Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-02-1976 City Council Minutes MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL TI'ME: Wednesday, June 2, 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 Brigham, Corr~ Kraus, Bridges Absent: Councilman Matteoni B. MINUTES ' Councilman Kraus noted in the May 5, 1976 minutes a correction on page 11, 5th paragraph, and indicated this should read: "He ~ndicated he felt this is irresponsible when the need does not exist . " Councilman Brigham noted a correction in the 7th paFagraph on this page, to read as follows: " . and the report states very clearly that this project is against .not.o~ly the use plan ~ "' It was moved by Councilman Brigham and seconded by Councilman Kraus the minutes of May 5th, as corrected, and minutes of May 19th, be approved, and the reading waived. The motion was carried. II. CONSENT CALENDAR ,.A;~-COMP'O~N~OF'CONSENT~CACEN~ _~It~d~6~~KF~and seconded by Councilman Brigham the !:~._...C._~o~_~ion~:~ ~e' consent ~alendar be approved. ~The motion was carried. B, ITEMS FOR~NT'd~EENffAF 1. Resolutions Accepting DedicatiOns of Streets a) Resolution 36-B-151, Tract'4572 b) Resolution 36-B-152, Tract 4573 c) Resolution 36-B-153, Tract 4574 d) ResolUtion 36-B-154, Tract'4575 e) Resolution 36-B-155, Tract 4646 f) Resolution 36-B-156, Tract 4828 g) Resolution36-B-157, Tract 5011 h) Resolution 36-B-158, Tract 5069 i) Resolution 36-B-159, Tract 5161 j) Resolution 36-B-160, Tract5233 k) Resolution 36-B-161, Tract 4554 2. Resolution No. 777, Abandonmen~ of Portion of a Public Utility Easement 3. Payment of Claims It was moved by. Councilman Kraus and seconded by Councilman Brigham the Consent Calendar be approved. The motion was carried. III. BIDS AND CONTRACTS A. Application to State of California Re: Purchase of Congress Springs Park Property through 1974 State Park Grant Funds It was moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded by Councilman Brigham approval of the amended application and authorization to forward materials to the Grant's Division of the State Parks and Recreation Department. The motion was carried. B. Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement for Purposes of Plannin9 a Fire Service Delivery System for the West Valley Area of Santa Clara County It was moved by Councilman Kraus a~d seconded by Councilman Brigham approval of the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement. The motion was carried. C. Award of Contract for Library Site Demolition It was moved by Councilman Brigham.and seconded by Councilwoman Corr the contract for the library site demolition be awarded to B & B Excavating and Demolition for $6,606.00. The motion was carried. IV. PETITIONS, ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS A. ORDINANCE NO. 38.67 Ordinance of the City of Saratoga Amendin9 the Saratoga City Code by Repealin~ Sections 4-46~ Relatin~ to. Operation of Pinball Machines, and Section 10-6, Relatin~ to~Eddura~c~:sCohtestT,.~hereof, and Addin~ Section 8-17.2, Relatin9 to Barking Dogs _(~gd Reading')J ' The Mayor acknowledged written.communications received pertaining to this ordinance, as follows: Dr. and Mrs. John Norris, in s6pport of the "Barking Dog Ordinance". Mr. John G. Jorgensen, 13631 Saratoga Ave., supporting a strong "dog ordinance". Mrs. Sabella, 18724 Devon Avenue, addressed the Council, expressed a complaint regarding breeding of dogs and nuisance of barking at 18761 Devon Avenue. The Mayor asked that the City's Code Enforcement investigate this complaint and report the status to the City Council. Oral comments were heard 6n~ this proposed ordinance from: Elizabeth Hold, 13213 Glen. Brae Drive, requesting reconsideration of the proposed "barking dog" Ordinance. Wes Dynaker of Garnett Court,~ommenting that barking dogs discourage burglars, and urged that the Council use caution in adopting this ordinance. Margaret Shoemaker, 12291Mable Corut, commenting with regard to~ c-6'~(~g of penned-up dogs in her neighborhood, and supporting pro~ posed ordinance. Dawn Roman, 19355 Saratoga Avenue, commenting that she feels the pro- posed dog law could be used maliciously against neighbors, and suggesting revision. Norma Mindy of Surry Lane, advocating a strong dog barking law. It was then moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded by Councilman Brigham to adopt Ordinance 38.67, and waive the reading. The motion was carried. VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. RESOLUTION NO. 776,~ A'RESOLUTION APPROVING BOUNDARY MAP AND FORM OF RESOLUTION OF INTENTION AND GRANTING CONSENT OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA TO THE CUPERTINO SANITARY DISTRICT TO UNDERTAKE PROCEEDINGS TO ACQUIRE AND CONSTRUCT PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND TO PROVIDE THAT THE. COSTS SHALL BE ASSESSED ON THE DISTRICT BENEFITED UNDER APPROPRIATE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT AND ASSESSMENT BOND PROCEEDINGS - LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 15 (Informational Public Hearing) The City Manager explained that this project basically includes the Argonaut area of Saratoga. He further explained that the proposed resolution includes foursmatters for Council approval, as follows: l) Form of the Resolution of Intention to form the Assessment District; 2) plat of the boundary lines; 3) consent to the District to acquire and construct sanitary sewerage sysem; and 4) permission to open such public streets as necessary for installation of the system. Resolution No. 776, Cupertino Sanitary Dist. (Cont'd.) The Mayor opened the public hearing at 8:03 P.M. There being no commeBts on this matter from members in the audience, it was moved by Councilman Krausand seconded by Councilman Brigham the public hearing be closed. The motion was carried. The public hearing was closed at 8:04 P.M. The City Manager brought to the City Council's