Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-06-1975 City Council Minutes MINUTES SARATOGA~ CITY COUNCIL TIME: Wednesday, August 6, 1975 ~ 7:30 P.M'L PLACE: Saratoga City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitv~!_~Avenue,~ Saratoga, California TYPE: Regular Meeting I. ORGANIZATION A. ROLL CALL Present:' Councilmen Brigham, Corr, Kraus, Matteoni, Bridges Absent: None B. MINUTES It was moved by Councilman Brigham and seconded by Councilman Kraus the minutes of July 8 and July 16, 1975, be approved, and the reading be waived. The motion was carried. Consent Calendar - The City Manager indicated that he has designated with an asterisk those items on the agenda which he felt might properly be considered under the consent calendar. The Council briefly discussed this idea, and chose to further discuss the format of. such a consent calendar at a future Committee of the Whole Meeting. II. BIDS AND CQNTRACTS A. AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE AND RECEIVE BIDS - 2 PARK TRUCK~ It was moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded by Councilman Brigham the staff be authorized to advertise and:receive bids. The motion was carried. B. EXTENSION OF COMMUNITY GARDEN MANAGING GARDENER AGREEMENT FOR TWO MONTHS It was moved by Councilman Brigham and seconded by Councilwoman Corr to approve the extension of the Community Garden Managing Gardener A~reement for a period of two months. The motion was carried. III. PETITIONS, ORDINANCES AND FORMAL RESOLUTIONS A. PETITION REQUESTING STOP SIGN AT THE INTERSECTION OF SARATOGA CREEK DRIVE AND RALEIGH PLACE The City Manager advised this petition consists of signatures of 56 residents in the area of Saratoga Creek Drive a~d Raleigh Place. It was his recommen- dation this matter be referred to the Director of Public Works for ~eview and a report back to the Council in 30 d~ys. Tom Boynton, 19111 Saratoga Glen Place, addressed the Council, indicating that he would like to add to this request placement of signs at the corner of Saratoga Glen Place and Saratoga Creek Drive, due to an extremely dangerous. traffic situation. Councilman Kraus asked that the City.Manager alert the Sheriff's Department regarding the situation at Saratoga Creek Drive and Raleigh Place, and ask that this area be patrolled during the period this matter is under review. The City Manager indicated he would request patrol of this intersection during the next 30 days. The Council approved the City Manager's recommendation to refer this. petition to the staff for review and a reportin 30 days. B. RESOLUTION NO. 739 Resoluti on Abandoning Emergency Access Easement -·Tract 5384, James Day, Woodbank Way It was moved by Councilman Brigham and seconded by Councilwoman Corr Resolution 739 be adopted. The motion was carried. C. RESOLUTION NO. 740 Interim Resolution Providing Slope. Density and Lot Size Criteria The City Manager explained that in follow up to the last regular meeting, it was the intent of the Council this evening to adopt'preliminary standards for hillside development. The Council's action at the July 16th regular meeting took these standards out of the Subdivision Ordinance which was adopted, with the intent to adopt an interim pol'icy'relevant to this section until such time as a new Slope Conservation Ordi!nance is adopted. The City Attorney indicated he has left the precise formula out of the proposed interim resolution, and this would be plugged in, based on the Council's decision as to what figures should be used here. Marty Van Duyn, Planning Director, advised that the Planning Commission is · ~ 1. , consisting of 2.46 currently working with the formula:; a = .681 -Oll S acres per dwelling unit, at 25% slope (Slope Density Formula - B). Mr. Van Duyn explained that the Planning Commission is in the process of developing a concept plan'to take care of 1,200 acres, which gives an average percent slope of 25%. He indicated that i f the Counci'l was'i riterested in taking the formula suggested by Mr. Crowther of' 2.5 acres per dwelling unit, he wOu. l,d recommend using the 1 · , which would yield at~lT%"sl'6~e~, .72.5 acres per formula: a = .475 - 0075 S dwelling unit. The ~ayor then i ~di'~a~ed~h'~e. wa~h~._i~=6f to the recently-adopted SubdivisionOrdinance,from The Good Government GroUp. He then proceeded to read this letter, which essentially points'~Gt ~hos6= ~$~i~eo{ot~eo~i~n~n~?~.~rn~/exP~ss'concern, and also, makes Ron Duffin, officer representing the Good Government Group, indicated that a. portion of this letter has been inadvertantly left out, which indicates that the Subdivision Ordinance does not pro'vide for citizen appeal on Tentative Map approvals, as provided in,the Subdivision Map Act,'nor for appeals by" advisory committees. It was the opinion of the Good Government Group this provision should be modified; The City Manager. also· presented two additional items of correspondence, from: Jbh'~ei~,~P~esid~t~ Argue]lo Homeowners Association, expressing concern relevant tO removal of slope density criteria from the Subdivision Ordinance, and from R. L. Crowther, 20788 Norada Court, asking the Council to consider the following slope equation: 2.5 a 1;089-.01778S = minimum land area per dwelling unit where S is the average parcel slope. Following considerable discussion r~garding various proposed slope formula equations, it was moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded by Councilman Brigham Resolution 740 be adopted, with the inclusion of Section 13.9-3from the Sub- division Ordinance, changing the formula contained within this section to: ,,which equates to 10% slope, at 2.~.-~r6sTd~elli~g Uni't. a = .475 - .0075 S - The motion was carried unanimously. -2~ D. RESOLUTION NO. MV-97 Resolution Designating Those Parts of PierceRoad Between State Route 85 and State Highway 9 as a Thru Highway; Also Prohibiting Stoppi.ng or. Parking at Any Time!Along the Westerl~ Side of Sixth.Street, and Establ'i.shing Stop Intersections at Casa Blanca Lane and Bonnett, ahd at Glenbrae and Via Real The City Manager advised that the total cost to implement the various sections of this resolution would be approximately $1,300.00. Dan Trinidad, Assistant Director of Public Works, advised that it is the opin~6n of the Public Works Department that the stop sign proposal at Glenbrae and · Via Real should not be supported, a~ this would have vehicles accelerating across the main school crossing focus at Glen Brae and Via Escuela, which~ ~!