kind of money for that small of section, as this would jeopardize the entire trails system. Counci'lwoman Corrcommented that she has seen~~s..l.~.l~F~~ for the County trails, and one trail comes very cIS~[~'t'~ thls particular trail. .It was her opinion the City should completely eliminate this section from its trails pattern so it does not become mixed with the County proposals as they come through. Mayor Kraus indicated that he initially was in favor of this easement; however, following the survey when he learned much of it was in the creek, he Was willing to abandon the trail. Then when he heard what the cost was to be, this disturbed him further. He commented that he does not feel this dity is in a position to spend this kind of money on a 900-foot trail. Councilman Kalb then submitted a motion that the City reject the Offer of Dedication for t~_~.~i. Cff~n~walkway easement. Councilwoman Corr seconded Councilwoman Callon commente. d that she would ~fge the Council to consider that if the City abandons an offer of dedication, which the homeowners were aware of when they purchased their homes, we will have abandoned the possibility of any kind of walkway, and to hear the entire plan as we will not have the opportunity at a later date to consider this creekside setting. - 4 - Sobey Meadows Court (Cont'd.) Councilwoman Corr commented that she appreciates this fact; however, as the Council looked at the trail, it was found that it could not be developed into a full trail, and also, it w~uld be very difficult to separate a small local trail from a county'trail. She clarified that this action does not in any way way preclude her wanting to look at the entire trail system. However, it was her feeling the Council has been forced in making a decision on this area before it was ready. The Mayor [hen repeated the motion and called for a vote. the motion was carried, 4 to 1, Councilwoman Callon in opposition. VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A TENNIS COURT WITHIN THE REQUIRED REARYARD SETBACK AT 19199 MONTE VISTA DRIVE, PER ORDINANCE NS-3, SECTION 3.38 (Cont~d. 3/1/78) The City Manager explained that this matter was continued to allow members of the Council to look at the site. Councilwoman Callon indicated that she took part in the discussion on this issue at the Planning Commissibn level; therefore, she would abstain from the discussion. Mayor Kraus then declared the public hearing open at 8:40 P.M. David de Carion - 0& addressed the Council. Mr. de Carion indicated'h'~'w~l'd'Yik~ ~o re-introduce pictures which show the situation of the trees with respect to this property. He further commented that in addition to having Go remove the designated trees, if the Council does not approve this use permit, he would have to go eight feet into the yard where the swimming pool is, putting the edge of the court . almost on top of the swimming pool --~iH~bo"~-3 feet of where the swimming pool patio starts~an~'~thin~8-f~et of the wooden fence as~shown on the map. ~b~eoh'~c~woman~,C~r'ana~bnded~b~ ~t~an'-Matteoni Councilwoman Corr in~icated~.i~ is heropinion it would create a worse situation in the neighborhood to make the applicant comply with'the.qrdinance than it would be.to allow them to place it where they originally planned, particularly since the neighbors do.not object to the plan. Therefore, she would favor reversing the decision of the Planning Commission. Councilman Kalb commented that in his observation of this situation, leaving the trees in would be to the best interest of the neighborhood. The only question he Would have would be with regards to encroaching that close to the neighb'ors' property, and inquired ifthe present or future neighbors ~ave-any recourse, once this is approved. - 5 - Use Permit - Monte Vista Drive (Cont'd.) Councilman Matteoni commen~ed thathe believes the reason the current neighbors have no objection~ould be the same as future neighbors. Mayor Kraus indicated it is his feeling the tennis court can be sited outside of the rearyard setback. Further, in this particular case, he does not see that keeping the trees where they are is the thing to do. Therefore, he would favor up- holding the Planning Commission's decision and reject the appeal. The Council discussed the fact that findings would have to be made if the appeal is to be granted. Mr. Robinson, Acting Planning Director, verified that ~nder use permit proceedings~ it would be necessary to make findingS, specifically related to Article 16 of the Zoning Ordfnance,~to support the City Council's decision. It was then moved by Councilwoman Corr and seconded by Councilman Matteoni to grant the appeal of David P. de Carion for placement of the tennis court on his property as proposed, based on findings set forth in Mr. de Carion's letter of appeal to the City Council, dated February 17, 1978,~.~d'~~'~ ~sc'~_taff~:tqTf~z~ i~~i~ ~o~-n~__t~CounCi'~ Me~g. ~_The motion was ca~e'dT"3'~l'7'C~cflm"~'d'K~auS~if~p'os~tion, C~unci'lwoma~'Cai-lo~ abstaining. ~B. TO CONSIDER SALE ~OF REAL PROPERTY LOCATED WITHIN THE DOWNTOWN BUSINESS SECTION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA, ON BIG BASIN WAY, SOUTH OF SARATOGA-LOS GATOS RO~D .INTERSECTION, COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE "ARCO SITE" The City Manager explained the purpose of the public.hearing is to ascertain whether or not there is any additional public input concerning the City'.~ intent to dispose of the Arco site. The Mayor declared the public hearing open at 8:55 P.M. Mr. Jim Rosenfeld, owner, Saratoga Clef House, addressed the Council urging that the CoUncil consider the sale of this property. There being no further discussion on this matter, it was moved by Councilwoman Corr and seconded by Councilman Matteoni the public hea~ing be closed. .The motion was carried; the public hearing was closed at 9:00.P.M. It was further moved by CoUncilwoman)Corr and seconded by Councilman Matteoni the Council approve sale of the Arco site. The motion was carried unanimously. BIDS AND CONTRACTS (Cont'd.) A. REPORT OF BID OPENING ON DISPOSAL OF ARCO SITE The City Manager advised t~at the City has officially received two bids for this land,-both at the base of $96,000. One bid was from Mr~.