attention a letter from Mr. and Mrs. Robert Simner, 12791 Idlewood Lane, requesting exemption from the annexation to the Cupertino Sanitary District. Mr. Beyer explained that the next step in this annexation process would be for the Cupertino Sanitary District to hold a formal public hearing for residents in the project area to comment. Mayor Bridges requested that the City Manager communicate this process to Mr. and Mrs. Simner. It was then moved by Councilman Brigham and seconded by Councilman Kraus to adopt Resolution No. 776. The motion was carried. B. DE NOVO HEARING FOR ~ONSIDERATION OF APPEALS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION RE: USE PERMIT NO. '296 - LYNGSO GARbEN MATERIALS (~ontinued on agenda until arrival of court reporters)' C. CONSIDERATION OF REZONING FROM "R-I-12,5OO"'AND "R-l-15,000" TO "R-l=20,O00 PC" THE 47.39 ACRES BELONGING TO THE FREMONT UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT, BOUNDED ON THE NORTH BY THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD TRACKS AND'PROSPECT ROAD, ON THE EAST BY TRACTS #4508 AND #4536, ON THE WEST BY THE PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE "PARKER RANCH" SITE, AND ON THE' SOUTH BY TRACT #4886 (Cont'd. 8/20/75, 10/1/75, 2/4/76, 2/18/76) The City Manager explained that the Planning Commission has submitted to the City Council its recommendation to rezone this property "R-1-20,O00 PC". This was considered at the February 18th City Council Meeting, and the~sC~uncil had ' ~ requested re-noticing those people who had indicated an interest in.this matter. He explained the option available for~taking action on this matter would be as follows: l) Terminate the action and drop the matter. 2) Approve the recommendation Of the Planning Commission for zoning to "R-1-20,O00 PC". 3) Approve zoning of "R-1-40,OBO". 4) Rezone to "R-1-20,O00, without PC designation. The Mayor opened the public hearing at 8:12 P.M. Carol Burke, 20878 Prospect Road, addressed the Council'and requested clari- fication of the zoning,designationS. Don Burt, Assistant Planning Director, explained that~Z~nifies 'a single-family residence, and the numerical designation means the minimum lot size in that area. When "PC" is attached, this represents Planned Community; however' this does not increase the.overall density. He explained is pro- posing to change the zoning from "!~R-1-12,500" and-"R-l-15,000", which presently exists, to "R-1-20,O00 PC", which is a lesser density and provides for Planned Community zoning. It was then moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded by Councilman Brigham the public hearing be closed. The motion was carried. The public hearing was closed at 8:15 P.M. It was moved by Councilman Brigham and seconded by Councilwoman Corr to re- zone the property to "R-1-40,O00.". ~Mr. Brigham commented that he feels the zoning which has been recommended by the Planning Commission is too high, and because it is a transition zone, requires a very low density. Councilwoman Corr indicated she is in .favor of this motion because of the fact this property is immediately adjacent to the Parker Ranch, and also, the area in the Parker Ranch which has the greatest density. Therefore,~h~(~ - 3 - Fremont Union High School District (~pnt'd.) felt the zoning in the transitional area should be reduced. This motion was voted upon and resulted in a 2-2 vote, Councilman Kraus and Bridges in opposition. The motion therefore failedT Councilman Kraus indicated he felt!the zoning as recommended by the Planning Commission is fair and is the best use of the land. He commented that he particularly favors the suggestion of clustering on the 0 to 5% slope, leaving .the property to the'west open and providing for continuity of open space for the Porker Ranch. Councilwoman Corr asked about the Possibility of keeping the split line, with "R-1-40,O00" where it is now "R-l-15,000", and ,R-1-20,O00" where it is now "R-l-12,500". Hayor-Bridgesj~ndicated he would agree with this, if it Linda Callon, representing the Saratoga Planning Commission, explained that if the zoning is split'in this way, the City could not achieve what it would like to achieve with Planned Community, and asked ~hat the Council consider this point. Also, she indicated this involves fewer homes than that of the Parker Ranch. It was then moved by Councilman Kraus to introduce Ordinance NS-3-ZC-76, modified to indicate "R-1-20,000 PC"" zoning [in lieu of "R-1-40~000"), and withhold the second reading until such time that a development site plan is received. The Council indicated they would like to carry this item forward on the agenda to allow Councilman Matteoni the opportunity to vote on this matter. B. DE NOVO HEARING FOR CONSIDERATION OF APPEALS OF ~HE PLANNIN~ COMMISSION DECISION RE: USE PERMIT Ne.'~96 - LYNGSO GARDEN MATERIALS 1. Appeal by ~ohn Lyngso, Leo Ott.and Richard Gardellaon Conditions A, C, F, and ~, imposed by the Planning Commissio~ in Granting Use Permit ~96 to Lyngso Garden Materials. ~. ~ppeal By F.P. Tatar and D.O. Sifferman of Planning Commission Decision to ~rant Use Permit 296 to Lyngso Garden Materials. The City Manager reviewed the background information concerning this use permit. He ~ndicated that in September lg75, the property was zoned to "R-1-12,500" from a "CV" zoning di~tr~ct, in conformance with the 1974 General Plan. He indicated that the Planning Commission"s recommendation to the City Council did approve the use permit~ however, one of the key items.that was an issue at the Planning Commission level was the time period for the continued use. He explained that the Planning Commission has recommended that the site be discontinued within ten years from October 3, lg75, or before October ~, lg85. The public hearing was then opened!at 8:3~ P.