Loading...
Boundary Agreements - 1972 - 1986CITY COUNCIL MTG. DEC. 16, 1986 ~l.~te ~i+ctfon - status of M/S: Podgorsek/Watson - to approve the staff proposed Mary recommendation to defer scheduling of a public realignment with the City meeting with affected residents until early Spring of San Jose to allow development of additional information concerning the proposed boundary realignment. Motion adopted unanimously. CITY COUNCIL MTG. NOVEMBER 18, 19$6 Staff Report - City Manager's Office - proposed boundary exchange with the City of San Jose City Manager Dugqan - report dated Noverber 18, 1986. M/S: Rotowski/Watsoni - to appoint Councilmembers Ashworth and Podgorsek to serve on a committee with the staff and councilmembers from the City of San Jose to discuss the boundary realignment proposal. Motion adopted unanimously. M/S: Podsgorsek/1Cotowski - to approve staff recommendation to: 1) report back to the Council on December 16 and consider scheduling of a public meeting in January to formally respond to the San Jose proposal; and 2) accept the offer of the Los Gatos Creek Streamside Committee to assist staff in identifying potential funding sources for the Creek path extension program. Motion adopted unanimously, ~f ,~ CITY OF SAN JOSE, CALIFOIaN1A 801 NORTH FIRST STREET SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95110 TELEPHONE (~08) 277.1000 CITY MANAGER September 10, 1986 City Manager Revin Duggan 75 North Central Avenue Campbell, CA 95008 Dear Revin: At the Council's meeting of September 2, the Council considered a report from my office regarding the developments to date in our discussions regarding the proposed boundary realignment between our two cities. At the conclusion of its - discussion, the Council requested that I formally forward to you the City of San Jose's proposal to conclude an agreement between our two cities to proceed with the realignment of the "boundaries between our two cities. As discussed in our informal conversations, the proposal is predicated on the basis that it would proceed as a single, packaged transaction. The Planning staffs of the two cities have agreed that such an approach can be accommodated under existing law. Essential to final agreement by the City of San Jose to this proposal is further confirmation of the City of Campbell's willingness to fund the construction of the Los Gatos Creek Trail along that segment of the Creek between Campbell Avenue and Bascom Avenue, thereby completing the Trail into San Jose. In your letter to me of June 27, 1986, you committed in general terms the City's willingness to proceed with that project. In order for the City of San Jose to take the unusual step of proceeding further in this boundary realignment which does not meet our policy test of proportionality absent the inclusion of Area "F" as originally discussed, commitment from your City to actually construct this section of the trail in the near-term is essential. We realize that this request asks Campbell to go a significant step beyond what has been committed to date. Our willingness, however, to proceed to a next step of formalizing this boundary realignment proposal excluding Area "F" we believe to be a major step forward which warrants a favorable response from your City to our request for a commitment to construction of this segment of the Trail in the short-term. City Manager Duggan 2 September 10, 1986 For the sake of clarity I am attaching a ma° showing the areas referred to in previous discussions which would be affected by this formal proposal from the City of San Jose. There is another matter which the Council asked me to bring to your attention and to follow-up on--Union Avenue construction plans. Union Avenue is a major street which traverses our two cities. Concern has been expressed regarding the continued pendency of plans by the City of Campbell to complete the widening of this major street. For this reason I am responding to the Council's request to obtain information from you regarding your plans on this matter. The City of San Jose has been very pleased with the working relationship that has been developed between our two cities in past months as we have worked together on common problems. I look forward to working to continue that ~- improvement and would appreciate the opportunity if, in your judgment, it seems appropriate to discuss these matters further with you and other officials of the City of Campbell. incerely, Gerald E. ewfarmer City Manager cc - Mayor and City Council ~'~Y '~ I~:v~: _~_ ~ R V CITY OF SAN JOSE-MEMc~RANDUM ~ ~ ~ Mayor and City Council fRO~ Gerald E. Newfarmer suaiECr UP-DATE CAMPBELL-SAN JOSE DATE August 14 , 19 8 ~ BOUNDARY REALIGNMENT APPROVED GATE The purpose of this memorandum is to summarize for you the results of continuing discussions which have occurred over the last several months in exploring the idea of a boundary realignment between the two cities. In response to our original proposal, Campbell has proposed deleting a portion of residential area "E" south of Payne Avenue and the commercial area "F" at Bascom and Hamilton Avenues. Campbell has not proposed alternate areas nor any other concrete measures to restore the proportionality of our original proposal. In Staff's opinion, the current realignment proposal by Campbell does not meet the Council's policy for "equal exchange of like territory, population or tax base." The most recent conversations with Campbell's City Manager has focused on Area "F". One possible alternative•to including Area "F" in the boundary realignment is that Campbell would consider extending the Los Gatos Creek pathway from Hamilton Avenue to Bascom Avenue. Campbell's preliminary indications are that the design and construction of a pathway