Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-21-1976 City Council Minutes MINUTES SARATOOA CITY COUNCIL TIME: Wednesday, January.21~ 1976 - 7:30 P~M. PLACE: Saratoga City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, California TYPE: Regular Meeting I. ORGANIZATION A. ROLL CALL Present: Councilmen Bricham, Bridges, Corr, Matteoni, Kraus Absent: None B. MINUTES (December 17, Jalnuary 7) Councilwoman Corr pointed out the fact that Marjorie Foote of A.A.U.W. was eliminated from the list of public service representatives present at the January 7th meetin__q, and, asked that her name be included. Also, she noted ~ name railspelling ~p~_e 10~ and ti~is'should be ~hanged ~6 Nel~keman ........ 0 f' P~'i mta~Sy DYi It was then moved ~y Councilman Kraus and seconded by Councilman Brigham the minutes of December 17, ?975 and January 7, 1976 (as corrected) be approved, and the reading waived. The motion was carried. II. CONSENT CALENDAR A. COMPOSITION O~ CONSENT CALENDAR Per the recommendati on of the staff, items 4 and 5 were removed from the Consent Calendar. It was moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded by Councilman Brigham the Council approved the composition of the Consent Calendar. The motion was carried. B. ITEMS FOR CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Request to Declare Various Deplicating Equipment as Surplus, and Authorizing Sale of Same 2. Approval of the Modified Community Center Facility and ~uilding Use Policy 3. Resolution No. 758, Changing the Street Name of Camino de Los Barcos to Camino Barco deleted - 4. Approval of Final Plans for Saratoga Historical Park deleted - 5. Authorization to Call for Bids for Improvements at Saratoga Historical Park 6. Payment of Claims 7. City Clerk's Financial Report 8. City Treasurer's Report It was moved by Councilman Brigham and seconded by Councilman Kraus the Consent Calendar be approved as modified. The motion was carried. III. BIDS AND CONTRACTS A. Acceptance of Bias and Award of Contract for Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road Median It was moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded by Councilwoman Corr the contract forthis work be awarded to Silver Trees Landscaping for the total bid of $22,500, and ~his to be contingent upon adding in the PG&E contract. The motion was carried. IV. PETITIONS, ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS A. ORDINANCE NO. 62 (Second Reading) Ordinance Declaring the Necessity that Land Purchased for Park'~Purposes be Used for Constr~ction of Public Building .(~gq~'d._~n.. 7) Councilman Matteoni requested 'the second paragraph in Section 1 be re- worded more specifically, as follows: -"'It is further found and declared that the balance of said parcel of reall property not used for the actual construction of public buildings for said public library is found and will be compatible with public park purposes of the entire site." It was moved by Councilman Matteoni and seconded by Councilwoman Corr Ordinance No. 62 be adopted as modified, and the reading be waived. The motion was carried. B. Petition Requesting s Stop Sign at the Intersection, of Charles Street and 6th Street It was moved by CounCilman Kraus and seconded by Councilman Brigham the Director of Public Works' recommendation to treat't~is intersection similar to that on La Paloma and Lutheria and also at Dagmar Drive and Ronnie Way, be approved. The motion!was carried. C. Petition~fF6'mS~(<i~{~"P~eT~6~a"T~d'~"Lane Concerning the New Locati6H'of{h~'S'~fe~.~'S~ore~t'the~A~onaut Shopping Center, and its Material Affects on Several Issues Paul Ross, 12851 Regan Lane,I addressed the Codncil, indicating his home is directly behind the loading ramp of the new Safeway - Argonaut store. He then presented his feelings. regarding this situation, commenting with resDect to the number of trucks making deliveries, the noise factor, the I~i~'~'{~ {h~7~!~at~_]~a~jf~ ~m~)', a~d'~h6~et that his home is 35 Yeet aW6y~frSm a truck loading'zdne. Mri~R~s further commented with regard to the early morning garbage'pickup, and he asked that special consideration be given to this matter. He also indicated he felt the City could help by putting in foilage of some nature to be used as a noise buffer, as well as for aesthetic reasons. Mrs. Gerald Lass,'12879 Regan iLane, inquired as to who was responsible for maintaining this strip. Mr. Van Duyn, Planning Director, advised that the property owners are responsible for this, maintenance. He .indicated, however, because of the amount of~{h~c~uuF~e~t'a~o~=~construction.activity, fhis is creating an~a~'_d.~T~_'~al~!.~fi'd'~SFi~ in the area, and the shopping center tenants have been asked to correct thins. Mrs. Lass asked if the Council were to cQnsider~putt~,ng.~trees in along Mr. Ross 's property, that they cons ider ~h~}_[~r-h.~r~ ~Fpp3rty al so. - 2- Safeway Store-Argonaut Center Gary Baker, Real Estate Representative for Safeway Stores advised that Mr. Ross has written to .the Division Office, and it was Mr. Baker's under- standing the Retail Operations Manager replied to him advising that his- concerns would be followed ups' ~Mr. Baker indicated they havehad some problems with the delivery situation and distribution centers; however, they would like some time to get' the b~ble~sl~r..~6~P'eaks to resolved. With regard to the hours of'deli~erie~'~'MF.'~k~'~re~' there were some problems during the first week' they were oPened; however, this has been changed, and they a~e going to conti'nue to see that this remains within the 8:00 A.M. to 8:00 P.M. hour schedule. Councilman Kraus recalled approx.imately one year ago the Council held a special meetin~ with Safeway whereby all gar6age was going to be put,~h~ TM ~peci~l~t~d~losures, and'i~di~d~s has not happened. He asked that when looking into some of these other problems, this garbage ? situation~.a~so~be~looked~at~ - The Mayor indicated thils matter wou~d be referred to the staff for further review, particularly in relation to the improvement and extension of buffered landscaping behind the Safeway Store, and the pickup of garbage after 6:00 A.M. He encouraged the'Counci'l to observe this situation and'~ommunicate their t" .~_t .............. findings-to'the' staff~~' Th~'petiti'On:was continued ~o'the~neXt !re~Tula~ mee ~ng D. ORDINANCE NO. NS-3~ZC-74, Amending the Zoning Map (Second Reading) Rezoninq from "R-1-20,bO0" (Single-Fami.~y Residential, Low-Density) to "R-l-lO,O00 (Single-Family Residential, Medium Density) the Northerly lO,O00+ Square Foot Portion of the Parcel Designated as Parcel 65 of Book 391 at Page 37, Located on the Northwest Corner of Allendale Avenue and Dolphin Drive (Ordinance NS-3, Article 18) There being no further co~nent by the Council on this mattr, it was moved by Councilman Kraus an~ seconded by Councilman Brigham the adoption of Ordinance NS-3-ZC-74, ~a~d"~ ~adi~q'b~ ~a'i~d. The motion was carried. V. SUBDIVISIONS, B6iLDING SITES'AND ZONING R~QUESTS A. RALPH PEARSON, MAUDE AVENUE Request Concerning ConditionS'ImpoSed Re: Street Improvements Mr. Hendrickson, Assistant to the City Manager, indicated the staff is pro- posi.~g the'drafting of a Minimum Access Road Reimbursement Agreement as a means for satisfying the conditions imposed for these street' improvements. In order that the minimum access requirements be met on MaudeAvenue, the remaining undevelopedproperties would be required to participate in these improvements. The estimated $2,000 cost would be a liability to Mr. Pearson, and he would be responsible for conducting the improvements, and at such time as the other properties develop, they would reimburse accordingly. Mr. Shook, Director of Public Works, pointed out that the Reimbursement Agreement would be based on the actual cost for the improvement, and the $2,000 figure is for illustrative purposes only. Mr. Skip Pearson, son of Ralph Pearson, co~ented that his father has already expended $900 for the work on Maude Avenue and E1Quito Way. Mayor Bridges pointed out that there was a specific requirement in Mr. Pearson's building site approval that he widen Maude Avenue to 18 feet. It was brought to the Council's attention there were two lots off Oriole Way that escaped this similar requirement, and therefore, it was felt an extra burden was being put on the property owned by Mr. Pearson. Following discussion of this matter, it was moved by Councilman Matteoni and seconded by Councilman Kraus the staff be authorized to draft a Minimum Access Road Reimbursement Agreement, obligating Mr. Pearson to the total cost of Ralph Pearson (Cont'd.) improvements on Maude Avenue, and these costs be split 7 ways, with the City participating to the extent of the 2 properties which were exempted from these improvements. The motion was carried. VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED CHANGE OF ZONING FOR BLACKWELL HOMES (PARKER RANCH), PROSPECT AND STELLING ROADS, FROM "R-1-40,O00" (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) AND "A" (AGRICULTURE) TO "R-40,O00 PC" (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, PLANNED COMMUNITY)~(Cont'd. 8/6, 8/26, 10/1, 11/5, 11/19, 12/9, 12/17, 1/7) 1. Ordinance No. NS-3-ZC-75, An Ordinance Conditionally Reclassi- fying Certain Property in the City of Saratoga to an R-1-40,O00 PC Zoning District, Together with Certain Reasons Therefor and Conditions There6f"~ The Mayor noted those written communications received on this matter since the previous meeting, as follows: 1.Sarah Bates, 20786 Lowena Court, with concerns about the possi- bility of development and resulting danger of floods. 