~. Richard Gardella, Attorney representing L~ngso Garden ~s, Inc.,addressed the Counci 1. He stated that~!M~F~'~'~l~M~o~'~-~REi~n~'p~Sh~l~ of Lyngso ~arden Materials a~d'~o~r~ R~Y~'H~~'~'t ~h~~! ' relationship between the two corporations is that Lyngso ~arden Materials is a sales and distributing function, and Lyngso Colored Rock is primarily a develop- ment operation. Mr. Gardella explained that the initial use of this operation was a nursery. Later, there developed the ornamental rock business. He indicated that in 1958, it was found that Lyngso Garden Materials was supplying the ornamental rock to that business, and on March 28, 1960, a formal lease agreement was entered into, and Lyngso Garden Materials became the tenant of a portion of the property and subleased the PG&E right-of-way, which continues parallel along the railroad tracks. He presented a photo of the property as it looked then. ~ -4~ UP-296 - L~n~so Garden Materials (Cont'd.) Mr. Gardella related ~he history concerning Lyngso Garden Materials, Inc., stating that in 1962, there was a submission to the City for rezoning to "Commercial" zoning, and at that time, there was no subdivision'where Manor Drive presently exists. Mr. Gardella presented a petition which he indicated is part of the proceedings in the recent Planning Commission hearings, which he indicated brings the number of signatures for continuation of Lyngso Garden Materials to over 1,000. He indicated that in 1965, a serie~ of preliminary and conditional final plans were submitted for development of a new sales facility, and shortly thereafter, the Lyngso's entered into an agreement with the City of.Saratoga to construct certain facilities and posted a bond to assure that those facilities would be constructed. He indicated that it was his understanding this bond and agreement are still in effect, although he has received varying interpretations from the City staff. Mr. Gardella.then presented pictures,for purposes Of comparison,c/t~_~_e_~Si_~_'~966 and in 1974. He further requested the staff to present an aerial photograph of the Lyngso property taken in ~1968 at the time the adjoining subdivision went in. Mr. Gardella stated that in 1968, there was a Genera3 Plan being proposed? and the property owners (Lyngso and Va!lergo) made inquiry on the affect the new General Plan would have on their property. They received a response from Mayor Glennon that they could continue use of this property as a nursery and garden supply outlet indefinitely.: He stated that in 1969, Mr~ and Mrs. Lyngso purchased the interest of Mr. and Mrs. Vailergo, and they are still paying on that purchase contract. Mr. Gardella commented that the Lyngso's woul'd never have entered into this purchase agreement if it were thought the business was in jeopardy, nor would they have planted the trees around the boundary or participating in the Manor Drive Improvement District, or install sprinklers and-screening fencing, etc. He indicated that in 1973, the Lyngso's were faced with a number'of problems, and quite a bit was done to meet the objections, such as reduced hours, oiling," automatic sprinklers. A suit was ~iled, and he stated the property owners were given an opportunity to appear in court and provide evidence to support their allegations that their was a nuisance situation; however, he felt this testimony was exaggerated. He indicated that the conclusion was that the operation was not a public nuisance. He stated that this is a continuation of an existing business, where there acouple of property owners who will simply not be satisfied. In the Planning Commission's consideration 6f this use permit, most of the dispute was over the term in which the Lyngso business. would remain in business~ however, there was a decisiod in favor of the Lyngso people. Mr. Gardella then discussed the conditions of the use permit: Condition A - Restriction of business for 10 years.l~ ~believes it should be more like 15 years at a minimum. He referred to the ~aven Nursery which was given 15+ years, and since~ Lyngso has more investment to amor- tize, he would suggest a 15-year amortization period. He commented that lO years would not be supportable' with the amount Of investment in this operation, and they would agai.n~have to go through litigation. Mr. Gardella requested to hear testimony from Mr. Fox, Real Estate Appraiser, concerning this point. C. Ward Fox of Redwood City addressed the Council, stating that he has pre- pared a written preliminary re~ort onethis property as it exists today. He indicated that heappraised th~SL~6~ property as a going business in excess of $285,000. He was also asked wh~t his opinion would be concerning zoning -5- UP-296 - Lyngso Garden Materials (Cont'd.) of this land, and it was his opinion that'~T~"~'~t minimum lot size should~e valued at approximately $20,~O0'per"a~"or a value of $40,000. M~. Fox indicated there have been sales of commercial property along Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road which have occurred in the last 4 to 5 years that would support this figure, these being in the County or in Cupertino and San Jose. Councilman Kraus inquired with regard to replacement costs for site improve- ments, and asked what period this covered. Mr. Fox replied that the depreciation is visual, and not from a book for a sum of the years. ~~l~c was Mr. Merle Heim,~Certi'f~ed Bbb Account, asked by Mr. Gardella to speak on the subject ~°i~'~'~es and taxes. Mr. Heim indicated he has been associated with the Lyngso's for a number of years. He stated he had been asked to prepare a summary of sales taxes paid from taxable sales f~om the Saratoga Yard. He reported that in 1973, in was $8,000; in 1974, $24,500; in 1975,$23,300. Personal property taxes paid by the business: In 1973, this was $720; in 1974, $918; in 1975, $1,088. He reported that real estate taxes paid were approximately $2,700 per year for each of the last three years. Mr. Gardella then spoke on the subject of devaluation of property due to the