in this reach would be extremely difficult and expensive. Campbell's Five Year Capital Improvement Program does not currently include this project, but they would be w=lling to examine possible financing alternatives over the next two years. Although this alternative would not satisfy the test. of proportionality under the Council's Policy 6-15, it could provide a means to accelerate implementation of a project that would benefit both cities. If the City Council is willing to consider this alternative further, it would be appropriate t~o seek guarantees of timing and funding for construction and maintenance of the pathway. Guaranteed links to pathways south of Hamilton and east of Bascom would also be essential to make the pathway functional. Even with such guarantees, it is staff's opinion that this alternative still falls short of satisfying the Council's policy. Gerald E. farmer City Mana 100..40 c Ci'~'Y OF:--SAN JOSE-MEM'~RANDUM ~~ ~ The honorable Mayor F, Councilmembers FROM Councilwoman Lu Ryden Councilwoman Nancy Ianni ~~~ CAMPBEr,L-SAN JOSE BOUNDARY REALIGNMENT PATE August 28, 1986 APPROVED Back ~- DATE 9- ~ - ~~ In June 1983, the neighborhood east of Weston Drive between Campbell Avenue and San Tomas Creek petitioned the City of San Jose to realign the boundaries between San Jose and Campbell so this area might annex to the City of Campbell. This request was based upon a number of factors: the neighborhood is surrounded on three sidP,s by the City of Campbell, the address and zip for that area is Campbell 9501)8, confusion exists regarding identification of the city borders, and the residents feel a c:ose community identity with Campbell. The San Jose Council re:~:ponded by directing staff to develop a policy for evaluating proposals by citizens desiring to change the city boundary. The policy was approved in January, ':984. Administration was directed to begin discussions with Campbell based on this policy, which includes factors of equal exchanges of territory, population or tax base. Current: Attached are copies of previous memos from City Manager Newfarmer describing the progression of discussions with the City of Campbell. As is stated, various alternatives have been pursued by the administrations, but no agreement could be reached. Since Campbell borders District 6 and some of the swap property is located in District 6, Councilwoman Ianni has followed the progress of the negotiations carefully. She suggested that an alternative to land exchange might be an agreement with Campbell to extend the Los Gatos Creek pathway from Hamilton Avenue to Bascom Avenue. The commitment to this completion could provide an exchange which might be equivalent to the tax base San Jose will be losing. It is estimated the cost of this could well exceed X1,000,000 and would be of great advantage to San Jose. City Manager Newfarmer's memo of August 14, 1986 states that "although this alternative would not satisfy the test of proportionality under the Council's Policy 6-15, it could provide a means to accelerate implementation of a project that would benefit both cities. " Since the council objective is to benefit both the cities and the neighborhood, we recommend that the council consider this alternative further by directing the City Manager to discuss with Campbell guarantees of timing and funding for construction and maintenance of the pathway. We feel it is essential that all pertinent facts and all possibilities be explored before the council makes a decision as to whether the benefit to the city meets the council objectives. We would like a report back in 60 days in order to consider the result of these discussions. 1oo.J~o c ~j County of Santa Clara California ~ ~.L.oeel Agency Formetlon ConwNeelon County Administretion Bu11dMp ~C--~~~ 70 Wsst Heddinp Street, $ast `ring sn .lose, CalHomla •S~ 10 ~_ _ _ _ 299- 424 Area Code roe EXECUTIVE OFFICER'S CERTIFICATION OF SIGNATURES TO PETITION OF Li~1NDOWNERS/RESIDENT VOTERS AND CERTIFICATE OF FILING I, CATHY R. LAZARUS , certify that: I am the Assistant Executive Officer of the Local Agency Formation Com- >R-ission of Santa Clara County. A petition entitled petition for the t~Reorganization of Territory Involving the Realignment o Boundaries between the Cities of Saa Jose and Campbell arc' Certain Special Districts designated as SAN TOMAS PARK~CHERRY LANE was filed with me on ,,,lanuary 25 19_~,~. The petition is required to be signed by landowners/resident voters and pursuant to Sections 35110-35124/56150-56162, inclusive, of the Government Code, I have examined the petition and have caused to be compared the names of the signers of said petition against the last equalized a~sess- ment roll in the Office of the County Assessor/voters' register in the Office of the Registrar of Voters of the County of Santa Clara, and have ascertained therefrom the number of qualified signers appearing on said petition. The results of the examination are as follows: 1. All signatures on the petition were secured within six months of the date on which the first signature thereon is affixed, and the petition was submitted for filing within 60 days after the last signature was affixed. 2. The total number of landowners/resident voters within the terri- tory proposed to be annexed/detached/reorganized is 2007 The minimum signature requirements for a sufficient petition are 100 landowners/resident voters within the territory proposed to be annexed/detached/reorganized. verifie~7 to have been signed by at least 3. The petition was/si~gHeci-~y~ 129 landowners/resident voters within the territory proposed to be annexed/detached/reorganized. 