Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-21-1975 City Council Minutes MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL TIME: Tuesday, October 21, 1975 - lI~30 P.M. PLACE: Saratoga City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, California TYPE: Adjourned regular Meeting I. ORGANIZATION A. ROLL CALL Present: Councilmen Brigham, Corr, Kraus and Matteoni ~bsent: Mayor Bridges' B. MINUTES It was moved by Councilman Brigham and seconded by Councilman Matteoni the minutes of September 9th, October 1st and October 7th, 1975, be approved, and the reading be waived. The motion was carried. II. CONSENT CALENDAR A. COMPOSITION OF CONSENT CALENDAR It was moved by Councilwoman Corr and seconded by Councilman Brigham com- position of the Consent Calendar be approved. The motion was carried. B. ITEMS FOR CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Crop Agreement between the City of Saratoga and George Wightman for Cultivating and Harvesting of Crops on 11.42 Acres of Real Property Located on Saratoga Avenue and Fruitvale Avenue. 2. Approval of Final Map and Execution of Building Site Approval Agreement a) SDR-1059 David Mendenhall, Mr. Eden Rd., 1 Lot b) =SDR-1111 Royce Kaufmann, Canyon View Dr., 1 Lot c) SDR-I172 Melvin Stout, E1Quito Way, 1 Lot d) SDR-1183 Assurance Co., Saratoga-Sunnyvale and Williams, 3 Lots e) SDR-I188 Jack Drinkard, Pierce Rd., 1 Lot f) SDR-1193 Astro Construction, La Paloma Ave., 1 Lot g) SDR-1200 Dale Pinkerton, Pierce Rd., 1 Lot 3. Payment of Claims 4. City Clerk's Financial Report 5. City Treasurer's Report It was moved by Councilman Brigham and seconded by Councilman Matteoni the Consent Calendar be approved. The motion was carried. III. BIDS AND CONTRACTS A. ANNUAL STREET STRIPING CONTRACT The City Manager advised that two bids were received on this project -- one from Lane Tech in the amount of $5,680.42, and the other from J.F. Houri~an in the amount of $7,143.24. It was moved by Councilman Brigham ~nd seconded by Councilwoman Corr the contract be awarded to Lane Tech for the low bid of $5,680.42. The motion was carried. ~ ~ B. AGREEMENT BETWE~ HE CITY OF SARA OGA ANn ARUTUN KINNEY ASSOCIATES, INC., FOR CONSULTATION SERVICES (PLANNING AND DESIGN) - FOOTHILL PARK It was moved by Councilman Brigham and seconded by Councilwoman Corr the landscape architect for Foothill Park be authorized to proceed with a portion of Phase II of this project, which includes Item B - Design Development, and Item C - Construction Documentation. The motion was carried. C. AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SARATOGA AND DR. ISAAK N. ABRAMS FOR PURCHASE OF LIBRARY SITE The City Manager reviewed the history of the library site deliberations and, at the request of the Council, outlined the general nature of the agreement which was found acceptable in concept by the Council. He explained that the intent was that negotiations had been completed, and that we were now putting into wording the conclusions which had been reached as a result of the nego- tiations. He indicated oma schematic drawing the proposed configuration of the library building, the 2 to 2.2 acres of land proposed for acquisition in lieu of con- demnation for approximately $157,000 (with the expectation of approximately $43,000 for the extension of McFarland to Village Drive, and from Saratoga Creek Drive to the property line~ including the extension of utilities). He indicated that the agreement further pr·ovides~that'there'woUld~be-~he ' ,~rgency ~r6~'~Cr6~s th~ ~a~ which s~r~es the Vineyards that comes out on this completed portion of Saratoga Creek Drive, and that this be re- located so it would not be between the library building and the creek. He stated that the City's proposal was that the owner make these certain improve- ments by the time the library is completed. The agreement also provides for a visual corridor ·from Saratoga.Avenue to the site, thereby having site distance or setback restrictions'for any prO- posed development on the remainder of the property. ...... Wi~h ~eqard~oseverance.damage,~i~ Drovides._that_i~_.in_=the_~utu~e~he Citv would brohibit development of this property because of the library site which would conflict with existing zoning on the site, this would be grounds for claiming severance damages; however, it has tentatively been agreed that the land would only be developed in conformance with existing Professional Administrative use, and that that would be done according to the Zoning Ordinance (which section is attached and made a part of the proposed agree- ment). He indicated a period of 10 years was set, within which that might be particularly applicable relevant to the library. This does not limit the City or some future Planning Commission or City Council in making changes in the use of Professional Administrative, as long ~s it is done city-wide, or affects the "P-A" zone generally. The agreement articulates the kinds of events that might create those damages talked about. The other element would be that 'S~atoga ~re~'~r~e~e'xt~6~i6n "~n~~' McFarland Drive extension to Village Drive would be fully dedic&ted city streets at 50 feet in width, and a 30 foot minimum access road to minimize asphalt, and this would continue to be either a private road or minimum access with an Offer of Dedication to the City. This would be used to serve the library site and the adjacent property. The City Manager indicated that to-date, there were basically 4 points which were not acceptable to the property owner on which the City was standing firm. Councilman Matteoni commented that it seems apparent that the proposed agree- ment is not acceptable to Dr. Abrams, and it would not be fruitful to leave such an offer outstanding at this time. He suggested setting a public hearing to consider alternate library sites, and leave it that if Dr. Abrams were to come back indicating agreement with the points outlined by the City Manager before the