2. Lawrence Bates, expressing his thoughts that the "decision on the rezoning of the Parker Ranch should be made solely on its merits relative to the needs of the community in general." 3.Jack Williams, Jr., 15160 Pepper Lane, urging the Council disapprove the proposed development plan for the Parker Ranch. 4. R. Bruce Jahnke, President, U.S. Exchange Corp., 1143 Crane Street, Menlo Park, urging the City Council to vote against the development of Parker Ranch. 5. Jennings-McDermott-Heiss, Inc., Civil Engineering, 925 Regent Street, San Jose, with information concerning Parker Ranch, and enclosing a report from George M. Sicular, Civil Engineering Consultant. 6.Mr. and Nrs. Don Dollier, 21398 Arrowhead Lane, Cupertino, opposing the rezoning of the Parker Ranch. 7. Mr. and Mrs. Kenneth Tonge, 12996 Arroyo de Arguello, opposing the ~ a k Ranch allow.planned community or .~z~~ er property to cl~t~r'ho~ing.' , 8. Mr. and Mrs. Philip E. Davis, 20766 St. Joan Court, opposing the proposed rezoning ordinance affecting the Parker Ranch property. 9. Mr;.and Mrs. Raymond Siebert, 20862 Kittridge Road, favoring the develop- ment of the Parker Ranch as proposed. 10. Dadi Noeggerath, 12950 Pi:erce Road, with comments including favoring the development of Parker Ranch. 11. John H. Tilton, 21172 Bankmill Road, ~avOFi~g j hl&6' f6F 'thYTP~rk~r'*~F .... "~ .... The Mayor then opened the public hearing at 8:45 P.M. Gary Brumbaugh, 20896 Maureen Way, addressed the Council, indicating he would like to share ~ few concerns of some of the taxpayers of Saratoga with the City Council. Mr. Brumbaugh commented that over tha last two weekends he has spent about 8 hours talking to people. He indicated there are 2 organi- zations that he knows of that have been against the Parker Ranch development, and these developments are primarily adjacent to the Parker Ranch itself. So he went to an area'which he felt was away from that potentially affected area, and he did a survey of a street called Saraglen, which is about l½ miles from the foot of the Parker Ranch property, covering about 70 to 80 homes, of which he spoke with 41.residents. Of these 41 residents, 37 indicated in one way or another that they were against any kind of development Parker Ranch (Cont'Zd.) of the Parker Ranch, and this is a pretty high percentage. Of the 4 people who indicated they did not feel this way, 1 of them indicated he would like to study it further; another indicated he was completely in favor of develop- ment of Parker Ranch, and when asked why he felt this way, he replied: "I'm a builder, and I'm not going to cut ~V economic throat." The third person he talked to who had disagreement was the wife of the builder, who said she would · have to agree. The fourth person indicated she woul'd prefer h~'w~61d"~e back and speak with her when hen husband was there. Mr. Brumbaugh felt that maybe what this adds up to is that what has been con- sidered by the Planning Commissi~on, and also, by the City Council for Quite a period of time may not be a minority opinion after all;' it may very well turn out to be a majority opinion of the taxpayers. He felt what the City Council should do at this p6int is open itself up to more public opinion than is probably expressed within these Council Chambers. He felt the Council would have toknow when the majority is speaking, and not the minority. Mr. Brumbaugh pointed out on the overhead map the location of the PaCker Ranch, and explained the indication "DS" has reference to a category within the Division of Mines and Geology RepOrt issued in 1974, and this indicates areas of high potential hazard for earthquakes, induced landslides, major geological hazards, and includes areas of existing l~ndslides and sloBes steeper than15% and units of low stability. He commented that from what he has seen. so far of the proposed development, he would say we are talking about this kind of' land with these kinds-of problems, and so far he hasn't seen anything presented that ~says if the development 'goes through, the citizens of Saratoga have any'protection against some of the possible hazards due to landslides and fires. He is concerned in that' he is a taxpayer in thi!s.community, and if law suits were to be issued because of landslides where homes are damaged, he is not willing as a taxpayer to share'in these law suits. Yet, as a citizen of Saratoga, he indicated he would have to pay his fair share burden. Mr. Brumbaugh commented. he felt we could learn from past experience, and our sister-ci~v, San Jose, does~ and they have gone through a number of law suits as aresul't of an earthquake and soil sl'ip~age i.n an area called The Highlands. He commented that when all the law suits are heard in this case and if they are successfull the projected costs may be as high as four million dollars. He stated this area is Very similar to the Parker Ranch, and proceeded to show a picture of the Highlands area, andsfelt it represented some'of thesame physical characteristics of the Parker Ranch, such as'a fairly open hi'llside with some trees, reasonable roads, etc. He indicated there was so much-slippage of the earth,.wh'en the City had to come back and replace the water conduits, they had to keep them above the ground. Councilman Matteoni commented 'that his general recollection is that that development was in the City of San Jose, and he 5elieves the subdivision is is excess of 10 years of age, and at that time, ~he City of San Jose embraced the developer -- it did not do any soils investigation,~eolo~y investigation, it located a road on a landslide area that was undercut by springs, it allowed homes to be sited on poor geologic situations. He asked if Mr. Brumbaugh was quarreling with the conditions which the staff has sought to impose if the Council were to approve the zoning and allow the development to proceed to see if it could p~ove itself, then he would 3ike to hear this point focused in this area. He indicated that h~ feels over the years Saratoga has in no way tried to follow the example of.the City of San Jose on that~particular develop- ment. Mr. Brumbaugh commented he didn't feel an Act of God is going to do much to turn around what a lot of good geologists have come up with, and he thinks there are enough similarities, but this is just his' opinion. He felt there are comparisons particularly between terrain~ and with greater foresight now, we might have less damage. However, if there is damage, the City is open to law suits, and this is his concern. - 5- Parker Ranch (Cont'~d.) Mr. grumbaugh continued that what San Jose has come up with in their General Plan ~s Of/T975 seems to.be some enlightment to them, and he feels some of that same enlightment should rub" off in our deliberations here. Mr. Brumbaugh felt the very best use of this land is not.to develo~'~it at al'l~d~i'f we are to go ah~d~lTp':i~ we are going to be looking at higher costs than we current'l.y anticipate. He commented he has feelings about the right of peopl:e to make a dollar at whatever-their profession is, but .he thi.ngs ..the .requi.rements of what .the ~Plann~ ng Commission and City Counci 1 can possibly impose can never be enough'~if:in fact we would have an earth- ~ke, and'h~d~'~h~he 'Cilia/~6ul'd~l~th~ ~i~n~ on a builder. Mr. Brumbaugh then read a short article on this subject: "The'City of San Jose in thei'r recent December 1975 General Plan specified maximum 1 in 20-acre dwelling densities for all un- developed lands with slopes greater than 15%. The basis was the pervasive geologic problems in the hillside, lands]:iding, · earthquake faults, extraordinary public costs of hillside devel- opment. Public safety was ~n important factor, with fires and landslides being the key considerations. It was indicated that the Richter scale of 6.5 San Fernando earthquake.of 1970 triggered over one thousand landslides., and that there are no means currently available that woOl:d totalt'y mit. igate landslide hazards in h~llside areas, Is Saratoga to be less concerned with public safety and cost than San jo~e. San Jose with their mas~r: tax base contin~hillside development at a density greater than 1 in 20 acres. Can Saratoga afford to continue with a 1-acre .minimum?" ~inda S~yr~, 12664 Wardell Court, asked: "Since the Council is on the thre~l}~Jof deciding upon a hillside 6rdinance to governS: all the hills or almost all the hills in Saratoga, is there any way that the area covered by the Parker Ranch' can also be: regulated by th'i s proposed ordinance?" The City Attorney replied, stating that the p~6pbsed Hillside Ordinance provides a cut-off point that it would not be retroactively applied to divest any rights vested by vir.tue of any site development plans that had previously been approved under ."PC" zoning. The site development plan on the Parker Ranch was approved i~n June'of 1975. Therefore, if there would be any conflict, if Parker is nezoned and conditioned to comply with the site development plan which the Planning Co~ission has approved, that would take precedence. Councilman Matteoni .commented ~hat he did inquire of the Planning Department what the density would be on this development if we were to use: Formula l, which would be consistent with the density of 105 units. Formula 2, which would have a yield of 99 units. Formula 3, yeild of 97 units. Vince Garrod, Mt. Eden Road, indicated he lives adjacent to the proposed Parker Ranch, and also, represents the Greater Saratoga property owners. He stated they would like to see the Council. approve the plan as proposed. They have 65 members who are absolutely in.favor of the plan and feel this is the highest and best use of. this land and is' a properlLy planned use for these hills. Mr. Garrod stated that he knows the land and how it reacts under all conditions, and he has no fear of any cala.