4, The petition and supplemental application filed on this proposal contain all of the infoz`alation and data required by Section 35110/56140 of the Government Code, and all of the information and data requested by the Santa Clara County Local Agency Forma- tion Commission. Based upon such examination, it is date rained and certified that the petition is sufficient as a petition signed by the requisite number of qualified signers for a sufficient petition and said petition is hereby being certified for filing on the data shown below. pending submission of formal a ntication This pet ' on will be consideret~/ a~-~h~------------ - --------,-1~- -- -ateet~-ng-the Local Agency Formation Comtission. Dated: February 8, 1983 78-7b LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION by Assists t c 've Officer Landowner/Registered Voter petition - Not 10096 Consent 7/28/30 ~----" ~" r r \ t i rfx AGREEMENT BETWEEN THF. CITY OP' SAN JOSE AND THE CITY OF CAMPBELL RELATING TO VEHICULAR TRAFFIC• MONITORING AT THE HAMILTON AVENUE - BASCOM AVENUE INTERSECTION AND PROVIDING FOR FUTURE TRAFFIC MITIGATION A'1' SAID INTERSECT.CUN. THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this 28th day. of July 1980, by and between the CITY OF SAN JOSE, a municipal corporation of the State of California, and the CITY OF CANIP~3ELL, a municipal corporation of the State of California. L7 I T~N E S S E T H: ~`'~iE-R~1S, the city Council of San Jose and the City Council of Campbell are mutually concE:rned with the concentration of vehicular traffic at the intersection of Hamilton and Bascom Avenues; and WHEREAS, the City of .San Jose and the City of .Campbell desire to provide a means and process to monitor and mitigate the traffic . impact of existing and proposed land development and traffic improve- ments which will maintain or improve the current level of service at the intersection of Hamilt:~n and Bascom Avenues; and W1i1REAS, the two cities. recognize the current and future concerns of the residents in both cities who are served or are directly " affected by the level of :,~~rvice at the Hamilton and Bascom intersection; NOW, THEREFOP.Er for -ind in consideration of their mutual promises, covenants, arld agreements ;;e t. forth and subject to the terms, provisions and conditions Hereinafter set forth, the parties hereto do agree as follows: 1. That an evaluation of the intersection of Hamilton and Bascom Avenus be made jointly by the planning and traffic engineering .staffs of the two cities, as follows: a. Planning and engineering staffs will evaulate and monitor traffic impacts resulting from land use changes approved by either city after July 1, 1980, which would have an impact on the Hamilton and Bascom Avenue intersection, or if either city's traffic count data indicates the subject intersection's current level of service "E" has deteriorated below this level of service; b. If the annual evaluation by the planning and traffa.c engineering staffs of the two cities indicates that mitigating measures are necessary to bring t}~e subject intersection up to the current level of service, then ' the staffs of the two cities will utilize this data in conjunction with city policies to formulate recom- mendations for mitigation to their respective City Councils; -1-- 28/80 _ .t c, The planning and traffic engineering staffs will annually evaluate existing traffic patterns and actual generation factors of all major developments; d. The first evaluation by the planning and traffic engineering staffs of the two cities will be made and a report submitted to the respective City Councils by October 1, 1981. An annual evaluation will be • made .thereafter.. 2. If mitigation measures are required, the planning and engineering staffs will recommend to their respective City Councils the mitigation measures and relative participation of each agency, in conjunction caith city policies and based upon the trip generation distribution as determined by the planning and traffic engineering staffs of the two.. cities. 3.. It is further agreed that the two City Council5•wi11 imple-• ment actions consistent with city policies to mitigate the traffic problems def~_ned by the report of the planning and traffic en- • gineering staffs of the_two cities, with financial participation from sources to be ciei:ermined jointly by the two City Councils. 4. The written provisions contained herein comprise the entire z agreement between the parties hereto. - 5. The terms of this agreement may be modified only by written agreement of the par•`_ies hereto. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Yne parties hereto have executed this agreement on the day `.• anc? • ~~~~ar f first herein}above written . CITY /b SAN JOSE,- a m~nic~al corp tion ~ r-1 ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM//: ~~ 5 ~ CC By Date : `~~ CITY OF C11i~1PBELL, a municipal co oration By Date : ~/~~ James R. Sherman Senior Deputy City Attorney _2_ ATTEST: LJ~Q~~~ . I-I n E . Jackson Cota~n.~ of Santa Clara __ C~~1fOt'nia ~~~ - ~ August 4, 1977 3z,y~ ~~ Mr. Ted Tedesco, City Manager City of San Jose and Mr. Robert Stephens, City Manager City of Campbell ~acat agency Formation Cam;nissian County Administration. Building 70 West Redding Street, Room 524 San Jose, California 95)10 299-2323 Area Cade 408 At tt~e F>~.;g~.:st 3, ? 