time of the public hearing, this be considered for approval by the Council. Councilman Kraus commented that much effort has gone into this site, and the Council has tried its best to put the library at this location. However, he felt there has to come a time when you have to "bite the bullet", and he felt that point has been reached. - 2 - Library Site (Cont'd.) He commented that in December 1974, the site plan for the library was some 2.5 acres, and the location, in his opinion, was to be one of prominance. He commented that the site has stedily decreased until it is now 2.1 acres -- a small part of that is in the creek, and recently some 1,500 square feet were removed from the north side of the planned site. He indicated in his opinion this has resulted in the library appearing to be crowded on the site. Further, in spite of the reductions, the price has remained the same. Vice Mayor Kraus stated that he r6alizes the urgency andinterest in building a library that all of us share, and certainly, costs are rising, and everyday we delay adds.yto the cost of bonds and construction. He commented that h~ realizes the Saratoga~Cox site is very popular; however, negoti.ations have been in the process f6r some 9 months, and a great deal of effort has been put forth in this behalf. HoWever, he stated that~the site as finally con- figured is not acceptable ~o him. He indicated that this is taxpayers' money, and he would want the library to 'represent the very best for its price, and he would urge the Counci-1 schedule an immediate public hearing to consider an alternate library Site.- The City Manager brought to the Council's attention a written communicati on "on this subject from Mary Moss, 20777 Pamela Way. It was~indicated this letter would be made a part of the record. It was a d,b cEu iT an to set 'h ' fi orTO ob r jl'ib~i~'lo~6~:' l~'S~6~enue a~d'~S~at6'ga-Sunnyv~l~3ad .... '-- ' ...... 2) 'portion of property adjacent to Sacred Heart It was then moved by Councilman Brigham and seconded by Vice Mayor Kraus the Council terminate negotiations with Dr~ Abrams. The motion was carried unanimously. IV. PETITIONS, ORDI~ES AND RESOLUTt'ONS ..... A.' MINUTE RESOLUTION RE: CITY COUNCIL ANB PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MAILINGS AND PACKETS The City Manager outlined his proposal for recouping costs for preparation Of City Council packets,~'~'~_v~'l'~a~T'~i~'.~b~_~il~._~nd Planning Commission agenda mailings. He explained'that the subscription rate for receiving City Council agendas on an annual basis would be $9.00, and Planning Commission agendas, $10.00. He indicated the proposed distribution of Council p~ckets, and advised packets would be made.available on request at the rate of $5.00 per packet, or $130.00 annually. He indicated it is proposed.this program go into effect January 1, 1976. Councilwoman Corr co~ented that sh~Yha~ no quarrel with the proposal for C~ty Council packets, however, it was her feeling co~unity groups should con- tinue to receive agendas in order to follow the proceedings of the City, par- ticularly those organizations which have designated official observors who do attend every meeting. Councilman Matteoni co~ented that he felt this may be som~hat difficult, in that the Council would have to establish criteria as to who it was going to ~ecognize as an official representative. Also, he didn't feel the $9.00 or $10.00 would be too great of a co~t for these organizations to bear. He suggested the Council put the matter fo~ard as presented, with an opportunity at a later time for Councilwoman Corr to present-any plan of modification to recognize certain representative units for Council consideration. ~'~-Wg~ mo~e~'~'~~'~uncilman Brigham and seconded by Councilman Matteoni that the City ~an~er'~ reco~endation be approved, and agendas continue to be made available at the City OfficeS, and in the future, at the n~ Ci.ty Library. The mo{ion was carried unanimously. -3- (Due to the fact Councilman Matteoni would be required to leave early this evening, the CoUncil dioressed from the agenda format and proceeded VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS B. L~'~B~'FON OF ORDINANCE NO. 61, AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ~R~fdGA'~LAOIN~ A MORATORIUM ON CONDOMINIUM AND OTHER COMMUNITY HOUSING CONVERSIONS FROM RENTAL HOUSING IN SAID CITY, PENDING ADOPTION OF PERMANENT COMMUNITY HOUSING CONVERSION REGULATIONS The City Manager indicated that dde to an expression of interest several weeks ago, the City Attorney drafted proposed Ordinance No. 61, concerning this moratorium until the City could adopt some permanent regulations. It is recommended the moratorium be in effect for a minimum of 6 months to allow the staff, the ;~Gdhcil and the Planning Commission to review proposed rules and regulations for such conversions. Such emergency 'ordinance would require a4/5 vote of the Council. The public hearing was opened at 8:32 P.M. George Shan~I, 14333'Saratoga AVenue, asked why it would take 6 months to make a decision on this. Councilman Matteoni explained' that the purpose of the interim ordinance would be to establish a Rerm~nent ordinance which would have criteria for deciding the conversion of an apartment to'a-condominum, and it won.'t take 6 months, 9n~ a. per~manent,_o,rdi nanc'e'j~! establ i shed~_YS'~pl~ih~ ~S.erXingS6'.inp~hls~td'i'l~ud~;the"i%iO_'e. is for tfi~ Council'to-take'idgant(ge 6f ~hat"the'l'a~ ~ight'all'dw i~ t~r~s of an emergency ordinance, and taking into consideration staff time, to be sure there is sufficient time to work out a good ordinance to conduct public hearings and get the right input. However; he di.d not feel the timing after adoption of an ordinance would be 6 months for each application. Mrs. E.A. Gerber, 14333 Saratoga Avenue, commented that many of those who reside at this complex are widows, and many have gotten rid of houses because they wanted to live where they could rent