~ty happening to the City of Saratoga with a properly engineered development such as this. Parker Ranch (Cont'd. Linda Stuck~v, 22600 Prospect Road, commented ~hat at the last public hearing, Councilman Kraus brought up the General. P,lan, and said that people had asked him questions about this proposal meeting the General Plan, and wondered how the Williamson Act'comes in with the General Plan, and is it in violation of the General Plan as proposed~ She further commented that many times when they have spoken about the Williamson Act, people have said all you do is cancel'and pay your back taxes and get o~t. She indicated that Santa Clara County has done some research, and there has been a total of 8 cancellations, and there~e over 1,000 contracts -- around 400,000 acres in the Williamson Act. '~h~ stated that the cancellations they were able to track down were cancelled because in one case the .freeW~_v w~nt ~h~h'~l~h~tT~'~l~d~d~i~h~s ~ operation; the farming othep man cancelled~because ofi~:lness~.and sold ~out to another dairy operation. Therefore, she stated she would like to see the Council deal with the Williamson Act on this-information. ............... A~'Z~tl'~ Gr~'~le~'21~6~ 'R6~d, ~up~t~o Sph~r~'~flde~ce~"' Saratoga, adjacent to the Parke~ Ranch property. He'indicated he has 3points he would ]j,ke_t9 discuss this evening. He first asked: "Who is asking for what?"!~ '~What's {he'dplan?", and "What are we going to do about it?" Mr. Greeley~oomm'~i~ed ~ith regard to question number 1,~the developer is asking .for a planned community change of zoning from R-1-40,O00 to PC, and he asked:-°"Why?",.stating that he can develop the property 'right now, so there must be some reason why the developer wants to go from R-1-40,O00 to Planned Community. Mr. Greeley commented that he feels this point is impontant because costs are involved'in answering questions. that have to do with point number 2, which is: "What's the plan?" Mr. Greeley stated that he and his wife have followed this issue probably more closely than any member on.the Council, with the exception of Norm Matteoni. So when he says: "What's the plan?", Mr. Greeley'stated the plan they have seen is that if the developer, but they' haven't seen the plan as to how it impacts Saratoga and the rest of the community around Saratoga. He stated that we are talking about a planned com mnity, and we don't even. know how many acres are inv~l~d;~ ~ don~ ~po~_bo__w~ny~hqUs~s ar~_'q~olved because there is a William~6n Act issO~ and ho matten~w~t vo6~6 with the rezon i ng, the Wi 11 i ams on Ac~'~nd s: 'TherefOre ,~ ~o~i ~' k~W 'i f~('hav e 201 acres, 218 acres, 105 houses or 100 minus 6, 7 or 8 -- the Mercury News had indicated it is possible there would be 57. Also, we don't know about the traffic problem, and the traffic problem on Prospect Road is deeply serious, and he related'a personal incident on Prospect last summep in which his son was the first person at the scene of the accident. He stated the 'traffic situation on Prospect Road is not part of the pl'an; the traffic situation at Stelting and Prospect is not part of the plan; the traffic situation at Comer is not part of the plan. With regard to the impact of flooding on homeowners, Mr. Greeley stated this is not part of the plan. Mr. Greeley stated that earlier a speaker mentioned the hillside slippage of a San Jose development. He indicated that one of his neighbors and a member of the Prospect Hills Homeowners Association on Maria Lane, a development by the City of Saratoga and supervised by the City, had lot slippage that he has so far invested over $10,O00.~nHe indicated there is at the Saratoga Country Club about a 1-foot dip in Prospect Road as it goes past the property, and this.is not part of the plan. He stated that the density and visual impact of the property is not part of the plan. Mr. Greeleystated the plan he has seen has to do with the developer, and does not have to do wi~h how the trails, if there are going to be trails, are going to maintained and where they are going to go and who is g6ing to own them. It does not deal with the problem of how the open space property is going to be taxed. He asked: "Are the citizens of Saratoga and surrounding community going to be subjected to another tax dodge?" He asked: "I's that 153 acres going to be one big common fool that the County Assessor is going to throw $200 at in taxes, and say 'let the homeowners pay for it', because that won't pay the price of the upkeep, maintenance, police and fire pro- tection wilt require." Therefore, he rei'terated: "What's the plan?" He parker Ranch (Cont'd.) felt there is no full, comprehensive plan about the impact on the City of Saratoga. With regard to his third point: "What are you going to do about it?", Mr. Greeley stated that this development will probably have the biggest single impact on Saratoga, and certainly the most visible, of any develop- ment the city has had. He asked if-the Council was willing to "punt" and turn back to the Planning Commission who are appointed officials whose membership changes from time totime. It was his feeling this is the Council's obligation,and. responsibility tQ act on this issue and demand from the developer and from'the Planning Commission a plan we can say is a plan, and he would suggest the Council send this request for rezoning'back to the Planning Commission to get the answers to-the questions needed before trying to pass the Planned Community rezoning. Russell Crowther, 20788 Norada Court, addressed the Council. He commented with regard to San Jose Highlands, he believes if therecords are checked, it would be found this was a development where there were geological'reviews, and one of the b~sis. for the law suits was the fact that one of the geologists who had indicated the problems in advance was replaced by another geologist. With regard to the City Attorney's comment regardi n~ the development plan, Mr. Crowther stated he has been told at many'~ hearings that the development plan is still open. 'He indicated that Mr. Joe White, an attorney, asked the question in considerable detail at a Planning Commission Meeting with regard to the approval process,Land what ~ould:itake place with regard to the development plan, and they were told the plan would be approved by the City Council and that it had not been approved by the Planning Commission. Mr. Crowther quoted from various sections of the San Jose General Plan, as follows: "Development activities may directl9 trigger a~landslide." "Development on slopes of more than 15% should be drastically restricted." "Section 11549.5 of Article 3 of the State Subdivision Map Act requires denial of a tentative map if it is determined that the design of the subdivision or type of improvement proposed is tickely to cause serious publ~.c_~ealth problems, where~h'e'~i~e ~S"~h~l~l'l~'~'~l~r t~-*~b'e~f~d~~'f~d'J' Mr.:.~rowther stated he felt the Parker Ranch comes in this category, and it seems to be inconsistent with protecting public health and safety to ignore fault lines in our General Plan and assume that they'-re not there until they're proven to be there. M~. Crowther commented it seems to him the opposite should be the case, and we should assume these factors are there until they are proven not to be there. With regard to Mr. Greeley's statement with regara to slippage on Prospect Road, there is evidence of this,on Prospect Road, as well as other areas along those fault lines in the hills, and he felt we should not state in this reclassification ordinance that we are consistent with the General Plan, and then show houses sitting on a faQlt line. Mr. Crowther stated his homeowners group has been very concerned about flooding, and have been doing studies on flooding; they have communicated with a number of university professors at Berkeley,and Stanford; they have worked with the Santa Clara Valley Water District; and they have communicated with the U.S.G.S. in Menlo Park. He indicated he would like to sum up some of the key area where the'greatest amount of concern seems to exist. He pointed out.the location of Calabazas Creek and Prospect Creek and the location of the culverts on the overhead map. He indicated there is sand- bagging of driveways, boarding, etc. to stop the fl,o~ding. He stated their -8- Parker Ranch (Cont'~d.) , concerns are related to the capacity of these culverts and the developer's estimates of the impactof this development on flooding. Mr. Crowther' stated that it was previously indicated the flow 6f Calabazas would be affected by about 1%, and the flow of Prospect Creek would be affected by about 4%. He stated that the develope~ divided the site up into basins and estimated the run off from~each~basin, and this is taken d~rectly from the Environmental Impact Report. This, for example, was his estimate of the lO-year flood flow at the intersection of Prospect Creek and Arauello, and he showed'492 cubic feet-per-se(ond flow at that point for the ~lood which would occuran average of every 10 years. In contrast to this, the Santa Clara' Valley Water DiStrict has ~provided him with data that their estimate is 230 cubic feet-per-secondL He stated they have received data from the measuring stations, and he found this was the first reguest for this data. Therefore, M~. Crowther stated He has great trouble seeing how the flooding estimates could have been accurate in the E.I.R. since the basic fundamental data had not previously been requested. He then gave a summary df the data which appeared in the E.I~LR. by the developer ~- he'had indicated 8~ increase in flow overaT1 for Calabazas Creek for both 3 and lO-year storms; the overall flow off the Parker Ranch into Prospect Creek was 15% and 14% for the 3 and lO-year storms. The net affects were 1% on Calabazas, and 4% on Prospect. ~He indicated Santa Clara Valley Water District had indicated much lower numbers, and even a lO0-year flow is 1,700 cubic~feet-per-second, and the developer's data is far above anything they would estimate for a lO-year flood flow.. Therefore, if you would correct Prospect Creek ~er the data from Santa Clara' Valley W~r Dts~i ~ ,.