HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-18-1980 City Council Minutes '~=.~_l', L ! SARATOGA: CITY COUNCIL
TIME: Wednesday, June 18, 1980 - 7:30.P.M.
.PLACE: Saratoga City Council Chambers,.i 13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, Calif.
TYPE: Regular Meeting
I. ORGANIZATION 0RGANIZATION,~
A. ROLL CALL
Present: CoUncilmen"
Clevenger, Jensen,. Mallory,
Watson, Callon
B. MINUTES (May 2, May 21, 198( Councilwoman Jensen requested modi-
~ f~ing the action relative to main-
tenance of landscaping on Blackwell
Homes property, page 14'of 5/21/80
minutes, to reflect that she did
not favor approval of this action.
Page 30, Re: Site 'A~quisition and
Improvements for-Affordable Housing
Corner of CoX Ave. andSaratoga-
Sunnyvale Road. Councilwoman Jensen
re_qpes ted a.dd_ing ~h~at ~'-filling -~
.which ~Ad~'tak~ place..oh~.this~ 'site~
.~n~ade it unsuf~b%e for~ co~sid~'~'at=i~n.
M/S: Jensen/Mallory the minutes of
May 2 and May 21, 1980, be approved
as amended.' Carried unanimously.
II. COMMUNICATIONS COM}fONICATIONS
ORAL
1. Mr. Crowther, 20788 Mayor Callon advised this item
Norada Court, Re: his lette~ would be covered later in the Agenda
dated 5/28/80. Mr. Crowther under PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT.
stated it is his understa~din
the Youngblood case referred
to a section of the Govern-
ment Code which says that
the City Council cannot deny
a final map approval that is
consistent with ~-'the tentati. v
map, on the basis of Sect'~on
664~4. The Council' under
Measure "A" would not be
denying final map approval
on conditions of inconsiS!-
tency of the General Plan
environmental criteria;
rather it would be Henying~
the final map on the basis
of Measure "A" criteria.
Theref~ore, it would appear
the Youngblood case does not
apply at all.
AGENDA ACTION
B. WRITTEN
1. Thomas and Linda' Parker, Noted a~d
14136 Okanogan Drive, expressin
.dissatisfaction with using
Redwood Junior H{gh School si6e
for a post office.
2. Russell L. Crowther, 20788 Continued for discussion later in~-.
develop clear ~"
for hardship requests'which wilZ
not jeopardize the !~gality of.
Measure "A".
3. James S. Morley,'Presiden~, Noted and filed; no action taken.
Tri County Apartment'~ssociation
Inc.~ Suite 210,480 N. First.
Street, San Jose, requesting
the City of Saratoga work with
· them to encourage re~entry of
investment capital in Californi
: for construction of. new rental
housing.
4. Mrs. Clotiide Perocsso, lj9~ Referred to'staff for a report back
Sacramento Street, San F~anc'i~cl to Council.
demanding the r~ght to continue
subdivision work on her propert]
'- on Pierce Road.
5. San Jose Water Works, 374~ Noted and filed; no action taken.
West Santa Clara Street~ San
Jose, seeking reConsideration
of ~ Regina, Inc.'s
unanimous decision not to
grant--an additional easement to
San Jose Water WOrks.
--OPPOSING ANNEXATION OF SUNLA~
PARK--
l'. The Good Government Group~ Noted; considered with p~blic hearing.
P. O. Box 371, Saratoga.
~FAVORING ANNEXATION OF SUNLANi Noted; considered With public h'earing.
"'PARK--
1. Quito Market, 18782 Cox Ave
2. Saratoga Parent Nursery
School, 20490 Williams Ave.
3. Roy W. Cook Realtors, 14440
Big Basin Way.
4. Saratoga Federated Church,
20390 Park Place.
5. Plant World, 18840 Cox Ave.
6. Prince of Pe'a~e' Lutheran
Church, 12770 Saratoga Ave.
2
AGENDA. ACTION
B. WRITTEN (Cont'd.)
--FAVORING ANNEXATION, SUNLAND
PARK--
7. Post cards from 111 resident
--OPPOSING ASSESSMENT UNDER Noted; considered with public
RESOLUTION 950-C, LANDSCAPING hearing.
AND LIGHTING ACT
1. Randall L. Courts, 18802
Dundee Ave.
2. Herman' S. Aapiro, 20270 '
Saratoga-Los Gatos Road
3. Mr. and Mrs. Archie D.
McCehee, 13173 Heath Street.
4. Michael E. Archer, 20790
Fourth Street, Apt. 8.
5. Pat BUcaria', 14419 Big Basin
Way.
6. Gatehouse Condominium Home-
owners Association, 20810
Fourth Street, Unit 1
7~ Rita Ann Choate Ciletti,
12468 Saratoga Ave. ~
8~ Earl H. Jones, 12480 Sarat0g
Ave.
9. Frank T. Rose, P.O. Box 633
t0. A.H. Dutton, 20200 LaPatoma
Ave.
11, :~le~g~rCarron, 20471 Walnu~
Ave.
MISCELLANEOUS
1. Perry and Marcia West, 21781 Hardship hearing set for July 2nd~
Via Regina, requesting permissio~
to construct a new home on
property as provided under the.
"extreme hardship" clause in
Section 8 of the new resolution
for the Northwest hillsides.
2. Noorudin and Christa BillawaI~ Noted; considered with public hearing.
6348 Highway 17, Scotts Valley,
expressing desire for the Council.
to grant a use permit on UP-455
(Dr. Call).
3 '
AGENDA ACTION
III. SUBDIVISIONS, BUILDING SITE~, SUBDIVISIONS, BUILDING SITES,
ZONING REQUESTS ZONING REQUESTS
IV. PETITIONS, ORDINANCES~ RESOLUTION PETITIONS~ ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS
A'. RESOLUTION NO. 958, A RE SOLU~I~ M/S: Clevenger/Jensen to adopt
OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CIT~ Resolutions 958, 959 and 960.
OF SARATOGA COMMENDING Carried unanimously.
HENRY J. KRAUS, JR.
B. RESOLUTION N0.959,.A RESOLUTI~
OF THE'CITY COUNCIL OF THE CI~
OF SARATOGA COMMENDING
MARGARET L. CORR
C. RESOLUTION N0. 960, A RESOLUTIOr
OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CIT~
OF SARATOGA COM}~NDING
NORMAN E. MATTEONI
D. RESOLUTION NO. 956,2, A The City Manager explained this
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL resolution has been prepared at
OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA the request of the Council to
ESTABLISHING CRITERIA'FOR deal specifically with Section 8
EVALUATING APPLICATIONS~ FOR ! of Measure "A".
CONTINUATION OF WORK ON BUILD-
ING PERMITS UNDER SECTION 8 OF Councilman. Mallory expressed his
MEASURE A. reluctance to act on this resolution
until a new City Attorney h'as been
appointed who can provide input.
Mr. Johnston, City Attorney, advised,
this resolution only re-states
Measure "A" and is not criteria.
THerefore, his opinion would be
that it isnot necessary to adopt
this resolution.
It was the concensus of the Council,
therefore, to not act on this
resolution.
V~ PUBLIC HEARINGS PUBLIC HEARINGS'
A.'CONSIDERATION OF FINAL MAP The City Manager indicated that the
APPROVAL, TRACT 6766, WOODGATE staff report, dated 6/12/80, a~s'~esT"
HOMES, INC., PROSPECT ROAD - questions of the Council in .its
5 LOTS (Cont'd. 6f4/80) previous discussion of this matter
relative to 'the.procedure for
issuance of tree removal permits,
grading and demolition permits prior
.. to final map approval; sol!~r~_~._'
orientation when reviewing .subdivision
maps, and with regard to under-'.
grounding on Prospect Road.
COuncilman Watson indicated he and
Councilwoman Jensen visited this
site and held meetings with the
4
AGENDA ACTION
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont'd.)
A. CONSIDERATION OF FINAL MAP (.Councilman. Watson - cont'd.)'
APPROVAL, TRACT 6766, WOODGATE
HOMES, INC., PROSPECT ROAD - representative homeo~mers adjacent
5 LOTS (Cont'd. 6/4/80) to the subdivision. It is his
understanding that-:the adjacent
property owners and the builder have
amiably agreed on there-planting
of trees Within the development; and
that a two-story house has been re-
designed to a single-story house.
Therefore, he is going to suggest
that the City move ahead on this
project subject t6 final Design
Review on the house modification
and addition of street contingencies
to the plan.
Mr'. Shook, Director of Public Works,
presented his report elaborating
relative tothe establishment of
street standards for this area.
He further commented relative to
the establishment of underground
utility districts and criteria
for exceptions.
Councilwoman Jensen inquired if the
City has the authority to condition
a final map to underground 60,000
volt lines, and if not, where does
this authority lie.
The City Attorney replied the City
does not have this authority. The
conditions of map approval are
imposed at the tentative map stage,
and there is a time for appeal by
either the residents of the city or
the subdivider. There having been
no appeal on this particular matter,
the Council is precluded from
modifying the conditions, unless the
subdivider consents to this.
Mayor Callon inquired about the
possibility ofasking for a
Deferred Improvement Agreement from
the developer for the road improve-
merits.
Mr. Shook, Director of Public Works,
explained.that 2vr~rees ~ithin ~he
Prospect Road improvements'have
been diminished in quality. The
Oak tree is in fairly good condition,
but it is located i~ Such a spot
to!create a problem.for i~prove-
ments to the cul-de-Sa~:and the
intersection 0f Jamestown Drive.