~'~=T.a~nfu s i ng. Councilman Kraus expressed concern on the effect this resolution w6uld have on this school crossing. It was suggested this portion of the resolution be deleted from the Council's action this evening, and(~ed for the next regular meeting~to allow the Council time to revie~ ~hi~°~tersection. It was then moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded .by Councilwoman Corr Resolution MV-97 be adopted, as amended. The motion was carried. IV. SUBDIVISIONS, BUILDING SITES AND ZONING~REQUESTS A. SDR-I058 CHIHO KIM, SUNSET DRIVE 'The City Manager~i~d~h~t,~i~ is requesting an extension on his Building Site App~v~l'A~en~t'Wi'~h the City to allow him to complete some public improvement work which has been delayed due to the utility company~not being able to do its part of the work, which is slated later this week. He indicated it is the staff's recommendation a 3-month extension be granted this applicant. It was moved by Councilman Brigham and seconded by Councilwoman Corr a 3- month extension to the Building Si~e Approval on SDR-1058 be granted. The motion was carried. B. SDR-1192 ROBERT WAY, BOUNTIFUL ACRES 1 LOT It was moved by Councilman Brigham and seconded by Councilman Kraus Resolution SDR-1192-1, granting Final Building Site Approval, be adopted. The motion was carri!ed. C. SDR-1184 JERRY CHRISTENSEN, CORDWOOD COURT 1 LOT It was moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded by Councilman Brigham Resolution SDR-1184-1, granting Final Building Site Approval, be adopted. The motion was carried. C. TRACT 4892 CAL WEST, VINEYARDS It was moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded by Councilman Matteoni authori- zation be granted to accept improvements for construction only. The motion was carried. D. TRACT 5343 CAL WEST, VINEYARDS It was moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded by Councilman Matteoni authori= zation be granted to accept improvements for construction only. The motion was carried. -3- V. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. HEARING ON PROPOSED ASSESSMENTS UNDER ORDINANCE NO. 38.63 -'WEED ABATEMEN~ ORDINANCE (Cont'd. 7/16/75) The City Manager indicated the appropriate action this evening, after hearing any appeals by anyone concerned with weed abatement.-assessments, would be to approve the list of assessments~ as wellas the Gity's intention to file this list with the County Assessor~6~'~h~'~'~e'.in~i~ual properties. He indicated, however, the State of'~aa~nia' sho~ ~ ~rom this list as they are in the process of pay.ing this assessment, and it was his recommen- dation this be removed from the list. The public hearing was opened at 8:3.2 P.M. There being no comments from the audience, it was moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded by Councilman Brigham the public hearing be closed. The motion was carried. The public hearing was closed at 8:33 P.M. It was them moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded by CoUncilwoman Corr.' .... ~ ~?~n>N6. 741, Resolution CoHfirming Report and Assessment Re: Weed" AbatementS'be adopted, and the staffbe directed to submit the list of unpaid assessments, excluding the State of. California as'recommended above, to the County Assessor's Office. The motion was carried. B. CONSIDERATION OF FINAL ENVI.RONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ON APPL'ICAT'ION TO REZONE FROM "R-1-40,O00" (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) AND "A" (AGRICULTURE) BLACKWELL HOMES (PARKER RANCH), PROSPECT AND STELLING ROADS Mayor Bridges explained/~i~h'~C6uncil's responsibility in this instance to certify the environ~ntil~a~: report as to its completeness, and this must be done prior to consideration of change of zoning (Item C).~ He then asked Mr. Van Duyn, Planning Direct6r to review this project and its status to date. Mr. Van Duyn advised that the application for rezoning on this matter was originally submitted in October, 1973. Subsequent to that, the City required an environmental impact report on this project, which requirement was basically met, the applicant providing a draft in 19741 The City at that time hired - the consultant finn df Enviros to make sure they could' certify a draft in accordance with the EnvironmentalQuality Act. The applicant then submitted a revised draft, which was again revised and resubmitted'in June. L'~'T.~ "H~i~8~(ated the first public hearihg before the Planning Commission was held on July 16, 1974, and a tremendous amount of public infopmation and comments was received referencing what was felt to be inadequacies of ~b6 ~ron~tal -~ImpTct'~eport. The Planning CommisSion referred these comment~'6~Ck'to'i~e · T6plic~nt's environmental.consultant, who responded to the comments. In September, 1974, another public hearing was held and additional citizen response was heard. At that time, it was requested time be given for hiring a consultant to come back again and'sum up the comments which were felt to be major issues and stumbling blocks, and a final report was submitted from the consultant in November, 1974, which makes numerous reference to the adequacy and completeness of the environmental material to date. Mr. Van Duyn described the exact location of this proposed project and_i.ndi- cated the various plans. submitted~S~i,~i~a ~61~'(h"~sen~ly 2~'H'd~'~E6n~e~{~;GH~s one which '~'the C6~si~n'~F6m' OE~6b~"1973"~b a'f~we~'ekFb~ck 't'6"arrive at, which plan incorporates conceptual plans and progress to date. Als'o, he pointed~out the project.to date has attempted to take into consideration the mitigating factors, as indicated in the latest revised plan. -4- PARKER RANCH E.I.R. (Cont'd.) He indicated that the Planning Commission has recommended the latest E.I.R. materials submitted~e~2~:~i·th~n~i~mental-~Impact Report, which they feel to be in ~6~man(e~ith~h~'~F~u'i~ements of the Environmental Quality Act. Mr. Van Duyn then touched on some of the major problems as verbalized at previous hearings, such as soils geology., tree removal,.visual impact of the water tank which services these,homes, and traffic circulation. He indicated that the environmental-consultant on the second revised plan, has taken into consideration ·these migigating factors,~particularly cutting down the amount of streets, and also, avoiding unnecessary tree removal. He further pointed out the project would be subject to Subdi~vision approval and also, Design Review approval to make sure these ~itigating factors will be implemented. .. He further advised that a tremendous amoun~ of information has been received i~ the area of sofls g~o]ogy and seismic safety. -A~so, the City has contracted for services of Envirds, and a geote~hnical analysis byIMr.. Frank Anderson. He indicated. that an extensive d~alogue' wa~ g~ven a~ the p~evious Planning Commission .... h~aring p~ this matter,.and several..ques~ions.we~e raised and responded to, based on extensive research.df=t~ject. Mr. Van Duyn ~n~cate~ thatLCom_e?