~o_~u~g~_~ ~ ~% :~o~'~th~3.~ea~ ~i o~ ~'9~o~ '~h~ ~L~! Mr. Crowther indicatea With regard to run off, there is a lot of data on the (~ffects of urbanization; for example, ~ou find that both the total and the peak run off are increased, but the impact on the peak is the major factor in te~s o[ impact on f3ooding. The peak run off increases as the percentage of the area that is impervious increases, or as the percentage of the area served by storm sewer increases. He stated that vegetation removal al.so increases the run off and erosion, and sed~entation affects floodingby reduc~ng flow areas,' and the sedmentation is increased by cut and fill, particularly during construction. He felt the. typical increase from urbanization is on the order of a factor 10 to 100, even when you implement all of the mitigating measures. He indicated he wou~d strongly disagree with the developer's statement that this sedimentation will be decreased. Mr. Crowther further stated the frequency of a given flood occurs 2 to 5 times more frequently due to urbanization. Mr. Crowther then presented someexamples of flow increase related to in- crease in the basin and pervious. and surface area, and stated the effect on the Prospect Creek basin is greater than 10%; and the effect on the Calabazas Creek Basin is in ~he range of 3% to 4%. Based on the 44% in- crease inflow in Permanente~e~_k>for a 6%'increase in pervious surface in the basin, Mr: Crowther concluded that based on this, the Parker Ranch would have about a 20% effect on'the flow of Calabazas Creek. He then ~resented a plot of data from a U.S.G.S. report., and this data indicates a larger effec~ for the less frequent flows, but a smaller effect for the more frequent flows. Mr. Crowther indicated that the Santa Clara ~alley Water District agrees that the culvert at Saratoga-Sunnyvale and Prospect is~]lg, capacity, and will not take the flow for the lO0-year sto~. Councilman Matteoni asked Mr. Cr~wth~r if the Flood Control District was responsible for this culvert, an~ if he had discussed with thm the responsi- bility for the existing problems. and whether they have some liabili~v in that regard. - 9- Parker Ranch (Cont'd~) Mr. Crowther replied that it was asked what the future plans ,were, and they talked about concrete lining as a possibility, and replacing the culvert as a possibility. Councilman Matteoni re, Stated hi~s question to Mr. CrowthOr, asking if he was aware of any residents in the area having filed claims against the Flood Control District for an inadequate channel they are responsible for, or placing the blame of the existing flooding on the District. Mr. Crowther indiCated'he has not raised this question. Mr. Crowther commented that he believes this is just another area where development would .have an adverse impact oH public safety and public costs, and they believe the development will have a very signi'ficant increase in flow affect on Prospect Creek, and it .appears that the information which has been provided is.an under-estimate of the impact, and the numbers are not consistant with available data. Dick Konrad, a resident of SaratOga, indicated he has examined some data provided by the Saratoga Fire District, and he would like to share some of the facts which'he felt might bear on this situation. He then presented excerpts~!~6~n'~,'a California Di"vision of Forestry publication: "In any case, fire tends to race uphill. Wherever feasible, chapanral-should be replaced by a low or discontinuous ground .cover that will produce less fill." , "To reduce fire hazards, it is suggested to plant long, succulent · ground covers or other low-growing plants around all structures, and water regularly. Do not allow continuous tree or brush canopy next to the buildings~" "There is no such thing as a plant that will not burn. The term 'fire resistent' has been used and may be misleading. All plants will burn if there is enough~heat and other conditions are right." Mr. Konrad stated that it appears the scenic beauty, soil stability, flooding and fire hazards interact. He indicated that the fire laws ~'~' 51 l'o~v~'th~~ '~'~ ~i ~ri~t' ~:~,~ '~Cla re a re- ~ andscapi ng such ~ ~ "'~h~f~6~s{ra't~d in a pic(ure cot of the bulletin whic~ he presented to the Council. Mr. Konrad referred to the design plans which were presented to the Council at the previous meeting indicating landscaping around home- sites, and stated it is a distinct possibility because of the fire hazards, these plans might not be possible. For this reason, he stated he is opposed to the Parker Ranch development.' Mr. Heiss, Civil Engineer for Blackwell Homes, addressed the Council, indicating he has been working on the Parker Ranch for almost 3 years. He indicated there has been a Tot of citizen input and involvement "duri ngl~this time from a lot of interested people who have the best use of the land in mind, and he felt there has been a lot of citizen input to essentially just stop the project and prevent it from going ahead. Mr. Hei ss stated that this land has always been indicated as "residential" i~n the General Plan, and he feels this.is the proper use -- it is not designated as open space, and if it is to be open space, then someone must buy it, and he doesn't feel the citizens of Saratoga have this in mind either. Mr. Heiss stated they have always felt this particular plan represents a reasonable compro- mise to the situation, and it has been a great deal of thought -- he does not recall anyproject he has worked on that has had the data submitted relative toE.I.R.'s or zoning that this project has. Mr. Heiss felt that the E.I.R. testimony brought out the areas!'of concern, and Blackwell Homes has been very cooperative and receptive to the City and to the citizenry in amending.the plan, and he feels the plan has greatly improved. Also, the plan has the unanimous support of the Planning Commission. - lO- Parker Ranch (Cont!d.) He agreed that many of the references in Dr. Secular's report with re6ard to hydrology do need clarification. With regard to there will be a 10 to 100 ti~es.increase in sed~ment~6~(aU~'Of~6~TOn, Mr. Heiss indicated that this is not what the ~eferences stated; rather, it i s s~ec i fical 1~ stated that ~tii~.~oaa~s' 'd'~fi n~6~r~C~6~' ~ Ln6. ~re'~s '~:ven to p~i~'~'~h~lo'~, ~"~i~b~i~i~i~i~h~t causes.. an ~ncrease in~sedimen~ation ~ ~t is construction without any thought effort to protecting. the-slope., He stated ithas been well documented over the history of this project that the~e will be a.great deal of effort to pro- tecting the slOpe during.~const~uction. He stated there were also discussions related to excess run off related to Urbanization, and stated when ydu examine these references, urbanization in that particular use was a much greater run off factor, and it also applied to urbanization of the entire basin. He further indicated the Parker Ranch would have an impervious factor whereby about about 10% of the Parker Ranch will be made impervious. The Ranch represents about 9% of the entire Calabazas Creek drainage area, so these are factors to consider. Mr. Heiss indicated ~hey recognize there will be an increase in run off, but it will be nothing in the magnitude that is suggested because of the urbanization of the Parker Ranch itself. Mr. Heiss indicated becausethis basin is a very large and long one, the peak flow from the Parker Ranch will reach the Calabazas Creek long before the peak flow from the basin itself. So in spite of an increase, in the case of a lO-year storm, there will be 27 cubic feet-per-second'increase in outflow, and the affect of that outflow will have passed through the Catabazas Creek long before the peak flow from the rest of the basin reaches 'it. Therefore, in .effect, there only be the base flow, and the peak flow will pass. Relative to percentages, Mr. Heiss indicated he would like to expla~h ~here those numbers came from. He explain~ that he obtained the numbers from the City's own drainage plan relative to the Prospect Creek and Calabas Creek for the lO-year storm. He stated that, unfortunately, this is different than the numbers expressed by the Flood Control District. He stated he has a letter from the District where they have indicat~ the flows, and they have indicated the percentage increase for the lO-year storm into the Calabazas as 4.2% for the combined outflow of the Parker Ranch. TH~s is ~'~s~d.'