AGENDA ACTION
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS (C6nt'd.) The Mayor declared the public
· hearing opened at 8:20 P.M.
A. CONSIDERATION OF FINAL MAP
APPROVAL, TRACT 6766, WOODGA~E Bruce Lennox, representing Woodgate
HOMES, INC., PROSPECT ROAD -I Homes, 2470 'S. Winchester Blvd.,
5 LOTS (Cont'd. 6/4/80) ~ addressed the Council. He indicated
· plans have been re-submitted for
(Mr. Shook -cont·'.d.) the onesstory building and he.would
' ask that the submittal and the new
-, It wou~d create a difficult maneuve~ review for ·thOse plans not hold up
to make the left turn from the new the recording of this map, with
cul-de-sac to go westerly.on Prospect the understanding that no building
Road. The potential was looked-~at permits.would be issued until that
of dividing the traffic around the review is done. It is also re-
Oak tree and sacrificing the Pine ' quested the City r~cord the map as
trees, and this creates a severe it is, and they would be~willing to
maneuver along Prospect and then gel- sign an agreement stating that if
ting back into the travelled lanes. ~ some v~riations to .that map are
, It·would be the opinion of the staff needed during the course of con-
that if we are to build 4 lanes of structign, these will be done for
tra'ffic, the retention o{ those trees these street improvementsZ
~ould be impractical 'because of theis
location. Z'· Bob Feldman, 12050 Via Roncole,
stated he is very pleased that
Councilwoman Jensen indicated she they have been heard. No trees
does not see the need to widen this ·have been removed since the agree-
road to 4 lanes. If there is a wider ment from the last meeting. He
lan~ given and the power lines are would ask that the Council approve
moved, this would be safe enough. the final map on a priority basis
Further, she would like to see a so Woodgate Homes can begin con-
bicycle lane on the other side of struction of the development.
the trees and to work with the City However, they would like the con-
of Cupertino in this regard. cept of limited roadway improvements
at present, leaving the trees and
Councilman Watson suggested that the creating a bicycle lane.
City Council approve this permit, 1) Traffic has been in and out of
conditional upon Design Review the property described for approxi-
Approval and inclusion of any future~ mately 50 years, and there hasn't
fair-share costs to the builder when~ been a problem in the traffic pattern
a decision is made on this street. as a result of that traffics...
2) The roadway could not be extended
The City MaBager explained that if i~ to Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road at this
is the Council's intention to allow time anyway because there are other
~the developer torecord so he can property in the way which limit the
start the development, the motion roadway to stopping right past the
would have to be framed in such a. way propertyline,·and significant
that you are g~anting Final Map changes to the traffic patterns
Appro~al~ subject to the conditions might occur when the road is fully
of Design Review on that one lot. widened and the impact should be
Secondly, in terms of frontage, that studied. The problems described
he enter into a Deferred Improvement.~· by Mr. Shook might be exaggerated
Agreement with the City.. and even worsened by the fact that
the roadway is widened~ Even with
Mr. Shook recommended that if the a 4-lane roadway, people would have
Deferred Improvement Agreement is a the same kinds of problems getting
~ehicl~ to allow time for more design out of~the property making lef~
or more interest to be taken in this and right turns, and they 'do not
configuration, this be determined ~ see that there necessarily any
while the subdivider is still develop- benefit to doing it.
ing t~is property.
6
AGENDA ACTION
V.' PUBLIC'HEARINGS (Cont'd.)
A. CONSIDERATION OF FINAL MAP
APPROVAL, TRACT 6766, WOODGATE
HOMES, INC., PROSPECT ROAD -.
5 LOTS (Cont'd. 6/4/80)
(Mr. Feldman - cont'd.)
They believe this requires time to
study, and would therefore ask for
a deferral before a final decision
made on the roadway improvements.
While they would prefer to not see the
roadway widened at atl,-they suggested
a deferred improvement plan and an
option whereby the builder puts in a~
trust fund the money that he has
already allocated for the roadway
improvement, until such time as the
final improvements are agreed to, and
that money be used to pay for the
improvement at that time, thereby
costing the City of Saratoga less
money in the future.
M/S: WatSon/Mallory to 'close the
public hearing. Carried unanimouslyL
The public hearing was closedat
8:25P.M.
It was moved by Councilwoman Jensen
to approve the finab~map, conditional
upon the developer entering into a
Deferred. Improvem~entrAgr~ment with
the City whereby n~'~ifdi~g p~r~it
would be issued by the~iY~ f6~ other
than a single-Story house appr6ved
under'Design Review, in~l'uding the
condition that power be undergrOunded.
There being no second to the motion,
the motion died.
M/S: Watso~/Clevenger to approve the
final map, conditional upon final
~esign review approval and conditional
.upon the developer entering into a
Deferred Improvemen~ Agreement with
the City whereby no building permit
would be issued by the City for other
than a single-story house approved
under Design Revi'ew, and whereby the
developer would agree to right-of-way
~mprovement standards as set forth-by
the City. The motion was Carried
umanimously. Y
AGENDA ACTION
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont'd.)
B. CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST FOR The City Manager brought tO the
TWO AREAS KNOWN AS SUNLAND Council's attention 6 items of.
PARK AND THE PASEO OLIVOSAP~EAS correspondence in'isUpport of the
FOR ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF annexation. In addition, there were
SARATOGA . received an additional 61 postcards
indicating support (received after
1. Sunl~nd Park the deadline for this meeting).
'~ He referenced the Associate
'~" .... ' .... ~'~ 1 n r's report, dated 5/1/80,
~ P a ne
outlining criterian as designated
by LAFCO which would justify this
annexation~
The Mayor opened the public'hearing
at 8:45 P.M~.
Gary Coates, addressed the City
Council on behalf of the Sunland
Park annexation. He indicated
there a couple that have taken pighe
over the last couple of weeks.
The' Association has retained the
services of Mr. Coates to assist
them not only in this presentation,
but also to handle the items as
mentioned in the staff report.
Mr.' Coates stated it is the feeling
of the Association all 5of the
points outlined to justify the
boundary change to LAFCO dan .be
answered:
t) There is creation of no-ha~d-
to service districts or areas
within the city. The area will
not require any new districts.
The districts that now provide
the services are the same districts
which provide services to the
City of Saratoga.
2) Logical Boundaries for the
annexation. This refers to
attempting to establish an
annexation area baSed upon man-
made. or physical features which
give some kind of definit6
segregation to this area. The
site is.surrounded by 3 roads,
~nich are the man-made features
referred to in the guidelines.
3) To not.perpetuate special single
purpose districts. It is
important to note that when we
refer to a single-purpose
service district, the intent is
to state that we do not have
a duplication of services.
8
AGENDA ACTION
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont'd.)
B. CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST 'FOR these points. He can go into an
TWO AREAS KNOWN AS SUNLAND extensive amount of detail on how
PARK AND THE PASEO OLIVOS AREAi the figures heqhas come up with
FOR ANNEXATION TO THE CiTY OF relate.
SARATOGA The homeowners themselves, in
1. Sunland Park realizing the physical responsibility
to the City -- not desiring .to have
, ~- the liability placed upon tile City --
.... ~----- ~" - ~ has formed a group which has
(Gary Coates'- cont'd.) collected· These funds approach
$20,000. The homeowners are
-In this case, the districts are serious and they do not want the
the same -- they are consistent. citizens of Saratoga to stamp
So there will be no creation of "positive" their annexation. There
any single-purpose special dist- is one condition, however, they
ricts. Also, the City of Saratoga would like to bring up to the Council.
is a contract, service-type city. Perdue and McCoy and local serving
So this actual section'wouldnof streets within their subdivision.
apply to provision of services. Their question deals with Quito
~ Road, and it is not a question of
4) This section addresses the whether it .will be impr. oved or who
physical conditions The staff will pay ' to i improye. ' T~eir question
· is whether indeed it should be
has done an excellent job in pre-
paring the fiscal analysis for the improved now. The residents are
' concerned that if we do improve
project. They have also done one Quito Road today, this could
and found that the numbers are
extremely close all the way facilitate more traffic, higher
through. There is/~:just one item' speed, and this is of concern to
that they did find discrepancy in. residents in Sunland Park. The
This deals with police service. Association has Overwhelmingly
re-stated their affirmation and
They found that the figure the ! their involvement in' the necessary
City was using of approximately
$15,000 was considerably higher . steps to gain improvement of Quito
than what the Sheriff's Departmen,~ Road if necessary, via an assess-
had related what their costs woull ment district .or'!De'ferred Improvement
be, based on activity' within that Agreement.
area over the rec~ent history. There is a real concern with the
They felt the servicing costs
would be approximately half of residents in this area that there
this or. lower. ~2en you add this has been a lot of. time and involve-
into the cost and the revenue ment in the' community and association
with the community. They feel
section, you come up with a
benefit of not $4,893 to the City very strongly as a part of the City
of Saratoga, but $12,393. In of Saratoga. There is also a con-
either .case, this annexation will cern that Quito Road is a very
not only pay for itself, but give intregal part of Saratoga in many
actual revenues to the Ci6y of ways. What occurs on Quito
Saratoga. ' directly affects the City of
" Saratoga, even if it is another
5) Community identity. Within 24' jurisdiction. This type of annexation
years of the formation and would assist the City in having
more of say as. to what will occur
building of this tract, between. 'in that area directly adjacent to
33% and 35% of the original owner~
are still there. this parcel. There are some
.. : undeveloped lands which still
Mr. Coates stated he believes it is potentially could develop, and this
easy for ~tiim to relate to this Council is a means by which the Council will
have more of an authoritative
and to' appear before LAFCO and justif position,
9
AGENDA ACTION
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont'd.)
B. CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST FOR (Mr. Nellis - cont'd.
TWO AREAS KNOWN AS SUNLAND
PARK AND THE PASEO OLIVOSAREA~ Therefore, he believes LAFCO
FOR ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF understands their concerns, and
SARATOGA this was the reason they allowed
the 60 days for the City of
1. Sun~nd Park Saratoga to take a positive action,
if they so desired.
-~-- ........... Mr. Nellis indicated he has spoken
(Gary Coates Cont'd.) to Mr. Cole Bridges who has asked
that he make a statement on his
To summarize he pointed out that the' behalf. He sais .that he wished he
' · could belhere, and to say that he
have attempted to stress that they.
can meet the LAFCO guidelines.' Also, feels Sunland Park should be a part
they are willing to stand the finan- .of Saratoga and fully supports them
cial responsibility and not hold the to this end.
City Council, nor the residents--of.
Saratoga, responsible with respect Dave Moyles, President, E1 Quit.o
to anything they desire.. Park Homeowners Association, read
into the record a letter from their
Greg Nellis', 18366 Clemson Ave., board, as follows:
commented that he ~oUld like to "E1Quito Park HomeownersAssociation
address the issue of community Board of Directorshas takenunder con-
identify they have had with Saratoga.
for the last 24 years. Their homes sideration a petition for annexation to
were buil~ over a 2-year period -- Saratoga by residents of the umj_ncorporated
tract known as Sunland Park. We endorse
from 1956 through 1958. At the time this petition and.urge' the Council to do
these homes were built, there was no likewise. .I~ found the following factors
development near by. Over the years., pursuasiv~: 1) The Historical Association
the area has built up and now they and co~,,~onity ties the neighborhood has
find that San Jose is very near. At'
the time they were built, with- with social~ c~rcia!', religious and
Saratoga being the closest ~ity, = civic establishments in Saratoga.
they received postal service from the 2) ~e fact that Sunland Park receives
City of Saratoga; they shared the police, fire, sanitation, library and
same services as the City, of Saratoga parks and recreation sexyices from the
- ' same agencies as does Saratoga. Denial
and the residents.have been very
pleased with the servi'ces. They of their peti. tion wouldcause un-
know for a fact 'if their area were desirable disruption of these services.
annexed into San Jose, there is no 3) The remarkable unanimity of support
for the petition within Sunland'Park.
question they would see a decline in 4) The conmitment of Sunland residents
the services they value most -- namel to absorb the cost incident to,the
police and fire. armexation process itself, as well as
Since their inception 24 years ago, iraprov~nents on Purdue and McCoy.
it was natural that the people who Inasmuch as tb~e Board opposes ~e expan-
lived 'there participated in the sion of this portion!of Quito R~ad from
' 2 to 4 lsnes, we do not feel the
activities of the City 6f Saratoga. . $275,000:estimated cost for this impro~e-
h
Over the years, t e people have still
n~nt should be considered inconr~ction
retained this identity.. When they with theSunland'~petition, just as the
came into the area they were wel-
' proposed WeSt Valley Freeway would only
comed by the Saratoga Welcome Wagon. stimulate, rather than relieve,
With regard to the LAFCO hearing, congestion, and expanding Quito Road
- would only make it a conduit for greater
Mr. Nellis pointed out there were traffic."
only 2 islands which received any
kind of deferrment. He understands
All these residents are asking the
this.is very Unusual for LAFCO to
City Council to do is to ratify the
status quo~'.that presently exists.
10
AGENDA ACTION
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont'd.) (Dianne Almojuela - cont~d.)
B. CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST FOR supported the fund raising efforts
TWO AREAS KNOWN AS SUNLAND each spring by their attendance
PARK AND THE PASEO OLIVOSAREA~ and purchase of tickets and art
FOR ANNEXATION TO THjE CIT~OF work at the ann~al wine tasting and
SARATOGA - art show. This support does not
~ go unappreciated. On behalf of
1. Sunland Park their president and other members.
---~ ......... ~._ of their board, ~he would urge the
! ~ Council approve'this annexation.
(Dave Moyle~ - cont'd.) Oscar Thurnher, 19931 Bella Vista
Avenue, indicated that approximately
He commented that he knows there are a decade ago, he stood before the
some who will oppose this petition City Councilwith a similar re-
because it does not meet the 5 LAFCO quest for an area cal!ed"'Westbrook".
criteria. He would urge the Council He indicated he first had some
to remember that ehese rules are merely questions regarding this annexation,
means to an end -- the end being avoid- but as he looked into all aspects,
ing the checkerboard and leapfrog he concluded that this annexation
pattern of annexation that was the would not create a problem from a
· policy throughout the County in the last financial point of view or a ser-
decade. He would imagine this will be vice point of view. He would
the last petition for annexation to urge that the City extend a strong
come before this City~.lCouncil. To hand of welcome and bring them
institute a conservative interpretation into the 'City of Saratoga.
of these rules he feels would work a
harsh result on this neighborhood and George Anderson, 18395 Clemson
turn them over to a politi&al entity . Avenue, commented that in choosing
that is foreign to them'. He urged that his home, he had the ability ~o
the Council keep.in mind the human needs check Qut the County and the
and concerns that 'lie behind these rules criminal activity and th'~ place
He urg&d that the Council give favor-' to raise his children, and this
able consideratiqn to the petition. is the community he chose. He
~ associat&s this with Saratoga.
Ernie Konnue, 19437 Dehavilland Court,'
commented that he took the trouble to Richard Mobilio, 20979 Saraview
go over to the Sunland Park area and Court, indicated he and his
looked at the condition of the neighbor- family have been Saratoga residents
h'ood. He was very impressed and thought for 12 years. ~hrough expressions
it was ~s least as nice as a number of of concern voiced by some of the
areas in Saratoga. He found that the residents who were friends of his,
trees were mature and looked good, and he had an opportunity to look at
the streets were in very good condition. the issue and concluded that .the
Finally, he found the people to be.very annexation of Sunland Park would be
pleasant, and he would liketo welcome very much ~n the best interest of
them. to Saratoga. the SaratOga community.' He feels
a Vote for' the anne~ati0n is a vote
Dianne Almojuela~ 13871 Raven Court~~ for preservation of Saratoga's
· hillside aesthetics~ He feels
~ddreSSed the Council~ ~S'a resident ~
of Sa~at.oga ~nd as Vi,ce p~es-ident of' there is little non=cOntroversial
the Saratoga Parent NurSeryl School, she land left to develop in order to
u~ged approval of anneXat±6n of th~ e~tend a tax B'~se to support ever-
Sunland Park t~act to Saratogas' She.. ~ncreasing costs of municipal
services, and this opportunity to
~tated she personally ha~ known !!!2:.c! bring ab6ard a subdivision of~200
famili.es in the ~rea who h~Ve been ·
memberS'of the, Schoql, ~ndfamil±es in ~ouseh01ds Seemsso Compatible with
this tract have' contributed their time the rest of the community, and is
and energy in previous years~ Many of an opportunity to forestall what
the residents of Sunland Park have might otherwise Become a good deal
11
AGENDA ACTION
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS (.Cont~d) Mr. Thompson discussed the.issue of
lot sizes, indicating that their
B. CONSIDERATION OF P~QUEST FOR lot sizes run from 8,500 to 13,000.
TWO AREAS KNOWN AS SUNLAND' Approximately one year before the
PAP% AND THE PASE0 0LIVOS AREAS City of Saratoga'~s incorporation,
FOR ANNEXATION TO THE CITY~0F these homes were started. This is
SARATOGA why there exists in this area lot
"' sizes under 10,000 square feet.
1. Sunl~d Park This area was in the same situation
f~__~__~ as Saratoga at the time of incorpor-
· ' ' 'k ation in that it was trying to get
away from San Jose. He~requested
(.Richard Mobiiio - cont'd. that this area be allowed to con-
tinue to be a part of Saratoga.
of pressure development of the hills.
If one were to assume that 50 or 75 Councilman Mallory requested Mr,
households in the hills' contributed as' .Nellis return to answerssome
much revenue.to the city as 200 house-.' questions.
holds in Sunland Park,,a vote for this
annexation is a vote to preserve75 acre: He asked Mr. Nellis if there is any
of, Saratoga land that migh.f otherwfse go need for any lighting or landscaping
the way of so much of the land in'this ~rovisions~
area.
Mr.'Nellis replied that each home-
Russell Crowther, 20788 NoradaCourt, owner takes care of his own residence.
indicated he purchased a new home in. ! .~,:-~ :
the~+~Sunland Park area in 1957 and l±ved Councilman Mallory commmte~ he
there for over 10 years before moving t.o had noticed a few old trailers,
his present address. He would like to- old cars and campers in the area.
second those comments that many of the' He asked Mr. Nellis how convinced
people in the area have always felt lik:e he is that the code enforcement will
they were a part of Saratoga. The area, be easy.
is listed in the Saratoga NeighborhOod.
telephone book; the Registrar of Voters. Mr. Nellis replied that he is
lists them aS being a Saratoga precinct, totally convinced, and the reason
etc. One thing h~ was n~t able robring is that ~ecause ~8% of these people
with. him wh.e~he moved to th~ A~guello . signed a'pe~!tion. The fact that
area was such a strong and well 6rganize~ these people are~willing to commit
organization. I would urge'the Council substantial monies to improve roads
keep these residents in the community of tells him in no Uncertain terms
Saratoga~ they canhandle'any violations there
might be in this regard.