and have someone else take over the responsibility of paying taxeS, etc. She further commented that many of these tenants could afford to buy a condominum, but would prefer to stay in the apartments. Jerry Lohr, 18755 Monte Wood Drive, builders df'. the particular project which brought about this possible:emergency ordinance, indicated he would like to make a couple of brief comments. He stated that any time something like this comes up it can be a very emotional problem for the residents of such a property, and they have tried to take these considerations into account. Mr. Lohr indicated there is a letter on record with the planning Commission as to what this developer's pglicy would be, if allowed to convert this particular project. This letterd_~:~q~th~ Saratoga Creekside residents, and states: "We initially built Saratoga Creekside as a joint venture partner and put up most of the money. Because our costs were higher than .we initially projected, our partners requested that we sell the project and return their money. In order to bring about a sale which would return their investment and our overrun advance to the building partnership, we entered into a Sale/Lease-Back with a real estate investment trust. We have continued to put money in each month to make the lease-back payment, and the project is still not breaking even. The real estate investment trust has now given us the opportunity to purchase the property back.. We would propose to re-purchase the property, and upon approval of the City of S~Ea~qg~,_z__cg.nve~F_rt_i_t_~9_~ond~ nium on the following con- ditions: Q__ -4- Ordinance No. 61 (Cont'd.) 1) All existing residents of Saratoga Creekside would be given first right of refusal to purchase their present unit at a price not to exceed $40,000 per unit. From our experience at Saratoga Inn Place and Congress Springs Place, this would be under the current market price for resale units. For those requiring financing, 90% financing would probably be available so that the out-of-pocket dollar requirements would be $4,000, plus approximately $1,300 closing costs; for $5,300 total. Ownership would provide tax benefits and ~uture appreciation to the buyer. 2) For those tenants who choose not to purchase their present units, we would allow them to continue to live in their unit for a period of up to 3 years, paying the market rents. 3) We would immediately form a homeowners association similar to the existing one at Saratoga Inn Place. This association will be composed of unit owners in the Saratoga Creekside partnership, which will punchase and rent the remaining units for a 3-year period. Monthly maintenance fees would be set at $47.50 per unit for the people buying the unit, while for the renters this sum wi~ll be paid by their land- lord in the Saratoga Greekside partnership. Upon approval of conversion to a condominium, we would plan to re-stain the exterior of the building and add doors to the covered carports. Any interior maintenance desired by a tenant desiring to buy his or her unit Will be done at cost. We would anticipate putting any vacant units on the market through our Saratoga Foothills Realty S~ervice, and attempt-to'attract owners similar to the~pre~ent residents of Saratoga Creekside and~CongressSprings Place. These unit~ will..provide'thelowest. price housing units available for Salein Saratoqa St the present ti.me, and the best value." Mr. ~Lo~r'~xp~ned t~t'~°~ ~e' t~i n~ '~6'~6'he~e~i s give' thos'~ 6e661~ who have lived at Saratoga Creekside and who would.like to buy, the opportunity to buy their units at what shouldbe a reasonableprice. He indicated that the initial reaction was that many people didn't want to buy;' since then, he has heard from several that they would not like to buy, and there are several who would like to stay there. He indicated that thei'r.proposal would be that they can stay there, and the-question is: "Can they stay there longer than 3 years?" Mr. Lohr~felt the answer to this was "Yes", but because of~the financing restraints the developer would have imposed on'them,jS'~r~'~O'ga'~. ~o~hTl'~.S'~probably wouldn't be th~ owners for 3 years~ and theg'-w~u~d ~ve t~'~finance in 3 years. Mr. Lohr further commented that typically what will happen in a situation like this is that if it is converted, some of the residents will be able to buy their units, and those who are there now can stay there. He indicated in their history of the entire rentals over the last 5½ years, there are only 2 of the original residents still there; there are 4 other residents who have been there 3 years or longer; there are 10 or 12 of the residents who have been there for less than a year. Therefore, the developer felt that within 3 years many of the people would move, and when someone moves, then they put the unit up for sale. Therefore, they would not be putting anyone out, and they. have tried to minimize the social impact of this proposed conversion. Mr. Lohr indicated another question has come up: "Would there be changes required in the construction of the units if it hadbeen built as a condo- mini~m rather than as an apartment?" Mr. Lohr eom~ented that when they first planned this project, they could have gone either way, and this structure would be identical to a condominium if they were to build it now. They just oVer-built the project, H~e_~omm~nted that a major questio'n which has come up which he was not a~a~"~ ~of w~n~-this project was first proposed was: "How many senior citizensdo ~ ~ly 'have?" He pointed that the fourth row in the audience this evening is-:primarily made up of residents of Saratoga Creekside, and there is a - 5- Ordinance No. 61 (Cont'd.) tremendous need for senior citizen housing in Saratoga, although this is not to be confused with senior citizen housing as it wasn't built this way to begin with. Councilman Kraus asked Mr. Lohr tQ explain again what happens,if the developer divests himself of this property, to the