~n ~1:~-~ ~.i~'~50~'ubic feet-per-second, based on Flood Co~rol"~"~t~.~ i6 ~p~ Creek the lO-year flow is 230 cubic feet-per- second, representing approximately 9.3% increase. Mr. Heiss further stated that in this letter from the Water District, it is stated: "In general, the creek channels have adequate capacity to carry the 1% flow. The 1% flow is essentially the lO0-year storm." Therefore, both of those channels have the capacity to carry the lO0-year storm. Mr. Heiss explained that when a lO0-year storm is computed, it considers the entire ~rainage b~sin to be saturated, and considers that the entire basin in impervious. Therefore, there is no affect from urbanization one_ wa~ .o~he othe~.~Howeve~..~the culverts do not have. th~ac~"to ~(cu~ '~h '~ ~l~t~aH"i s:~6~s~d Gp~ 'fh~' p~aS1 em {~t' li~k downs tream. Mr. Heiss indicated that he feels there is ample evidence from Enviros that when the 3Ranch is developed, th'e sedimentationwill be reduced." ;;~- Mr. Heiss commented in the case of San Jose Highlands, much of the geolo- gic data was ignored, and this i.s not the case-in the Parker Ranch. The City and Councy geologists have examinM the data and find it adequate. The consultant feels the problems can be mitigated, and the next step will be an in-depth ~oils and geologic report~ ..... .'*'~; ' Relative to the tax issu(,' ~( 6h~n~6&"Wi ll' be owned by the homeowners and will be taxed against the homeowners, and he supports the concept to initiate some type of tax maintenance district to insure this is maintained to a minimum standard as set by the City. The taxation will go on the -11- Parker Ranch (Cont'd.) individual tax owners as a 1/105th interest, and they.will be taxed on the basis of a 2-ac~e!lot~ With regard to trails, Mr. Heiss indicated they are stillwaiting for the City to tell them what is wanted, and those will be reserved and set aside. Mr. Heiss stated that the utilities are there, the City's Traffic Engineer feels the streets are adequate and the plan meets the requirements for circulation in the hills. Work is being done regarding some of the traffic safety problems, and 'he felt through all these elements, they are working a great deal toward'mitigating the many problems that have evolved, and would urge approval of this plan at the rezoning stage. David Cooper, Mt. Eden Road, addressed the Council stating that he is a recent graduate of the University of California'in. Architecture, and he has worked with environmental planners in the National Park Service..He stated he felt the plan is a good one, and would have fewer negative environmental impacts than the existing zoning would result in. Bruce Jahnke, 12781 Arroyo de Arguelip, commented that he recently sent the Council a letter concerning the Parker Ranch development, and he also sent a copy to the SaratoGa New~ Mr Jahnke commented~"i'~T~r ~al l~'~ ~u~'~'~iO~h~'~ '~appened in the ver~' ~O~t ~6~o~ i~h~ '~ ~',T6G~'trj}:'i'T~ area sOch as Sarato'ga, a~d' h~ referred all those peaceful little towns.between San Francisco and San Jose in Santa Clara Valley, and it seems to him there must be something terribly wrong that in a space of just 20 years those little towns could all be covered over wi'th cement and asphalt' and T.V. antennaes, houses, shopping centers, industrial parks and freeways, to the point where you don't have any of that rural aspect left anymore. He stated 'that this area right in the. heart of the Santa Clara Valley with its prunes, its apricots, its streams and farm- land has now become one big ugly sprawling mass similar to Los Angeles. Mr. Jahnke stated that he believes the Council as elected representatives want to represent the citizens and carry out their wishes and want to do what the majority of the voters wish. He commented if the Council.got out and talked to 50 or 100 voters and objectively told these people what is happening on the Parker Ranch, and simply ask them if they are for it or against it, the Council would very Quickly come to the conclusion that the citizens of Saratoga are against the project. Mr. Jahnke stated in reDre- .senring the people of Saratoga, he appeals to the Councilto vote down this project. Perry Moerdyke, who resides in Paso Alto, and one of the owners of the Parker Ranch, stated he felt h6 and the'other owners of the P~rker Ranch are the real "Friends of the Parker Ranch"~ although there are some groups that have come along in the last year who claim that title. He commented that these people mascarade under several other names, and he feels perhaps they should be called "Chicken Little Associates" because their philosophy is: "The sky is falling." Mr. Moerdyke indicated that they have seen in 29 successive meetings a presentation by their buyer, at one tremendous expense, compet6nt, professional and technical advice to the City. On the other side, they have heard nothing but distorted statements, emotional appeals, and obviously, those people who oppose this do not want anything on the Parker Ranch. Mr. Moerdyke commented if the people had wanted to buy this land, there were opportunities to buy it for a park. He stated he would like to make the point that there has been no professional advise given the Council by the opponents, whereas, on the other side, the Council has been provided with the best and most competent advice, including the advise of Enviros.who the City employs for the Environmental Impact Rep6rt. Mr. Moerdyke stated he believes th~v have been'very patient, and that there is a plan, in s~tt~ 9~_w.hat ~.r. Greel_~v says,.and th~ the_~ouDc~l. shg~]~.pot ~iVe~a'~te:b'f~non-confidende against the Planning Commission~ who spent mo~ths ,h~lpiH~'t~ d~velop what is to go 'into this plan. 12- Parker Ranch (Cont'd.) John Weir, 12343 Arroyo de Arguello,. commented that what the Council has before them is simply a request to rezone from ~'R-1-40,O00" to "R-1-40,O00 PC", which is a privilege granted by the City, and not a right required of the City. He conmented that the City has every right to deny the request of the owner to rezone, thus leaving it at "R-1-40,O00". This does not prevent or prohibit building; the "R-1-40,O00" has been the zoning on the property for years, and they can develop under that zoning, contrary to the claim that "a vote against PC is also a vote against building". He indicated that somewhere along the way the talk about having to buy th~.p~.~_you do _ not grant the PC designation has. gotten muddled in~'thinking of the City, TM and he indicated that no such condition exists if ~h~{{~ie~'"~h~ ~Gest. On the other hand, he stated, the ~ity could choose to grant the privilege of rezoning to the owners, and one such consideration may be possibly the preser- vation.of Professional Open Space. Mr. Weir continued that if'the Council fe~ls in its wisdom that the~benefits are worth it, then it should feel free to set as stringent a set of conditions on this granted privilege as is necessary to protect the interests of the neighbors and citizens of Saratoga. Mr. Weir stated that the City Council was elected to exclusively look after the citizens' interest, and protect Saratoga against all things foreign to Saratoga's needs and desires, and has a solemn duty to bargain with the developer and obtain the very best terms possible to the citizens. He indicated that the Council selected a committee who negotiated in private with the owner on the proposed l~brary site, and felt there was no reason the Council could not do this noW. Councilman Matteoniinterjected, stating the library sessions were not "private", and also, these were negotiations to buy a si'te. He indicated that zoning is a different matter, and it does bel~ong in thins' forum, and he is not going to sit on any committee that privately negotiates with any developer. Mr. Weir indicated that he did not mean to infer holding "private" sessions, but that two members of the Council had been conducting negotiations with the owner, and a precedent was set that the Council can negotiate and work with these people to try to get the best benefit for the Ci.ty itself. Therefore, instead of worrying whether or not to impose minor conditions and. how to word an ordinance to please the owners and developers, the Council should instead be takin ga hard line. and talk~nn to the citizens; and if the Council admits that the devetopm~n~ ~i l~l ~o~h6'Ci:~,Q'~.~ 'i~T~ta~S1 in,and balance the disadvantages withZ positive'cont~ibutiO~s on the landowners and developers' part to justify a choice'of the rezoning privilege, these developer contributions should be vigorously sought as in any contract nego- tiations. Mr. Weir stated that the land is available unde~ existing ordinances at "R-1-40,O00" for development, with little r6~triction other than the pending slope conservation guidelines. The owners and developers have been waiting two years and expended $170,000 to achieve the "PC" zone. Thus, it is evident there is great financial and commercial value to the owners and'developers in a change to "PC" zoning, and he felt this rezoning request is nowhere a philanthropic vehture on the developer's part to beautify Saratoga -- it simply means good business to go the'"PC" route over the existing.zoning. He stated that the City should demand the following as a minimum price for the privitlege to be granted: "At least each piece of house should be put on a property with 20,000 square feet minimum living area, rather than a proposed developer's idea of 12,500."