_~r~3.ve-wa~'recommended for extension, not only by the Sheriff's Department, but the Fire District as well. He indicated the consultant saw two major problems associated with the traffic nroblem: l) streets werel~le~l~V'61~'~T~f~f~and 2} problem of safety and need of traf~ Mr. Van Duyn indicated that the Planning Commission, 'th~ consultant, and staff feels there is enough information and documentation for this E.I.R., and would like to Council to decide if they feel this project would have an adverse affect on the environment. Mayor Bridges then'presented written communications received relevant to this hearing, as follows: Russell L. Crowther, 20788 No'rada Court, etal, urging the Council to consider a moritorium on al.1-'rezoning, subdivision, and grading permit approvals at the periphery of Saratoga until'open space zoning'ordin- ances are implemented. Mr. Vince S. Garrod, Garrod Farms, 22600 Mt. Eden Road, favoring Council's approval of rezoning Parker Ranch. Mrs. Roger Pilie', 12314 Arroyo de Arguello, opposing development of Parker Ranch. Mr. James Sell, 19328 Ranfre Lane, expressing concern over the proposed development of Parker Ranch. Mary Jean Sortel, 19554 Vineyard ~Lane~ opposed to the lowering of den- sities in the Saratoga hillsides. Lizabeth Foster and Jennifer Smith, reviewing both sides of the Parker Ranch issue. Mrs. ShirleyDiem~r, 20751Wardel:l Road, requesting the Council deny Blackwell Homes the requested change of zoning. Carol La Marre, 19332 Titus Court, supporting initiative petition for reduced hillside densities. Russell L. Crowther, 20788 NoradaCourt, summarizing specific areas of concern with regard to the Env~ironme6tal Impact Report for the Parker Ranch development proposal. Russell L. Crowther, 20788 Norada Court, opposing rezoning of the Parker · Ranch and the Hall Williamson Act lands to Planned Community, and requesting the Council not consider rezoning of this property until the Slope Conservation Zoning Ordinance and Open Space Zoning[<have been developed and implemented. _ 5¸_ PARKER RANCH E.I.R. (Cont'd.) The Mayor then opened the public-hearing at 8:58 P.M. William Heiss, engineer with the firm Jennings, McDerm6tt, Heiss, Inc., addressed the Council, indicating that he would 1.ike to present a project summary, dating from October, 1973 to the present. He indicated that in April, 1973, they started work on the Parker Ranch, and one of the first things they did was to develop a slope analysis of the property and determined that the average slope is 28½%. He stated that the first plan which was submitted consisted of a 195-unit project on 218 acres comprised of the. Parker Ranch and the Hall property. After submittal of this plan, it became apparent that the Planning Commission a~d~staff were opposed to this density~ and therefore, ,they came back with a 135-unit plan, which was the subject of many discussions, field trips, etc. It was then~ recommended this plan be amended, the major changes being r~ted to siting of the houses,~and it is this document that was'the subject of the Environmental Impact Report~ Mr. Heiss then described_the location of the major road and the circulation pattern. He ~tated~e~rT4~3~Ti~dicated as privately-held lots, 1.57 acres devoted to op'~n~a~e~18'~res for public streets. This plan envisioned removal of 254 trees, or 6% of the ~otal tree inventory. He indicated as a part of the E.I.R., a count was takenof the trees, cate- gorizing them as to size, type, ~nd condition, and this couht was 4,364 trees 12 inches or larger. in size. He indicated this project did envision 190,000 cubic ya~ds~_of excavation. ~Wit'~'~p~~~tili~es on the project, which was.also a subject of the E.I.R., there is an existing~8-inch sewer running throu:.g~the property and exiting'by the golf c~urse. This was designed by the C(~rtino Sanitary District on the basis of 1 dwelli~ng unit per acre, which is the'p~oper size for this development. He indicated there is an existing 19-inch water main that runs through the p~operty, which is of sufficient capacity to take care of the water supply for the property, but it does require the use of an additional water tank at 'one location of the property to drain water from the higher elevations. The tankat the lower level is a 4 million-gallon tank. He indicated the tank does provide'adequate water flow for fire protection and domestic use. Mr. Heiss indicated during ~ev~to.u~_environmen~al ~mpact hearings, questions were brought up relative to~flood~ngproblems'i~!~he~aT~T~ecifically on Norada Court and.Arguello. ~'~l~i's-w~s~condue~'6~'t~6'Parker ranch to determine its affect on this flooding, and it was found that bX breaking constructing a~r storm ~. the property into various 'drainage basinssand ~ runhi:ng~along an easterly point and ending at Prospect Creek,'{h~'~661~~ help to mitigate the flooding problem, and lea~e only the school property draining onto Norada Court. He~L~he~r~qui~rements of the area pertained to improv~ent of Prosp~t"Cr~k~~ ~m~he edge of .the Parker Ranch On down to Arroyo de f Arguello. He stated this has been filled up with a lot of debris and is in need of draining and cleaning.~ Flood Control has indicated this is the responsibility of the developer. Another possible area having problems is the area of Basin "c" which drains into a private storm line lying to the south of Verde Moor. Heindicated that in analyzing this area,'they also found that ~he present run-off from the Parker Ranch and adjoining area~Ol~6~T(O~tained for a 3-year storm; ~'d'anyt~'~6~3~a~6T~i~6'~ei~ed as a hazard.. He stated ~h~t~h~'de~i-o'p~t~'f~the~P~k~fR~ch would'not impact that particular storm line, and the total increase in run-off on Basin "O" is aboU~ However, the probl~ still exists'with the storm line that~bn ~he sou~h on Verde Moor. ~ ...... PARKER RANCH E.I.R. (Cont'd.) He indicated that a storm drain as a part of the development of the Parker Ranch could be logically earmarked for $40,000 to $50,000 to~.~id in this particular situation. Mr. Heiss commented~th/at~'m~j61~rea of concern was that of circulation. He indicated that t~'6ri~i~l'~oposal seemed to be offering too many" problems as far as access~6f~fi'~'p~6t~'~i~n~lTc~.prot~ction, etc.; therefore, one of the reco~d~i~s"~'aS'~er D~ive be extended. Another concern brought out at previous hearings was that there were no L~r6~i~'~'~aTT~ails through the property. The existing plan 6F'FF i'ls ~6~6~h'the ~Parker Ranch takes care of this obligation. , He indicated there was concern expressed for the need of a pu~p station; as_o~posed to the gravity outlet, which is another reason to strive for (~ c6~n'~6~to~Comer Drive', as this can also provide for a gravity ~n~tio~'and will eliminate the need for a pum~ station. Mr. Heiss indicated all ofthese~things were then plugged into the environmental report, and became known as the "miti~gation plan". He then outlined those major elements i'n the "mitigation plan", as follows: 1)the interconnection toe· Comer Drive from its present terminus in the Parker Ranch down to the existingComer Drive; 2) the movement of the connection to Prospect Road to (a) eliminate unnecessary tree removal; and (b) discourage the use of Prospect Road by future residents of the Parker Ranch; 3) setting aside land on the western ahdzeastern side of a designated portion of property for future trails; 4) inclusion of an active recreation area.. Other recommendations of the mitigation plan were to-re-align stee~ particularly around the Eucaliptus grove, above the natural bowl, to eliminate tree removal and grading; introduction of more split level homes into the project; elimination of some of the ~added blocks; adjust- ment of street alignment in different areas, etc. He indicated in this particular plan there are 127 units proposed, with 182 trees removed, 178,000 cubic yards of excavation, with a similar distribution of open space and streets. Mr. Heiss indicated that utilizing this mitigation plan, the Planning Con~nission did find that this plan was complete, and the next step was to try to incor- porate the schematic data into an ultimate site development plan. He stated that one of the things which was considered was a new plan, speaking primarily to some of the visual ~s~pects. Some of these elements were as follows: 1)' the road running down the middle of the property in the upper ridge areas; (One of the major changes in the plan was the elimination of the hilltop road across the upper edge of this property.) 