Jim Thompson, 18253 Vanderbilt Dr!ve~
indicated he'would liketo review what' Mayor Callon inquired how well in-
has been said~ The message the~ are formed Mr. Nellis'believes this
trying to get across isjthat they are group is on the'ordinances of
in the proceSS of beingi annexed to the. Saratoga as. they.might ~elate to
City of San Jos. e; they have never home ownership~
-identified with San Jose~ Most of the
residents don't want to he identified wit Mr. Nellis commented they are not
San Jose. They bought their homes :. experts in every area of the City
thinking it was Saratoga, and there are Code. However~he does not believe
homeownerS with deedS'that Say "City of there is anyone in this room tonight
S~ratoga". They are 'not looking-for a On this issue w~o has not read the~
"free Side", and they feel to officially. staff~s report and the code violations:
be a part of Saratoga, this has to be He believes the people are well
dOne.and they are w~.ll~ng t9 meet the informed~ They would be happy to
conditions. meet wilth'the city staff and hold a
general homeowners association meeting
Mr, ThOmpSon proceeded to sh6w slidesTof to tell the people where they need to
this area and tbe homes~' conform to the'City Code.
12
AGENDA ' ACTION
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont'd.) (Councilwoman Jensen - cont'd.)
B. CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST FOR "~ there are several places where old
TWO AREAS KNOWNAS SUNLAND PAP~ Walnut trees are still sitting oR
AND THE PASEO OLIVOS AREAS FOR ~{e side road; through the freeway
ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF~ right-of-way, we have had a terrible
SARATOGA time with code enforcement. There
.is 'a strip of land that serves as a
1. Sunland Park drainage. basin; there is a bicycle
, ~ path, but no one can use it because
~. ' ........... ~' it is covered with broken glass.
~ .............. Furthermore, there have been numerous
M/S: Jensen/Watson to close the public accidents due to absence of.left-
hearing. Carried unanimously. The .~ ha~d turning lanes, and San Jose
public hearing was closed at 9:30 P.M. Public Works Department has not
approached the City of Saratoga
Councilwoman Clevenger asked Mrs. Rudin regarding any improvements. There-
of the Planning Staff if the Sunl~nd Par fore, this annexation would give
area is in the San?Jose sphere of in- Saratoga control over Quito Road
fluence at the present time, and if so, and its widening.and landscaping,
how long has it been in the San jose etc.
sphere of influence.
Mr. Shook, Director of PUblic Works,
Mrs. Rudin replied that it is in the pointed out that Saratoga would
San Jose sphere of influence and has not control the portion of the
been since the time urban service areas roadway to which Mrs. Jensen indi-
were delineated for all the cities in the cates concern.
COunty, around 1971. To her knowledge
it has always been within San Jose's CoUncilwoman Clevenger commented
sphere of influence. she does not see how, in any~way,
Criteria No. 2 in the report can
Mayor Callon in'quired{ffT~t~{~s the be justified. However~ she does not
staff's recommendation to widen Quito believe annexation should be
Road. justified simply because the City
wants to control Quito Road or
The City Manager explained that the impose Saratoga standards.
staff's position on this issue is that ~
the~f~ta~.im~ov~e~:~=~e~n~t'~d~7. c~ The City Manager agreed this'is a
i~Q~to Ro~'at"t~l~e"~~m~' problem; however, he believes the
R~'~h~' C~[~ requires. Therefore, it is decision should be based on its
the City's recommendation that given merits. The homeowners have indi-
improvement of Quito Roadin accord with cated their willingness to get
the standards, that improvement be made around this problem. He recommended
at the time annexation occurred. the decision be made on the issue
ofwhether or not the sphere of
Mayor Callon inquired if this couldbe ~' influenCe"boundarieS should be
done through a Deferred Improvmeent changed, and then the implementation
Agreementt .. would be looked at.
Mr. Beyer, City Manager, replied there Councilman Watson indicated he
would have to be more research in terms~. must take a very unpopular stand
of the deferred improvement aspect. and suggest, as pursuasive as the
arguments have been and as marvelous
Mr. Coates commented he has had experienc as the efforts have been, he believes
with ways in which they can use an this does not fit the requirements
association to bond for an improvemeDt in which the City has to.~judge.
district'; and would be happy to work wit~
staff on this. Mayor Callon ~ndicated she believes
the residents have made a very good
Councilwoman Jensen commented that she . Case for meeting the 5 LAFCO' guide-
believes Quito Road has Been considered lines, and she would support the
the '!poor stepchild" of the City. The I request for ahnexation by the
road has just been widened at the bridge; Sunland Park tract.
AGENDA ACTION
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont'd.) ~ Rec'e'Ss~'an'd'reconVene
B. CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST FOR 2. RE,JEST FOR ANNEXATION TO THE
~0 AREAS KNOWN AS SUNLAND PARK CITY OF SARATOGA -PASEO OLIVOS
AND THE PASEO OLIVOS AREAS FOR
ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF Th~fMayor declared the. pUblic
SARATOGA hearing open at 10:15 P.M.
1. sunl~nd Park · Arlene Campbell, resident of
· . Paseo Olives, addressed the Council.
~ ............ ~ She commented that they do not
...... ~= ...... ~ 'ques'ti~on th.e WiSdom of belonging
Councilman Mallory.commented that in to a city, but would like it to be a
terms'of LAFCO criteria,-'this'tract city they can identify With. The
reasonably meets these standards. If interpretation of the MORGA statute
th~ residents of this area would agree. removes choice, which is something
to meet Saratoga ordinances and enforce they do not feel the State
'dodes through the homeowners association Legislature. intended to do~ Under
· and meet all the costs of street and sub-section 6~ , . "will benefit
sewer improvements, including the ~ from such anneXation or iS re?
'deferred improvement agreement on Quite ceiving Benefits from.the annexing
Road, if necessary; agree to PaY for city"q . . it is their contention
all Saratoga Planning Department costs that trey are not now benefi'ting
.to annex; and agree to. maintain a Strong from the City of San'Jose,'and
homeowners association . .he would will not Benefit from annexation~
.move to indicate to LAFCO Saratoga's They use the same services as
support to annex this'area ~o Saratogat Saratoga residents. The~ share
poli, ce, fire, library.and garbage
'Councilwoman Jensen requested Mr. services~. After years of service,
Mallory amend his motion to fn~lude.the the various agencies and emergency
requirement to add landscaping along ~ services have learned to identify
Quite Road, and that there be.a provisio~ this cul-de-7sac as PaseoOlivos
to widen the north-bound lane to get a Saratoga, as compared tO Paseo
left-hand turn onto'Cox AvenUe going Olives San ~Iose. They are activity
northward on Quite. : engaged in Saratoga affairs. This'
· ~s an area of only 16 homes.
~allory...s~gg~¥~v~he'~'~u~dil_~ Petitions have been given to LAFCO
~irs~iindicate.its.i~tent. to annex,~ i signed ~y 95% of eith'er the home-
<~.then meet with 'M~i'Ne~ii'~"tB~slee~'ff owners and/or the registered voters.
~cca~'~'~n~'t~e group in agreeing! As far as the street, this street
on some details. is not a through street and requires
little. m~intenance~ The residents
~?.~.e_'.~/f~?Ma~e~r.~_'~P~i~Y~'gu~ tha~'thj ~7 are agreeable tO paying planning
first step i~ to pr~p~'~Ck~ costs for the 'annexation~ But she
with respect to the boundary change. cannot say'they would cbmmit to
Once that is done, then follows the widening QUite Road.
annexation process. He would recommend
,there be af6rmal agreement that the Jacie Ba~0Van, 18498 p~seo Olivos~
homeowners association continue to use indicated thalt.he~e is the.old E1
their planner and with their money, and' Quite Ranchol This hBme is at
the City would coordinate the detailsL'of. least 60 year~ did. She has lived
the. anneXation. there since 1~44j and they have
a~'sociated it wfth Sa~atq~a? and
Mr. Mallory indicated,he would amend would like/to s&e 'it remazn-this
his motion to indicate theCity'S intent way~ Her father subdivided into
to annex this tract and i,S agreeable'to these 16 h0me~ which were custom
the boundary change, Subject to the con~. built~ MoSt.of 'them have been kept
ditions as outlined by th~ Ci,ty M~nager, up pretty well -~ some could be
Councilwoman Jensen se.conded the motion~ d0he a little better Her father
-and it was carried/3 to 2, Counctl~ subdivided and made it Paseo Olives
members Watson and Cleveng~f"in oppositicn~to continue'from Paseo Olives on
the'other sideof Quito'Road,
r~ ~,. ..