people who are renting. Mr. Lohr replied that the financing they could get on the unit would hold for 3 years, and that would probl~ have to be done is to refinance the unit. Mr. Kraus asked if he was Correctin understanding that any of these people who would like to live ~here beyond the three-year period as a rental facility could do so, and Saratoga Foothills could then' take over those apartments in some way. Mr. Lohr indicated he wasn't saying Saratoga Foothills could continue to own it, but the"tenant could continueto rent and no one could be forced out. He indicated if they are in a position to pay the rent, they can. Councilman Matteoni asked if most of the leases were on a year-to-year basis,or a longer term? Mr. Lohr replied that everyone there is on a month-to-month basis at present, and no one is on a lease at present. Councilman Matteoni further inquired that if in 3years if someone wanted to stay, would Mr. Lohr know what the conditions for them to continue leasing the property would be -- one year, two years, or what would be the situation as. compared to now? Mr. Lohr replied that it would not change. If they converted now, they could continue to live there and Saratoga Foothills would directly be the landlord. Councilwoman Corr commented that she feels many things which have been sited here this evening are the things the Council is concerned about.for condo- minium conversions, and this is why the Council felt the City should take some action in setting up'some rules and regulations in doing it. She indicated there is a list of some 78 rental.units in Saratoga, and if this were to be converted, it would mean 24 to be!removed, which really'diminishes the amount of rental facilities in the City.' Mrs. Corr further commented that one of the charges made by the Senior Citizen Housing Task Force was the affect of condominium conversions Upon the ~oUSing stock in Saratoga. Mr. Lohr commented they would have 2 concerns about the proposed emergency ordinance: 1) If the ordinance goes on for 6 months, and continues on for another year, it leaves the residents of Creekside insome state of suspended animation, as well as the developer. He indicated this would probably termin- ate Saratoga Foothill's option to buy it back. Therefore,-he suggested that with the conditions which he has proposed,<~'~j~co~ld be resolved in less than the minimum 6 months proposed. Councilman Matteqni commented he felt if the Council was going to create exemptions, they really should start hearings to establish this criteria, and other potential conversions would know that they would have to clear that. -He asked Mr. Lohr if the Cguncil were to meet the 6-month committment in adopting a permanent ordinance~ would that present serious problems to his going forward with this. The real estate investment trust had another property lined up, and they wanted to trade up into other prgperties,.and this was one of the smallest properties they could trade into. He commented a 6-month, period would extend a 4-month period being held with them now. Ordinance No. 61 (Cont'd.) Mrs. Kann, a resident of Creekside Apartments, commented that it wasn't quite clear to her what the owners intended to do after 3 years. Councilman Kraus explained that it was his impression tenants could con- tinOe to live there after 3 years, George Shari/l'~), 14333 Saratoga Avenue, asked what happens, for example, if someone comes in there and wants to buy his apartment. He further commented that last week the subject came up of turnover of people in the building, and one of the big reasons for turnover of people is that the people who own the building never do anything to maintain it, and if you ask to have something done, they say: "We're sorry, we can't do it." But they can raise the rent. Mr. Shardel commented that what he is afraid will happen is they will start raising the rent and force everybody out. Councilman Matteoni asked Mr. Shan(l~e~ what this 6-month moratorium on con- version throughout the city do to him while formulating a new ordinance. Mr. Sha~ replied that they have been looking around, because he is not going to ~y a condominium. Further, he stated he just read the Wall Street Journal which states that condominiumsare the worse buy in the world. He further commented that he was sitting in Apartment 20 last winter and watching the rain come down, and the gentleman who rents the place had buckets to catch the water. He felt this should be settled the quicker', the better. Mr. Lohr responded to the comment related to rent, indicating that the 2 residents who have lived in the building since~t'~sT'6p~ned in fall of 1970, paid an initial rent of $325, and are now-paying $345, or $20 increase in the last 5 years. However, hecommented he can't promise to hold the rent, as they must stayat "market rent". Mr. Lohr responded to Mr. Shar~l~s comment'about selling a rental unit, indicating that a unit with one of the present existing residents would not be placed for sale, and no one would be forced out. Mrs. Gerber, also a resident of Saratoga Creekside, commented that when she came here, she took a 2-year lease at $305, and she now pays $345; therefore, she was raised $40. !S~h~'(~'~1433} S__ara~o~a Ave.'TT~!A6~T'8T~ ~a~a~ed~s~'e~(u~l.i kS~~~o gO"6H're~ord aS bei~g~i~st t~e'~oratori~'=~Z~6th perio~"~he ~' commented that ~"h~ .~t~.~C6Gnc~l doesn~'~h~ 'g~id~lines-set ~p.