2) determination of what circulation was in order for this area; (The study which was authorized by the traffic consultant for this area showed that the road as shown on this particular plan, which is Prospect Road, continuing onto the property, dropping down along the creek, going back to the upper part of the property, around'the natural bowl and connecting to Comer, did coincide with the schematic plan they had in mind, and one of their first choices was the Prospect-Comer connection, as far as circulation for the~o~'{~.~ratoga area. He also recommen- ded that the bridge be put bac~n'~'6~:the~plan, as he felt this was an important link for circulation in this area.) He indicated that he was then directed by the Planning Commission to prepare a scale model of the project and =circulation plan, and he presented a picture of this scale model. He indicated they tried several alignments and con- figurations on this scale model Of the homes in this project, and based on this, evolved a new plan with some different characteristics. He indicated PARKER RANCH E.I.R. (Cont'd.) it was at this time they introduced the new concept of clustering, and also, some private streets i:nto the situation. This plan was looked at and studied', and at the same time, they were asked to prepare a hypo. ', thetical drawing, the primary"purpose being to develop the slope densiti'es. He stated that the average slopeof the property is 284%, and if you plug ~his into the formula, you come ~p with an average lot size of 1.'27 acres. He~__d~>.that the Planning Commission then indicated they wanted a plan whereby each individual lot individually met the cri~teria of the slope density formula. He stated that this plan was developed, and it yielded 105 units, and the Planning Commission' indicated this was the maxi- mum density they would allow. Th~ss is the plan which is the subject of the rezoning hearing, and was recommended for approval by'the Planning Commission. He then presented abreakdown of .the ~nO~erty in this plan, indicating that approximately 40~acres would be for private ownership, 124 acres would be public streets running through the 'area, 8 acres for private streets, and 149 acres for open space. He then outlined the area recomme ded fQr ,a tr~'~l~s system,'and the location of private streets and areas o9 parking.~'''~' - Mr. Heiss indicated this plan ends up providing about 70% acreage in permanent open space. Also, i~t is controlled by the City, with the homeowner' s assoc i ati on owningt. He then presented~a.~m~i~n~o~ statistics for the unit count, average lot size, street area,~'~'~'d~t a~ea, based on the original plan, mitigation plan, conventional plan and revised plan. He indicated he would like to go into the soils and geological!report, possibly at the next public ' hearing. He further indicated the architects for this project have been doing some fantistic plans which involve a minimal amount of grading. Also, he felt the plan as presented offers siZable alternatives for use of this property. At the request of Councilman Kraus, Mr. Heiss then pointed out the area of the Williamson property. Mr. Kraus then asked how long the Comer Drive extension would be and what kind of grade this would be. Mr. Heiss indicated that a portion of Comer Drive is covered by the R.J. Hunter subdivision map, and:he '.didn't know what the grades~efe~]~ that segment. This comprises approximately 800 feet. From the he~d"6~. this subdivision to the Parker'Ranch comprises'abObt 600 feet, and that grade is quite nat'ural -- about 6% to 7%. Councilman Kraus then asked if the open space that would result on this property would stil.1 remain on the tax rolls. Mr. Heiss indicated he believes ~he assessor handles thisby~~.~ value back to the individual lots, and is therefore able to tax individual. Therefore, you are not taking tha~ land off the role; it is going back on that homeowner. Mr. Kraus inquired if in the revised plan th~se are all single-ownership homes. Mr. Heiss replied that this is correct. Mr. Kraus asked Mr. Heiss if he was certain that the 'lines in the drainage system would take care of the Parker Ranch. Mr. Heiss replied this is correct, because by shortcutting those 90 acres out of the system, they are cutting 2/3 of the property that drains into that storm line - PARKER RANCH E.I.R. (Cont'd. Councilwoman Corr asked if there was any anticipation of any of the open space area being fenced or posted as private property. Mr. Heiss indicated he would presume the external area would be fenced, and it would be a matter of amplifying the present fencing with a suitable t~'ail. Robert Randall, 12472 Arroyo de Arguello, then addressed the Council, emphasizing the fact ~hat the residents in this area do get a lot of flooding, and what he sees here is a plan to compound the flooding in this area. Mr. Randall stated that they have 'looked at continued development in this area very seriously because of the problems of increased run-off. He commented that talking about additional storm drains is fine, except storm drains do clog up~ He further indicated he views this plan with amazement andis surprised itshas continued to receive the attention it has. Charles Hunter, 208~6 ~eadow Oaks, addressed the Council-fo~b~6~'f ~'~Fi~na~' 6~T~e 'P~i n~s s~k~'R~'~F~'e~d~i~n consi sting ~6~O:signatures 9~i~f'S~a~'~i~d~r~~di;~g ~hTP~F~FR~. He indicated that ~his petition is not a "no growth" petition, but is one for restricted development, such as 2-acre minimum with slope density. Mayor Bridges indicated this petition would be made a part of the file in this matter. Russell Crowther, 20788 Norada'Court, indicated he would li-ke to address to the Council questions related~to the E.I.R., specifically in three areas: 1) unanswered questions and concerns in areas where the Arguello-- Homeowners Association feels there are omissions in the E.I.R.; 2~) changes related to changes in the plan; and 3) questions from n~ information that has been made available by consultants, citizens, etc. Mr. Crowther stated that the key concerns of citizens in his area are: 1~ flooding due to increased run-off; 