Lyngso operation, and he had asked Mr. Fox to check with the County Assessor's Office tosee what some of the adjoining properties were listed at for a fair market value. He indicated there is one property which is immediately adjoining on Manor DriVe, a two-story home next to the property, which on the 1969-70 property role had a value of $22,240; for the 1970-71 role, $58,840; for the 1975-76 rol~, $85,100; and for the 1976-77 role, $100,500. He pointed.out a similar pattern for a home at the end of the block, going from $22,760 in 1969 to $97,500 for the 1976-77 role. Condition B - Mr. Gardella stated they would haveno ~uarrel with this request for removal of storage bins along the rear property line. Condition C - Retention of 35 ~eet from the rear of the property. free of traffic. They would like to continue to use the present driveway which go~s to 30 feet from the rear fence line, although they could live with the 35-foot condition. Condition D - Request for 20 feet of landscaping along the western propert~ boundary. No quarrel with this condition. Condition E - Fixing the hoursof wholesale deliveries to 9:00 A.M. to 4:00 P.M. Noquarrel with this condition. Condition F - Relating to the new office and sales building in the new lO-foot high concrete block wall. Mr. Gardella stated approval was granted to construct this building in 1966; p.~ans were re=activated for building approxi- mately 2 years ago. However, the property was ultimately rezoned and they were told they could not build. He stated they were:prepared to go ahead with the previously- approved plans for this imp~ovement~;~however, they could not justify this,<~'~i~ss~nt"~6~l~ 10 years. Therefore, he felt'~hi~'co~8i'[io~obld~'~(stricken and left to the discretion-of the Lyngso's. Condition G - Oiling requirement. No quarrel with this condition. Councilman Kraus inquired if the owners have been oiling regularly since 1973. Mr. Gardella replied this has been done. - -6- UP-296 - Lyngso Garden Materials (Cont'd. Condition H - Mr. Gardella stated the oWners'have applied for a use permit to allow the continuation of the existing operation. Condition I - Entering into an'agreement to terminate and remove all non-conforming uses on or before 0ctobe~.- 3, 1985~ Mr.~Gafdet'la~'tated th~yma~ reservation that they may~'~ ~o'tlter challenge it. Condition J - Relating to the front loaders converted to propane fuel.' Mr. Gardella indicated there is no way that the propane loaders can be converted to propane fuel; however, gasoline powered equip- ment can be converted to propane, requiring approxi- mately $40,000 to $60,000 worth of additional equipment, which they could do ii given 15 years. In conclusion, Mr. Gardella commented this is a good business and a product which is in much need by Saratoga homeowners; they have added greatly to the attractiveness of Saratoga; and.the investment. put into this property over the years has been significant. Mr~ Gardella commented that there are times when he thinks they will never satisfya few owners, and it is more of an effort on their part to just,get ~id of them" without anytg'pe of reasonable approach. Mr. John Lyngso then addressed the Council'and presented ~ictures to_reflect growth of the trees which were put in. He commented landscape the front whenever an agreed time limit is reac~6~.~ M~['C~n~o-- indicated there are a lot of customers who really think ~his business is needed in Saratoga, and in checking with the City staff, there isn't another location in Saratoga for them to move to. Councilman Kraus inquired of Mr. Gardella: "In Mr. Glennon's letter, he spoke to a nursery. Was it a nursery'~t that time?" Mr. Gardella replied that it was predominately a rockery; the nursery went out of business in 1960. Thereforp, at the time Mr. Glennon's letter was written, it was a rockery Recess and Reconvene (9:35 P.M.) Mr. Fred Tatar,~20577 Manor Drive, addressed the Council (10:00 P.M.), repre- senting the Saratoga Manor homeowners, commented that he is fighting the tendancy to try and address each and every one of the allegations previously made, however, he is going to resist this urge. Mr. Tatar indicated they have two presentations this evening -- one that addresses the nuisance factors since 1968, and the other addresses the Zoning Ordinance and how it relates to this issue. He indicated that the purpose of his part of the presentation is to. get across three points: 1) to show that the Lyngso operation is incompatible with the residential area that is built up around it; 2) Because of the nature of the business, Mr. Lyngso has to employ heavy equipment that oftentimes generates nuisance factors; and 3) These nuisance factors impact s.everel'y on the neighborhood. Mr. Tatar then gave a siTd~" p~e~en'ta~i0n to s~6r~Te"~m~ow~'~r.~T' ~s. He pointed out in the slides 24 beautifully landscaped homes, and a view of the hillsides from every home. He indicated that the homes are expensive and well maintained; however,~right in their midst, they have an industrial type rockery operation... He then presented a slide which 'he s'tated shows the proximity of Lyngso to the neighborhood surrounding it. ~He indicated that thepicturesseen tonight and sound effects they were able to record were taken from the property immediately adjacent to the Lyng~o property. Mr. Tatar presented a slide of the type of trucks this 6peration brings, and indicated it also~rings together unsightly bins of material. He stated th~hi~6~i!on uti'lizeS heavy industrial type e~uipment and UP Z2~6_'~.