~ .......... The City Manager commented that when the concern was brought to the attention of the Council and the figures were presented concerning the numberof con- domin~m units existing in Saratoga; which was 582, and.the number of rental units at 78, there seemed to be a disproportionate share of ownership as opposed to rental, and the Council was concerned as to the impact if we were to lose 24, which would reduce the total rental units to 54 out of a community of 30,300 people. Also, there ispotential conflict with the General Plan to allow a conversion such as this, and this has just been brought to light now. It is these kinds of numbers which "triggered" the alarm at this particular point in time. Mrs. Christenson further commented that thec~Ci'ty of Saratoga does not have much land zoned for apartments, and suggested the Council take a look at this. Mr. Van Duyn, Planning Director, advised this amounts to approximately 4. acres of remaining multiple~f~ii~'~s~d~ntial zoned land, and about 10 to the acre- wise, or approximately'~O'6Hi~'~6ssibly left in the city. He added that these are presently developed properties. The City Manager brought to the Council's attention 3 ~tems of correspondence from: 1) Mrs. Edward Gerber, supporting Ordinance 61; 2) Grace B. Schmidt, endorsing the Ordinance; 3) Ludwig Kulinski, withdrawing his initial opposition to the condominium conversion. - 7 - Ordinance No. 61 (Cont'd.) Councilman Matteoni inquired where the input is to come from regarding the formulation an ordinance for a conversion. Councilwoman Corr indicated she could answer this question in part. She indicated a communicati~on from the Senior Citizensl~g~'~sk Force which offers material accumulate, including ordinances which have been passed in other cities pertaining to condominium conversions, which the Task Force has been studying.. Therefore, there are many examples here which the Council could r~w Counci~ in p~n. She indicated the Task Force plans to have a report to.the ~ebru rv. a The City Manager commented he felt the direction on this, i'n terms of policy, is going.to come from both the Planning Commission and the Cit~ Council. Councilman Matteoni suggested the Council pass a moratorium with a 4-month limitation, recognizing that this may not be sufficient time, and if it is not, the Council could schedule a .hearing to extend the time necessary. It was then moved by Councilman Brigham and seconded by Councilman Matteoni the public hearing be closed. The motion was carried; the public hearin~ was closed at 9:14 P.M. It was then moved by Councilman Brigham and seconded by Councilwoman Corr Ordinance No. 61 be adopted for a~4-month period. The moti'on was carried unanimously. The City Clerk then proceed to read the ordinance in full. A. CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE NO. ~S-3.32, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING ORDINANCE NS~3, THE ZONING ORDINANCE, BY AMENDING SECTION 1.5 AND ARTICLE 15 THEREOF RELATING TO NON-CONFORMING USESSAND STRUCTURES, THEIR DEFINITIONS,-CONTINUATION AND TERMINATION, AND AMENDING SECTION 18.4 RELATING TO PUBLIC HEARINGS, AND 18.11 RELATING TO CONDITIONAL RECLASSIFICATION Mr. Van Duy~, Planning Director, summarized the proposed changes in this ordinance. Mr. Van Dugn explained Article 15, which is suggested to completely revise the present Zoning Ordinance, relates to non-conforming uses and structures. The primary changes from ~he existing ordinance and the proposed ordinance are as follows: 1) To provide a use permit requirement for uses which could be considered of a nuisance character for al~ commercial or industrial activities Within "R" zones only. This was p~aced in the ordinance to alqow: (a) categorial listing of what those particular activities might be~ (b) a use permit power whi!ch allows the Planning Commission ~he ability to make pro- visions to clean up the property. It w~uld in no way mean the properties would be exempted from any of the other provisions Of the ordinance, specifically the ami~orization of the use. He indicat6d the primary reason for this change was to clarify on a more definitive basis what particular uses would be non- conforming'and would be terminated, depending upon circumstances within a certain period of time. In addition to this, under the am6~_~t~6n~dates for removal of the structures or the use, the type of construction under the structure portion of the ordinance has been tightened up con- siderably. Based on the Uniform Building'Code designation of a structure type, the removal date for non-conforming structures could range anywhere from 10 to 25 years, depending upon its structural'classification. -8~ Ordinance NS-3.32 (Cont'd.) 2) Sections gg and hh of the DEFINITIONS section are recommen- dations for changes in definitians of the ordinance, and making sure the definitions are updated in retrospect to what is now the Cit~'s Non-Conforming Use Ordinance. 3) Section 18.11 is CONDITIONAL RECLASSIFICATIONS. This section is one which was revised in order to strengthen the ordinance. This change makes it very clear in estab- lishing periods of time in which ordinance reclassifications must be completed, as far as making the zoning complete. 4) Section 18.4 - PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE AND PROCEDURES. He indicated the State Legislature passed some changes in the public hearing notice requirements for General Law cities, and the ordinance changes are suggested to keep up with at least the mandated state requirements, the only change being from a requirement of a lO-day, as opposed to a 5-day advance notice on public hearings held for a change of district boundaries, and the ordi'nance has been changed to reflect this date period. The State Law only requires a 300-foot radius boundary notification of areas to be rezoned, and the present ordinance requires a'5OO-foot noticing re- quirement. He indicated after Planning Commission discussions and public hearings on this matter, the 500-foot noticing requirement was again placed in the ordinance. Councilman Kraus asked if under Section 15.9.f, in reference to reducing the removal dates, would this cause any problem in reference to existing properties at the present time. Mr. Van Duyn replied that he didn't believe there was anything which is eminent; however, he believes there are some instances which would come under the Use Permit schedule. He explained that what "f" means is that in addition to the structure, under