2) traffic problems; 3)'destruction of scenic beauty; 4) recreation and open space;~and 5) cost. He indicated that in the original E.I.R., there was a cost benefit analysis submitted by the developer. Subsequent to that, a~s~t~6'd~%~e~t benefit analysis was made, which indicated that the~m~ers~tYcorrect, and after that time, a decision was made to take the cost benefit analysis out of the E.I.R. He stated that at that time' it was said that the laws would not require that the cost be included. Mr. Crowther stated that since that time, they ~ave found in Public Resources' Code,.Secti. on 21001,~(~e'~ states that "It is the policy of the State to require all governmental'~ agencies at all levels to consider qualitative factor~,~as well as economic and~tec-hn~ea~-~ac~orS,'~i.n long term benefits and costs, in addition to short- (t6rm~b'enef-i~s-~d costs, %a~a~tO TE6~]-t~6'~s toC~&~ adverse affects on the environmen~""Th~F~f~T'i~h~nder~{~g that the law does require a statement of cost, and he felt this i's one of the major areas their questions have not been answered in the Environmental Impact Report. He further indicated there are questions they would like to have answered associated with fire protection, since this is one of the highest areas of fire hazards. Mr. Crowther co~ented that he feels the whole area of flooding has not been touched in one of the major problem areas, which is Calabazas Creek. Also, there is concern as to who is going to pay for the grading and ~aintenance of the s~tation ponds that the E.I.R. will requi~e, and also, the potential problems downstream in the Via Roncole area and the area of Highway 85. Mr. Crowther indicated they have previously questioned the EnVironmental Impact Report as to accuracy and completeness in regard to the way the run-off was calculated, as it appeared that calculation was based only on the street, driveway and roof problem, and no consideEa~jg~.~as given to _ tree removal. He felt th~se factors should al~nca:ed'6d:in th~f~ - 9- PARKER RANCH E.I.R. (Cont'd.) calculations. He further commented there is talk th~_~_ft. her_~e i.s__~a_p_~_~l+em~ in planting trees between houses in this kind 'of hazard area. He indicated there has been some discussion regarding removal of existing vegetation and replacing with fire resistant vegetation, and it was his feeling'this type 'of thing could have a major effect on the run-off problem. Mr. Crowther then presented some slides to indicate some of the concerns relative to visual impact, and it was his feel!ing there has not been enough attention given to open hills and vegetation. It was his feel,ing this vegetation on the open hills would have a major impact on the scenic beauty of the area. He presented. additional slides which he felt demonstrated adverse af~f_ects to the flooding situation. He commented that it is felt the .~r,~g~as~d"~:er pumped into Prospect Creek might cause a problem; also, he 'indi'~'~te~d~{'hey are fearful that ~he increased run-off that is being converted down into Prospect Creek is going to cause back~up. Also, he commented that the Norada Court storm drain runs under the road into the box culvert, and when that box culvert fills up from Prospect Creek, there is nowhere on Norada Court the water can go. He then presented a slide showing water running up very close to the fou6dation of the house threatening to take out the fence. Councilman Kraus asked Mr. Crow%l~er how typical an occurrence this was. Mr. Crowther replied that it usually occurs once or twice each winter. However, they had people out cleaning up the streets 3 or 4 times this last winter. He further stated that the mitigating plan doesn't help this situation at all, as it diverts the water down the other side,of the creek. 'He indicated that it is doesn't help that area on Via Roncole, particularly those houses along Calabazas Creek, which are receiving severe flooding. He then~~'~i ~h~b~'~e~ ~i~~~ Sunnyval e Road; i ~}~ ~ ffd '{h~t~i~p'ears' there' i~6"t- mU(h-ro'om'l~ft for water, and during the heaviest s~o~ last winter, it was running right along the bottom of the box cul.vert~ He felt this probl~ might possibly be corrected byc~nd~q~{h'e'culvert or making it larger. He then presented slides which h~ felt demonstrated some of the typical soils problems which occur on certain streets in the area Where mud run~ off the hil~s. He indicated they are concerned because on the County maps designating areas of various stability categories, Parker Ranch appears in the category of '~DS", which is indicated as an area of high potential for landslides. He indicated they are concerned that this is not mentioned in the Environmental Impact Report, and they have not seen it addressed to any major extent.. He indicated they did get a copy of the soils report prepared by Applied.Soils Mechanics, and they are concerned that even though the density has bee n reduced and there is clustering, that houses are still being located on'~isky sites. 'He then pointed 'out an area which has been addressed as a major landslide area, according to the U.S. Geological Map, which designates this as an area of an active slide in 1973. Another area of concern is the area around Soil Creek.' He then pointed out the location of the fault ti,ne, wh,ich he indicated is. shown 'on the County maps, and stated that ~he Cou'nty Geologis.t has indicated he considers this fault'potentiall-y active. <Mrs, Crow.ther cOmmen'{ed't~fm~y~f {~i~={6~r~C'{O=back'f~cOsts';~'fo~ ~hT~"lTt~'costs, which are documented'in detail in~he UZS. Geological Survey reports. Also; he 'indicated there are hidden costs, such as increased .staffing-by the City for development of this property. He then presented a sugary of costs in the Bay Area for one year, which was~ prepared by Brad and Taylor. He~indicated the total cost was approximately 25 million dollars'~for that one-~ear period, and Santa Clara County's costs were approximately 2 million dollars, which indicates there hasnnot been - lO- PARKER RANCH E.I.R. (Cont'd.) very much development in these hills, and is expected these costs would go up tremendously with the development of hills in Santa Clara County. Mr. Crowther indicated they are also questioning whether or not feasible alternatives have been explored to the extend they should have been on the E.I.R. He stated they have a number of alternatives they would like to have considered, for example, high density at the north end.of the site at Prospect, with the remainder of land dedicated to the park district. Also, they would like to have condominiums considered. In closing, Mr. Crowther indicated they are pleased to hear that the Planning Department is recomm~ndingri~h'~i~;i~h'e prior determi'nation of the significant impact be retained, and ~'~9~6ped if the Council accepted this E.I.R., they would recognize the significant impact on our environment. Counci.lman Matteoni asked if what Mr. Crewther meant by "high density" in the north end of the site, would be concentration of clustering, rather