~- Lyngso Garden Materials (Cont'd.) di'~s~l operated machines not co~nonly seen in a residential area, which is incompatible and detracts from property values. He indicated what wasn't mentioned earlier is the difficulty. one would have selling his home when prospective buyers see that it is located next to a rockery. Mr. Tatar commented that they also :feel another important point is the appearance and how this impacts on the Gateway development since this is the major entrance to the city. He commented that for three years the home- owners have been coming before the .Council to discUss'such things as the dust generated because of the equipment and the dirt floor on the property, exhaust fumes from deisal equipment, noise, and traffic problems. He then presented slides which he felt underscore what is important about these nuisance factors. Mr. Tatar commented that the operation has a dirt floor, and no matter how much it is oiled, the cars kick up the dust~ and the prevailing winds blow it right into the neighborhood. With regard to the previously mentioned installation of-~n~l_~'~y~e~!, Mr. Tatar pointed out these were ihstalled only after tHe'~r~ ~m6 to the city and begged for relief. He pointed out in a slide the coverage by the sprinkler system and indicated one of the important lanes in the area is only partially done. He pointed out that the trucks in ~he slide shown are those which Lyngso added during the 1972-73 time frame; therefore, the business has grown and changed its nature. Another manistification of this is the types of materials they are handling which they did not handled before, and the use of the PG&E property shows a major extension of the business. He presented a slide of~t~uck traffi~'~h~iT~e_s° within ~0~''~' ~ of the homes. He pointed'6~'t't~'~ impOrtantl~'i'~ ~he'n6ise"frOm'£he f~ont loader, and also, a cloud of blue smoke in the area. He stated that this dust is strong enough to drive you from.your back yard. Mr. Tatar indicated another problem is that the operation has stored on the northwest end of the property suchithings as tanbark, ground, topsoil, and the front loader is always in that corner; and because of the proximity of the homesto the .f_~ro~._o,ader, they get the fumes and 'the noise. Mr. Tatar indicated the~"~re four:~ources of noise: 1) squealing brakes; 2) loud grunting typ~6~n~i~ 8d~ing operation; 3) the noise caused when the scoop on the front loader rubs against the concrete base of the bins; and 4) noise from the falling material from trucks, particularly dropping of rocks into the bed. He indicated these noises go on all the time -- almost continuously in the morning, and also, on weekends -- 363 days of the year. With regard to traffic problems, Mr. Tatar pointed out this is a drive-in type business, where customers either leave with cars, station wagons or trucks, or they leave with one of Mr. Lyngso's trucks. Other vehicles are the trucks that deliver the materials, and during spring and summer, these come as often as 5 to 6 times per day. The traffic that utilizes this facility also utilizes a residential street, Manor Drive, and some of these large trucks will span from one curbside to the other. He presented another view of one of the trucks illegally crossing the median divider On Highway 9. Mr. Tatar indicated the purpose of the slide presentation is to ~pport th~ three previously-mentioned complaints by homeowners in this area. He ~ed those in the audience supportative of his position to stand. In conclusion, Mr. Tatar'stated it would be the homeowners' recommendation that the Council deny the request for a use permit, on the grounds that the Lyngso operation is a nuisance operating in a residential district. Also, they would like the Council's consideration in hastening the phase-out of this operation. Also, Mr Tatar felt this phase-out would not unduly penalize the owner, and mentioned that from 1969, Lyngso has been grossing over $200,000, and more recently, $300,000 to $350,000; therefore, he has had sufficient time to amitorize whatever investment he has in that property. Also, if he were to remove the rockery to a place:where it is legal, they could develop the property residentially into 5 to 7 lots. He stated that if the Council hastens this phase-out, it will'bring the property into conformity with the General Plan and begin the improvement of the Gateway area. -8- UP-296 - Lyngso Garden Materials Cont'd. Donald Sifferman, 12400 Greenmeadow Lane, presented viewgraphs of this property and gave a chronological summary back to 1966'when the City of Saratoga first incorporated, specifically to preserve the rural residential atmosphere,~with the goals being primarily residential with a minimum of "Commercial" and "Industrial". During the 1968 tim~ frame, the-residential properties began being developed. Also, during this time, the Lyngso's re- ceived the letter from the City saying that their operation could continue indefinitely, and the residents were to!d not to worry about the Lyngso operation -- that the intent was tO convert to residential, and they would be going in 2 to 3 years.' Also,-in the 1968 General Plan, the Lyngso property was designated as single-family residential. In~addition, a new "Commercial- Visitor" zoning was established in, 1968, and this property was rezoned as such, and then became an illegal commercial 'use because the CV zoning didn't allow a rockery business. He indicated that the 1974 court judgment found that this rezoning was invalid relative to Lyngso because of a technicality in a notice the City had given to various residents associated with that rezoning. In 1972, the next version of the G~neral Plan was adopted, and the "R-1~' desig- nation of the Lyngso property contgnued, and the General Plan recommended that the adjacent residential density should be extended to include the Lyngso property. In 1973, this matter was addressed ~efore the City Council ove~la~5~month period, and one occasion,Ta'-representative of the Bay Area~A!~r~T°Poll~tion Control District was present, and it was based on his comments ~h~t the Lyngso operation would be subject to fines if the dust pollution wasn't tontrolled, that that the ~yngso operation wentto sprinkling and oiling. 