the Use Permit procedure, should the Commission wish to extend the life of a non-conforming use for an additional year or 2 years, they can do so under the provisions of! the ordinance. The Mayor opened the public hearing at 9:30 P.M. Russell Crowther, 20788 Norada Court, addressed the Council, indicating he is specifically concerned about Section 18.11 of this ordinance, in com- paring it with Section 18.11 6f the existing NS-3 ordinance, and the Arguello Homeowners Association has prepared a letter. Mr. Crowther proceeded to read a portion of this letter to the Council, as follows: "We are concerned as to several features of the proposed Ordinance NS-3,32, specifically Section 18.11 thereof. Comparing this pro- posed revision with Section 18.11 of Ordinance NS-3, we note the following major differences: 1) 18.11 of NS-3, first paragraph provides that in the event the conditions precedent to the re-classification are not met, property shall automatically revert to the district classification from which it was changed. This requirement has been deleted from NS-3.32, Section 18.11. In the event that the conditions of re, classification are not met, what happens? How are the conditions of a re- classification enforced? 2) 18.11 of NS-3 provides that the mandatory (onditions set forth in Article 4(a), with regard to re-classification to a "PC" district, are additional conditions of re- classification. The new ordinance completely deletes that provision, and this appears to make it more difficult to enforce conditions of re-classification as they apply to "PC" zoning, and we question why this was done. We are particularly concerned about changes in Saratoga zoning ordinances which reduce the citizens' ability to enforce conditions of re-classification as related to PC zoning. -9- Ordinance NS-3.32 (Cont'd.) In addition, NS-3 states that "Where a change in zoning classification is granted under these provisions, notation thereof shall be made upon the zoning map-by retaining the previous district classification in parentheses, with any such other designations as will indicate the conditional nature of the re-classification." This also has been deleted from the new ordinance, and we are concerned'because it looks like i:t would make it very difficult to enforce the conditions. 18.11 also states that "The site may be used for the establishment of such uses and the erection of such structures as will be permitted, if the re-classification ordinance becomes effective, even though not otherwise permitted by use regulations of the zoning district in · which the'property will remain classified until such time as all such conditions have been comp.lied with within the specified time limit." It appears that'the structures could begin to be built which would not conform With the prior zoning, even thoughtthe conditions of re-classification had not been met, and there does not appear to, be a ~r_9_o~ __ vision that in the event they are not met, that<li~ Would revert back to the distr. ict classification which itshad prior to the conditional rezoning." Mr. Crowther stated that all of their concerns relate primarily to its impact on Planned Community by rezoning and the fact that Article 4(a) con- ditions are conditions of re-classification in the present ordinance,and are deleted from this ordinance. ~,~"~"' ..... ' ..... ' ......... Mr. Crowther indicated he would be sending the City Council this letter in the near future. The City Attorney indicated the ordinance revisions were submitted as they are .i~'~e}~to'~r6~Si7d~ ~at~'~6d~i!6na! re-classification is such that it i~n~ F~on~d and do~'~Setome'~rezoned until the person has built that which he has promised to build within a year's period of time. If he doesn't buil~ it within that year's period of time, it never gets rezoned and he must'. take his building down. He explained that it is not true that anything has been taken out df?PC", and this does not appear. in this ordinance, but the PC Ordinance. Therefore, if someone is zoned "Agricultural" and he got a conditional reclassification.to '~C", the zoning would not become ~ffecti~e' unless and until he built the particular development he promised to buil~ within a particular time frame. Florence Eschler, 14399 Paul Avenue,.indicated she is located within what is designated as.the Mary Springer Tract, every lot which she believes is a legal non-conforming lot and all of which have residences. Miss Eschler indicated she did not understand the significance of the amendments to this ordinance,! and as far as she could tell, they would apply to single-family residences-on non-conforming lots, and indicated she would like to have some clarification on how they would affect such conditions as non-conforming lots having single- family residences. She indicated there are number of people present this evening who are somewhat disturbed by the lack of clarity. City Attor.ey explained that this I rtic e o no.-conforming uses and non-conformi ng structures. He indicate~'t~e'~6 ~ s a~b~her segti on of Zoning Ordinance which hasn't been changed which talks about non-conform,_~ing sites, and it says "You may continue to use any non-co~nf_9_or_mi_~ng site.