Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-02-1974 City Council Minutes MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL TIME: Tuesday, April 2, 1974 - 8:00 P.M. PLACE: Saratoga Youth Center, 19655 Allendaie Ave., Saratoga, California TYPE: Adjourned RegUlar Meeting I. ORGANIZATION A. ROLL CALL Present: Councilmen Bridges, Brigham, Diridon, Kraus and Smith Absent: None II. PUBLIC HEARING A. CONSIDERATION OF PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS RE: SARATOGA GENERAL PLAN AND SPHERE OF INFLUENCE PLAN Mayor Smith opened the discussion by advising that the original recommen- dations as submitted by the !Planning Consultant, as well as those recommendations of the Pianning.Con~mission, had been oOnsidered by the Council at a Committee of the Whole' Meetipg Tuesday, March 26. He indicated that this evening has been set asid.e as a time for public input with regard to the various areas covered~.under Ithe General Plan Review. The City Manager indicated there had been three' recent items of correspondence received relative to this issue, tw~o·of which were from John M. Weir, Chairman for Greater Arguello Homeowners Association (dated March 13 and April 1, 1974), submitting their recommendations relative' to various aspects of the 1974 Saratoga General Plan ~nd requesting the Council give con- sideration to the revisions they have outlined. In addlition, there was received a lette~ from Harry L. Mayfield, President, The G~od Government Group, recommending revisions concerning certain policy statements within the General Plan document and requesting that a clear definition of the term "PD' be f'ormulated before action is taken to adopt the General Plan. Robert I~onside, Planning Consultantw~t~'~'f'~r~ indicated that the GeheF~l Plan,i's at i~'pr[~n~'~t~[~ ~f'['~ru~pp~'~imately one year of intense· study and consideration at *the Planning Commissio'n level. He explained that the General Plan this ye.ar is more complex than in previous years in that there ~re now? elemepts re.quired by Sta~e Law that have to be considered. He advised tha~ these 9 elements have been presented to the Plan~ing Commission..an_d they have re-organized the elements into 3 basic categories . 1) Environmental R~source Management; 2) Community Develop- ment; and 3) Circulation. These are included in the document for the y s . Cit consideration and ultimate adoption. Mayor Smith state~ he would like to go·.t~ro~gh each individual area contained within the General Plan document and note those primary differences between the Planning Consultantes recommendations and the Planning Commission~s con- clusions pertinent to each. Area A - Mt. Eden Mr. Ironside proceeded to outline the Planning Cgn~ultant's recommendations pertinent to this area. Mr. John M. Weir, 12343 Arguello, slated. he was representing Greater Arguello Homeowners Association, in recommending some minor modifications to the existing document. Mr. Weir advised it would be their objective to do ~some- thing to form a backbone and provid~ guidance to the Subdivision Ordinance. He then outlined the three specific·i.recommendations of the Greater A~guello Homeowners Association, as -follows: 1) Redefine that porti0p of the eastern .boundar of Area A between Prospect and e~e sodthern boundary of the~Fre~op['~High School property to be the Southern PaCifiC railroad tracks to the eastern boundary of the school property. M~. Weir felt that Pag~ 6, paragraph 1, footnote 1, which attempts to describe slope'conservation zoning, was ambiguous and could be interpreted in a number of ways. Therefore, it was the homeowners association's recommendation the boundaries be more clearly definedjand an applied/plan for development of the foothill areas be implemented. They ha~e suggested revising paragraph 1, as follows: 2) Define all undeveloped land areas in Area A as a "Slope Conservation Zone; redefine the Slope Conservation zoning ordinance to be the same as the "Criteria for Slope Conservation Development for Saratoga Sphere of Influence", dated FeBruary 5, 1974, as attached hereto; adopt the numbers. for slope categories, the final numerical point relationships related to dwelling density and the maximum dwelling units per acre stated in the attached February 5th,griteria, modi- fied to resdlt in a continuous,' rather ~han a step, function. Rezone the land within the re~sed boundaries to c0nform.I Develop ordinances which define bases for satisfying the criteria shown on the attached chart. Mr.'Weir advised ~hat this recommendation'would eliminate the present "stair-step" slopes and r~place this with a curVe function. He then out- lined the formula to .implement this function~'~Ti~o~ cna~t. 'He ~l'ained this modification would apply penalties.to affect the minimum aflowa~le acreage 'on slopelands and avoid unfair penalizing those who exceeded the slope criteria. Also suggested for revision was pa~e 3, item 2, "Environmental Resource Management", Cto.