1974 brought another General Plan Review, and the "R-I" designation of the property continued. In one area.the property is described as a heavy commercial operation, and it recommends again that the adjacent residential use should be- extended to include the Lyngso property. In 1975, the property was rezoned to"R-l-12,500, to b~ing' it into conformance with the General Plan, and ~also ~t~this time, NS-3~32 was adopted, which amended the Zoning OrdinanCe of the City relative to non-conforming use. As required, Lyngso applied for the n~cessary use perm~t~ and in January, the Planning Commission granted the u~ ~ermit and it was appealed. In summary, Mr. Sifferman i!ndicated that the property is zoned "R-l-12,500", and according to Section 15.3 of the Ordinance, Lyngso can only continue if he is granted a use permit. He stated in granting the use permit, the City has to make certain findings relative to the location and the use,~and those : ~nding~ are listed in Section 16.~3 of t. he Zoning Ordinance. ~ .... ~ Mr. Sifferman stated he referenced Section 1.1 of the Zoninq_Ordinance, which addresses the objectives, and revi~d' tho~e~sub=p~ra~rapHs that seemed tq._app_ly, and ~oticed there are 7 sub-paragraphs ~hich Gqnn~tbe ~et~by the Lyngso operation. It ]?s tH~l'i6Oo~°~he h~eowners th~ this'ln~m~ti- bility is unresolvable, and.it is 'impossible to operat~ a rockery in a har-' monious manner with the residential zone in which it is located. With regard to promotion o~ traffi,c circulatiQn, Mr. Sifferman commented that the traffic on Saratoga-Sunnyvale Raod is bad enough without this heavy commercial operation in a residential zone. In the public health area, Mr. Sifferman stated they have talked about dust, and according to previous testimony to the City Council, the dust does not come from the Southern Pacific right-of-way, but it does come from the Lyngso operation. With regard to.noise, Mr. Sifferm~n stated there is no question in their minds that the noise generated by the Lyngso operation is in violation of the City Zoning Ordinance. He presented the City Manager a copy of a pro- fessional noise study taken in 1973, where it specifically says on page 2 that the noise violates the Saratoga Ordinance, and there is quanatative data measured in the field with professional instrumentation to indicate that there is in fact a noise problem. -9- UP-296 - Lyngso Garden Materials (Cont'd.) Mr. Sifferman then presented~Tof~t~'~er received by Mr. Tatar from the County of Santa Clar~h~h'~~fically that his appraised evaluation last year was l~due to noise and dust pollution caused by the rockery. · " ' Mr. S~/ferman commented that ~t woul~ appear'to-hi~.that=a~Us~Tp__erm~t, n~t December, 1976. It is also their ~udgment that the City cannot legally make findings that are required in granting this use permit, as required by Section 16.6 of the Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, it is their belief that the only option is to deny this use permit request now, and cause the Lyngso operation to be relocated 'outside of the Saratoga area. Mr! Sifferman stated'that he has the impression that hey being told t ~ are they are putting a "mom and pop" business out of operation, and he commented that the Lyngso operation seems tobe a large corporation, headquartered in Redwood City and doing a large business. Further, he indicated we have been dealing with this matter in the City since 1973, and LynOs~has had plent× ~___~_~_~__~ of.notice that his future in the city is in question. c/~-~~''-'~? ~' ~ .... ~'~ei~ again addressed the Council and referred to the ~i~a~s s own ' Mr _ h earlier this evening showing the level of the trees at a previous date, and another up-to-date picture where the roof showed in the foreground. He felt this ~as a good demonstration of how this landscaping has come along and taken hold. With regard to co~ents about the sprinklers only covering a smal]' portionof the yard, Mr. Gardella advised that the sprinklers are sequential, and there isn't enough water pressure to run all the sprinklers at the same time, but they are on an automatic system that takes one'section at a time. With regard to the suggestion that Lyngso is using PG&E pr.operty, Mr. Gardella commented that this is a recently initiated use, and he stated that there is actually less property under piles at the present time, and it is more con- tained and in bins. He commented regarding the complaint~S~'~unloading of rocks into the ~ ~ bins near the residences, and indicated that at the request of those people, topsoil was pdt in towards the rear so there would not be any noise from the dumping. Mr. Gardella indicated they had a professional sound engineer some years back, Mr. Edward Pack, who provided a series of sound readings over a series of days, and stated there is ample evidence {coupled with those readings by the City's Code Enforcement Officer), and it ~as found the operation was in compliance. Also, one of the loaders was replaced at that time, voluntarily, to put in new equipment with a better muffler system to reduce the noise level. W~h regard to the cogent pertaining to the exit onto Saratoga-Sunnyval6 Road, Mr. Gardella stated they would prefer to go onto Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road directly, and ithas bee6 the City's request to exit out into the intersection area of Manor Drive. It was requested by ~he City staff to pile rocks along this area to keep cars from going out onto Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, and this was done. Mr. Gardella eo~ented~reO~'rdi~'~i~e~udg~stion that Lyngso never made an agreement with the p~Opertyi~¥.' He corrected this statement, indicating it was his recollection Mr. Beyer, the Code Enforcement Officer, Mr. Lyngso, a homeowners representative, and himself were present at a meeting, at which time an agreement was presented. He stated that 4 to 5 days later, a letter came back rejecting