AGENDA ACTION
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont'd.) Councilwoman Clevenger indicated she
would re.rain her original position
B. CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST FOR relative to this annexation.
TWO AREAS KNOWN AS SUNLAND : -'
PARK AND THE PASEO OLIVOS AREAS Councilman Mallory indicated he
FOR ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF is not inclined to support this
SARATOGA . annexation, as he does not feel
the arguments are as pursuasive
2. Paseo Olivos as the previous case.
Eddy Feil, 18439 Paseo Olivos 950~0, M/S: Callon/Jensen to support the
indicated he ~nd his wife have been annexation of Paseo Olivos, given
residents of Saratoga since 1960, when the same conditions as were estab-
they lived on Sobey Road.. He can agre~ lished under the annexation intention
with Mrs. Jensen that Quito Road is a for Sunland Park, and based on the
questionable thing. He has recently Understanding that ~the homeowners
retired from a~business which he sold,. . provide aplannihg liaison with
and a~Jthe ~_h'~'~e~'~h~l~'d~== Sunland Park and with the City.
to move into a~s~rle~'h'~m~'
could afford to send the children to . The motion failed, ~ to 3, Council-
college. When they sold their home on members Watson, Ctevenger and
Sobey Road,. they made sure to contact a Mallory in Opposition.
real estate firm which would help them~
to remain in Saratoga. They have con-
tributed'to spending much of their money
in Saratoga. There are excellent fire.
and sheriff services at this time.
These homes are in the $150,000 bracket
and they. belong in Saratoga.
Mr. Nellis again addressed the Council
and urged that the Council take the
same reasoning as they did with the
Sunland Park group and accept them into
Saratoga. He indicated he w6uld not
see any problem with the .consultant for
Sunland Park also doing some work for
the people on Paseo Olivos.
Mr. Coates indicated once he haS had
an opportunity to talk to Mr. Sager of
LAFCO regarding information with respedt
to both annexations, he would be in a
better position to answer this.
M/S: Mallory/Jensen to close the public
h~aring. Carried unanimously. The
public hearing was closed at 10:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Jensen commented she feels
it is important to look at improving
~f."this street design and work this out.
Approval of this annexation' would enable
Saratoga ~o do something about this
..problem.
Councilman Watson indicated he finds
there are some positive things about
this annexation, one being the fact that
the lot sizes are larger, However, he
would have to remain with his position
relative to the contiguous factor.
15
% ',-""
~.GENDA ACTION
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS (C~nt'd.)
C. CONSIDERATION OF FORMATION OF Mayor Callon indicated this hearing
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT PURSUANT involves '8 zones,' and'it.would be
TO THE LANDSCAPING AND conducted on a zone-t6-zone basis.
LIGHTING ACT OF 1972
-~T~'Ci~y M~'~piained the
~purp0se of thi~ puBli~h~ari~ .... '
~d' ~h~'~Cify" s'~ole in acting ~s
"middleman" in maintaining these
assessment districts..- ~e tax
ra~e was established annually on
the .basis of estimatedZcosts and
the City Council would annually
adopt a tax rate for each of the
special districts..With the passage
of Proposition 13, the ability to
adjust this ~ate to generate enough
money for the maintenance o~
utilities desireddwas terminated.
He pointed out that there is no
intent by the City to change or add
anything than what previously
exis~d~, but to keep operating a
mechanism by which revenues could be
~ generated to pay for utilities and
landscape maintenance for these
districts.
Mr. Shook outlined the protests
which have been received in each
respective zone to date. He.
indicated the purpose of this
meeting ~s to receive protests
relat±~e to the City'Is preliminary
approval of the Engineer~s Report,
~ ~R~of6~n 95~"~'~ ' ad~t~d 5/21/80~,
~h~'the'! es tab lli~m&~f ~- th~ 'plB l~c
~a~'i~g u~der ~R~iution ~0-C, ~
Resolution of Intention to Form
the District and Levy the Assessments~
.Th~ Mayor opened the public hearing
at 11:00 p~M~
a) Zone 1, Manor Drive - Landscaping
" Mr. Shook indicated there have been
no written protests received from
Zone 1. There was no public comment.
B) Zone 2, Fredericksburg Drive -
~andscaping -
No written prStests reh~ived; no
public comment.
c) Zone~Gr'een~ria~Landscaping
Mr. ShOok indicated there were 2
written protests received on this
zone. No pu~Iic comment.
16
AGENDA ACTION
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont'd.) (Mr. Moyles - cont'd.)
C. CONSIDERATION ~F FOR~IATION OF and engineers involved in creating this
ASSESSMENT'DISTRICT PURSUANT district would facilitate an evaluation
TO THE LANDSCAPING AND of the merits of the proposed assess-
LIGHTING ACT OF 1972 merit by members of each of the 8 zones
affected."
d) Zone 4, quito Lightinn ..~.~..
District Mr. Moyles commented that his
perception in f~,~m ~hel~comments
is that the Quilt. o area has never
David Moyles, addressed the Council gotten i'ts money out of any city
on behalf of E1 Quito Park Home~ services. Therefore, they object
owners Association. He submitted to any increase of any kind.
petitions which had been given to Mr. Moyles indicated that the Board
him this evening with approximately supports the $20.95 assessment, but
60 names, which opposes the formatio~ it would be-back during the budget
of this assessment district. process to try and rectify the con-
cerns of the homeowners.
Mr. Moyles read comments from the ·
Board of' the E1 Quito Park Home- The City Manager explained ,that
owners Association: the City is not proposing to
elimi.nate. the existing districts.
"~he E1 Quito 'Park Homeowners Association The new district is an overlay,
Board of Directors gives its~support, with and the difference necessary to pay
one qualification, to the proposed $20'.~95 that bill is what will come from
per parcel assessment for street lighting. this district. He indicated that
We feel lighting of our street is in Quito, if something isn't done,
important and have no objection to paying there will be a deficit of '$2,890
reasonable costs incurred in continuing as of July 1, 1980, which the City
this service. It is our understanding the' will have to pick up.
proposed Zone 4 is an alternative to the , ....... ~
present special assessment district, and'. Dr. Beebe, owner of proper~i.~
that the proposed $20.95 assessment for ~>Paseo Pres.~da and Paseo Lava,
-commented-relative to an earlier
Zone 4 replaces entirely, and is not in <~'oi~g~r~{~' ~'~mercial 'lighting
addition to the present assessment, for ~or ~ .... q~i[o ~'~gpping Cen~e~.
the existing special assessment district.
Based on this understanding, we endorse will bei'pi_enty;of' light~''='
the Council 's P~solution 950-C regarding 'f~'t~'iS ~H~pping center; therefore,
formation of landscaping and lighting he would favor turning the street
district iLA-i." lights off.
Mr.-..MOy~es commented that the peoDt& Mayor Callon inquired what the
he has spoken to tonight are unde~ E1 Quito homeowners PaY on their
the impressibn that they will be present assessment.
paying 2 times for the same service.
The Board's vote was' based specifi- Mr. Beebe indicated he has tax bills
cally on the unde. rstanding that this for 1979-80 and 1978-79, neither of
replaced the prior assessment. which has listed the Quito Lighting
He continued the comments of the District. The only one that lists
Board: the Quito Lighting District is .for
1977-78, which is ..25~; however,.
'We challenge the estimated administrative this was based on the inc'reas ed
expense. It is difficult to ~nderstand assessment.
how the City can claim $2,500 ,in attorney, s
fees and $4,000 in engineering fees in- Mayor Callon suggested perhaps
curred in starting the p~opo.sed district.I continuing the E~ Quito Lighting
%he administrative costs Srount to District to July ~ to'obtain
slightly mere than 20% of its budget, and answers. regarding this assessment ~
these costs ~re unreasonable. An itemized
accounting,at the June 18th hearing of the Joan Briody, representing wilson,
actual services rendered by.i the attorney Morton and As saf law firm, San
Mateo, e~plained that the law
17
AGENDA ACTION
V PUBLIC HEARINGS (_Cont"d.) Mr. Beyer, City Manager, explained
that the resolution defines under
C. CONSIDERATION OF FORMATION OF the Act the eligible activities
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT PURSUANT that can be undertaken in such an
TO THE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING assessment district. This
ACT OF 1972 resolution spells out those that
__ funds can be generated for to use,
· .' d)'Zo~e ~= Qui7[o Li=gh'ti~g" -t if it is so desired. Historically,
District' (Cont'd.) the City has worked with the
hoemowners association to determine
provides that the assessment shall exactly what those funds would go
be confirmed no later than July 1, for, and the .City just paid the
unless there is permission from the bill to_ the person they hired. All
County Auditor. this is being Set up to do is to
pay the lighting bill.
A1 Roten, 19812 Veronica, President
of the Greenbriar HomeownerS and C.W./'~Ne~le, 14165 Saratoga-
Taxpayers Association, commented Sunnyv~le Road, he ~nderstands
that these people are asking how that not only will this lighting
much they are being assessed. He district charge for the lights,
would suggest they look at their but it eventually will go under-.
tax bill, as we are all being ground and put it to the homes.
assessed 1%. Those who had a
special tax district previously are Anthony Traveres, Saratoga Avenue,
benefiting by the continuation of conmented he cannot figure why they
some funding coming out of the same have to pay $20.95, when the
tax rate that is applied to all. people across the street are not.~
Therefore, we are actually benefit- involved and the~ have the same
ing residually by having this tax, lights.
and we are getting support. If tha'
support went away, the special Mr. Shook,' Director of Public Works,
assessment would be even more. indicated that Zone 4 lighting
Therefore, they are not getting district only extends to the
"double-dipped", but they are re~ centerline of Saratoga Avenue. It
ceiving a benefit. does not include the properties on
the.opposide side. To include
Allen McLean, Jr. 18628 Paseo Tierr~ these homes would involve an
commented that until he read the annexation proceeding.
resolution, he didnot realize
there are no facilities being pro- Helen Stanley, 12655 Paseo Flores,
posedin-this district; it.. commented that the~e were not
provides funding for maintenance and residents on the other side of
existing facilities. Therefore, Saratoga Avenue when the l~ghts
this is an open-end resolution. were installed. "'
+
They are going to be charged for ~ ~-'~ ..~ _~
one thing, and later on other ~s. Brio~X~= ~A!~tbrney.~Te~pl~fned'
things will be added to it. He was that the process ~his evening is
also disturbed that the letter for formation of the district and
accompanying the resolution was un- the levy of assessment. .Every year,
signed. Further, in checking with a hearing will be held; however,
the Public Works Department, he the notice willnot be as extensive.
found that the organizations that The additional notice of mailing
were assessed.for landscaping were will only be accomplished wherein
done by the homeowners, and he the formula is changed;' property
assumes they passed the Landscaping is added~'i.e., annexation, or
and Lighting Act to take care of there is a parcel split.
paying.this. Mr. McLean indicated
he is not protesting paying for the Regarding the resolution, Ms.
lights, but he wants to know Briody explained that improvements
exactly what his payments are. in this Act mean capital improve-
ments and also maintenance in
....... · . . ~ servicing.