-He indicated that the 12,500 square-foot lots when buil't will look like some developer just bought the northeast end of the Ranch, and ran a ~-acre developer up the side of the hill, even though there is open space to the left. He felt the 20,000 square- foot lots should be restricted to the currently proposed construction area without expansion of a location for the homes, and this may reduce the total number of homes, but there will be greatly improved scenic aspects, and reduce the impervious area contribution to flooding and various other aspects mentioned. Mr. Weir further commented that the Council should require this 20,000 square- foot minimum be put in writing in the proposed rezoning ordinance. - 13- Parker Ranch (Cont'd.) In addition, Mr. Weir commented that the Council should require that there be no homes on the ridges, and that all 5 homes on the Hall property be re- moved, as wellas the 6 homes around the eucalyptus grove, and allow no homes on the hill beyond the existing ranch area into that open space, and put fin strict geological and hydrologid controls. He commented that if the developer finds that the cost benefit ratio for the project is not favorable under these conditions, they can simply decide to'develop under ":R~l-40,O00", as,. the Counci had no obligation to do them a financi~ favor or guarantee them a certain profit margin. Ruth Peck Szudy, 10100 San Marco~ Road, stated that if anyone had come around and asked her if she wanted to see the trees go down'in any one of. the tracts, she would have said "no"T 'She com~ent~'~"S~r~t'oq~i~ beautiful place because there have s~rict reqUirem~'fft~'%~, ~d'~U~t'h~s been placed in men of integrity such as Bil'l Heiss.. She indicated that he is well thought of in his field,'both as an engineer and a~ a fine man, and she really feels he has Saratoga's best i.nterestat heart and wouldn't betray them. It was then moved by Councilman Brigham and seconded by Councilman Kraus the pUbgic hearing be_~losed ~fthis e~ning(~'T~f~g~'~FFi'~.' The ,-'pQ~lic h~ing'~as~clo~d ateI'll'35 P;MT ......... ~ Mayor Bridges verified with the Acting City Manager that the language sub- mitted by the City Attorney affectina the second paragraph of Section 2, ~f'~i~'a'~(~"~S~sZC~75,' ~G~"b~'i~er"'F%~'a~into the o~dinance. This would ~b~dt6;tH~'~oF'd'i~'wffi~'~'h~es~ntly' in the ordinance, and is done so as a result of Councilman Matteoni's suggestion and a discussion at the previous City Council Meeting. Councilman Bri gham t~. ~a~'"~~ ~nn" to ~O~d ~'~]~-~o dn~EXhi bi~ "~"'. "~h~T~ "ai'~a~ia~k~=~% ~econd. ' It was the~ moved by Councilman Matteoni and seconded by Counciiman Kraus-,- the Council approve the modified Section 4, per the City Attorney's letter, dated January 14, 1976,.substiteting the language in the last line to read as follows: "... until such time as said Contract is no longer in force and effect by reason of its canc~llat~on,.application'for which cancellation must be to the City Council prior to approval of the tentative map for said development." The motion was carried unanimously. Due to the fact it was felt there is a visual impact with respect tothe placement of homes near the eucalyptus grove, Councilman Brigham,~b~H~t lots. 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25 be s~]cken from Exhibit ~i~K~aus raised the~poin~ that there ma~ be other lots which would ~c~iman Matteoni then amended'Councilman Brigham's moti'on, and moved to refer the matter back to the Planning Commission, indicating that the City Council.has tentatively decided to .remove lots 21_, 22, 23,~ 24 and 25 from ....... Ex~it "A""of the'Orai~ance, ~n~TF~d~t~ ~6~i~~6'FE-~ing 26, 27 and 28, as well as the imp~ ~fi~ removed, and ask that the Blanning Co~ission report back on this issue. Councilman Kraus seconded this motion, and it was carried. It was then moved by Councilman Matteoni and seconded by Councilman Kraus waived. The motion ~Fr'i~d; 4 to 1,'~Ou~ci'im~'~i~h~i~ oppos'~i~ ~6" the Ordinance introduction. - 14- B. ORDINANCE NS-3.33, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING ORDINANCE NS-3, THE ZONING ORDINANCE, BY ESTABLISHING A HILLSIDE CONSERVATION - OPEN SPACE ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION BY ADDING ARTICLE 3-A THERETO The Mayor acknowledged itemsof written correspondence on this issue, as as follows: 1. Harry L. Mayfield, President', Good Government Group, P. O. 371, with thoughts related to the Hillside Ordinance. 2. Robert L. Eppstein, 21363 Saratoga Hills Road, requesting the City Council resolve the proposed Hillside Ordinance in favor of the rights of the hillside property owners. 3. Mary Alice Borer, 12177 Country Squire Cou~t, expressing the hope that the proposed Zoning District Classification Ordinance will not hinder their plans for 1.424 acres on Via Regina. 4. Anthony T. Cocciardi, 22631Mt. Eden Road, submitting his proposal for slope density formula in connection with proposed H-11side Conservation Ordinance. 5. Representatives of Tollgate Homeowners Association, requesting revised language in certain sections of the proposed Hillside Ordinance. 6. League of Women Voters of Los Gatos-Saratoga, expressing their views regarding the proposed Hills.ide Ordinance. 7. John H. Tilton, 21172 Bank Mill Raod, recommending prompt passage of the proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance Re: Hillside Conservation- Open Space Zoning. 8. Caryl Groteguth, 18846 Ten Acres Road, requesting that the City allow one-acre 'zoning to stand. 9.Mrs. J. R. Clark, 14345 Maclay Court, Re: rights of peoperty owners with acreage controlling the sale of their property. 10. Armin Kampman, 85 N. 30th Street, San Jose;;!.fully endorsing proposed Ordinance NS-3, Re: Hillside Conservation District. Mr. Van Duyn introduced Ms. Meg Monroe, Planni'ng Consultant for the City, for a brief presentationof this plan. Ms. Monroe addressed the Council', stating that wGat is going to be discussed this evening is that which has been conveyed from the Planning Con~nission and what is in the Ordinance now. She indiCa.t~ed.~ri~f ~'en~ ~curred during the develooment of the Ordinance~in~!uding_p~s~ag~p[~h~.Sub~i~i~ion Ordinance. ~ She ~ndicated ther6 were many things i~ the Hillside O~dinance that were later included in the Subdivision Ordinance, and these things were removed from the Hillside Ordinance, and the Hillside Ordinance simply referenced to the Subdivision Ordinance where it was pertinent, making the Hillside Ordinance much clearer. In addition, she explained that the 1974 General Plan advised that cluster '~ development be encouraged in sensitive areas in the City, and pointed out that 6ne of those areas was the'Hillside Conservation Area. It was deter- mined that it would be more effective to put the cluster concept into a cluster ordinance that would apply to all residential areas in the City, s, so the Hillside Ordinance now fdcuses on the problems of hillside develop- ment, and it is hoped at a later date the City will develop its PC Ordinance to include those provisions to encourage clustering in the hillside areas. She outlined the main components of the Ordinance, which are: 1) a focus on privately-owned open space; 2) designation of Single-Family/Residential developments; 3) use of a slope density formula; 4) safety and environmental factors, as well as other specific criteria listed in the Ordinance. -15- Hillside Conservation - Open Sp.ace District Ordinance Ms. Monroe further indi'cated that no new administrative procedures have been introduced in this ordinance, although it does allow for some ~l.exibility of Councilman Matteoni made reference to a letter received this evening raising the question that if you attach "PC" to this type of ordinance, whether that under the existing "PC" or "PD" ordinance would.permi.t multiple dwellings. He con~nented he didn't believe this was so, and he wanted to be able to give this assurance to the peopl'e_who raise this guestion. He asked the Ci.tv Attorney if !~'~r~t"in ~'~i~'~h~t'~il~l'~i~"~6~s~rvation Ordinance is ~e I ~i~h~ be 'a~tached to it, such as "PC" would have to recognize the base, and CoUldn't expand on that base. He asked if the base controls any combining districts such as "PC". The Citv Attorney replied that, ~es, there is the added advantane ~n~kn6~i~ng ~hat there must be the site development plan which would specif9 the single- Councilman Matteoni suggested inserting intg the Purpose section on the first page, regulated'residential development. Also, he stated he had given some consideration to changing the label on the ordinance to call it "Hillside Conservation Residential District". The Mayor then opened the public hearing at 11:41 P.M. Vince Garrod, Mt. Eden Road, addressed the Council, indicating he is here as an individual, and also, representing Greater Saratoga Property Owners Association. He stated they have reviewed this ordinance completely with the Planning Commissi'on, and they tdld the Planning Commission at the time it was presented that they understand the ordinance, unless it is revised considerably, and would support it. Mr'~'G~d' comme~t~d'~h~t~h~en~y~Fc~h~'r~der wh~h'~h~d~nance operates~,and~the 'greater pencen~ o~.peop~e who wi.l~ be hu~t the most depends onhow the plan ~is rouded o~f, the rounding wou~ld~Se such tha~ if the formula allow~U-2.5~ luts~ ~ou,wguld get 3; and 2.49 iots~ y,0u~weu~d.