~-James Rosenfeld;the other from Masek Enterprises. Included with each bid was ja drawing or rendering'Sflzthe proposed use of the property, and a ideposit in the amount of ten percent of the bid. 6 - Arco Site (Cont'd. Mr. Rosenfeld has since withdrawn his bid, however, and. is requesting return of his deposit. The City Manager.indicatedit would be his 'recommendatio~ this evening that the Council not act on the proposal, lbut re- schedule an Adjourned Regular Meeting to consider the proposal. Further, he indicated he believes itwould be in the best interest of the City to determine whether or not, if the Cit a project that would encompass both pieces~. ~ff~h'~'s~'~done ~intly, Mr. Rosenfeld could proceed with the development of ~is property, 6tillzing the parking and the land, and Mr.'Masek could put in his restaurant, developing both parcels to the benefit of both parties, as well as to the City. It was then moved by Councilwoman Corr and-seconded by Councilman Kalb to delay consideration of the bids received on the Arco site until Tuesday evening, March 21, 1978, at an Adjourned Regular Meeting, and to authorize return of Mr. Rosenfeld's deposit in the amount of $9,600, per his request. The motion was carried unanimously. VI. IPUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont'd.) A. TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER THE PUBLIC NECESSITY, HEALTH, SAFETY OR WELFARE REQUIRES THE REMOVAL OF POLES, OVERHEAD WIRES AND ASSOCIATED OVERHEAD STRUCTURES AND THE UNDERGROUND INSTALLATION OF WIRES AND FACILITIES FOR SUPPLYING ELECTRIC, COMMUNICATION, OR SIMILAR ASSOCIATED SERVICE IN AN UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICT ON THE EAST AND WEST SIDE OF SARATOGA-SUNNYVALE ROAD BETWEEN SARATOGA AVENUE AND REID LANE M~. Shook, Director of Public Works, advised that PG&E has set aside sufficient funds to accomplish this work, and re- quires that the City establish an underground distri6t such that the properties ~ithin that district'convert to underground services. The Mayor opened.the public hearing at'9:18 P.M. R. E. Kaufmann, 20700 Fourth Street, addressed the Council. Mr. Kaufmann indicated he has lived in Saratoga since June, 1958, and has travelled that pie6e of road on a-bicycle, a Moped, a motorcycle, anda motorcar, and this represents for a bicycle or Moped the most dangerous piece of.riding he has ever been through in his life. He explained that there is a bicycle'path- way marked along this strip, and there isn't room for the bicycle to occupy the path ~ith the power poles in their location. Therefore, he urged that the Council consider protecting this portion of the roadway. There being no further discussion on this issue, it was moved by Councilwoman Corr and seconded by Councilwoman Callon the public hearing be closed. The motion was ~arried; the public hearing was closed at 9:20 P.M. It was then moved by Councilwoman Callon and seconded by Councilman Ma~teoni. Resolution. 845, establishing Underground Utility District ~o. 5, be adopted. The motion was carried unanimously~ D. TO CONSIDER AMENDMENT TO LAND USE ELEMENT OF GENERAL PLAN FROM MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATION TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ON PROPERTY LOCATED EAST OF SARATOGA-SUNNYVALE ROAD (APN-391-2-30) (LATTANZIO AND JONES) 1. Resolution 847, A Resolution of the Ci.ty Council of the City of. Saratoga Amending the Land Use Element of the Saratoga General Plan by Designating the Site Described at Lot 17, Tract 6199, as Planned Development .(PD) and Amending the General Plan Map Accordingly Mr. Rob Robinson, Acting Planning Director, advised that the purpose for amending the General Plan is to allow for a 71-unit senior citizen complex. He indicated that the Planning CommisSion has conducted several lengthy meetings concerning this item, and approved it on January 25, 1978. Mr. Robinson further advised that the proposed amendment to the General Plan is consistant with the housing element of the General Plan. Further, the applicant must apply for a use permit and design review concerns will be addressed. The Mayor opened the public hearing at 9:27 P.M. W. D. Jones, 1942 Campbell Avenue, San~Jose, addressed the Council. He introduced his_a~ia~F~e~__Ray Lattanzio, 12545 Wardell Court. Mr. Jones st~'t~d~t~hey are prepared to accept a resolution which, if the Planning Commission in its judgment does not grant a use p&rmit, the property will revert to the present zoning, and the ~pplicant would proceed with houses rather than the pr0posedLunit. Mr. Jones asked for the Council's indulgence in reading their letter of request to the Planning Commission: "It is respectfully requested that 'action be taken to amend the General Plan ~to provide "PD" (Planned DevelOpment) designation for 1.44 acres of the south- west portion of Parcel 391-2-30. This portion of the parcel is also known as lot 17, Tract 6199 as desig- nated on a subdivision map filed by Hagan Construction Company~ The undersigned hold an option'duly executed by the owners of the parcel which p~rmits this action. Designation of this parcel is "PD" (Planned Development) in accordance with the General Plan, and will allow sub- mission of a senio~ citizen project conditional use permit application, planned residential development under Ordinance No. NS-3.37. Planned Development designation of this parcel is an amendment to the General Plan and is consistent with the needs of the community as identified in the housing element of the General Plan. This element of the pain shall make adequate provision for the housing needs of all economic segments of the community. ?PD" designation of this parcel will provide the basis for meeting one of the two prioritized 'housing alternatives delineated by the Senior Citizens :Housing Task Force. The location of this parcel meets the location guidelines for senior citizen housing, as stated in the Task Force Summary. There are a limited number of sites remaining in the City of Saratoga for any kind of Senior Citizen Housing. Each.'year, this number if further reduced as they are developed into'.subdivisions or commercial ventures. This parcel is one of the few remaining sites. - 8 - ~Lattanzio and Jones Cont,,d.) We made initial contact with the City of Saratoga on October 19, 1975, and have consulted from time to time with the Senior Citizens Task Force, members of .~ the Planning Staff, and at several Committee of the Whole ~eetings=with the Planning Commission. 