977 mnsting of the Santa Clara County Local Agency Formation Commission, the attached letter from Mayor Hayes was considered. The Mayor requests tY~at LF>,FCO caordinate a study of White Caks/South Bascom area, focusing on the possibility of revising the existing sphere of influence boundaries between the Cities of San Jose and Campbell. The Commission has requested that I act as a convener for a meeting be- tween the two city staffs to discuss San Jose's request. It is re- spectfully requested, therefore, that you direct appropriate staff fro:~t your city to meet with me at the time and place shown below to discuss the matter. Procedurally T believe the best way to handle this would be for the two cities to advise me on tree merits cif alterinq_ the sphere of influence in this area, ar,d I would issue this report to the City Councils of the two Cities for report back to LAFGU. I havE sent car- bon copies of this letter to the departmental staff in your City ~~rhich may be involved in this process. I am also going to request a represen- tative from County Sanitation District LyoQ 4 to be present at this meet- ing. Should you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact me prior to the meeting, and I thank you for your cooperations Meeting date and time - September 7, 1977 at 10:00 a,m. Place - llth Floor Conference Room #1 e 0 ~vi~t i3cdding .ait. , 'East winy^ San Jose, Californian Sincerely, ~~~~~ Paul E. Sa :r r5 Assistant Executive afficer PES:pc cc: Harry Hoenas & John Hamilton, City of San Jose ~ur Kee and Joe Elliott, City of Campbell An Equal Opporivcaity Empf;,yar ~\ .. ,. ~,,~ r ~,r;:;. .~~ .. ~' ,,,;~ ; C1TV' QF SIAN .J~fl~~~r CAL1~I~71Er'~MB~, B01 NORTH FIRST STREET M BAN JOSE, CA 95110 C40B) 277-4237 July 19, 1977 ~w~u~r oaar NAres MAYOR Mr. John B. Lochner, Chairman Local Agency Formation Commission 70 West Redding Street, East Wing San Jose, Ca 95110 Dear Mr. Lochner: This letter is a formal request that LAFCO lead and coordinate a study of the White Oaks/South Bascom area focusing on the possibility of revising the existing sphere of influence boundary between the Cities of San Jose and Campbell. The request has been made at this time as an outgrowth of a recent San Jose City Council action denying an outside storm sewer con- nection for a medical center being developed in the County on the west side of South Bascom and Mozart Avenue. It is a policy of City of San Jose, as of Santa Clara County and of LAFCO itself, that urban development should only occur as a part of a city so that commensurate levels of service are provided. The subject property is now unincorporated. Though located in Campbell`s sphere of influence, the parcel is not contiguous to any incorporated portion of that city and there- fore cannot be annexed to it. County development to the north and west has made it unlikely that the situation will change in the near future. At the same time the property cannot be annexed to San Jose as it is located out- side our sphere. Similar conditions exist for other parcels in this area. Recently a medical office complex was developed in the County to the north of the subject parce?. Another such complex is proposed. Undeveloped parcels are commonplace between White Oaks and Bascom. Most of these are in the Bascom Avenue trunkline storm drainage area and should be connected to that system. Because of these problems with respect to annexations and provision of urban service, the City of San Jose feels it is appropriate for LAFCO to examine the area under question and to make some recommendation which would allow development to occur according to the policies of all parties 17~'~'-~J 71NdS _ ~4 l..i_N~?0~ ~,i~ ~~tl ~0 01 5~ ~~~ fr -~.- ` Mr. John B. Lochner, Chairman Page Two July 19, 1977 involved. I would appreciate your consideration of this request for timely action. Sincerely, J e Gray Naye My JGH:rI cc: City of Campbell, City Council Attach: (Map, Bascom Trunk storm drain area) ~~ t' ~ ~ s~ "HUB OF TILE FABULOUS SANTA CLARA VALLEI'!" .~ 75 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE • CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 95008 • TELEPHONE (408) 378-8141 January 29, 1976 John W. Hamilton, Director of Planning City of San Jose 130 Park Center Plaza San Jose, CA Subject: Sphere of Influence Campbell/San Jose Dear Mr. Hamilton: On January 14, 1976, we met with you, Mayor Hayes, Mayor Hammer and Councilman Podgorsek to discuss the possibilities of exchanging territories. Before any formal discussions could take place there seemed to be a definite need to identify those areas of possible exchange. We talked briefly about preparing some maps that would help delineate not only the possible areas of exchange but also identify the land use. Please find enclosed a copy of our General Plan and two copies of our Boundary Map, which identifies the unincorporated territories. We are requesting that your staff identify your existing city boundary on our Boundary Map and indicate the General Plan Land Use i.f it varies from what is shown on our General Plan. You would then retain one copy of the Boundary Map and the General Plan and return one of the Boundary Maps with the requested information. This would hopefully provide a base for both cities to start from in evaluating their territories. Very truly yours, ARTHUR A. KEE Planning Director /^1 \ I G BRUCE R. POWELL Senior Planner pka enclosures i ,~ RESOLUTION N0. A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE BOUNDARY LINE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CAMPBELL AND THE CITY OF SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA. WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council of the City of Campbell, a proposed agreement with the City of San Jose for the establishment of boundaries; and WHEREAS, the City Council is fully advised of the contents thereof, and finds the agreement is for the best interest of the people of the City of Campbell. WHEREAS, said agreement is attached hereto, marked Exhibit "A",and made a part hereof. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Campbell that the Mayor be and he is hereby authorized to execute the said agreement on behalf of the City of Campbell. PASSED AND ADOPTED this EXHIBIT "A" AMENDMENT TO BOUNDARY AGREEMENT FOR FUTURE ANNEXATIONS BETWEEN THE CITY OF CAMPBELL AND THE CITY OF SAN JOSE. AREAS TO BE INCLUDED WITHIN THE CAMPBELL BOUNDARY AGREEMENT. AREAS: 2, 3, 4B, 5B AREAS TO BE INCLUDED WITHIN THE SAN JOSE BOUNDARY AGREEMENT. AREAS: 1, 4A, 5A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF AREAS 1, 2, 3, 4A, ~+B, 5A, 5B ATTACHED. .._ ~ ~~~,,1 .- Tract No. 1172, Green Bon*~et Terraces a map of which is retorted zn the Orrice of the County Recorder, County of Santa Clara, in Book 44 of Maps , gage 10 . Area 2 - Be,ir.?~ing at the neir_t of intersection of the center line of Harriet Av;rue, 40 feet wida, t~ith the center line of Westmont Are^ue, 40 feet wida; t-her.ce Southerly along the center li;~ •of laid Harriet Ave*_:ue to tha point of ir_cers~c_ion thereof with the censer Line of Hacienda ~vpnue, 60 f=rt wid=: the~?ce Westerly along said csnter line of said H3tic:~da Avenue to the aoir,_ of intersection. thereof with the Southerly or01'~r:gation of the Easterly line of Lot 8, Tract I~'o: 73, Martin Tract, t'r.it No, 1, a may cf which is recorded ir. the Office of the Count~• c~,eccr.dar, County of~ Sa~.ta Oi3:-3, in 3cok 3 of Maos, cage 22~ thence Northerly along said Scuth_r:v_ Drolc?'gation .of said Lot $ 3rd along said Easterly 1ir.e of ;.,~_ ~3 of Tract N,:. 75 to the Northeast corr_e: of said ~~~t 8; ther_ce Wester iv alcrg t'~e ~lorthcrly Tire of said Tract No. 75 to the point of intersection: thereof with an Easterly line of Tract No, 3011, a map of which is recorded in the Office of the County Recorder, County of Sar,ra Giara, in Book I63 of ~iaos, gage 14; thence ::~rtherly along said Easter~Lv line of said Tract vo. 3011 to the point of intersection thereof with ~ Southerly Iine of said Tract Ito. 3011; trer_ce Easterly 31or.g said Southerly lire of said Tract No. 3011 to the riost Eastec~ly copper of said Tract No. 3011; thence Northerly 8iong ar. F.-}sty •r 1y ling of said Tract No. 3011 to the point of i.ntersec*_ion of said Easre.r ~y line with the cc~,er lire of West*.ront Avenue. 90 fact wide; thence iasta.rly along said center line of said Wcst~.ort Avenue to the poi.rt of beginn.irg, Area 3 _ Tract No, 96, E. R. Kerredv Subdivision No. 1, a maa of which is recor~ d in the Office of the Count-,r R~acorder, County of Sar_La C Tara, in Book .3 ~af ;•iaps , page 51. .. AREA 4A Beginning at the intersection of the Easterly line of Leigh Avenue, 90 feet wide, with the easterly prolongation of the southerly line of Tract No. 2914, Cherry Lane, a map of which is recorded in the office of the County Recorder, County of Santa Clara, in Book 136 of Maps, pages 4 and 5; thence Northerly along said easterly line of Leigh Avenue to the point of intersection thereof with the Northerly line of Tract No. 474, Latham Subdivision, a map of which is recorded in the Office of the County Recorder, County of Santa Clara, in Book 15 of Maps, Page 45; thence Easterly along said Northerly line of said Tract No. 474, to the point of intersection thereof with the center line of Hurst Avenue, 60 feet wide; thence Northerly along said center line of said Hurst Avenue to the point of intersection thereof with the center line of Hamilton Avenue, 60 feet wide; thence Easterly along said center line of said Hamilton Avenue to the point of intersection thereof with the Northerly prolongation of the Westerly line of Lot 8, Block 1, Willowhurst, a map of which is recorded in the Office of the County Recorder, County of Santa Clara, in Book X of Maps, Page 45; thence Southerly along said Northerly prolongation and the Westerly line of said Lot 8 and continuing Southerly along the Westerly line and the Southerly prolongation thereof of Lot 15, Block 1 of said Willowhurst Tract to the point of intersection thereof with the center line of Willowhurst Avenue, 50 feet wide; thence Easterly along said center line of said Willowhurst Avenue to the point of intersection thereof with the center line of Meridian Road, 80 feet wide; thence Southerly along said center line of Meridian Road to the point of intersection thereof with the center line of Dry Creek Road; thence in a Southwesterly direction along-the center line of Dry Creek Road to the point of intersection thereof with the center line of Kirk Road; thence continuing Southwesterly along the center line of said Dry Creek Road, to the point of intersection thereof with the Easterly line of Leigh Avenue; thence northerly along said Easterly line of Leigh Avenue to the point of beginning. Area 48 Beginning at the point of intersection of the center line of South Bascom Avenue, 60 feet wide, with the Westerly prolongation of the Northerly line of Tract No. 1765, Arroyo Gardens, a map of which is recorded in the Office of the County Recorder, County of Santa Clara, in Book 71 of Maps, page 53; thence Easterly along said Westerly prolongation and along said Northerly line to the point of intersection thereof with the Westerly line of Midway Avenue, 60 feet wide; thence, Southerly along said Westerly line of said Midway Avenue to the point of intersection thereof with the Southerly line of Tract No. 2914, Cherry Lane, a map of which is recorded in the Office of the County Recorder,. County of Santa Clara, in Book 136 of Maps, Pages 4 and 5; thence, Easterly along said Southerly line of said Tract No. 2914 and the Easterly prolongation of. said Southerly line to the point of intersection thereof with thn Easterly line of Leigh Avenue, 90 feet wide; thence Southerly along said Easterly line of Leigh Avenue to its point of intersection with the center line of Dry Creek Road; thence Southwesterly along the center line of said Dry Creek Road, to the point of intersection thereof with the Easterly