~get-~:~ I't was his feelingth~'s affects the small ~roperty owner fro~ 30 to 40% of ~h~l~F~i~ property, whereas, i~y~ are~al~ing about a larger parcel, it-doesnL~ reall~ make any.'d~fferency which way-you go. "='Also, with'regard'-to' the cut~off at 40%~ ~.~ ~arrad~neuired if there was enough restriction in here to allow a smaller owner wi{h a parcel in that very critical area to develop same; however, he bel.ieved there was a mitigation -i~th~o[d~ance_B~w tha~ would allow somethino like this ~_b~_en. Jim Isaak, 13685 Calle Tacuba, commented that he worked on the General Plan Review in 1973, and he believed:one of the indications in regard to this ordinance was the overall density on the hills would be targeted more towards 10 acres than the 2.2, which would result from this after a find of geological hazards. Therefore, he i~dicated this was not his understanding of what the public input was at that time, and would therefore recommend the formula be adjusted in the direction which seems to be more in tune with the 1973 General Plan Revi~. Marlene Duffin, 21241 Canyon View Drive, President Wildwood Heights Homeowners Association, gave the following presentation which was their Board of Directors' s~and: "A brief b~ckground of Wild~ood Heights homeowners' interest in hill- side conservation open space'zoninq district begins in January, 1975. In expressing our c6nCerns ~o the Saratoga Planning Commission on the rezoning~ of Wildwood from "R-l-40,000" to "R-1-20,O00", the Co~ission explaiQed ~t would not seta' precident for the land around'us because that land was included in th~ Slope Conservation Zone. We obtained the proposed ordinance controling the develop- ment-of the Slope Conservation Zone, and not wishing to operate in ~16- Hillside Conservation - Open Space Ordinance a vacuum, proceeded to initiate a series of community meetings to which homeowners and civic study groups were invited to dis- cuss the ordinance and express concerns on hillside development. In order to better con~nunicate with Saratoga Staff and Commissioners, Tollgate and Wildwood Homeowners Associations hired'a professional environmental planner, Mr. Dick Wilkinson of Ruth, Goin and Curtis. He worked with the Saratoga Planning Stgff and presented our specific concerns at some of~the open hearings and study sessions. Wildeood Heights Homeowners.!Association wishes to express. its position in regard to two aspects of the Hillside Conservation'- Open Space Ordinance: 1) We would like clarified how the combination of this ordinance with.existing Planned Community District in the Subdivision Ordinance will affect hillside development, and ask that the Council consider that the wording in the ordinance specify detached single- family dwelling units on minimum 1-acre sites, regardless of combining 'with any existing ordinance. In regard to the hillside density formula, Wildwood Heights Home- owners Association desires to takea very moderate stand. We recommend 1-acre per dwelling unit at 0 to 10% slope, 2½ acres per dwelling Unit at approximately 25% slope, increasing acreage as the steephess of the slope increases. We think our density requi'rements are fair and reasonable; they,differ from the Planning Commission's proposal of 1.86 acres per dwelling unitat 25% slope. The additional .39 is suggested as this slope would increase slightly the cost of building a home, yet it would greatly lessen the negative affects of hillside development. We urge you to establish the fundamental rules concerning development Of the hills of Saratoga: l) All geologically unstable areas be identified and development thereon restricted; 2) the natural terraine be the primary determinent of the type and density of housing permitted. In conclusion, we want to express our appreciation'to the Planning Commission and Staff for the!r part'in improving the Hillside Ordinance. The final draft indicates the Planning Commission, as well as the staff, was listening, as they have responded to the homeowners' input and answered their concerns, and we look forward to working with them on the proposed Planned Community Ordinance." Mr. Bill Heiss addressed theCouncil,~stating that.he would-like to indicate, as a citizen of Saratoga, that h~ also supports this ordinance, and he thinks the table as presented is a valid proposal. He indicated he has some familiarity with:both the balance of economics and design criteria a~d density, he believes this ordinance achieves that, and .it is important to have a reasonable density to go with all of.the controls and restraints that' are built into the ordinance. Mr. Heiss commented ~ith respect to one minor~l~_~'~ and that is the 'rounding down to ,the nearest w~ol~ num~'~ H~ state~that this doesn't really bother a project such as the Parker Ranch; however, a project with a Very smal'l parcel of l~nd is severely hampered. There- fore, he agreed that it may be a reasonable conclusion to round to the nearest whole number. He mentioned that the County of Santa Clara is working on a similar-type ordinance that has introduced this aspect of roundihg to the nearest whole number, and he'believes this would neduce the burden and make this ordinance more palatable to the small property Owner. Russell Crowther, 20788 Norada Court, commented that based on some of the letters received on this matter, he feels somewhat concerned that home- owners were feeling that they could develop theirlands to 1-acre lot sizes independent of slope. Also, he c~mmented that in applying the suggested table in this ordinance and comparing it with prior ordinances, it appeared that for about a 20% difference between gross and net area, the ordinance~ - 17- Hillside Conservation - Open Space Ordinance in effect in 1969, and Resolution ll5-1 which was put into effect in 1972, would yield approximately the same density as the table in this ordinance. In 1974, the basis was changed from a gross area to a net area, and that rai. sed the allowable density somewhat, and this would reduce that, but he doesn't see any reduction in dens!ty relative to ordinances which have previously existed in Saratoga. Mr. Crowth er stated i~F~ ?~W"~'~'~'~6'~"~(G'~'~ ~a~"~T(~'d 'that c~he C'i~y ~f ~'~6g~'W~i'C~h~=d~'10 ~6'~ ~?~'~d ~'~f~i~s"~46neral ~ITfiT w~lT~'dbfn~ ~6~"fiigher density at the same time that San Jose was going in the other direction. He. commented' that San Jose has been there and have been "burned", and are going in the other direction, and he thinks it is a shame that wehave to learn this way~ and he is afraid this is going to happen in Saratoga, and it will cost the taxpayers so much that they will get the density down in the hills. similar to what has happened in San Jose. He ask~ that the Council look atwhat is happening in some of the other co~unities, and make use of their experiences. He felt this ordinance was not near specific enough,'as there was criteria in earlier drafts which restricted bUilding,~i~'T0'~'t"6~qelines. Mr. Crowther further commented that he ~eFi~{~er~Sh~ld'~e'very specific setbacks relative to fault lines. He felt an ordinance~'w~ich is supposed to implement the General Plan; should be very specific and should leaveno doubt as to where everyone stands, as it is much too general. Sue Pock, 20194 Bank Mi'll Road, addressed %he Council., representing Tollgate Homeowners Association, requested the Mayor read the entire context of their letter presented to the CounCil to clarify their intentions. The Mayor proceed~T~d this l~n. A citizen expressed concern relevant to taxes, indicating that in listening to Mr. Crowther, she couldn't help ~ut feel that if he were paying her tax bill, the shoe would be on the other foot. She commented that her feeling on this is inline wi~h the Golden Rule, and'having held onto land for 15 years in this community, in spite of the fact that 30 acres is in the Williamson Act, due to the fact that there is a sewer bond assessment to her taxes, they are very very high. She co~ented that she feels these people who are living on a small piece of land do have to consider that people are paying for those hills. Frank Perdichi~zi, 19804 Colby Court, addressed the Council. He commented that in talking about taxes, he has his own views, and feels we all are paying too much taxes. He indicated that development of the hills is a very costly operation, due to higher costs in road abatements, police protection, f~re'protection and Various other problems caused by run-off and soil erosion, etc. He felt due to these factors, the Flood Control would possibly increase its taxe~ to mitigate the runn-off which will occur. Road maintenance costs will also be much higher. Mr. Perdichizzi asked the question: "Who is going to pay ~or these? Will the residents who are going to be buying in the hills be paying their own way? He felt this was very doubtful, and it wi]l most likely be the other way around -- the people who live in the hills will pay a smaJler portion of the taxes than the people who are living in the flatlands, and these houses will probably be in the order of $100,000 to $200,000. Mr. Perdichizzi indicated there is no pro- vision in this ordinance for a tax district to be indluded in with the development of the hills, and this could cover such.t~ings as ~andslides which might occur in the hills,.and would protect the City from possible law suits. Mr. Heiss explained on ~be Park~B~n~, juSt.as a m~tter of.