than spreading throughout the site. Mr. Crowther replied he felt th.es~o~e~s wouldn't be severe if there wasn't this road up over the hiYT'~n~t'l~h~ houses on top of the hill. Councilman Ma~tteoni :then asked what was the evidence of this active slide area(i~'l'97T ~'h]~Mr;: Crowther had referred to; Mr. Crowther indicated that this would have to come from Mr. Robert McLaughlin at the' U.S. Geological Survey Office in Menlo Park. He indi- cated there is an ]~row pointing.to the slide area, showing this area as active in 1973. Mr. Matteoni then asked. if Mr. Crowther was questioning 'whether the re- moval of the lower sections of the Parker site into the Prospect Creek area will solve the slide problem which he referred to. Mr. Crowther replied that he felt this would help Norada Court; however, it might not resolve the entire problem.. Bruce Steff~; 12321 Saratoga Glen Place, asked ~he question: ~'~ed Oh ~1~]76~j7'40, what, if any, affect does that have on ~he denTi't'i~ bTi~6'h'~i'd~red on the Parker Ranch pnoposal?" Mayor Bridges co~ented that he doesn't believe this has been explained as yet, and significant to what the Council is hearing now. Mr. Steffy commented that it did ,occur to him .with .a 28%,~you .would come up with quite a different number of-'..permissi bl e dwel ling 'un'i~s, 'i.f you appl ied. that s 1 ope dens i ty under, the new 'fo~ul a. He~.'indi.ca~6d that the ~eason he Came~ ~o this hearing th!s'~n~pg~s that he was concerned about co~ents he had seen in the city press that tile Planning Co~ission seemed to feel that the people concerned with 'the Parker subdivision represented a' vocal minority and group which lives in the immediate area. He indicated that as a citizen of Saratoga not immediately adjacent to this property, he did want to point out that he feels the im- pact of this proposed subdivision would affect everyone of the citizens, and that the unbroken greenbelt is a 'natural resourse which the,Council should not take t-o lightly. " Frank Perdichizzi, 19804 Colby Court, indicated he didn't believe there was any mention tonight of the economic effects ifi the E;I.R. Mayor Bridges indicated that originally there was some information given about cost and increased taxes, however, this was t~ken out of the E.I.R. because it was not determined to be a requirement of the E.I.R. He stated the Council would need to determine if in fact this is a ,~qu]~ent. -11- PARKER RANCH E.I.R. (Cont'd.) Mr. Perdichizzi indicated it wasThis understanding that the State Law requires that an environmental ~mpact report have an economic section in it. He further commented thathe believes the Council's decision should be that this development will have a significant impact on the'environment, and they should consider-all aspects-of the E.I.R. Mr. Perdich~zzi commented with regard to the idea of clustering, indicating there are a couple of areas which appear to be a fire hazard if the homes were placed close together, particularly in the area of Prospect and Highway 9. He also felt the Council should bake anotherlook at the visual impact of this area, as there are not very many trees, and those houses would stand out from the other areas in Saratoga. Roger~l:~, 12314 Arroyo de Arguello, addressed the"Cou ~il, ~a~ng~that he would like to comment on two aspects o~ this development: l) flooding - He indicated he was a severe victim of flooding last year, and lost a number of things. 2) traffic on Arroyo de Arguello .- He indicated there are a lot of young families with small children .in this area, and putting a street in this area is going todump a lot of t~affic onto Arroyo de Arguello. (A~esiden~n'~12881 Corte Arguello, commented that there is a creek going throu~.~'~is property running to Calabazas Creek, and there is a lot of water,during the rainy season.' He asked..that the Council -consider drainage in this plan. Also, he indicated on Comer Drive, there ~s a slope which he would consider very unsafe, and he was hopeful the Council would also consider, the'terrain. Mr:. Holmquist, 12720 Arroyo de Arguello, addressed.the Council, indicating he would like to request before the Council certifies the'E.I.R., it take another look at the traffic count at the corner of A~royo de Arguello and Wardell~ Road~ indicating that ~He unit which had been placed at this location for a traffic count had been stolen,-.and the results were never recorded. He further commented he fel~t the extension of Comer Drive to connect with the Parker Ranch property would have a very serious impact on the property in this area. He asked that the Oounci3 seriously consider this impact before approving the environmental.impact report, as he didn't feel there was a sufficient amount of data. David McKay, 21555 Prospect Road, commen~ed he was in support of some of the earlier comments with regard to flooding, as he has had his share of this problem. ~lso, he indicated the soil up in this area is like clay. As far as the scenic beauty, in order to put houses on the side of this hill, we"are going to have to cut some deep chunks into the mountains. Ron Knapp, 20885 Wardell Road, presented some filmstrips on the flooding in his area, which is adjacent to the Hall property. He i.ndic~ted that several residents in the area ha~e petitioned not t6 put the pipes in underground, and during the first big rainsstorm, water was all over the place because the water did not get into the pipes. Therefore,'he felt' more areas of pavement and disrupting the natural terrain could result in a real problem. He stated~that he~ould~like 'to-request that before any further consideration is given. to~ this project, a more detailed study of the potential water hazard be made. Lois Sherry, 20754 Granda Court, requested if it would be possible for the audience to know who the owner of the Parker Ranch is. Mr. Harry Mordike, 543! Bryant Street, Palo Alto, addressed the Council and indicated is one of 20 other people who own the Parker Ranch. - 12- PARKER RANCH E.I.R. (Cont'd.) Joe Clevenger, 19337 Titus Court, indicated that he would like to second the comment made earlier that there is opposition from other areas other than the immediate residents of the Parker Ranch development. Mr. Clevenger indicated he has net heard~ ~ny' remarks from proponents in Saratoga on this project,=and wondered if there was an equivi,lent for th~s development in the hillsides. He wondered if the City shouldn't view its hillsides in total, as opposed to "piecemeal", as.he felt this development would be the first major step leading toward many Similar 'type developments in the Saratoga hillsides..Mr. Clevenger cemented that the City has adopted slope density formulas as a technique in dealing with development of the hillsides, and stated ~that'he w__o. uld suggest this techniqueis a "cop-out" f ~h~oids such~'~i6n~ "What should be the attitude o this co~ity~ard hillsi.d~p~'~t, and where, if at all,-does the Parker Ranch Piece and the Hall property fit into, the plan?" He felt that this community