prolongatian of the Southerly line of Lot 80 of Tract No. 437, Arroyo Seco Manor, Unit No. 3, a map of which tract is recorded in Book 38 of Maps, Page 23, in the Office of the County Recorder, Santa Clara County; thence Westerly along said Easterly prolongation of the Southerly line of said Lot 80 and the Southerly line of said Lot 80 to the point of intersection thereof with the Easterly line of Lot 81 of said Tract No. 437, thence Southerly along the Easterly line, Westerly along the Southerly line, and Northerly along the Westerly line of said Lot 81 of said Tract No. 437 to the point of intersection thereof with the Southerly line of Tract No. 2082, Dry Creek Place, a map of which Tract is recorded in Book 95 of flaps, at Page 36 in the County Recorder's Office of the County of Santa Clara; thence in a general Westerly direction along said Southerly line of Tract No. 2082 to the point of intersection thereof with the center line of Midway Avenue, 60 feet wide; thence Northerly along said center line of Midway Avenue to the point of intersection thereof with the Southerly line of Tract 1828, Dry Creek Ranch, a map of which is recorded in the Office of the County Recorder, County of Santa Clara, in Book 76 of claps, Page 44; thence Westerly along said Southerly line and the westerly prolongation thereof to the point of intersection thereof with the center line of South Bascom Avenue; thence Northerly along the center line of South Bascom Avenue to the point of beginning. AREA 5A Beginning at the most Northerly corner of Tract No. 973, Cambrian Village Addition No. 5, a map of which is recorded in the Office of the County Recorder, County of Santa Clara, in Book 40 of Maps, page 34; thence Southwesterly along the Northwesterly line of said Tract No. 973 to a Northeast corner of Campbell annexation 19.58-15 officially annexed on November 12, 1958; thence Southwesterly along the Southeasterly line of Said annexation1958-15 to the Southeasterly corner thereof, said point being in the center line of Casey Road, 40 feet wide; thence Easterly along said center line of Casey Road to the point of intersection thereof with the Northwesterly line of Tract No. 294, Ed Yates Tract, a map of which is recorded in the Office of the County Recorder, County of Santa Clara, in Book 10 of Maps, page 25; thence Southwesterly along said Northwesterly line of said Tract No. 294 and the Southwesterly prolongation thereof to the center line of Camden Avenue, 120 feet wide; thence Northwesterly along said center line of Camden Avenue to the point of intersection thereof with the centerline of white Oaks Road; thence along the center line of said White Oaks Road to its intersection with the southerly line of Camden Avenue; thence Southeasterly along said Southerly line of Camden Avenue to its intersection with the westerly boundary line of City of San Jose annexation White Oaks No. 3; thence in a Northerly direction along said Westerly boundary of said City of San Jose Annexation No. 3 to the point of intersection thereof with the center line of said Camden Avenue; thence South- easterly along said center line of Camden Avenue to the point of intersection thereof with the center line of Olympia Avenue, 60 feet wide; thence Northeasterly along said center line of Olympia Avenue to the point of intersection thereof with the SouthwTesterly prolongation of the Southeasterly line of Lot 29, Tract No. 640, a map of which is recorded in the Off ice of the County Recorder, County of Santa Clara, in Book 26 of Maps, page 15; thence North- easterly along said Southwesterly prolongation of said Southeasterly line of said Lot 29 and along said Southeasterly line to the most Easterly corner of Lot 29; thence Northerly along the Easterly line of Tract No. 640 and an Easterly line of Tract 237, Ellen Acres, a map of which is recorded in the Office of the County Recorder, County of Santa Clara, in Book 10 of 'daps, page 54, to the point of intersection thereof with a Southerly line of said Tract No. 287; thence Easterly along said Southerly line of said Tract 287 to the Easterly line of Tract 287; thence Northerly along said Easterly line of said Tract No. 287 to the point of intersection thereof with the center line of Casey Road; thence Easterly along said center lire of Casey Road to the point of intersection thereof with the Southerly prolongation of the Easterly line of Tract No. 931, Cambrian Village Addition No. 5, a map of which is recorded in the Office of the County Recorder, County of Santa Clara, in Book 34 of Maps, page 54; thence Northerly along said Southerly prolongation of said Easterly line of said Tract No. 931 and along said Easterly line of said Tract No. 931 to the Northeast corner thereof; thence ~~~esterly along the Northerly line of said Tract No. 931 and along the Northerly line of Tract No. 973, hereinabove first mentioned; to the point of beginning. AREA 5B Beginning at the point of intersection of the Southerly line of Camden Avenue, 120 feet wide, with the center line of White Oaks Road; thence in a general Southerly direction along the center line of White Oaks Road to the point of intersection thereof with the center line of South Bascom Avenue; thence Northeasterly along the center line of said South Bascom Avenue, 60 feet wide, to the point of intersection thereof with the center line of Shelley Avenue; thence Westerly along the center line of said Shelley Avenue to the point of intersection thereof with a Westerly City Limits line of the City of San Jose, as established by said City's annexation White Oaks No. 5, officially annexed January 28, 1957; thence in a general Northerly direction following the Westerly lines of said annexation White Oaks No. 5 to the point