'Our efforts have been direCted.toward underStandin'g of the needs of Saratoga Senior Citizens,. acquiring property which meets the criteria for a senior citizens facility as determined by the'Task.Force and theIPlanning CommiSsion, providing a s&nior citizen residence..which meets the needs as indicated by the TasksForce, and'meets community standards as recommended by the Planning Commission and staffV,in- cluding design considerations that assure housing remains senior, and the implementation of residential . preference for Saratoga citizens. We will appreciate the opportunity of filing an application for a planned ~esidential development conditional use.permit under Ordinance~NS-3.37. An'amendment to the General Plan designating this pa~ceI '~PD" is a prerequisite to a conditional use permit 'application. Your early action on this request will b~ greatly appreciated." Mr. Jones indicated he would like to net out the type of facility the Task Force Would like to provide: He indicated th~ge~!following~p~ioritized_aLternati~es.aze~those_which_a~% ~o~.[J appt~cab I[ '~g'v~g' '~{gf of. S~atogi ~a' :~eH~d by s enigr residents: ~ ...... _~--~_~-~__z~ _ ~L'- ~ . .1. Rental ~p~tmenes/dd~lexes 2. Retirement InnsHotel He stated, that. Saratogasenior]houSing should be constructed. and maintained specifically for elderly r&sidents; should be constructed in locations Suitable for the support of senior citizen housing~rand related needs; be pr~imarily residential, as opposed to i~titutional, in character and design; be architecturally compatible with the surrounding ~rea~ The following are prioritized r'ecommendations generated by the Task Force,for consideration and implementation by the City' Council and Planning Commission: Zoning- The evolvement of an ordinance allowing senior citizen housing in all Saratoga zoning claSsi- fications. Utilization of covenants.;~ con- ditions and restrictions, and the use permit process that regulates the process Of senior citizen housing, and' to assure'that such housing shall remain senior. Also to encourage the development of. a {esidential preference list to accommodate the housing needs of current and long-term.Sara.toga residents. The Task Force makes the above recommendations,'and suggests the following guidelines relative to housing for the elderly, .in recognition of the Unique and often..gracious environ nental qualities and impacts of senior citizen housing on residential neighborhoods, its serene nature, minimum generation of traffic, noise and use of schools and other public services. The intent: development of additional housing units for senior citizens 60 years of age or older; rental units of the apartment/duplex or Retirement Inn type h'avebeen identified as.priority types to be constructed. It is intended that any rental or other type of units'created as sepior citizen housing remain over the years to serve the housing needs of the elderly. 9 - %attanzio ~d Jones (Cont'dT.t) Location - Proximity tO medical facilities, shopping, transportation, and areas of socialization. Freedom. from excessive noise or disturbances. Proximity to parks or other outdoor areas suitable for passive recreation. The absence of steep grades in and around the general circulation of the proposed site. Initial emphasis to be praced on increase and general availability of senior citizen housing and types identified earlier as being applicable to Saratoga. Mr. Jones indicated there are approximately 10 types of housing for senior citizens, and he has indicated the~2 types t6 be of priority, as far as the Task Force is concerned. He indicated the types of services proposed include lodging, meals, social activities, arts and crafts, transportation,'and no in-house medical serviceS. He stated that ih 1975, this site was one of 18 meeting the Task Force's cri.teria as being acceptable for senior citizen residents' consideration. Also, it turned out to be the only site he and Mr. Lattanzio could locate where the owner would commit to senior citizen r~quirement res{dence. This site meets all the Task Force's recon~nendations as to access to services. Mr. Jones stated~that:~he has indicated in red on the overhead map where the service access would come in off of Saratoga-Sunnyyale Road, and the residents and visitors would come in from the north on the new Cunningham place. Mr. Jones pointed out that if this site were to accommodate ~j'ffGie~','E~Si~'ho~d~l'dlg.e~era~5~f [rX~s per day. He Study of 1969, which analysis indicates(~he relationship between number of trips and income of the [e~B~'h'8'di~h~rd to be as follows: Income of $10,000+.generates 13.1 trips per single- family dwelling per day. He then referenced a progress report published by the State of California Division of Highways in December, 1970, in which' it indicates that adults living in a facility of this nature generate no more than 2.7 trips per day. This would amount to approximately 27 trips per day, versus 52 generated if homes were on that site. With regard to visitors, it has been found there are Very few visitors for these types of facilities -- residents are indepen- dent and self-sufficient and do not generate many visitors. Also, the proposal Will provide ample on-site parking. Mr. Jones indicated tha~ the site meets all the criteria, and has been under consideration for several years. However, he is concerned that the neighbors are unaware of the Senior Citizen~ Task Force's recommendations. He pointed out that this facility is not an apartment or a residential care center, and speci- fically not a convalescent hospital, and he is concerned that some of the neighbors equate this project with the~e other facilities. Further, the project is not commercial and generates no commercial traffic. Mr. Jones indicated that~C~.