should undertake .a comprehensive evaluation of the total hillside area, if it is to be developed in a manner similar to that which is proposed by this developer~ and determine how many citizens would be added to the population in Saratoga. "and what impact would this have to traffic, taxes, services, etc. He indicated that it seems logical to believe that the costs involved in managing hillside ~evelopment, from a taxpayer's point of view, would Tsurely be higher, as well as city services and serv tes supplied in the flat areas. However, he didn't recall a cost benefit analysis.taken, and it was his feeling this type of analysis should be ~onducted by a professional consultant and submitted to the City for discussion andb(~e'~~t oft~decision as to what the City wants to do with regard t~ h]'l~l'~i~T]~l'op~t in this area.' He commented that he felt if this wasn't done, the uniqueness of our natural environment would be completely altered. Mr. Clevenger indicated that in receiving the report from the Planning Commission that "this development will have a significant impact'~, h~ would assume that each individual aspect would be taken .into consideration. Mayor Bridges explained that the process the Couhcil must follow is to certify the E.I.R. as to its completeness. He felt there have been some legitimate questions raised which would lead him to want more information, such as the cost benefit analysis. However, as far as judging the report for correctness or incorrectness, he didn't feel there were any glaring problems. ~r, Clevenger~agai~nead~ressed the Council, inquirin~ if the environmental "i~a~ ~e~rT~a~ddcument which considers what i~pact this development will have on surrounding areas of the hillsides. Mayor Bridges replied that he didn't know if this was a function of the environmental report, and felt"this was more a function of the General Plan considerations. He asked the City Attorney if he felt the environ- mental impact report should take in this wide of scope. Mr. Johnston, City Attorney, replied that hewouldn't think so, only to the extent that the surrounding area is part of the area on which an impact~ could be had, and it was his understanding th~ report does speak to .this. in some detail. Mr. Fryer, 14029 Saratoga Hills Road, addressed the Council, stating that he doesn't live adjacent to the property, but lives further up in the hills and looks down on this property, and felt he also would receive a large impact from the development of this project. Councilman. Ma~teoni suggested the Councilsgive some ~irect~on as to what areas Of concern should be stressed at future meetings; for instance: 1) Northwest Saratoga Traffic Circulation Stud~ and examination of any deficiencies; 2) flooding problems and miti9ating measures; 3.) visual impact (Council to tour area and include a~ part of the ~.I.R. process). - 13- PARKER RANCH E.I.R. (Cont'd.) There being no further discussion from the audience~ it was moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded by Councilman Brigham this matter be con- tinued to an Adjourned Regular Meeting of the Councilon August 26th. The motion was carried. C. CONSIDEP~ATION OF CHANGE OF ZONINGFOR BLACKWELL HOMES (PARKER RANCH), PROSPECT AND STELLING ROADS, FROM "R-1-40,O00" (SINGLE-FAMIL~ RESIDENTIAL AND ~A~ (AGRICULTURE) TO R-1-40,O00 PC (SINGLE-FAMIEY RESIDENTIAL, PLAN E COMMUNITY) " I ,, · .. The City Manager explained that the Council is unable to take any action on this item until a decision. has been made regarding the Environmental Impact Report. It was moved by Counci'lman Kraus and seconded by Councilman Brigham this item be carried forward to~the August 26th Adjourned .Meeting. The motion was carried. D. RESOLUTION NO. 741 (Informational. Public Hearing) RESOLUTION APPROVING FORM OF RESOLUTION OF INTENTION AND BOUNDARY MAP AND GRANTING CONSENT OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA TO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 4 OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY TO UNDERTAKE PROCEEDINGS TO CONSTRUCT A SANITARY SEWERAGE PROJECT AND TO PROVIDE THE COST SHALL BE ' ASSESSED ON THE DISTRICT BENEFITED UNDER APPROPRIATE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT AND ASSESSMENT BOND PROCEEDINGS Mayor Bridges opened the publ'ic h~aring at 11:00 P.M. Steve Goodman, Manager and Engineer, County Sanitation District No. 4, outlined the three parcels involved in this proposed project on'Oak Street, east of Third Street. He'indicated that the estimated assessment would be $1,300.00, and all three property owners have indicated they are in favor of this project. He explained that once the City Council gives the District authorization to proceed, they will set the matter for public hearing before the Board of Directors. it was 'moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded by Councilwoman Corr the public hearing be closed. The motion was carried. }he public hearing was closed at 11:05 P.M. It was then moved by Counci~lman Kraus and seconded by Councilman Matteoni Resolution 741 be adopted. The motion was carried. VI. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS A. MAYOR 1. Mayor Bridges announced an Executive Session to follow this meeting for discussion of Personnel Matters. B. FINANCE 1. Payment of Claims It was moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded by Councilman Brigham the list of disbursements, 21695 thru 21800, be approved~ and the Mayor be authorized to sign the warrants. The motion was carried. C. COUNCIL AND COMMISSION REPORTS D. DEPARTMENT HEADS AND OFFICERS '1. Director of Public Works - Report Re: Status of Left-Turn Lanes on Saratoga-Los Gatos Road (Cont'd. 7/2/75) - 14 - REL'~OR~/~TURN LANES (Cont'd.) The City Ranager indicated that Hr. Shook, Director of Public Works, has met with representatives of the Depart~nent of Transportation, and a new plan has been developed for implementation of this project, utilizing funds in the maintenance budget. He indica.ted there wobld be a further report regarding this proposed plan at the August 20th meeting. 2. Director of Public Works - Status Report Re: Reid Lane, Saratoga~ Sunnyvale Road Intersection The City Manager advised that the State has allocated FAU funds for this project; however, itm~st also be approved by the City of Sane Jose, Cal- Trans and M.T.C.("'~Zt is recommended by the Director of Public Works that the City prOc'~d With the acquisition of right-of-way. It was moved by;Ma~sr Bri:dges and secondedby Councilwoman Kraus the Council re-emphas~ze""ftTi'nterest to continue with this project, and direct the City Attorney to Sb~.~jn with condemnation proceedings of the Rod6ni parcel. The motion was carried. 3. Director of Public Works -<~rt ~lii~6~ Parking District No. 2 The City Manager indicated that the property owners involved in this project are in the process of submitting their drawings for Design Revi~ approval, and'a further status report would follow. 