18
AGENDA ACTION
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Con~t'd.)~ Ms. Briody explained that we are
discussing one district boundary,
C. CONSIDERATION OF FORb~tTION OF which is segregated into zones.
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT PURSUANT. These zones may either be eliminated,
TO THE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING expanded, or reduced.
ACT OF 1972
Mrs. Wescoat inquired how many
e) Zone 5, Azule Lighting signatures would be require~ to
District turn off the lights off in one
zone.
Mr. Shook advised there was one
written protest received relative Ms. Briody indicated there would
to this district. I have to be a majority protest of
the district. In the Council,
Richard Green, 12350-Goleta Avenue, deliberations, however,. comments
commented that it appeared in what of the residents can b'e taken into
they received that they were being consideration and thereby reduce
assessed $23.52. That was a the district boundary. However,
$7.00 increase from ~77-'7.8, and z the protest does not include l~gal
he didn't think this was too bad. protest within the zones.
Now you have it up to $27.46, and
that is an $11.00 increase. Councilwoman Cleve~ger Inquired
Mr. Green stated he has a letter if the Council a~pro~ed./t~is'light+
signed by 22 homeowners protesting ing district, the 2 lights that
2 lights. One is located a~ ~ are not benefiting this area could
Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and Seagull come out and include the homes
the other is at Saratoga-Sunnyvale which should logically be included
Road and the railroad tracks. For in this area.
some reason, they are being
assessed for the light on the west The City Manager indicated he
side of Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. believes that during~the year,
He read the letter: measures can be taken to eliminate
these lights. With regard'to
'We are property owners of the Azule adding the 2 parcels, this would
Tract of the City of Saratoga. We take place as part of the hearing
object to hhe inclusion of t~e follc~ing next year. ·
street lights in the lighting district.=
]he first is located at Seagull Way and f) Zone 6, Azule Li hting District
Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road; the second is , (Annexed Sarahil~s)
at th~ railroad tracks on the west side
of Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. ~hese are Mr. Shook, .Director of Public Works,
incorporated into the lighting .diStrict' advised there were 3 written pro-
which was formed in 1959, and these two tests received. No public comment.
were incorpated in 1966."
g) Zone 7, SaratOga L~ghting District
.Mr. Green stated that the home-
owners are extremely concerned as. Chic Porter, 14791 Bu6~o~Terrace,
to what else the City is going to indicated she has 70% 6f'the
pull off of the tax base and charg~ property owners of re~ord in Tract
separately for. He stated he 2399. This represents 44 parcels.
· believes he can bring back an 80%~ There are 2 Street lights that abut
figure that says, "Shut the lights this property, butthey are of no
off'.'. benefit to these property owners.
Since June 15, 1959, all the 44
Jackie Wescoat, 12365 Goleta Ave., property owners have been required
stated she is concerned about~2 to maintain a post light or other
things. She is concerned about light with an automatic clock
whether districts will be voted on timer, within '25 feet of the
separately or at the same time. building setback line, and to keep
that light lit from dark to dawn.
19
AGENDA ACTION
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont'd.) (Willard Lynch - 6ont'd.)
~.CONSIDERATION OF FORMATION OF ~ been voted by the residents. Therefore,
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT PURSUANT this street does not form a part of
TO THE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING Lighting Zone 7.
ACT OF 1972 '2) Section 25210.77(a) of the Goverranent
Code, as amended by AB-549, reads:
g) Zone 7, Saratoga Lighting 'The cbarges may be determed in proportion
District (Cont do ) to the estimated benefits frown such
services to be received by each parcel.'
(Chic Porter - cont'd. ) There is no street lighting on Lutheria
Way; therefore, the benefits from such
The 2 street lights abut the' non-existent services are nothing.
district and do not light anythin,g With no benefits, the proportional
else but 2 houses. They are at charges allg~ed is nothing.
this corner because it is at the 3) Although 'Section 40(b) of AB-549
base of a church and another corner provides for dispensing with posting
It ±s/,, therefore, requested to have Of large districts if not financially
Tract 2399'withdrawn from Zone 7. z feasible, the fact that Lutheria Way
was posted attests the fact that it was
Williard H. Lynch, 14260 Lutheriaz end is financially feasible. The
Way, indicated that his protest is distance between all signs on Lutheria
not because he is not fully ca. pable Way has been measured, and the distance
of paying the $10.70 per year per considerably exceedg the 300-fout minimum
parcell He is here as a matter of . required by code. In addition, the
principle. He belieYes in the lettering NOTICE OF I~DROVEMENT is
democratic process that says when 13/16 of an inch high. This ~does not
you put something to the vote of th! comply with the Code and does not
people, they vote for it, and if comply with this resolution."
the City Council doesn't pass on
something because they don't have~ (Second Letter)
a ',Trepr~__~e~ ~'{o~' in writing that
say's"'tl~ m~jo~-ity of .people are "Resolution 950'C assumes authori~
against it. Assembly Bill 549 ~. pursL~lnt to the provisions of the Land-
does attest to the fact that there scaping and Lighting Act 1972, amended
is a majority vote "The by AB-549. Under the County.Services
approval of the district ~}oters Area l~w, this authorizes the County
may be secured at a d£strict county to fix and coll&ct charges.. It is
wide election or by a ballot mailed specific in authorizing the CCO~mty.
to each property owner or registerZe Board Of Supervisors only for County
voter of the district. The propo-7 districts, and does not authorize or
sition is approved if a majority of empower'an incorporated city or the City
these voters approve the proposition Council with any such powers. AB-549
It is not the demographic process .t~ does not. imply such powers. Sections 9
proceed with this type of measure. and 31 refer specifically to the powers
and obligations of "the legislative
Mr. Lynch proceed to read his body of the incorporated city". The
letter of protest: powers and obligations of the city are
therein limited to dissolution only of
"Consider tbi~ letter Notice of Protest an existing county district, and speci-
on the subject assessment on parcels fically do not include the powers of the
. . for the following reasons: city to establish districts. The use of
i) The parcels lie within Cunningham this act to e~tablished the proposed
Ac~es, a California subdivision estabz lighting district, LLA-1 within the
lished December 23, 1925. This sub~ City of Saratoga is a misuse of County
division consists of lots facing Services Law and of AB-549."
Lutheria Way, ref. Book 397, page 24 ..... .-~ ................. -= . _
County Assessor. ]here are no street ~ . .
lights on Lutheria Way or within this
subdivision, and there is no record
of lighting for this subdivision having
20
:
AGENDA ACTION
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Co~t'd~) The motion failed, 3 to 2;
~ Councilmembers Mallory, Clevenger
C.. CONSIDERATION,_~.F~FORMATION OF~ and Callon in opposition.
ASSESSmeNT DISTRICT-PURSUANTI
TO THE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING M/S: Callon/Mallory to adopt
ACT OF 1972 Resolution 950-D, based on the
understanding' that the City would
in the coming year deal with some
'g) Zone 7, Saratoga Lighting of the inequities mentioned this
District (Cont'd.) evening.
Calvin Miller, 20261 La Paloma,. Councilwoman Clevenger indicated
indicated at 2-3 streetsin their' she would like to see special
zone have no lights.at all. He attention given to Zones 4, 5 and 7,
lives dn La Paloma, and within a whereby lights that are not needed
one-block range there are 2 lightsl. could be turned out soon and the.~!
IHe thinks it is unfair that those. amount remaining prorated to the
people who have no benefits of following year.
lights should be included. 'He also
Believes it is unfair if.this has The motion was carried/4 to 1,
been just an arbitrary proration.. Councilwoman Jensen 'in opposition.
Several of the residents on this
street want to-know what it takes: M/S: Callon/Mallory tO, adopt the
to turn the lights completely off Negative Declaration.with respect
on La Paloma. to formation of the Assessment.
District. Carried, 4 to 1,
Mayor Callon indicated the Council Councilwoman Jensen in opposition.
if it didn't fund this district
would be required to deqide whether
or not to turn off the lights.
However, if the zone had protested
in a majority fashion in the last
6 weeks, this would have given the
Council an idea of how this whole
zone felt.
h) Zone 8, Village Parking
District--#1 -.Landsca'ping!
and Lighting
Mr. Shook advised there has been :
one protest, and this is from
San Jose Water Works, disputing the
formula:
M/S~: Jensen/Watson tO .close the
public hearing. Carried unanimousiy
The public hearing was clsoed at 7
12:10 A.M.