~i'cT~,-~':D., 15200 Fruitvale Avenue, has asked him to ri~h~ssti'~f~January 10, 1978, addressed to the Planning CDmmis~ion: - 10 - Lattanzio and Jones (Cont'd.) "I have examined the'drawings of a'proposed Senior Citizens Inn presented. by Mr. W. D. Jones and Mr. A. R. Lattanzio. I heartedly endorse the concept of board and room facilities for seniors who are too incapacitated for complete independence, but are still able to cope for most~of their needs. Examination Of plans presented by. Mr. Jones and Mr. Lattanzio shows a great.deal of thought has been given. to the needs of these!people. The location is close enoughto the Village, Argonaut Shopping Center, and public transportation to facilitate the use of these services by the tenants. There appears to be an efficient use. of the available'space provide comfortable quarters, with easy access to meals and recreation without taxing the strength of the seniors. It also appea~s that there will be sufficient grounds to reduce the feeling of crowded- ness usually present in such an environment. I recommend this project be granted the necessary' · zoning to proceed with the final plans for construction." Mr. Jones commented that they have been working on this project for about three years, and 'as time has. gone by, the potential sites have dwindled down to this'one available site. Further, loss of this site to a subdivision would likely mean the Saratoga Senior ditizens wo'uld not have'~his kind of facility available. CouncilmanKalb inquired what income categories would be considered for this facility. Mr. Jones replied~ that they would intend to be competitive with the other t-ype of facilities in ~he area, from $595 to $600 or $700. Mayor Krauspointed out there are two_i~tems'of correspondence in. reference to this matter~'rfrom~_Li. Rudolph Kanne, President, Good Government Group, opposing the. s~nio~citizen:housing project. Mr: and Mrs. Jim Schmidt, Miljevich Drive, opposing the project. Arnold Lowe, resident'of'GlaSgow'Drive, 'commented that he objects to any change in the General Plan. He indicated that when the City of Saratoga was incorporated, Mayor Brazil appointed a committee of 100 to get together with the community and find out what we wanted where, so the community would have something to live with for years,to come. They came up with the kind of town we could live w%th then, and the kind of town · he can live with in the future. This was th~s first general plan. Mr. Lowe commented' that when it comes to the rezoning r6quired for this project, it shouldzbe remembered'that we have four places that would more than provide the numbers desired for senior citizens, already zoned and in piace to be utilized, without resorting to!a violation of the General Plan. Therefore, he would be very opposed to any change in the General Plan at this time. Don Miller, Kilbride Court, indicated that since the last of the two planning sessions, he has had in his possession the document entitled: "Senior CitiZens Housing Need Analysis", Lattanzio and Jones (Cont'd.) and he takes exception to the statements made earlier in this public hearing that this proposed'facility meets all site selection criteria~ He commented that it fails at least 7 of the criteria which he has read, and one is the 2-acre minimum suggested parcel for a facility of this type --zthis reaches 1.44. 2) Parking:~ It is ~uggested 75 percent of-the units ha~e_a parking sDace, with_50 .percent_of those cg_~ered.<9 settings or outdoor areas for ~assive recreationS5) No freedom from excess noise~6y~No~'~Com~'3~i6Ye~i~'~'s~Vo~6~ing neighbor- hood. 7) No access.~"~u~i"ci~'l--~'h'd~'6'dnt~ 'fjcilf~ies, such as libraries, community theaters, etc. 7) No churches in this neighborhood. Mr. Miller commented that the neighbors consider this a .~ commercial venture. Taking' the analogy of Mr. Lattanzio and Mr. Jones, this land could also be used for four single-family dwellings, getting eight cars into these dwellings, If he were to rent those four pieces of property at $800 per month, his cash flow would be approximately $2,400. If the=property were converted to the "Inn", as proposed, there would be a maximum of 140 people on the property, with 70 cars and 70 guests per weekend. There are 10 service vehicles on the average. Mr. Miller commented that if he were to rent each of these~.~units at $700 per month, he would generate $49,000 per month cash flow -- 20 times increase of what the property would generate in dollars per mohth, at a 10 times people increase. Further, he commented that the residential traffic pattern is irresponsible. Mr. Miller commented that he knows the Plan~ing Commission has taken exception to Dividend Industries proposing twosstory dwellings on Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, due to the canyon-effect, and he does not see why this property should be any different. these people after they are ~C'I~g~Y'~b'~l-a6~ry -- while these people do not need constant medical care, they can live in this facility, but what do we do when they do need medical care? Mr. Miller stated that at the Planning Commission Meeting, the Chairperson assured the citizens that if this land were not used for senior citizen purposes, it would revert auto- matically to residential zoning that existed prior to the Planning Commissionts vote. He indicated he would hope to make this very clear_in the public record. R. E. Kaufmann again addressed the Council and co~hented that he remembers several years ago when Mr. De Grange wanted to build some senior citizen housing, and the rentals were sited at $300 per month at that time, and the Council turned him down because the senior citizens couldn't begin to pay $300 per month. This proposal talks casually about rental of $600 per month, which says the income has to be $2,400 per month, which amounts to $28,800 per year -- which is ~r~tty fair retirement pay, in view of what Social Security pays him, which is $270 per month after 40years.' With respect to parking, Mr. Kaufmann commented that the assumption that therefor'be nocars is unwarranted/ Lattanzio and Jones (Cont'd.) William Kinder, resident on Regan and Ljepava, commented that he belidves there has been no justification ~hown for this chang~i~j~_~nthe General Plan. He commented that Mr. Lattanzio ~w~'fi~'~'~t~!t,.there is a minimum 2-acre requirement in the' Gener~i~l.P~l~ano He commented that he. has~ heard from the last meeting that we're running. out 6f land; therefore, this place has to be it.. He felt that logically, this does~ not make any sense -- it should meet .the requirements and should justi~fy a change in the General Plan~ Also, the two-story requirement is contrary tO what this' Council and Planning Commission has said in the past .that. they7 do not want any two-story structures. along Highway 9. Louis Schaefer,' 198~4 Park: Drive, addressed the CounCil. She indicated that she works a~ a Food Management Consultant for a similar facility. inPalo~Alto,~ with 130 residents and' in fewer units. She indicated that