~r~a~ ~s follows: 3) The importanc~ ~of the Views of 'the hills from the existing property in the City will be-a factor in restricting development. Cutting and grading of the tops of'hill~s and development al6ng ridge lines or on the skyline will not be permitted. Mr. Russell L. Cr0wther, 20788 Norada Court, indicated he would like con- sideration to.be giveR to some of these areas of concern, particularly regarding development of these hillside areas. He also expressed concern with regard to the seismic status of the hills in the area, soil stability, extension of the low density policy. adopted in the Sobey Road area to other residential areas of Saratoga, and retention of the natural beauty of this area. He felt that many of the proposed developments would have an affect on these factors and commen[ed that, the General Plan doesn't specifically define how this-area wouidbe treated in terms of zoning. Mr. Tom Sawyer, 20790 Norada Court,' supported the recommended revisions as outlined-by Mr. Weir as he felt ~h~Suldlh~lp to more clearly spell out the criteri~ so that both the conSUltant ~nd the developer would have no question regarding development.~ He further cqmmented that he felt a moratorium on building'in this area. should be imRosed. until the criteria is ~ptemented.' Mr. Weir commented tha~ if this criteria is used as a guideline for ~tu!e development, there would not be theZ problem of inconsistence and depende~c~I upon one condition or another. Councilman Kraus'aske~ Mr. Weir if Wil~iams and Mocine has had an opportunity to go over the recommendations submitted by Arguello Homeowners Assocfation. Mr..Weir'replied t~ey are a~ar~ of [he recommendations; however, they have not actually reviewed t~emat ~his ~ime. ~rea B - CongresslSprings,,Pierce .RSad ' Mr.' Ironside iHdicated this would B~Ithe s~me reaommend~tion with regard to Slope ConservatioW Zoning as in Area A. There were no additional comments from.the audience. Area C - Blue Hills Mr. Ironside outlined the C6nsultant"s objectives regarding the Gateway commercial area and indicated'their'first-recommendation ·would be to unify the appearance of the Gateway approach, and the City should strive for the type of development that would be the result of a unified ownership. It was the cOnsultane~!s recommendationsthat the two major vacant parcels along Calabazas Creek should be developed~ with site review as Administrative land use. The fina} conclusion of the Planning Commission was to develop this area as Planned Development with mixed uses. Mr. Ironside indicated that the site on the east side of Saratoga-Sunnyvale between the Southern Pacific tracks would be developed PD (residential). COuncilman Kraus indicated he would have a problem with the unlimited use factor here and hecould not understand allowing a 28,000 square foot Alpha Beta Market next to a Payless. Store. Mri Ironside explaine~ all uses would be subject to consideration and they are merely trying to express a concept of flexability. He indicated that any use would be.subject to the same p[ocedure as rezoning and to the same conditions of the Zoning Ordinance.~ Mr. Lohr oftSaratoga Foothills Development Corp. commented that he feels this would allow' too much openess add felt if the City designates this area "PD", it should be left.at R-lu12,500 rather than getting the'land-' owner thinking about 30 acres of retirement housing. Mr. Ironside advised that one of the problems with the"PD" approach is that you don't know if yo.u are going to have any customers, and there is the advantage of having an option to goito R-1-12,500. ~dgUncilm~n2Bridges pointed out that,.this.area is heavily impacted by single- famil~'d~ellings and there are.someI non-conforming uses, ~hich would probably remain at R-1-%5,'000 or R-l-10,000.1 Therefore, he felt there were other conaiderations t9 be looked at in this area. Area D - Triangle, North Mr. Ironside'indicated this'is the northeastern corner of the city. He then proceaded to outline the recommendations within this area. The City Manager commented with regard to item 2, which discusses the .proposed freeway right-of-Way. He indicated. that the original recommendation of Williams and Mocine was showing this area as a transportation corridor and at the staff level alternatives were being shown in ~he event it was'abandoned. He felt this is an area that has to be better defined to guarantee the corrid~ would go all the way through·. Area E - Triang}e, South Mr. Ironside outlined the Consultant's recommendations for this area. There were no additional comments by the Council or audience. - Area F - quito~ Kentfield Mr. Ironside indicated this is the area north o~ Allendale Ave. He reviewed the recommendations, and indicated=this is the "PD" approach as discussed in the Gateway area. Councilman Diridon asked if r~tire~ent housing has been discussed for this area. Mr. Ironside replied that it has; however, no conclusions have been made concerning this. .Mayor Smith pointed out that the communication recei~ed,zfrom the Good Government Group, relates to~6e~m~3~'f~these ~ecommendations; pertaining to the two vacant parcels located 'b~ the southeast side of Saratoga Ave. between MeFarland and Cox Avenues,.in recommending that these parcels Irerain the zonfng recommended in the 1972 General Plan. Area G - Fruitvale, Sobey Road Mr. Ironside reviewed the recommendations pertinent to this area. Councilman Kraus expressed concern about the pos'sibility of bringing Qui~o Up to a 4-lane road. Mr. Ironside commented that the recommendation is to study this and determine the best way to-protect the scenic!quality of this thoroughfare. He agreed this should be clarified. Area H - Fruitvale West Mayor Smith aSked~if 'item 4, p~ge 11, is recom~n~idg'4 lanes of travel' or just i~provement '~Fc~at6gazAve~'d~ from Fruitvale to Herriman Ave. Mr. IronSide r~pii~d that they are ~ecommending 4 lanes. Meg Monroe of Willi~ms ~nd Mocin~ substantiated th~sl.'in stating that this portion