the agreement,.and indicating they just want the Lyngso operation eliminated. Therefore, he stated efforts were made to be cooperative. Mr. Gardella indicated he has been furnished with a copy of the letter from the Assessor's Office earlier referred to by Mr. Sifferman, and he followed up by calling the Assessor, who indicated there was a general reduction this year because of.Complaints,-and it did not involve any field inspection. - lO- UP-296 -[yn~so Garden Materials (Cont'd.) Fred Tatar again addressed the Council, commenting with regard to Mr. Gardella's statement concerning the trees and what a good job they are doing hiding the rockery from view by the neighborhood. Mr. Tatar stated that the trees are planted 3 feet from the property line, they are knocking down the fence, and the roots are going in such a way that nothing grows along the fence~. Yt With regard to Mr. Gardella's comments regarding access on Manor Drive and how the City directed him to use Manor Drive, Mr. Tatar stated this wasn't really the case, and those trucks could not come out any way but Manor Drive. He commented with regard to Mr. Gardella's statement that they have cooperated as far as landscaping, oiling, etc. He indicated they are only cooperative when the timing is close to a City'Council Meeting, and there was a time, from 1974 to 1975, when there wasn't much activity by the Planning Commission or City Council, and the yard wasn't~oiled for a year and a half. With regard to the comments about the general assessment, Mr. Tatar indicated that the letter clearly states that the reduction in assessment is for those people who live on Manor Drive,'and the reason why is because Lyngso is next door. Stanley Friedman, 12520 GreenmeadoW.~Lane, addressed the Council, indicating he is located probably the furthest from Lyngso of this 24-home neighborhood. He commented that 7 years ago when he moved in, he considered Lyngso as a nice "marker" to let people know how to find Manor Drive. He indicated that since that time, it has grown, andsfrom his point of view, there is a real dust problem here. He indicated 'that he has noticed after his car is in the garage for more than 2 days, it gets dusty. Also, on weekends when he stands on his front lawn he can hear the noise from Lyngso, and on weekends, he has the problem of fighting traffic coming in and out. Mr. Friedman stated he was interested in noting that the Lyngso people are paying taxes of $2,700 per year, which would indicate that the assessment 6n their property is just slightly more than the assessment on the homeowners in this area. He also noted that based on their sales tax of $24,000, mathe- matics would indicate that they are grossing from retail sales $400,000, and they have commercial sales also. He further commented thathe doesn!t know of any city in Santa Clara Valley that has an operation which would be considered-a'heavy commercial operation in a residential area, and he doesn't believe any other city would accept the operation, other than in a heavy industrial area. Mr. Friedman commented that because of the type of operation, the Council should consider a very short term for this phase out. Sandi Cuenca, Manager, Saratoga Chamber of Commerce, speaking for President John Svilich, indicated that M~:~Svilich was available at the Planning Commission meeting and ~t the March lOth Board Meeting of the Chamber of Commerce when they endorsed Lyngso, along with the same considerations that were given to Haven Nursery~ She indicated they would like to re-affirm this pQsition this evening. Heda Yamada, 20522 Manor Drive, across on the southern side from the Lyngso property, indicated they were one of the first ~esidents on this street, and at the time they purchased they were told'.Lyngso would be out in 2 years. Mrs. Yamada related a situation inwhich she was leaving Manor Drive one afternoon when a truck coming out crossed the buffer on Highway 9 at the time she made a left turn, and she thought she was going to get hit. Also, she commented that when she comes home in the evening prior to the closing time of their business, When she.makes a right turn onto Manor, she almost always has to come to a stop and make.sure there isn't a car coming. Mrs. Yamada commented that it bothered her that Haven Nursery was brought up as an example this evening, because Haven doesn't have any large commercial trucks, which is her main concern. She stated that some of the dust and noise problems have been abated, b~t only since ithas been discussed and been before the Council. -11 - UP-296 - Lyngso Garden Materials (Cont'd.) Councilman Matteoni, having arrived late, indicated he would not be willing to vote on this matter at this time until he has listened to the tape trans- cript from this meeting. It was then moved by Councilman Brigham and seconded by Councilwoman Corr to continue this hearing to the next regular meeting on June 16th. The motion was carried. C. CONSIDERATION OF REZONING FROM "R-1-12,500" AND "R-l-15,000" TO "R-1-20,O00 PC" THE 47.39 ACRES BELONGING TO THE FREMONT UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT, BOUNDED ON THE NORTH BY THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD TRACKS AND PROSPECT ROAD, ON THE EAST BY TRACTS #4508 AND #4536, ON THE WEST BY THE PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE "PARKER RANCH" SITE, AND ON THE SOUTH BY TRACT #4886 (Continued) The Council discussed the two motions made earlier in the meeting with Councilman Matteoni. Councilman Matteoni felt that if the City developed a new 'tRD" ordinance within 6 months, this would leave the Council the~6ga~i~f_amending .~. on its second reading the ordinance that was~dop~_~ to'~p~t-i~ ~"R-T'20'~O~"'.