Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-01-1978 City Council MinutesTIMe: November 1, 1978, 7:30 P.M. PLACE: Saratoga City Council Chambers 13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga AGENDA/MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ACTION TAKEN I. ORGANIZATION ORGANIZATION A. ROLL CALL Councilmen Present: Callon, Corr, Kalb, Matteoni, Kraus Councilmen Absent: None B. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Kalb: Modifications as follows: Page 8, change "bumping" to "dumping"; Page 9, change "one-year flood" to "one percent flood"; wording last paragraph modified to read "especially in an area where. there is dis_agr_eement. between various geologic sur- veys . . . "- in three locations change word "'creek" to "creep". M/S: Kalb/Corr to approve minutes of October 18, 1978, as modified. Carried unanimously by voice vote. II. CONSENT CALENDAR CONSENT CALENDAR A. ORDINANCE 60.5 M/S: Kalb/Callon to approve the Consent Calendar. Carried unani- ANiORDINANCE AMENDING 0RDIN~qCE mously by voice vote. NS-60, THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA, BY ADDING SECTION 27 TO ARTICLE THREE R~LATING TO AN ALTERNATE PROCEDURE FOR SINGLE SITE APPROVAL NOT INVOLVING LAND DIVISION, AND AMENDING .SECTION T21 ~TO~ CONFORM THERETO (Second Reading) .. 1. Resolution 87.7 A Resolution Establishing Criteria for Modified Condition of Site Approval, Section 27, Ord. NS-60 B. RESOLUTION 780.5 A RESOLUTION ALTERING FEE SCHEDULE FOR CIVIC THEATRE RENTALS, AMENDING RESOLUTION · 780 C. RESOLUTION 883 A RESOLUTION DESCRIBING PRO- CESS TO BE USED IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY TO IMPLEMENT FEDERAL AID URBAN PROGRAM AG,ENDA' ACTION TAKEN II. CONSENT CALENDAR (Cont' d.') D. FINAL ACCEPTANCE, TRACT 5007 - GEORGE DAY/TOLL GATE AVE. , ADOPT RESOLUTION 36-B-183 E. AGREEMENT WITH ARCHITECT JACK BUKTENICA RE: MASTER PLAN FOR CONGRESS SPRINGS PARK F. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS III. BIDS AND CONTRACTS BIDS AND CONTRACTS A. REPORT ON BID OPENING FOR City Manager transmitted report, SOLAR SPACE HEARING PROJECT - dated 10/27/78, recommending City SARATOGA COMMUNITY LIBRARY Council approve re-advertising for (Cont' d. 10/18/78) bids. M/S: Corr/~C_a..l~lqn__t0 ap. pr.?v~e_ r.e- advertise ~t_ Space Heating' '~r6j~c~ .' ' ' Kalb :. R~equ~_sted amendment to. ~= ,'~i~& statement as to what the extent of energy savings would be through life cycle of equipment. Amended motion: M/S: Corr/Kalb to approve re-advertising for bids for Solar Space Heating Project, extent of energy savingsjj~through the life cycle of equipment in bid. Carried unanimously by voice vote. IV. PETITIONS, ORDINANCES, FORMAL PETITIONS, ORDINANCES, FORMAL RESOLUTIONS ~ESOLUTIONS A. RESOLUTION 874 M/S: Matteoni/Corr to deny the requst for street name change. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF Carried unanimous.ly by voice vote. SARATOGA CHANGING THE NAME OF THE EAST-~EST PORTION~ OF 'DOUGLASS LANE TO BONITA AVE. (Cont'd. 10/4/78) B. RESOLUTIONj'882 Matteoni proposed modifications as follows: first paragraph - "flooding A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY .and drainage problems in the western COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF foothills ". third paragraph - SARATOGA CONCEFjqING THE FLOODING "flooding in~ ~rainage mitigating ISSUE RELATIVE TO ADEQUACY OF measures ". strike "Parker FINAL EIR FOR PACKER RANCH Ranch" anA in~iclte "developers of' the western hills "; con- structed in such a way as to imple- ment a regional solution "' assuming full development, of-the western hills under the General Plan"; add new paragraph: "We further re- solve that irrespective of potential for additional development, -=whether it occurs or not, the City of Saratoga - 2 - AGENDA ACTION TAKEN B. RESOLUTION 882 Conrad.) take action to explore and seek to implement solutions to the existing flooding and drainage problems along Calabazas and Prospect l!C're~ ~f~ lh~Tarea". Title change to re- "flect western~'~6'~hiII~ and lower drainage basins 7'.'