4. City Attorney - Opinion Re: CircUlating of a Petition to Enact Zoning Regulations The City Attorney reference~_.bis )etttr to the council, dated July 29, 1975, a~d indicated ~T~'~fear ~n a G~l~i]~i~d~i~;a thij process is illegal and ineffective. ~R~~(B'i~ed his co~ents to this opinion, stating ~hat the intent of this petion is to change the General Plan, and not the zoning laws; therefore, it was his feeling the action to circulate the petition was legal. Mayor Bridges indicated that the City Attorney's opinion is the one which the Council would recognize. E. CITY ~NAGER 1. Report Re: Lynch Property - The City Manager reported that the previous City CoQncil action on the property at 146~%1 Big Basin Way was to order~iT'B~'~B~or demolition. He indicated he has not received any correspond~hi's~atter since this action, however, introduced Mrs. Robert Swanson, 19616 Famell Avenue to report what happenings have taken place since that time. She then read a report from Architect Warren Heid, which stated that it would be his opinion the older flavor of~ES~ratoga is exemplified ~0~ other~Td~"~'ctures, and the bui,lding coulB"~e preserved to meet the required ~'~"S6e then read a letttr from Willys Peck indicating that he felt the City'should allow ~ pnoperty~bi~h, this structure. Mrs. Swanson commented that although this building is not the oldest, the handsomest or the most historical,' it is part of Sana~o~Z.~arly era and part of its history and character. Mrs. Swanson (~2r:::jngi~} she is against needless destruction of.property. Willard Lynch, 14260 Lutheria Way~aBdressed the Council, indicatin~ that he has complied<~i~h~CE~'i's ~equest to do something about th~ appear- ance of this buil'di~T~d'thEaoO¢ and windows have'been' secured. Bn Lynch further indica~he_bad spent some t~me i n accumul ating¢d~'t~i~n6"~% ~[o~igig~3S~s~ajJ.]~bm~nt of this property. - 15- REPORT RE: LYNCH PROPERTY (Cont'd.) The Council discussed (~_~Y6~jl~ actions which brought about th~ determination on this property, and also, the problem of zoning use, in that this property has been zoned for "Commercial" use. The City Manager suggested what might be done is to allow Mr. Lynch to enter into an agreement with the City stating his obligation to maintain the property in a condition acceptable to the City's Building Inspector, and this agreement be bonded. The matter Was continued to the next regular City Council Meeting of August 20th, to allow Mr Lynch an opportunity.to meet with Mr. Harris, City Building InspeCtor~h6p'e~TT~-'6~>working out an acceptable olan to · resolve this matter. 2. Report Re: Letter to County AssesSor - Reported percentages of increased assessed valuation from fiscal'year 1973-74 to fiscal year 1974-75, aHd from fiscal year 1974-75 to fiscal year 1975-76.(see memorandum, dated July 30, 1975), · ~) 3. Presentation of'Capital Improvements Program - ~his was scheduled for a future study session. VII. COMMUNICATIONS A. WRITTEN 1. S. Brooks Walton, Lawrence Guy, Saratoga Hills Roads- Request to amend Deferred Improvement Agreement. It was moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded .by Councilwoman Corr the Council approve the addenda to the Deferred Improvement Agreement. The motion was carried. 2. 'Robert Truax, 12401 Green.Meadow Lane, Re: appeal of Planning Commission's decision to deny variance for setback requirement. - Set for public hearing August 20, 1975. 3. Shirley Cuthertson, 14500 Quito Rbad, Re: Traffic ~roblems on Quito Road and Vessing. - City Manager to repl~ and advise status of this intersection. 4. John Weir, President, Arguello Homeowners Asso6iation, urging Council to reverse its actions of July 16th to remove the slope density eguations from the Saratoga Subdivision Ordinance.-- City Manager to respond. 5. R. L. Crowther, Arguello Homeowners Association, requesting the Council's consideration of their suggested slope density equation. - Noted ~nd filed. 6. R. L. Crowther, Arguell~ Homeowners Association, expressing concerns as to some of the features of Ordinance NS-60. - City Manager to respond. 7. Roger E. Pilie, 12314 A~royo de ~rguello, expressing opposition to the Council's ~ction to appnove final map on the R. J. Hunter subdivision. -.~ity · Manager to r~spond. 8. Mardi Gualtieri, Historical Heritage Commission, advising the Historical Heritage Commission's decision regarding preservation of the BreWerStore at 14265 Saratoga Ave. - Noted and filed. 9. Richard T. Harkness, Gatewodd Real tor, inquiring of the City's i nte~t to purchase the 6.59 acres of land on G]~nbrae Drive for~a~_part s.~te.~.~b~ 10. O. R.' Thurnher, Chairman, ProspeCt Road Beautification Committee, Re: Prospect Road beautification plan. - ProSect taken odt of this year's Capital Budget until the City has some indication from San Jose that this ~s a joint proj!ect. ~16- WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS (Cont'd.) 11. Saratoga residents (Braemar Drivel area - 20 signatures), ~rging Council to finance 10% payroll increase and other expenditures from the City's reserve, and hold the line on City's tax rate] - Noted and filed. 12. Mr. and Mrs. W. Rudolph Kanne, 19915 Bonnie Ridge Way, supporting the alternate library site location. ~ Noted and filed. 13. Richard G. Martin, 13981 Bike Road, favoring the SaratQga Avenue library' site. - Noted and filed. 14. H. S. Van Loon, 20775,Norada-Cou~,.urging Council to consider'petition of 252 residents from the nbrthwest corner of Saratoga asking for one acre minimum zoning on the F~mont High School property. - Noted and filed. To be considered in conjunction with, Public Hearing on August 20th. 15. Mr. and Mrs. Donald Norling, 21000 Comer Drive, etal, Re: approval of final map for R]J. Hunter property on Comer Drive. - Noted and filed. City Manager to respond. 16. Mrs. Roger Pilie', 12314 Arroyo de Arguello, requesting rezoning of Fremont Union School District to "R-1-20,O00". - Noted and filed. To be considered in conjunction with Publ'ic Hearing on August 20th. 17. Mr. Michael Cobb, Republical Central Committee of'Santa Clara County, announcing Nancy O. McDonald as thein representative to City Council Meetings. - Noted and filed. 18. Russell L. Crowther, 20788 Norada Court, etal, urging the Council to consider a moritorium on all rezoning, subdivision, and grading permit approvals at the periphery of Saratoga until open space zoning ordinances are implemented. Noted and filed. ~B. ORAL 1. Frank Perdichizzi, 19804 Colby Court, inquiring why County Assessor has not provided percentage figures for residential, as well as commercial properties. - Mayor Bridges explained that the figures.provided are a combination of residential and co~nmercial properties. 2. Tom Sawyer, 20791 Norada Court, r~questing a copy of the Geological Report for the R.J. Hunter development be sent to him. - The City Manager advised Mr. Sawyer this would be issued. It was moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded by Councilman Matteoni the meeting be adjourned. The motion was carried. The meeting was adjourned at l~O0 A.M. -17-