of intersection thereof with a Southwesterly line of City of San Jose annexation White Oaks No. 3, officially annexed June 29, 1956; thence in a general Northerly direction along the Westerly boundary line of White Oaks No. 3 annexation to the point of intersection thereof with the southerly line of Camden Avenue, 120 feet wide; thence Northwesterly along said Southerly line of Camden Avenue to the point of beginning. Disannexation of The Mayor reported on the meeting he and Councilman Podgorsek Portion of liamilto m had with the City of San Jose in regard to disannexing a portion Avena~~ at Bascom ~p of property on Hamilton Avenue, near Bascom. Mr. Kee reported `~ ~~ that he is workiric~ with staff on this and they have prepared C~ G~~ maps and sent them to San Jose. It is up to San Jose to institute ~~ prcceedings as it was their original request. DE FEF.RED ITEMS Boundary Agree~!erit `The City Manager reported that he had peen With City •of San unable to corj tact Mayor Mineta r*ho ~•ras to ha ~~ Jose appointed •two members or the Sun Jose City Colzr•ti~'_ to meet with us relative to the Bounda~~y AgreFi<~at:~~ ` He did talk to Mr. Hones of the City Staff axzd. l:e stated that the only area San Jose ha~~ before chtn~ ~~ was the area on the. east side of town. ~ they ha.c~ ~~ conceded the other areas to Campbell at a prio~^ _ 1~ LAFCO meeting. The City Manager reco*amended tha•i: we ask for an exicension. Qf time in solving the ,~ boundary agreement beyond April. 5th. The Counc.?. recommended that the City Manager ask for a con' tinuance of the matter before LAFCO until a~tez the election. -6- ,San lose Boundary A report from the Chairman of the Planning Agreement Commission, Dale H. Scott, outlining the recommen- dations of the Planning Commission on the Boundary Agreement with San Jose is read. 1. T~~e C~~mTM~.ssioa unanimous~.y recommends that the City seel: the establish a boundary agreement that ir,cl~~des those areas designated as 1, 2, "s, 4 and 5 within the spt,ere of influence of the City ~~ of Campbell. ~~ 2. The Commission unanimously recommends that the City Council consider negotiating with the city of San Jose regarding areas that might be appr.o-- priately de-annexed from Campbell and annexed to San Jose and vice •rersa for the purpose of establish- ing a more viable boundary for the City from a service and community interest point of view. Commissioner Norman Paul will serve as repre- sentative of the Planning Commission on the Com- mittee to meet with the City of San Josa. The City Manager reported that he planned to contact the City of San Jose rianager's office tomorrgw morning on this matter. Referral of Request of City Council that the Planning ~r, City Council Commission review future boundaries for the City of Campbell and make comments back to the ~9~, f ,~°~ City Council. 0 Chairman Scott advised that the Council requested that one Planning Commissioner serve with two Councilmen to discuss boundary agreements with the City of San Jose. Chairman Scott stated he has requested Commissioner Paul to serve on that committee and he has agreed to do so. Chairman Scott asked Mr. Powell for his comments. Mr. Powell presented a map indicating the existing boundary agree- ment with the Town of Los Gatos, Saratoga, and San Jose. He explained the boundary areas in five areas, which are indicated as open areas and which can be annexed by either city. At the February meeting of LAFCO, the City was given sixty days to finalize the open areas. If they are not finalized by that time, then LAFCO will finalize them. The City Council has asked that the Commission take a look at thew five areas. Mr. Powell outlined the boundaries of these five areas. Commissioner Larson asked about the areas annexed to the City of San Jose and which are surrounded by Campbell. Mr. Kee advised that it would take action by the saner to deannex in order that Campbell could annex the area. L~lFCO is not concerned, in particular, with squaring off boundaries, but is more concerned with those areas that have not been resolved. Commissioner Larson asked if it would be possible to go beyond those five areas in the discussions with San Jose. Mr.Kee stated that it was possible that this could be discussed with the committee from the two cities. Chairman Scott stated he was not sure just what the Council wanted the Cor,~mission to do. The committee will meet with San Jose to establish boundary agreements on the five parcels. He stated he was not sure there was anything new the Commission could tsll them. He was not sure the Commission should tell them any~r_hing until the meeting with San Jose has been held. Commissioner Paul stated that it would seem to him that the Council has to give the direction in this matter. He added that his position on the committee would be liaison between the Council and the Commission. He was of the opinion that there should be a study session between the Commission and Council. Commissioner Hehard stated that it was his understanding that the committee is to meet with the committee from San Jose to arrange an agreement. They would have to reach agreement at that -13- ~.: time if they are to meet the April Sth~deadline set by LAFCO. He stated that the Council wants some sort of a recommendation from the Commission. Commissioner Paul stated that the only recommendation he could give would be to get it all. Commissioner Alexander stated they should get as much as they can. Chairman Scott stated that they should work out mutual exchanges. Commissioner Larson stated that possibly we should give up areas east of Leigh Avenue for consideration of Cherry Lane. Commissioner Hebard questioned whether the City of Campbell would want the area to the east of Leigh. Chairman