they dO have every day social workers, · occupational therapistS, physical therapists, recreational programS, volunteers from Foothill, volunteers from De Anza, some physicians, Some dieticians -- to the point that there are 4 to 5 people wai~ting at' all times for a taxi or a shuttlebus. Mrs. Schaefer indicated that~ she read in the Senior Citizens Task Force Report rthat they would like to have 500 places for individuals in Saratoga by 1980. She indicated that in reading the report, we already have-232 units, through DeGrange, CampbellI Cage, .and Odd Fellows. Mrs. Schaefer commented that thereCis~%qu~~~> HUD has raised about this ,type 6f,f~'~ifi~y~'i~;ttYi~re'a~ because Willow Glen has had some problems with a similar type of facility in fulfilling the number of places. She indicated the facility in which she Works 'charges $600 to $900 rent; much Of this is subsidized, and she wodld have to raise the question as to'whether thisj kind of facility should go into this place, or another facility in Saratoga later on. Marjorie Foote, 20910 Canyon View Drive, indicated she came tonight to speak up for the concerned citizens of Saratoga to make some serious p~ovisions for our senior citizens. Ms. Foote commented that she knows the' issue of density has become a very serious matter for a lot of people in Saratoga, and she cannot believe this one unit is going to seriously upset the balance of density in Sarat'oga. She indicated that in the past 3~ years, there have been a lot of objections raised, and not very many concrete proposals have come forward to build a facility that would accommodate some of these people in Saratoga. She indicated she felt it i~ a very sad if the City disregards this intermediate need of some Of the people in Saratoga. She felt these people would be very good neighbors, and a very stable influence in any community, and she believes we should remember that we have some obligations to our senior citizens. Gertrude Rubio, resident on the corner of Regan Lane.. and Kilbride. Drive, addressed the Council, stating that she is opposed to anything but single family dwellings in her neighbor- hood. Also, she would like to point out that this proposed building is a two-story building which would obscure the view of the hills. Joseph A. Connelly, Villa ~onta~a, addressed the Council. Mr. Connelly commented that he thinks he is an expert regarding senior citizen retir~ement, and also a loser.' He indicated after l~e had lived in ~'~'o~for 14 years, he had to move out for two reasons: 1) ~o"r~ntals; and 2) no senior citizen retirement ~i.- ..~'~'~-~ ' 13- Lattanzio and Jones (Cont'd.) I'. Finally, he came'back and lived down at the Gatehouse~.Af~er three years, he had to move, and when he looked around Saratoga at that time, there were still no retirement homes. He_ then moved to Villa Fontana, and he found quite a few people from Saratoga living there. Mr. Connelly commented that he has heard many things about the Neighborhood ~- about the disturbance, the traffic, and the noise level -- all of which are.not entirely in accordance with the facts at Villa Fontana. IHe indicated these are 18 covered garage spaces, and only 12 automobiles uti~izin~ them. There~_~.oth~spaces for the employees who come in, and most of the people have families in the area who come an~ pick them up for meals at va=±ous times. Mr. Connelly stated that the actual number of guests is about 5 per week. Further, it is seldom that he has seen extra people' coming into that building for any reason, other than a hairdresser or a foot doctor. Mr. Connelly dommented that often times, we have parents who live back on the east coast -- one will die, and someone has to take care of the other parent, and there is no place in Saratoga for the parents to come. He indicated that he believes after all these years it is time'for Saratoga to have a retire- ment home. Therefore, since these two men have taken this amount of interest, the City Council should support them. Mayor Kraus inquired how many units were at the Villa Fontana. Mr. Connelly replied there are 84 units,~ Ray Cunningham, former owner of this property, addressed the Council. He suggested the staff exhibit the latest map on this property, as.=there should only be exhibited one entrance onto Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. Mr. Robinson, Acting Planning Director, pointed out that the map exhibited is only a location map, and there is a map behind the Council which is a plo~ plan, which illustrates the two cul-de-sacs and surrounding residences. Richard Martin, resident on Pike Road, commented that there has been a lot of talk abo~t senior citizen housing in Saratoga, and when you consider the population% you see that there is very'little. Mr. Martin indicated that he believes you have to look at it from the point of view: Are they a'-a nuisance in the community? He ~tated in his opinion and through his expe~i&nce in the Councy, they are not a nuisance, but they improve the neighborhood. Further, he believes a community is much heathlet if it.has senior citizens, and there aren't going to be too many. opportunities for this kind of thing to happen. Therefore, he believes this needs to be decided on the basis of humanitarian and compassionate ideas. Ellen Mc~aughlin, resident of Lj~pava Drive, addressed the Council. She stated that she read the needs report, and it seemed to her theapeople who wrote it thought civilization ended with the Saratoga boundaries -= that because we did not have rental housing in Saratoga, these people were moving away from the~community. .She commenced that there are small houses just outside the boundaries of Saratoga, and there are many apartment rentals that are closer to City Hall than this property is, but they are outside of city boundaries. Mrs. McLaughlin indicated that she was also bothered with the .idea of a Retirement Inn, and she had the impression it was a dirty old hotel. She indicated that she visited a Retire- ment Inn today, and it was ~ lov&ly place; and as far as the 14 Lattanzio and Jones (Cont'd.) parking, she can attest to the fact that these people are not driving. She indicated her only objection was that the site was not that large, and there Was a large apartment building next to it, and the building itself is a large building --- there are 72 units and 90 people. Therefore, she would like Some confirmation as to the height and the big~of the building on this piece of land. ~ It was then moved by Councilman Kalb and seconded by Council- woman Corr the public hearing be clq~ed. The motion was carried; the public hearing was~.closedat 10:50 P.M. Councilwoman Corr indicated there were several things said this evening which were said to have been taken from the Senior Citizen Task Force Report. She indicated she didn't believe this land was actually mentioned in the report as being an area to be considered. 