~_~_'~_ Miss Eschler con~ented that it is a conforming use, but insofar as they don't fall within the requirements of width of yard, etc .... The City Attorney indicated there'is another section of the Zoning Ordinance which pen~its them to have different front yard, side yard and rear yards and a smaller lot. - 10- Ordinance NS-3.32 (Cont'd.) Margaret Sherill, 14290 Paul Avenue, commented that she can't see that the questions ane being clarified, even With the interpretation which has been given to them~ She indicated she reads under DEFINITIONS: "The purpose for which a site or structure is arranged, designed, intended, constructed, erected, moved, altered or enlarged, or for which-either a s'ite or a structure is or may be occupied or maintained." She indicated she interprets this to mean that this includes a house, as a house is a structure. Under the defini- tion of sub-section gg and hh, there also is non-conforming structureland non-conforming use, both of which refer to a structure. She commented that there is nothing which she can find in these proposed amendments that deletes residences as a structure. Miss Sherill felt that th~se amendments are very confusing to one and all, and this does not just include residents. She indicated she has talked to a number of people in her area,'and none of them understands this. She stated that she has set about to try to get information -- ~he has talked to several persons on the Planning Commission, and also, to City staff persons, who all say this isconfusing. She receives different explanations from~each of these people -- one will say this refers only to commercial property, another will say this definitely refers to residences, as well as commercial properties. She commented that this leaves them not knowing where they stand. Miss Sherill indicated she inquired of other cities as to what their ordinances state, and found out Santa Clara doesn't have anything similar to this, and Los Gatos spells out their ordinance very clearly. Also, San Jose indicated they did not have such hard-to-understand information about non-conforming properties. Miss Sherill stated that she didn't stop here; she went to a person who is a consultant, and this is his field of expertise to know about non-conforming property. Thi's indi!'~a~ is on the Board of Appeals for condemnations, and he advised her that ~eI'felt the residents had Tf~'6~Or concern in not being able to understand this and that they needed l~g~unc~l. She indicated they are now i n the process for arranging for legal interpretation. Therefore, she requested that this hearing be continued so they might have the opportunity to obtain this legal i:nterpretation. The City Attorney indicated his only comment would be that this was approved after public hearings by the Planning Commission back in February. Miss Sherill indicated that none of these resideHts knew about this issue until it was scheduled for public hearing tonight. Councilman Matteoni commented that he feels it is fairly typical to dis- tinguish between non-Conforming uses and non-conf6rming lots. He indicated that it is not the City's intent to render the area in which these people live, because-they are on non-conforming lots, as non-conforming. .He commented that he would hope they Could withhold from. spending a great deal of money, and see if.there is a way the Council could clarify this for them The City Attorney indicated he could read the article which has been re- ferred to under Article 14, Section 14.3, and he proceeded to do so. Miss Sherill responded to this explanation, stating that they are not entirely cl!ear as to just how many non-conforming sites and structures there are in Saratoga, and would like to ask if there is a map which shows where they are. As far as interpretations are concerned, she indicated what really bothers them is that this is verbel, and they see nothing~inwriting in the way of proposed amendments that offers property owners a protection'of their property rights. Vice Mayor Kraus indicated there is Article 14 which the-City Attorney just read, which is in writing. Miss Sherill felt there should be reference to Article 14 in these amendments,. as she sees nothing that guarantees their rights to their property. Ordinance NS-3.32 (Cont'd.) Miss Sherill commented that the area of confusion is that Article 15 speaks of non-conforming structures and non-conforming use, which she feels could be interpreted to mean a lot in a residential area on which a-house h~s been built, because it is non-conforming land, and the structure on it is a house. She felt there should be something in writing which states "This in no way affects residences." Councilman Matteoni'commented that~h.e'felt this would be too broad a state- ment, and it may well affect a residence if a portion of it is .non-conforming. He explained that there is a general principal that the Zoning Ordinance does have to be read as whole, and that when we modify one section, it isn't good drafting policy to state that this does not affect Articles 1 through 14, for instancef~h~,.~ you don't specify changes to other sectionS, they must stand and must be read as a whole. He felt Article 14 gives these people their rights, irrespective of what we have before us or what Article 15 may have said before, and felt if the Council could assure these residents of this, they can show them that ~he changes to Article 15 cannot affect those rights they already have guaranteed under Article 14. Mary Ruth Owens, 14180 Victor Place, aommented that she hoped this ordinance would help the City to tighten up such situations as that.'i~ Rodini yard which is south of Saratoga High School, which is absolutely a disgraceful site to be seen. It was then moved by Council'~an Brigham and seconded by Councilwoman Corr the public hearing be continued to the November 5th City Council Meeting. The motion was carried. IV. PETITIONS, ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS B. RESOLUTION NO. MV-IO1 Resolution Prohibitin~ Parkin~ on Portions of Quito Road (Easterly Side between Ravenwood Drive and Quito~Oaks Way). It was moved by Councilman Brigham and'seconded by COuncilwoman Corr Resolution No. MV-IO1 be adopted. The motion was carried. C. RESOLUTION NO. MV-102 Resolution Desi~natin~ the Intersection of Miljevich Drive and Kilbride as a Stop Intersection It was moved by Councilman Brigham and seconded by Councilwoman Corr Resolution No. MV-102 be adopted. The motion was carried. D. PETITION Petition Presented by Mrs. William Craft, 22000 D~rsey Way, Requestin~ a Stop Sign at the Intersection of Michaels Ave. and Dorse~ Way This petition was referred to the Public Works staff for revi~w~and