~gmparing' _ the old <iqope(d~nsity~ormul~'i.n 0rdi~na~ce~NS~'5't6'~'hiS'~dinan~eCi't'~sented about a' 20% reduction in density. Vince Garrod commented that he has been paying taxes in the City of Saratoga for a good many years, and they have only had two services from the City -- two fire calls -- and they have been supporting the flat lands for a good many years with no re~urn at all. -1B- Millside Conservation - Open Space Ordinance Margaret Chapman~ a Saratoga resident, asked that Councilman Matteoni clarify his earlier suggestion with regard to re-label!rig the ordinance. Councilman Matteoni explained that he suggested this for the reason that open space zoning creates some problems in people's minds. His other thought was in the Purpose clause, No. 1, we'could talk about residential development, rather than regulated development. Also, he stated in Section 3.21, it his understanding that the law today gives protection, and this would be the base zone which would apply to the hills, and if you'attach Planned Community or Planned Development, the combining district could not change or expand with the base zone on the property. Mrs. Chapman stated that her question related to whether or not the Council had in mind deleting that section which referred to combining, but with the present "PD" district. Councilman Matteoni replied he would not personally want to do this; he would want to put in the suggestions that wouldn't allow the present "PC" to open it up. There being no further comments it this time, it was moved by Councilman Brigham and seconded by Counci.lwoman Corr the public hearing be continued to the next regular meeting. Th~ motion was carried. The Mayor advised this item woul~ also be included on the Committee of the Whole Agenda for next Tuesday, January 13th, for additional discussion. Councilman Matteoni asked that the staff look at the question raised by Mrs. Peck with regard to a sewer bond, and determine if there are many properties that are carrying sewer bonds assessed on the basis of prior density. Hi~s concern was thatif we are now changing density, those properties would still bear this assessment burden, and he would like to know what the scope of this problem is. Councflman Brighamindicated he would like to League of'Women Voters' propos a 1C_~_~lo~.~_dd' 'i_S~o~ a tab 1 e s o he cou 1 d see what this 1 ooked 1 i ke. Councilman Brigham commented he would also like to know if it was possible to include the "PC" concept in this ordinance, and would like to have this information available at the study session on Tuesday. VII. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS A. MAYOR B. COUNCIL AND COMMISSION REPORTS C. DEPARTMENT HEADS AND OFFICERS 1. Director of Public Works Report Re: Consideration of Santa Clara ~Tr~si~.-Bus~S~ste~'E~p~'sion - Express and Mid-day Routes ~a~r~'t'6~h'e~mmittee of the Whole Meeting in order to review the map, and asked that the mid-day routes be referred to the Senior Citizens Housing Task Force for comment. 2. Director of Public Works Report~ Re: Petition from Residents on Via Escuela and Cumberland Drive Staff ~as directed to d~aft an appnopriate resolution to provide for 2-~ay stops on Via Escuela at Ten Oaks, and on Cumberland at Via Escuela, and communicate with the 3 property owners initiating this action. This would beconsidered at the next regular meeting on February 4th. 3. Director~of Public.Work~ Report Re: Removal of Tree Located Between . Co~unit~ Oenter and Service Yard Advised that the tree has split at the base, and they have received quotations for removal of thins tree. - 19 - D. CITY MANAGER 1. Claim.for Personal Injuries o James W. McLey, Jr. It was mQv~d by CounCilman Kraus and seconded'by Councilman Brigham the City deny the claimSand refer it to the City's insurance carrier for handling. The motion was carried. 2. Consideration of Support of 1/2~ Sales Tax to Fund the Santa Clara County Transit District.(March 2nd'Election) It was moved by Mayor Bridges and seconded by Councilman Kraus the Council go on record in,support of this measure. The motion was carried. 3.Status Report Re: Cable !T.V. - City Manager to report on this Tuesday evening. 4. Report Re: Information from Campbell Union Schoo~ District Concerning Surplus Property Counc~.lman Brigham requested holding off taking any action on this at this time, as the Planning Commission will be submitting a recommendation regarding abandonment of an easement'on this property. Councilman Matteoni advi'sed that he was informed that through the A.Y.S.O., there is a possibility of obtaining this as possible soccer field sites for their program, and would like to explore the feasi- bility of a joint'venture with the City ~o provide this. This matter was therefore referred back to the Parks and Recreation Commission for further consideration and report back to the Council. VIII. COMMUNICATIONS 1. Mel Jacobs, President, Tollgate Homeowners Association, expressing concern over the responsibility of the two public street.lights at the intersection of Tollgate Roa~ and Big Basin Way. - Staff was directed to look back through the subdivision proceedings for Tollgate, and see if it is a requirement of the homeowners to maintain this. 2. L Town of Los GatoS, Town Manager Russell J. Coohey, urging an all-out final effort to attempt to reach agreement on the form and model of Health Systems Agency for Santa Clara County. - Noted and filed. 3. Carl A. Smith, Co~Tnittee Coordinator, Peninsula Commute & Transit Committee, with the Committe~'s response to proposal of the Southern Pacific Transportation Compahy on December 17th tosel.1 the Peninsula Commute Service. - Noted and. filed. 4. Judy McNeil, 19866 Buckhaven Lane, supporting the installation of Cable T.V. in Saratoga. - Noted and filed.. 5. Assemblyman Richard D. Hayden, 22nd District, supporting AB 997 and SB 174.- Noted and filed. 6. Robert A. Pope, lO1 Albert.COurt, Los Gat6s, requesting the Council reconsider its ban on sale of "Safe and Sane" fireworks within the city boundaries. - This to be a~endized for the next regular meeting. 7. Ann and Charles Petefish, 19830 Lanark Lane, supporting the proposed athletic stadium at West Vla!ey College. - Noted and filed. 8. Mr. George Wightman, 14701 Vickery Ave., urging the Council favor com-~ pletion of the West Val.ley College Stadium. - Noted and filed. Written Communications (Cont'.d.) 9. Mr. Thomas A. Doyle, Jr., 13770 Beaumont Ave., supporting'the completion of the stadium at West Valley College - Noted and filed· 10. Mary Jo Colmery, 18966 Saratoga Glen Drive, expressing approval of the plans to complete the stadium at West Valley College. - Noted! and filed. 11. Mr. and Mrs. U. Panentin, 12040 Paramount Drive, adding their support to'the completion of the stadium at West Valley College. - Noted and filed. 12. Mrs. Reese P. Griffith, 20360 Pierce Road, expressing gratitude for the barrier erected on Pierce Road barring cars~and trucks from entering or exiting the Argonaut Shopping Center. - Noted and filed. 13. Elmer Lamb Family, 20397 Pierce Road, thanking the Council for its kind and prompt attention to the traffic problem behind the Argonaut-Safeway Shopping Center. -=Noted and fil.ed. 14. Robert E. Crowe, City Manager, Town. of Los Altos Hills, including a report on Phase I of the ABAG Regional Housing ~epont~ - Noted and filed. 15. Anna J. Martin, City Clerk, City of La Mirada, 13700 La Mirada Blvd., enclosing Resolution No. 76-2, regarding change in laws of the color of pavement markings used to designate official bicycle lanes and trails. - Referred to Traffic Engineer .for consideration. 16. Jolynn Samuelson, President," National Women's Political C~ucus of -' Santa Clara County, enclosing a copy of the U.S. National Women's agenda, and requesting the Council adopt it as one of its priorities for 1976. - Requested City Manager report back on this. Additional City Manager Report 1 Saratoga Fire District is plannin Hose and Smoke Drill for Sunday, · ~january '25t ,'f~6~'lO~OO'~.M'.--tO ~n~at one of the dying v o he '6~-tY-owned!~eagPaves-proPerty~-at~the-corner Of Frultva~e and ~ien~a~e Ave. It was moved by Councilman Brigham and seconded by Councilman Kraus this Hose and Smoke Drill be approved for this time· The nDtion was carried. The Mayor then acknowledged the .presence of public group representatives in the audience this evening, as follows: Marjorie Foote, A.A.U.W.; Gene Zambetti, Planning Commissioner; Jim Isaak, Library Commissioner; Harry Mayfield, President, Good Government Group; George Whelan, Chairman, Saratoga Bicentennial Committee; April Barrett, League of Women Voters; Ginny Brobst, Saratoga Friends of the Libaray;'Marlene Duffin, President, Wildwood Heights Homeowners Association; John Powers, Quito Merchants Association, John Weir, President, Arguello Homeowners Association; and Mary Lou Kissel, President, Tollgate Homeowners'Association. IX. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded by Councilman Brigham the meeting be adjourned. The motion was carried. The meeting was adjourned at 12:50 A.M. Res ctfully submit ed~ - 21 -