of the road .iswhere heavy ltraffic occu~s~ When asked what the consultant was ~basing his recommendation of improving this road,' as well as the distance on Quito Road, Mr. Ironside replied that this is based on the assumption of more growth in the area, thereby warranting roads with a greater capacity. MrsT; Monroe added that the State Highway Department projections reflect a sfgnificant increase, particularly along Saratoga-Sunnyvale and Saratoga-Los' Gatos Road, and also along Big Basin Way. She pointed but, however, that these projections are not current. The City Manager indicated he felt !the Council is first going_to have to consider what~evel._of ~r~ff~c'~is~illing t~'a~'~o~ stree~' what ......... d~wg~a~ig-~ - ...... ctate-g~iffg'to have; . . _ _ . _. improvements ;on fhese streem Area I - Glen Una A question was asked concerning the' reasoning in designating Mo~talvo Road as'a collector ~treet, Mrs, Monroe~explained this would be for the purpose of generating Gas Tax funds. Area J - The Village Mr, Ir6nside reviewed the redommend~tions for this area, There were no additional comments, Mr. Ironside had no'comments regarding the above recommendations at this point. Mr. John Torre, 21680 Wardell Road, indicated he would have two objections with regard to Area A . . 1) deletion of Wardell extension to Old Oak Way dueto ihadequate fire access; 2) limitation in slope conservation zoning -= under the proposed formula he couldn't develop his 12, acres of land, and he was opposed to the strict density restrictions proposed for this area. ~M~Coleman,.att~rney for Mr. Mari~o~ ~i~8~i~a~dGi~'~d~Vl~s~d 6is ~fi~t--owns the Williamson Act. He indicated.~r. Maridon has beef paying taxes on this basis for quite some t~me;~however, he is faced wieh~a situation whereby devel0pment of the land is going tb be necessary in ~rder to cover the investmentC~ thi~T~Bper~y. over ~He years: Mr. MaridQn had had an engineerss SUrvey taken o~he'~pfe.sent pr~in 6f s'lope density an4 it was found that another 7 home Sites could be'puton this property. It was his .concern that the movement appea~s to be pushing~toward more bpen space or'lower density, and if it reached the.point of 10-~cre lots, it would mean condemnation of his property becadSe he couldn't d6 anything useful with the property at this point. Mr. Maridon~s counsel further indicated that in addition to the problems of soil stability, recreational needs,~ fire vehicle access, etc., there is ah immediate problem with people trespassing on the land'. He felt it is very easy for people to feel' 9o ~esponsfbility toward this pVoperty since they have no ownership interest iB it. Mr. Maridon is of the feeling that orderly development of this area with large 1 or 2-acre lots would help to resolve some of these problems. Mayor Smith questioned why this ind~ividual. wanted to remove this land from open space under the Williamson Act. It was his understanding if the zoning were based on 1 unit per 10 acres, one could receive a souM reduction in taxes, due to the fact the land is less desirable. Mr. Maridon's 'attorney responded that his client is looking toward the future, as he felt Dhe trend was likely to move toward a decrease in density, thus lowering the' value of hisproperty in later years. Mr. Jim Torre stated that from the ~iewpoint of some of the landowners in this area, the objective of the Williamson Act is for the lowering of taxes, and had they k~own'development was ~oing-to change this, they wouldn't h&ve entered int6 the'Williamson Act originally. Mr. Crowther indicated it was his f~eli~g that if the Planning Commission's intent was.to use the criteria provided as a guideline for establishing allowable lot sizes, it would, in its present form, be open for litigation. Therefore, he felt'it would be necessary to provide clarification in those - areas suggested by the Arguello Hom'eo~ers Group. Mr. C~wther commented regarding the Sphere of Influence Plan. It was his concern that the plan as proposed wpuld have an inconsistency outside the city limits. Therefore, he felt it very important that the Sphere of Influence Plan be consistent beyond the city limits. Mr. Bernie Turgeon of Saratoga Foothills Development Corp., agreed that the suggestions offered bY the ~guello Homeowners Group should be taken into consideration before adopting the General Plan. The Mayor suggested a review of the remaining areas commence at this point. Urban Service Area. Cit ' The Mayor explained the relationship of the y s Sphere of'Influence tothe Urban Service Area and the Bocal Agency Formatfen Commission's role in assigning these Urban Service Areas in ~p~rti~u~ar_spher~.of TM Influence, thereby designating thi~ as a develop~ble"~rea Kithin the next five years. Mr. Beyer indicated'that the next public hearing'is scheduled for Tuesd~ay, April 9, at which time ~he Sphere of Influence would be reviewed. ~ ' _~ Mayor S~ith suggested that the Coudcil work jointly with the Planning tommission as the General Plan discussions progress in order to'work out some of the areas of disagreement.'i "The Mayor also suggested the-City Attorney review the A~guello Homeowners Association request and advi'se regarding any le.gal implications. III. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Councilman Diridon and ~seconded by CoUncilman Bridges the meeting be adjourned. The motion was darried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:25 P.M. -Respectfu 1 submitted, City Clerk · - 6 -