a report back at the next regular City Council Meeting. E. CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION CALLING FOR PUBLIC INFOR- MATION AND DISCUSSION ON THE NUCLEAR SAFEGUARDS INITIATIVE It was moved by Councilman Brigham and seconded by Councilwoman Corr to adopt Resolution No. 750, Calling for Public Information and Discussion, with the addition of Point No. 5, to include reference to Senator Alquists Senate Committee on Public Utilities and Transit Energy hearings, to be held on November 17th and 25th. The motion was carried unanimously. -12- Recess and Reconveyne VII. AD~NISTRATIVE MATTERS A. MAYOR B. COUNCIL AND COMMISSION REPORTS 1. Counci~t~oman Corr - Reported that she met with County Needs Assessment Task Force,-~p~ears to be quite a project ahead. C. DEPARTMENT HEADS AND OFFICERS ' 1. Director of Public Works - Reported that 2 sample lights have been in- stalled at the intersection of Horseshoe Drive and Highway 9 for Council's observation and comment. 2. Director of Public Works - Reported work under the Street Resurfacing Program would exceed amount of budgeted funds. The Council directed that the staff cut on oil and screening work, particularly in the are~ of Sobey Road, and remain within budget limitations. 3. City Attorney - Recommendation to Terminate Legal Action Against Harry Margolis It was moved by Councilman Brigham and seconded by Councilwoman Corr to terminate legal action against Harry Margolis. The motion was carried. VIII. COMMUNICATIONS A. WRITTEN 1. Stanley W. Grabowski, Mayor, Town of Los Altos Hills, requesting approval of "A Resolution Urging the State Legislature to Provide for Equalization in'the Distri~bution of the Costs of Support Services Provided Community and State Colleges". - Council indicated its support of this resolution. 2. Mr. Russell L. Crowther, Arguello Homeowners's Association, clarifying his statement made at the October 1st City Council Meeting Re: the original purchase price of the Parker Ranch. - Noted and filed. 3. James W. Day Construction Co., 12361 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, objecting to the manner in which the City Council is rezoning the City of Saratoga. - This letter to be considered in conjunction with the Council's considerations of the Hillside Ordinance. 4. Copy of a Letter to Larry Frye., from Carl R. Burg, Executive Director, Painting and Decorating Contractors of California, Inc., requesting an answer to his letters of July 24 and September 16, Re: supplying specific information on the painting budget. - Director of Community Services has responded to this letter, and Mr. Burg has acknowledged this response. 5. Carl R. Burg, Executive Director, Painting and Decorating Contractors of Calif., Inc., 920 21st St., SaCramento, acknowledging receipt of Barbara Sampson's letter of October 9th. - Noted and filed. · 6. Katherine M. Duffy, President, Board of Directors, Midpeninsula Regional Park District, 745 Distel Dr.,Los Altos, enclosing a report to the City Council regarding the Trails Task Force's proposal for a district-wide regional trails system. - Referred to Parks and Recreation Commission for report back to the Council. 7. Paula A. Smith, 2080 S. Bascom Ave., Campbell, requesting return of Building Permit fees in the amount of $219.02. - Referred to staff for report at next regular City Council Meeting on November 5th. 8. Mary J. Moss, 20777 Pamela Way, addressing several questions regarding the library site. - This letter to become a part of the record. 9. Mrs. Edward A. Gerber, 14333 Saratoga Ave., supporting Emergency Ordinance No. 61. - Noted and filed. 10. Copy of a letter to the City Manager from Grace B. Schmidt, 14333 Saratoga Ave., Apt. ll, endorsing Emergency Ordinance No. 61. - Noted and filed. 11. Copy of a letter to the City Manager from Mr. Ludwig Kulinski, 14333 Saratoga Ave., withdrawing his opposition to the condominium conversion of Saratoga Creekside Apartments. - Noted and filed. 12. Mr. and Mrs. R. Greene, 12350 Goleta Ave., expressing their concern over the intersection of Saratoga-Sunnyval e Road and Seagull Way. - Director of Public Works reported that State Division of Highways would be coming back with possible plans for providing left-hand storage lanes. 13. Judith S. Corliss, President, League of Women Voters of Los Gatos-Saratoga, introducing Mrs. David Carter as their observer to the City Council Meetings. - Noted and filed. 14. Mr. Paul W. Madsen, Secretary, Clara Mateo Garbagemen's Association, 644 Stockton Ave., San Jose, sending a copy of their letter to the County Board of Supervisors Re:'their findings on a study of the Metcalf & Eddy Draft Report on the Santa Clara County Solid Waste Management Plan. - City Manager to report Re: recent meeting. 15. J. M. Dunn, 898 Stewart Drive, Sunnyvale, requesting s~v~l_ inadequacies be corrected before the George Dag" Construction Co.i~s ~el.ea§(~'6f,its responsibilities for the common area 5150: - City Att(~ey has advised that Mr. Dunn discuss this with George Day personally. City will insure that all necessary requirements are met. 16. Mrs. Greg Arms~trong, 20254 Mil~evich Dr., supporting Resolution No. MV-102, designating the intersection of Miljevich Drive and Kilbride as a stop intersection. - Noted and filed. B. ORAL : None The Mayor~cognized the presence of public group representatives in the audience: Mary Moss, Good Government Group; Marjorie Foote, A.A.U.W.; Donald Sifferman, Manor Drive Homeowners Association; John Powers, Chamber of Commerce; Harry Mayvield, Good Govern- ment Group; April Barrett, League of Women Voters; Russell Crowther, Arguello Homeowners Association; and Isaak Abrams, Prides Crossing Homeowners Association. IX. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Councilman Brigham and seconded by Councilwoman Corr the meeting be adjourned. The motion was carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:10 P.M. spe ~1~ submitted, Ro - 14 -