~=~L On this basis, Councilman Matteoni indicated'~'~6uld~ 6e i~cli~ t6'~dt~i~~ ....... favor of Councilman Kraus' motion, and to look at it after the Planning Commission has come back with a new "PD" Ordinance. The City Attorney advised that the problem here would be if the "PD" Ordinance ends up substantially different from the existing "PC", then there would never have been a hearing on an ordinance which is substantially the same., Councilman Kraus therefore moved and seconded by Councilman Matteoni the introduction of Ordinance NS-3-ZC-76, with the modification that it be changed to "R-1-20,O00 PC". Further, the second reading be delayed until consideration of a "P~" Ordinance by he Council. The motign was carried, ....... 3 to 2,~_Counc~lman Br3~ham and_Counci~woman~Corr in o~posit~on VII. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS A. MAYOR 1. Announced an Executive Session following this meeting to discuss potential litigation. B. COUNCIL AND COMMISSION REPORTS C. DEPARTMENT HEADS'AND OFFICERS 1. Director of Community Services Report Re: Request:fOr Closure of Allendale Avenue in Front of Community Center ~or.Dance on June 25, 1976 It was moved by'Councilman Kraus and seconded by Councilman Brigham to approve this request. The motion was carried. 2. Director of Public Works a) Bridge ReimbUrsement Agreements - Requests received from Donald Comer on Comer Drive and from Danforth Apker on Padero Avenue It was moved by Councilman. Brigham and seconded by Councilwoman Corr to deny this request, based on the findings in the report of the Director of Public Works, dated May 18, 1976. The motion was carried. b) Distinctive Color Markings for Bike Lanes It was moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded by Councilman Brigham the Council not support the recommendation of the City of La Mirada to urge the State Legislature to enact laws which would amend the existing State bike lane marking policies for use of distinctive color indications. The motion~s carried. c) Oil and Screenin~ Corrections on Saratoga Avenue Mr. Shook advised that they are awaiting some tests on materials, and once received, he wou~dsubmit to the Council his recommendations. d)Recommendation to Refer P~oposed Corrections to Saratoga Avenue Plan L~ne to Plannin~ Commission for Public HearinO It was moved by Councilman Brigham and seconded by Councilwoman Corr to approve the Public Works Director's recommendation to refer this matter to the Planning Commission for public hearings concerning these corrections. The motion. was carried. D. CITY MANAGER 1. Report Re: Consideration of Proposed Santa Clara County Charter Revisions Appearin~ On June 8 Ballot The Council chose not to take action regarding this matter. .2. Report Re: Request for Closure of Streets for: a) June 5 Block Party on Dundee Avenue b) Fourth of July Block Party on Chalet Lane It was moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded by Councilwoman Corr to approve closure of Dundee Avenue between Kevin Street and McDole Street from 6:00 P.M. to 12:00 Midnight on June 5th, with the understanding if there are problems after 10:00 P.M., it would be terminated. Further, it was moved and seconded approval be granted to block off Chalet Lane 'on July 4, from ll:O0 A.M. to 9:15 P.M. The motionwas carried. 3. Board of Supervisors Hearin~ Re: Purchase of 289 Acres (Pick Property) It was moved by Councilman Brigham and seconded by Councilwoman Corr to express to the Board of Supervisors the Council's approval for purchase of this property, indicating concern regarding its useage. The motion was carried. 4. Recommendation that the Committee of the Whole Meeting-not be held Tuesday, June 8th Approved by the Council. VIII. COMMUNICATIONS A. WRITTEN 1. Mrs. Mary S. Wade, 14740 Farwell Avenue, expressing concerns regarding the $2 million ballot measure. - Noted and filed. 2. Mr. and Mrs. Robert Simner, 12791 Idlewood Lane, requesting exemption from annexation to the Cupertino Sanitary District. - Noted; City Manager to communicate and inform regarding District's hearing. '3. Helen Eriksson, 13180 Pierce Road, regarding dying dak trees in Saratoga. - Noted; directed City Manager to reiterate comments on this subject in the Saratoga News. 4. Mr. Charles Reed, 14755 Fruitvale Avenue, requestion relief from the requirement to widen a 100 foot section of Fruitvale Avenue in front of his property..- Referred to the staff for reportTback on June 16th. 5. Joseph T. Hootman of Sempervirens Fund, requesting endorsement by Saratoga City Council'of athree-year purchase plan for completion of Big Basin Redwoods and Castle Rock State Parks. - Referred to Parks and Recreation Commission for report back. 6. Residents of Marion ROadS.concerning U~-300~ Renn~ Inc. permit approved by the Planning Commission. - City Manager directed to request if this is a formal appeal, and if so, set for hearing. - 13- 7. Copy of letter t6 Stephen Goodman, District Manager, County Sanitation District No. 4, concerning the Sanitary Sewerage Project for Sigal-Norton- Kittridge Road area. - Noted and filed. B. ORAL "' H~i d~t~' 'H6~w~'A~6Ei~, "~F<~ ~s~l"l~i'on~of~'~n~"~d'i~"'No ' Parking at Any Time" on both sides of Canyon View Drive in the area of the wooden guard rail, 150 feet east of Glenmont Drive. - Referred to the e Public Works staff for a report back in 30 days. C. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF PUBLIC GROUP REPRESENTATIVES" The Mayor acknowledged the presence of public group representatives this evening, as follows: Lynn Belanger, Saratoga Planning Commission Linda Callon, Saratoga Planning Commission Donald Sifferman,.President, Manor Drive Homeowners Association Marjorie Foote, A.A.U.W. : Marlene Duffin, President, Wildwood Heights'Homeowners Association Eunice Stark, Good Government Group (served coffee) IX. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Councilman Krausand seconded by Councilman Matteoni the meeting be adjourned to an Executive Session.- The motion was carried. The meeting was adjourned at 12!20 A.M. ' ectf mitted, : CRoityeC~ R?