2She stated that from the beginning, she felt this site was not a very good one, for two reasons: 1) The way in which the neighborhood impacts the Seniors, as it is a very noisy street~ 2) not accessible to amenities discussed. . Councilman Kalb commented that h{s concerns center whether it can~f~.'-the needs, as defined in the SeniorsCitizen Task Force Report. Further, it was his opinion anything that starts at $600 and upward clearly 'does not address the need which was defined in the Senior Citizens Task Force Report. Also, he does not see that this particular site fits in with the other requirements expressed by the report -- size of the parcel, its proximity to medical facilfties, high noise factor, proximity- to passive recreation, compatibility with the neighborhood. Mr. Robinson, Acting Planning Director, advised there is detailed noise analysis on file With regard to wha.t mitigating measures would have to be taken.~oncerning this project. Councilwoman~"comnente'~that although she cannot vote for this project 0~t'i'~ ~i~e~'she would like toencourage the Planning Commission to start General Plan amendments at sites that would suit a retirement inn~ However, she'would agree with the comments that the site is overused, and she does not feel it has a benefit for the seniors, along with the residents of the area. Councilman Matteoni indicated he would remain in favor of providing the opportunity for the exploration of the detail to sortsout the questions about two-story, size, traffic, etc., and let that be examined'as~it would have to be at the use permit stage. ~ ~. Mayor Kraus indicated he f~els quite'pleased about the sites which the City hasapproved; however, be has great. difficulty with this site ~inlthat it i~'a noisy add b~sy area~ He would, therefore, vote not~to change the General Plan. It was then moved by CouncilwomaH Corr and seconded by' Councilman Kalb to deny the request of the Planning Commission to amend the land'use element of'the Saratoga General Plan. The motion was carried,j~to 1 Councilman Matteoni in opposition, 15 - E. CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL OF LAND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE DECISION RELEVANT TO CONDITIONS IMPOSED ON BUILDING SITE APPROVAL ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON MOUNT EDEN ROAD (HORVATH) Mr. Robinson advised that this item is a referral from the County Land Planning Commission.' The original application was appealed by the City Staff, and subsequently referred to the City's own Land Development Committee. Mr. HorVath is appealing several of the conditions imposed by the Land Development, specificallyitems ~1, 2, 5 and 6 The Mayor opened the public hearing on this matter at 10:55 P.M. Frank Horvath, 22122 MountsEden Road, addressed the Council, providing background concerning this application. He commented that in_1976, he requested Building Site Approval from the- County. Mr. Horvath indicated that the County and the City have had annexation problems for many years, and the County had submitted the documents to the City requesting the City's requirements. The City was to notify the County within 30 to 35 days as to~the City's conditions; however, the City missed this date. Mr. Horvath explained that before he purchased the property he had asked the County what the conditions were. Hegot the conditions from the County, and at the same time, the City received a copy of these conditions. He commented that if the City in 1976 felt that the conditions were not right, he does not understand why the Cit~ did not appeal to the County. He indicated he had received Building Site Approval and the building permit, signed by Ithe fire department and everybody, except the engineer, because therCity had the annexation problem. Finally, the property was a'nnexe~, and he has recently received notification from the County that the property has been annexed to the City of Saratoga. Mr. Horvath eX~lain~.d~at he has a problemI'now<b"ec~u~eo~'~I~ ~~i~'~'~sking~-in order to build the wa~' ll~e. ' fh'f~'i~'~'fih~'~{~'$90jO00, plus $30,000 to get it.there. Mr. Horvath s~ated he cannot afford tO.pay this, and in asking for Building Site Approval from the County, he informed them of this. Mr. Horvath indicated that he has his own private water line, from Mount Eden Road to.the' intersection o.f Pierce Road, which serves one or two homes. Hpwever, he does not have enough to water to provide water protection at 1,000 per minute. Also, he indicated that he has signed a Deferred Improvement Agree- ment with the County to joinD the assessment district. With regard to Condition 2, Mr. Horvath stated he would be opposed With regard to the Improvement Agreement, Mr. Horvath commented that he does not know why he has to sign another agreement. He commented that he does not know why the City did not stop him in 1976 when he purchased the property, rather than going this far. Councilman Kraus explained the City is doing this for Mr. Horvath's protection. Mr. Wimberly, Director of InSpection Services, explained that the application was approved by ~he County Land Development Committee in the spring of 1977, subject to a number of County conditions. When the City saw this, they went to the Count~ Land Development Committee and objected to that approval, ba~ed Mt. Eden Road, Horvath (Cont'd.) on the City's 1976 request'to not process the site. The County Land Development Committee in the fall of 1977 denied ' the City's request, and proceeded with their approval of the application. The City in turn appealed this to the County .Planning Commission, and they in turn denied the City's appeal to stop processing the application, subject to the addition of City conditions to the approval. There being no further discussion at this time, it wa~ moved by Councilwoman Corr and s~co ned by Councilman Kalb the public