Councilman Waton c~mmented that he
believes in the provisio~ for next
year's hearing on this subject,
clear'communication and clear
assessments should, be folded in
M/S: Jensen/Watson to accept the
provisions of Zones 1, 2 and 3 be
included within a proposal for an
assessment district.
21
AGENDA ACTION
V.. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont'd.) "
D. MEASURE "A" HARDSHIP HEARINGS The City Manager advised that the
City Council at its June 4th
1. Public Hearings on-Consider- meeting adopted the resolution
ation of Requests in Accord- which outlines criterian for re-
ance w~th the Provisions of sponses under Section 7 of Measure
Section 7 fo Measure "A", "A".
Interim Restrictions as
Related to Hardship Cases The Mayor!zopened the public hearing
at 12:35 A.M.
a) Joseph Krajeska
(SDR-1329) 2ndthearing George Tobin~, attorney representing
Mr. Krajeska, addressed the Council.
b) Peter Noonan He pointed out.the f~ct that this
SDR-1445) 1st hearing is the date of the second noticed
hearing, but. it is the first time
they have had an opportunity to be
heard. It is his' understanding
~ the second hearing ~ill ~ on
'. July 8th.
The City Manager advised this is
the second noticed hearingj The
hearing was,openedl at the last
meetingjand~becau~e'the Council
adopted its resOlUtion that evening,
the item Was continued until this
evening, with the intention that
an action wouldbe taken on July 8Eh.
Mr. Tobin explained this application
relates to a 2-!0t subdivision
which has been in process for almost
3 years. The Krajeska's have owned
this p~operty since r959, and the
applicatf6n for the Subdivision
was filed On August 15, 1977. One
parcel is approximately 50,000
square feet, which contains their
: residence; the adjacent parcel is
40,000 square feet and fronts on
Vista Regina. The tentative map
for this 2-lot subdivision was
approved on October 6, 1977 in
~ccordance with the ~taff report
of September 19, 1977. A negative
declaration had been made with re~~
spect tb the application. and with
the approval of the tentative map,
the findings were made that the
tentative map complied with the
1974 General Plan and With all the
requirements of the Saratoga~
Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances.
After approval of the tentative
map, Mr. KrajeSka proceeded to do
those things required under the
conditions, and he instituted the
necessary procedures to get. the
property annexed to the.Cupertino
Sanitary District.~
22
AGENDA ACTION
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS (ICont'd.) drainage plan, which not only
affects his property, but 3 other
D. MEASURE "A" HARDSHIP HEARINGS ox~aers. To date, he has po~ed
bonds for Saratoga of $11,298.00.
a) Joseph Krajeska (Cont'd.) All together, he has expended
$23,172.00.
(George Tobin---cont'd.) ~
The application which was filed by
For this he paid $950.00 in fee§~. Mr. ~pkar, his engineer, for
After the hearing before LAFCO, another one-year extension on the
which was approved on October 4, tentative map, was filed in April,
I978,'the-annexation of the district and it was referred by the Land
was completed on November 15, 1978.. Development Committee on May 1st
He thereafter received a refund of to the COuncil. Mr. Krajeska
of $96.20 against those annexation then, by letter of May !st, re-
fees. On March.20, 1979, he posted quested exemption from Measure "A".
the Saratogy City septid-tankbond
of $300.00. On March 20, 1979,'he The difficulty concerning the
paid the storm ~rainage fee, the preparation of the road improve-
Parks and Recreation fee, and the ment map and the drainage plan
engineering fee, for whichhe had actually results from the fact
been billed. But he questioned the that Civil and Construction Con-
necessity for himto pay a fee for sultants were the engineers who
2 lots; this matter came before the were working for ~r. Stewart on
Council and the~Council determined one of the adjacent properties,
that notwithstanding one of his lo~s and had done some of the work
had been developed, he had to pay prelimin~rily, and {twas felt
the additional fee. On April 9th, 'that since they had done some of
he.paid the additional $2,114.00. 'that p~eliminary work,'one
On April 4, 1979, he paid Cupertinp ehgineering firm might do the
Sanitary District $943.90 for in~ job which involved 4 parcels.
stallation o~ laterals. A ~
determination w~s made.throUgh the, Mr. Tobin indicated he has talked
Public Works Department of the to both Mr. Trinidad and MrJ
amount of his road improvement bond, Wimberly'to try and ascertain the
and on April 9, 1979, he posted a problem of coordination with .
road improvement bond of $6,000.00'. Civil and Construction Consultants,
On April 19, 1979, a request was ~ and neither of them has an~
made for a one-year extension of the independent recollection at this
tentative map, which was granted' time of whether this idea of using
subject to approval of the drainage Civil and Construction Consultants
plan, and also subject to'the con- originated with the City or among
dition of inspection of his existing the owners because of the fact
residence for code compliance. there were 4 properties involved,
In May, 1~79, he paid.San Jose and the design was for 1 roadway.
Water Works $717.00 for installation In any case, the only thing that
of the water lines; on June 28, 1979 remains to'be done is for the plan
he paid $88.50 to de-activate his to be approved by Public Works and
septic tank, in view of the fact Inspection Services. Mr. Krajeska
that his place was connected to the should then have his final map.
sewer at a cost of $1,965.00. What
is before the Council this evenihg Mr. Tobin indicated he has sub-
is an application for a'one-year mitted a written statement consisting
extension. In addition to the of 4 pages. He indicated he would
costs enumerated, he paid civil lik~ to point out. that the Council
engineering costs of $4,990.00; he has totally failed in its con-
paid geologic fees of $1,050.00; and sideration of so-called "exemption
he paid.Civil and Construction Con~ criteria" to provide any due
sultants $667.00 for work which ~hey process of law requirements with
were supposed'to have cqmpleted hut respect to exemptions. under Section
have not yet done~with respect to 7. The most important of these
the road improvement pt~n and : considerations is' that there is
AGENDA ACTION
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont'~.) (Mr. Crowther - cont'd.)
D. MEASURE "A" HARDSHIP HEARINGS well as 'the following one, with
~ regard to procedure. He agrees
a)~Joseph Krajeska (Cont'd.) that some of the things the City is
doing may be leading us to legal
(George Tobin - cont"d.) hot water. He believes that the
hardship criterion'in Measure "A"
nothing in the resolution, and there does not allow you to make an
is nothing in anything which has exemption to Measure "A"; it only
been uttered, which provided a basis allows an exemption to the mora-
· for exemption. This is a fundamen7 torium. It ~till requires that
tally erroneous constitutional' everything be consistent with
approach. In order topreServe ~. Measure "A". His understanding
vested rights which Mr. Krajeska on this application is that the
has, the criteria has to provide a tentative map has' been approved
way by which he can be exempted fro~ more than 2 years prior to.passage
the provisions of Measure "A". of Measure "A". Measure "A" in
The second consideration is that Section 8 says that if there was
the Council has not recognized that a tentative map approved 2 years ·
vested rights are possessed. In prior to the adoption of Measure
this cas'e, Mr. Krajeska has vested' "A", it doesn't.fall under Measure
rights for the zoning, which is "A". Section 8 also says that
covered by the tentative map, re- if you have a building permit
gardlesS of what provisions might be that was.granted prior to passage
adopted at a later time. He i~) of Measure "A" and proceeded in
clearly exempt frbm Measure "A", good faith reliance on that permit,
and he would most earnestly request you are also exempt from Measure
that the Council grant the requested "A". Therefore, these 2 criterion
extension of time so that this sub~ seem to be the only basis for
division can Be completed~- exemption,.and it would appear
that the Co.unciT's~di~cr~tion in
Mayor Callon inquired of the City a Section 8 case would be a
Attorney inquired if it is dis- determination of whether there had.
cretionary on the part of the been processing according to
Council.to grant a second One-y~ar good faith'~eliance on the permit.
extension. " Therefore,' it would seemto him
the Council does need some
Mr. Johnston responded t~at it is Section 8 criteria. One of the
di~cretion'ary, and he cannot recall- things in the ~esolution which
when one has not been granted. was not adopted'f~as the requirement
that there be somet~ipg/in writing
Mayor Callon commented t~at in thei as to whether there is an appli-
Council's adoption of~a new foremat cation with regard to Section 8.
in approving extensions for On this application, it appears
tentative maps, it was brought out that it could be considered on
that any development that came in its merits', independent of Measure
would have to;~comply with. thelnew "'A"; on Mr. Noonan's, it.would
zoning or requirements.in. the area appear that it could be considered
,hich was asking for the extensionl on the basis of whether he has
moved in good faith reliance on the
Mr. RObinson, Planning Director, building permit which he obtained
explained. that the condition that prior to the passage of MeasUre "A".
was added in the ordinance isthat~
they would comply with 'the con- Mayor Callon pointed that the
ditions which were relevant at that applicant is free to apply under
time. either section of the measure.
Russell Crowther, 20788 Norada Cou~t
indicated he is not here to opposel
this application. He is primarily7
concerned on this application, as
724
AGENDA ACTION
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS .(Cont'd.) (Peter Noonan ~ cont'd )
D. MEASURE "A"HAPdDSH~P HEARINGS moratorium was voted in, he had
begun work. He iddicated he has
a) Joseph Krajeska (Cont'd.) submitted a letter which covers
.. : each item in regard to the
moratorium,~and to show how the
~ lot is related.