Scott stated that this was an established area and it would not be a matter of extending services. The City would pick up some tax revenues without adding employees. Commissioner Paul asked from a planning standpoint, what is the objection of going into the meeting and asking for all? Commissioner Hebard stated that he could think of some objections but he wanted to hear some reasons for doing so. Commissioner Paul asked if they should put forth their trading position at the meeting tonight. C~_R Commissioner Paul stated that if the Commission is to frame a recommendation based on sound zoning concepts they should take in all areas that the City can possibly service. Commissioner Larson was of the opinion that problems would result for the Pubiic Works, Fire and Police Departments. He stated the service capabilities of the city should not be forgotten. Annexations will increase our tax base, but they will also impose . potential hardships on the various city departments. Chairman Scott stated that these unincorporated pockets between cities can be more costly in terms of service as the city has mutual aid agreements with the fire district, etc. Chairman Scott stated that good planning means we should get as much of the area as possible for the purpose of squaring off the boundaries. Commissioner Paul stated he would have. no objection to that. Commissioner Stewart was of thecpinion that Commissioner Paul's viewpoint was the only one open to the Commission. He stated that if the Council is going into discussion with another party on this -14- r--_. matter, he could not see making a public record of going fc- one area and not the other. Commissioner Paul moved that the Commission recommend that the City Council ask for all the land in the areas designated as 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. Motion seconded by Commissioner Alexande- and unanimously adopted. Commissioner Stewart asked if this would be the time to insert into the motion the desirability of some of these other portions or the. possible deannexation of certain areas. Commissioner Paul suggested that if any member of the Commission has any suggestion to make regarding a specific section that he submit it to him and he would carry it to the City Council. Commissioner Stewart moved that the City Council consider the negotiation of areas which may be more desirable in the City of Campbell than in their present position in -the City or' San Jose and vice versa. Motion seconded by Commissioner Larson and unanimously adopted. Chairman Scott stated that as long as the pockets have been talked about, he advised that each year there is legislation introduced to provide than unincorporated areas totally within the boundaries of a city can be annexed to the city without a vote of the people. The City Council can initiate annexation proceedings without regard to the election requirements. Commissioner Paul so moved.' Seconded by Commissioner Alexander and unanimously adopted. V Form.Aaaroved: O.M.B. No. 41-R2537 .FORM GEO-10 ~ U. 'PA,.~~MENT OF COMMERCE 'Ff0-80-70- BdJEEMJ OF THE CENSUS ~, BOUNDARY AND ANNEXATION SURVEY County, place, S C' "yt,'~' ['_ E. i. ~ `~ ~~'' ~ " ' ''~ ~`~ ` °'A AS OF ~ s ."~ - *' ; r 1. '; 7 ;~' OFFICE ~ Serial number USE ONLY i INSTRUCTIONS: Please record the information requested below for all annexations and detachments after you have corrected the boundaries of the enclosed .map. Refer to the Instruction Sheet before making any entries on this form. Type of change Estimated area Estimated Enter. A for Annexation OR D for Detachment (a) Ordinance or resolution number (b) Effective date (c) Square Acres miles OR (d) (e) Estimated Population (f) number of housing units (g) I h .. _.r( . q l '~, ~, ~ ~ 2. f{ ( f A . I b 4. .~, . o - ~., -~ , 6. - x 7. (a 3 8. 10. {,_ I. ~' i' 2. r( 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. If there have been no changes in the boundaries of your municipality please mark this box--~~ Sisnaturs Telephone Area cod• Number xtene on CERTIFICATION Title ate ~,, Pleoi• niurn fh• whlfe and yellow eoplea wlfh the map. The pink copy !t for "1 F ~ ,. ~' --, .-.. y~~ I1 ~v\ -. -. -. I ~, r. ~. -~. ~.rr~: `. fNes. --~. March 8, 1972 T0: Honorable City Council £ROM: Dale Scott, Chairman Planning Commission SUBJECT: BOUNDARY AGREEMENT CONSIDERATIONS The Planning Commission reviewed the referral from the City Council on proposed boundary agreement policies to be discussed with the City of San Jose. The Commission after reviewing the data and maps took the following action: 1. The Commission unanimously recommends that the City seek to establish a boundary agreement that includes those areas designated as 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 within the sphere of influence of the City of Campbell. 2. The Commission unanimously recommends that the City Council consider negotiating with the City of San Jose regarding areas that might be appropriately deannexed from Campbell and annexed to San Jose and vice versa for the purpose of establishing a more viable boundary for the City from a service and community interest point of view. The Commission also suggests that a study session on boundary agreements be established at an early date. The members of to make specif entire subject In general, we areas that the lays. the Commission felt that is recommendations on any is to be negotiated with feel that the City shoal City can service without it would specific the City d seek to substant be inappropriate area since this of San Jose. take in all ial capital out- I have designated Commissioner Paul to serve as the representative of the Planning Commission on the committee to meet with the City of San Jose. DS : pka ~~~ ~ ~~'._"