hearing be closed. The motion was carried; the public hearing was closed at 11:05 P.M. It was then moved by Councilman 'Kalb and seconded by Councilwoman Corr to uphold the decisio~ of the City Land Development Committee, and deny this appeal. The-motion was carried unanimously. F. CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL OF.LAND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE DECISION RELEVANT ~0 .CONDITIONS IMPOSED ON BUILDING SITE APPROVAL ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON PIERCE ROAD AND PIKE ROAD (SDR-1325, Walker) Mr. Robinson explained that thisi property had been granted building site approva~ by the Land Development Committee on February 16, 1978, and the applicant is appealing item II-B of conditions pertaining to the Deferred Improvement Agreement ~ffO'~'cons~d~i~nO~-~7000 foot retaining wall along a portion of~k~"~di'H~ ~l~ined that this condition is consistent with the current City policy regarding street improvements, and the staff is recommending the Council support the Land Development Committee concerning its decisfon. The Mayor then declared the public hear±ng open at i~:08 P.M. Tom Walker, owner of the subject property, addressed the Council. Mr. Walker indicated that it was his understanding the Land Development Committee was not authorized to act, or even offer an opinion concerning thisissue; yet, he hears now that it was their decision to deny the appeal. He pointed out that the City Council in 1974 had ~d~ised Mr. Kirkpatrick, previous owner of the property, tha~ he was not responsible for widening of the road. Mr. Walker stated that his objection is that the frontage on the property behind him is all retaining wall, and it is not feasible to have .an egress there ~'..'~urther, he indicated ~ · he w~u~'~.~e~'YT~_r.~7e~e. to installing curbs and gutters ..as he believes this should be the responsibility of corner lots in any city. However, he feels the retaining wall is part of the con- struction of any road, and~if there is a greater need to widen Pike Road, he believes'it shouldbe the people's resp6nsibility that use the road. He does not understand why the retaining wall was not part of the constructionjany more than the different kinds of rock put underneath the pavement would be part of the construction, and this is the reason for his appeal. If it is widened, M~. Walker stated~he would not derive any direct benefit, but ~t~.~ill only be to the benefit of those who in the future build on Pike Road. Therefore, if the City is responsible for widening the road, they will be assessed, and he will support this assessment. But to be the sole'person to bear the cost of this retaining wall would be'.unzeasonable in his opinion. Mayor Kraus asked if there was a~ything in reference to the recommendation and the fact that'the Land Development Committee sent Mr. Walker to the City Council. 17 - Pike Road-Pierce Road, Walker (Cont'd.) Mr. Shook, Director of Public Works, explained that the Land Development Committee was in the position of feeling it had its hands tied in that the' requirement of a corner lot is that the owner improve sides of' both streets. In 1974, the Council effected a compromise with the previous owner~.'to the extent that they would not requir& that owner to widen the road as necessary to city standards, but that he be required to install the retaining structure,and curb and gutter. Since that had been negotiated with the City Council, the Land Development Committee did not feel it could. modify the decision in any way. Councilwoman Corr inquiredI if Mr. Walker's property is below the road. ~ Mr. Walker replied that itris below the road, and the road appears to be fairly new and in 'good condition. Councilwoman Callon asked how staff anticipates financing thezwidening of the road if it should occur.. Mr. Shook advised that__it is expected eventually that there will be assessment district to provide the widening to city street standards. Councilwoman Corr indicated it i's. her understanding that Mr. Walker feels the retaining wall should be part of the improvement of the road, .and thus he would be part of the assessment district. Mr. Walker veriefied this is correct. He explained that right at this time, the retaining wall would be a detriment to him and the expense far greater than as b~_eing part of the assessment. CouncilwomanCallon,inquired if one were to re-organize the situation so that Mr. Walker became a part of the assessment district at this state, .after-some persons have already signed an agreement to be a part qf that district that doesn't in- clude any kind of retaining wall, would this affect those agreements .. Mr.' Shook replied that he didn't think so, because the Deferred Improvement Agreement only 'refers to the improvements in a general way. Councilwoman Callon asked if the. widening of the road once again require these people to build retaining walls. Mr. Shook replied that it is likely the retaining walls would have to be relocated. Mr. Walker commented~th~at the widening would wipe out the ~r~- way and access to the~"~g'~'~is~ei~ghB~r"~ ~r~ide~c~ ........ Councilman Kalb inquired who would be ~esponsible for replacing the ~-etaining walls that were "wiped out" as a result of widening. Mr. Shook replied that the 'assessment district would be re- spousible for the the street and appurtenances. It was then moved by Councilman Matteoni and seconded by Co~cilwoman Callon the~public hearing be closed. The motion was carried; the public hea.ring was closed at 11:23 P.M. - 18 Pike Road-Pierce Road,'Walker (Cont'd.) Councilman Matteoni indicated he would like to suggest examining ~or confirming the commitment ~ to the assessment district by the neighbors for improvements to the roads and if this includes retaining walls, and if this .is the case, re-structure this so there .is a condition to participate in the assessment, and this property be put into the same situation as the adjacent proper~y. This suggestion was agreeable to the other members of the Council, and the matter was continued to the April 5th regular City Council Meeting. Recess and Reconvene VII. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS A. MAYOR 1.Requested City Manager to investigate rotating the mayorship. 