Ed Gomersall, Veronica Drive,
commented that in looking at this Mayor Callon pointed Out that
property, it meets all intents Of the.second noticed publ±c hearing
Measure "A'!, except for density. on this is scheduled for July 2md.
Its location is such.that from an'
aesthetic standpoint, you don't
get the impression of a high
density situation. Secondly, the
Krajeska's have gone'through~this
long process --'he suspects if they
hadn't been so patient and knew the~
process a little better, they
probably wouldn"t be here. This
also seems to pose an economic
hardship invesment, plus the
difficult process and thefrus~ ~
tration of having to switch to
septic tanks, put them through a
fair amount .of hardship, He would
like to urge the Council to con-
sider this, and find it in favor.
Mr. Crowther commented that he
would like to make.it clear that
he believes it would be a fatal
error for the City Council to vote
an exemption with regard to density
under Section 7' of Measure "A"f He
would recommend the Council exempt
the project under the criteria that
it had its tentative map 2 years
prior to the passage of Measure
There being no further public
comment on this ma.~ter, the public
hearing was continued to July 8th~
b) Peter Noonan
(SDR-1445) 1st hearing~
The Mayor opened the public hearing
at t:00 A.M.
Mr. Noonan stated that in response
to the City Council'~s request, he'
has responded to all of the
items of hardship criteria.
Mr. Noonan stated he has one lot,
building one house~ He wants to
live in the house, he has a
building permit, and when the
125
AGENDA ACTION
V PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont'd.)
E.' CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL OF The City Manager advised that i~
PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION the Council wisbes to-hold a
TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A de novo hearing, it would have to
SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE WHICH re-schedule it for another 'evening.
WOULD'fPROVIDE A 6'FOOT EXTERIOR
SIDE YARD WHERE 15 FEET IS RE- The Council elected not to hold a
QUIRED AND' PROVIDE ONE COVERED de novo hearing..
PARKING SPACE WHERE TWO ARE
REQUIRED (14151 Marion Road, Mr. Robinson, Planning Director,
V-523) verbalized the staff report, dated
6/11/80, outlining the basis of
the Planning Commission decision
to approve this variance.
The Mayor opened the public'hearing
at 1:10 A.M.
Mr. Clarence Neale addressed the
Council. He indicated this is
next to hi~ property, and it is
a very bad corner and 3 people
have been killed coming in and
out of this property. The house
they want to build is 18 feet wide
and 90 feet long. It puts the
back yard to his side yard, and
completely distorts his property.
Further they have broken every
code in the book,.'i~c~.{~g~.'~he set-
i~a~. '~.: the 1-car garage, the
back clearance~ the side clearance,
and the road setback.
Mark Abner, 20363 MariOn Avenue,
iD~icated he has several 'concerns
with.regard to this matter.c. He
is concerned about the structure
itself;,it is ridiculous being'18
feet wide. .The City wants to take
6 feet more landin the' frontage,
which they already.have a right-of-
way for 15. It'is a sub-standard
lot to begin.with. There shouldn't
even be'a structure there. The-Council
should just allow them to improve
the existing structure and leave it
at that.
Oliver Allen, 20520 and 20530
Marion Road,, commented this is
contradictory to what has been
said before about the original theme.
Mr. Allen commented that we try to
maintain'a greenbel~ in Saratoga,
but if this road is widened, this
greenbelt is going to disappear.
We live on paralle~egrams, meaning
that we have no space between the
26
AGENDA ACTION
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont'd.
E. CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL OF ~ (Oliver Allen - cont~d.)
PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION'
TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A house and the road. So the frontage
SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE WHICH. is removed and they won't have any-
WOULD PROVIDE A 6 FOOT EXTERIOR thihg-but bare fences.
SIDE YARD WHERE 15 FEET.IS RE-i ~
QUIRED AND PROVIDE ONE COVERED Dorothy Stamper, 20562 Marion Avenue,
PARKING SPACE WHERE TWO ARE indicated she is concerned about
REQUIRED (14151 Marion Road', the possible appearance of this
V-523) structure. She hopes when the
Council,goes out to observe the
place where this is going to be
built, it will mean more to themr
It is a ridiculous thing to be
proposed in this location.
There being no further comment
from the ~udience, it was the '
concensus of the Council to continue
this matter to the next regular
meeting of July 2nd to allow the
CoUncil to view the site prior to
taking action.
F. CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL OF The City Manager advised the qity
PLANNING COmmISSION DECISION TO Council again has the.option to
GRANT A USE PERMIT ALLOWING A consider this at a. de novo hearing.
PROPOSED RECREATIONAL COURT
WHICH WOULD PROVIDE A 5 FOOT At the request of the appellant,
SIDE ~ND.REAR YARD WHERE A 20 the Council agreed to proceed with
FOOT SIDE YARD AND A 15 FOOT t the hearing this evening.
REAR YARD IS REQUIRED (14930
Montalvo Road, UP-455) Mr. Robinson, Planning Director,
verbatized the staff report, dated
6/12/80, outlining the basis of
the Planning Commission's decision
to grant this use permit.
The Mayor opened the public hearing
at 1:25 A.M~
Jack Christian, 20230 Bonnie Brae
Way, addressed the Council. He
stated his major concern is not
the tennis court or Where the
tennis court is located. His major
concern is the permit of a variance
for a 5-foot setback. The 3 con-
ditions which the Planning Commission
found for granting the permit are
slso true of every residence on that
street, and every residence on
Bonnie Brae, and every residence
going up Montalvo.~There are
situations wh~re either the slope
of the land or the trees cause
difficulty in placing a large
tennis court. Also, in all the
27
A,GENDA ACTION
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS (iCont'd. (Don 'Call ' cont'd.')
F·CONSID~RATION OF 'APPEAL OF tennis court, less than 20% of
PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO his yard is covered'by house,
GP~NT A USE, PERMIT ALLOWING A patio, or pool. It is lawn and
PROPOSED RECREATIONAL COURT trees, more than 80%, even with
WHICH WOULD PROVIDE A 5 FOOT ~ a tennis court. It is true the
SIDE AND REAR YARD WHERE A .20.. court could be pulled forward and
FOOT SIDE YARD AND A 15 FOOT without a variance; however, all
REAR YARD IS REQUIRED (14930 7 of his close neighbors said to
Montalvo Road, UP-455) put it in the back as proposed.
The person who objects lives a
(.Jack Christian - cont"d.) block-and-a-half away on Bonnie
Brae.
houses along Bonnie Brae which
Mr. Call stated that' on'the same
back up to the homes on Hill, you
could locate a tennis ~ourt within night of their approval, there
5 feet from the property line and was an exception made for a tennis
still have ample distance from any court with a 2-yard rearand a
'residence. The house next door to 6-yard side. The use permit
IDr. Call's house and to Mr.. process allows this procedure,
Christian's residence is for sale. and that is why he feels this house
needs to be considered on its
When that house sells and he. wants
to put his tennis court within 5. individual merits.'
feet of his property line, we now
have 2 tennis courts 10 feet apart, He stated he feels this is a
and if the Dennis property were to peculiar property and warrants the
sell and a new owner-wanted toput tennis court, and doesn't set
a tennis court within 5 feet of'his precedent for a lot of other yard[
property line, he doesn't see how in the neighborhood· It is not
the City Council is going to ~e as though they are intruding on
able to dilSallow that, Because the] the next buildable house -- they
meet alt3 ~equi~ements of tha are still 105 feet away.
Planning CormniSsion. He could end
up looking at 2,800 square feet of Crista Billawalla indicated she
tennis court is a neighbor of Dr. Call. She
· indicated aesthetic considerations
In his appeal to the C~uncil, he are extremely important to them;
has presented some. th~ngs which they'are so important that they
could Be done. You could cut the bought a whole acre in front of
court down to meet the setbacks. their home so no one could b~ild
Also, the 2 supporters of the5- there. She stated she does not
foot setback whO. own the property like tennis courts, but she wants
on both sides'could ~ell him the' the Calls to have a tennis court
property to make sure he meets the because they arein the enviable
code. position ~o have a lot Where a
tennis can go and nobody ~ill see
Don Call, Owner of the property it. She urged that the Council
at 14930 Montalvo Road, commented allow the/ Calls to have their
that when he first started this, tennis qourt.'
he had talked to all of his
immediate'neighbors and they Noah Billawalla addressed the
assured him thi.s was the ideal Council. He stated that if the
place for the tennis court. He tennis court is ~oved out, it
would share the'concern of hi~ will stick out "liTke a Sore thumb".
neighbors about a precedent Being As it is proposed, even if there
set ifhe felt the precedent were is a 10-foot fence~ it Will hardly
dangerous, bUthe does not think~ been seen.
it is for thfs house for the
following reasons He could pav~ There being no. further discussion
this whole area wi,thOut calling it on this matter this evening, it
a tennis court. Even with this was the concensus of the Council
to continue this matter to July 2nd.
28
~GENDA ACTION
VIII. ~DJOURNMENT ~DJOURNMENT
DUe tO the lateness of the hour,
it was t~a cobcensus of the Council
to adjourn the'rema±nder of the
agenda to an adjourned.regular
meeting on Tuesday., July 2~ 1~80~
M½S; Call~n, Cle~enger to adjourn
the meeting to Executive SesSiLOn
th±s evening, and to an~Adjou~ned
Regular Meeting on June 24~ 1~80~
Carried unanimouslye. The meeting
was adjourned at 1:40 ~M.
~ity
29