2. Suggested that the agenda be arranged such that public hearings~do not begin after 10:00 P.M. 3. Requested the City Manager=look into ~upplying 7 n~w-rmicro- phones for City Council and Planning Commission Meetings 4. Advised that the City Manager has been asked~ to experiment with different seating arrangements for staff at meetings. 5.~ R~equested staff 7to,~~epo~'~'~~'~o'~?sr~.~ ~publiF~earings ~'~ ~ ~iis? -~nd Pat~'~s~ ~o~ce~Re.'7~grt. 6. Suggested Council representation at Parks and Recreation Commission meetings. 7. Requested the Council thoroughly review the material in' packets prior to City Council Meetings. 8. Suggested that on any commiss'ion appointments, the Chairman of the Commission meet with the Council prior to that appoint- ment. B. COUNCIL AND COMMISSION REPORTS 1. Councilwoman Corr - Suggested care be taken to assure Council receives agendas and minutes for upcoming Commission meetings. 2.. City Council Assignments It was suggested this be dis- cussed at the next Committee of the Whole Meeting of the Council. 32 G: Carlson, Chairman, Parks and Recreation Commission, commented relevant to the City Council's actions this evening on the Sobey Meadows Walkway easement. Mr. Carlson indicated that his concern centers primarily around the reasons the Council act&d as it did on this issue -- that being $5,000 or $10,000.. 19 - Council and Commission Reports (Cont' d. ) He indicated that it was hissfeeling if this Council is not willing to consider the expenditure of $5,000 or $10,000 for trails, he considers it an_absolute ut~e~.~ waste of his time,~a~'w~i'f~a~!~ C~iss~on'~7 t~roce~d Following some additional discussion concerning this matter, it was the concensus of the Council ~o arrange a meeting with the Parks and R~creation Commission to dis- cuss matters of mutualinterest. C. D~PARTMENT HEADS AND OFFICERS 1. Reports from Planning Director Re: a) Village Task Force Repor[ - Cont'd7 to April 5th meeting. b) Annexation Request for Ravine Road-Littlebrook Road~ and Overlook Drive - Cont'd. to April 5th m~eting. 2. Reports from Director of Public Works Re: a) Village Task Force Report It was the~concensus of the Council to proceed with Cal Trans in making recommended modifications, per the staff's report of March 14, 1978. b) Nicholas Frank Drainage Problem Questionnaire, 19271 San Marcos Road - It was the concensus of the Council to consult the City Attorney with regard to .appropriate direction inwhich to proceed. ' c) Status Report on Pedestrian Easement, Guava Court Following discussion by the Council, it was moved by Councilwoman Callon and seconded by Councilwoman Corr to take no further action concerning this issue. The motion was carried, 4 to 1, Councilman Kraus in opposition. D. CITY MANAGER 1. Jarvis/Gann Initiative Continued to April 5th meeting. 2. Report Re: Formation of County Justice System Advisory Board It was moved by Councilwoman Callon and ~econded by Councilman Matteoni to support the City Manager's recommen- dation to go on record opposing the proposed format~Lof~ . the County Justice System Advisory Board, and ~h~'t city representation be required on any propose~B~(d7 'Th~ motion was carried unanimously. 3. Consideration of Procedure Re: Planning Commission VaCancy - Directed City Manager to place advertisement for Planning Commission yacancy. VIII. C01,fi~IUNICATIONS A. WRITTEN Mr. P..Rowland, 20297 Sea Gull Way, opposing the building of condominiums and rental units on both sides of Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road· -'Noted andsfiled; City Manager to reply~ 2. Mr. Dominic L. Cortese, Supervisor - Second District, County of Santa Clara, thanking the City for the invitation to the library dedication. - Noted and filed· 3. Rear Admiral Ralph M. Metcalf, 14150 Douglass Lane, Re: Planning Commissioner Shelley Willjams. - Agreed to consider letter at Committee of the Whole Meeting. 4. Mr. William A. Antonioli, Attorney representing Mr. and Mrs. Sherick, 14133 Sobey Road, re: Sobey Meadows Court easement. - Noted and filedi'City Manager to reply. 5. Cheriel Moench Jensen, !13737 Quito'Road, requesting that she be allowed to express several concerns at the City Council Meeting re: bridge widening project at Quito Roa~ and Wildcat Creek. Mrs. Jensen addressed the Councll,~ndlcatlng her concern r ~' is with regard to the o osed d of the and p p eslgn bridge, the faet 'that there are qualitiesof.the area which can be preserved without jeopardizing any of the proposed safety factors. Mrsf Jensen referred specifically to the large eucalyptus tree on her property which is Droposed to be removed, and also, an 7a~t~active~d. Stu~y~a~t construC~by her neighbor which is proposed to ~'~d~% a l~g~ enbankment. She also di'scuss~d the proposed cree~ re-channeling. 'It was the coneensus of the Council to discuss this matter in detail at the Committee of the Whole Meeting on March 21, requesting thatthe staff prepare a report for Council con- sideration at ~his meeting. 6. Mr Rudolph Kanne, Preskdent~ · , Good Government Group of Saratoga, expressing opposition to proposed Senior Citizen housing project on Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. Noted and filed~ City Manager to reply. 7. Mr. and.Mrs. Jim Schmid~t, 20372 Miljevich Drive, expressing opposition to proposed senior citizen housingproject on SaratogarSunnyvale Road. - Noted and filed~ City Managerrn ~o reply. Y. Mrs.Vi61et Enander~ Clerk/Board of Direetors~ Santa Clara Valley Water District, requesting City Council's nomination for the replacement of Cole Bridges as representative on the Water CommissiOn. Directed City Manager to add this appo~ntmentto the list of City Council Assignments~ for eonsideration at the Committee of the Whole Meeting on March 21st. B. ORAL C. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF PUBLIC GROUP REPRESENTATION Mayor Kraus acknowledged the presence of the following public group representatives: G. Carlson, Chairman, Parks and Recreation Commission Ed Gomers&ll, Parks and Recreation Commission Bob Flora, P~rks and Recreation Commission Louise Schaefer, Parks and Recreation Commission Arnold Loe, Good Government Group Eunice Stark, Good Government Group (served. coffee) IX. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Councilwoman Corr and seconded by Councilwoman Callon the meeting be adjourned to an Adjourned RegUlar Meeting on Tuesday, March 21, 1978. The motion was carried unanimously; the meeting was adjourned at 1:10 P.M. e s mitted, R?bert F. - 22