~ ' ' M/S: Kalb/Corr to adopt Resolution 882 with proposed modifications. Carried unanimously by voice vote. 1~. SUBDIVISIONS, BUILDING SITES, SUBDIVISIONS, BUILDING SITES, ZONING REQUESTS ZONING REQUESTS None. VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. TO CONSIDER APPEAL OF Mr. Robinson, Planning Director, PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF transmitted report dated 10/25/78, USE PERMIT 386, LOT 9, TRACT with Planning Commission recommen- 5023 - 15168 PIEDMONT DRIVE dation to deny the appeal. (GEORGE LAMPROS) Mayor opened the public hearing at 8:11 P.M. George Lampros, applicant, addressed question of alternative site locations for the tennis court. Site to the east consists of a very heavily wooded area which is a natural tree-lined screen area which he would like to keep pre- served as is. Second site which the~Planning Commission considered is further to the west, and is relatively flat, and which they would like to keep in its natural state. Therefore, they have asked to place the site down in the lower portion, which takes the court out of everyone' s vision. ~,Callon: Inquired if Dr. Lampros ~ows I the slope of the site where he desires to locate tennis court. Dr. Lampros: The total grading is 800 yards, of whi. ch 400 would be put into hhe site itself, and the rest would be used to .blend in ,ith 'existing contours. Land Committee recommended alternate site due to the fact it.was f.elt 800 yards of grading was too much. Corr: Understood there was a possibility of a great deal of fun-off on the lower site. Dr. Lampros: Question was raised, and he had reviewed the matter in detail with the engineer. In his _~_~_~ letter, he pointed out the tennis AGENDA ACTION TAKEN VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. TO CONSIDER APPEAL OF court would add one tenth of PLA~NNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF one percentztgztbg.run-off into USE PERMIT 386, LOT 9, TRACT the creek.-i No basis b~- which 5023 15168 PIEDMONT DRIVE the additional h~ra surface would (GEORGE LAMPROS) (Cont'd. add any material run-off into the creek. , Kraus: Inquired re: contour lines. Rob Robinson: _There woul~ be approximately~9~e~t in one ton- tour, and 35 feet'in the top. Would require a seven-foot cut of the western corner. Callon: Inquired re: rela~io~ship of moving the dirt to creating hazardous or geologically unsafe conditions. Rob Robinson: Additional fill material created will be used on site. Soils report would be re- quired for stability of the soil. Matteoni: Requested information concerning how close the residents to the south and west to this tennis court would be. Dr. Lampros: The nearest neighbor is 200 feet away-and elevated by approximately 40 feet above the court site. The site of the court sits on the west side with a ravine, and on the other side, there is a natural hillside. The nearest neighbors on the west abut.the property, but are approxi- mately 300 feet from proposed court. and separated by the hill. itself. Corr: Suggested the Council view the site at established time. M/S: Corr/Kalb to continue the public hearing to meeting of November 15, 1978~ Carried unani- mously by voice vote. B. TO CONSIDER REZONING FROM City Manager advised this item was "A" (AGRICULTURE) TO "HCRD" recommended for discussion in con- THE 17.5 ACRE PARCEL PORTION OF junction with the application for APN 336-05-04 COMMONLY KNOWN withdrawal from the Williamson Act. AS HALL PROPERTY, AND UNIT 3 OF Recommended continuance to November PARKER RANCH 15th meeting of the Council. 1. Adopt Ordinance NS-3.43, Mayor opened the public hearing at An Ordinance Amending Ordinance 8:26 P.M. NS-3, the Zoning Ordinance, by Amending the Zoning Map 4 - AGENDA ACTION TAKEN VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS B. TO CONSIDER REZONING FROM M/S: Kalb/Corr to continue public "A" (AGRICULTURE) TO "HCRD" hearing to November 15, 1978 THE 17.5 ACRE PARCEL PORTION OF meeting of the Council. Carried APN 336-05-04 COMMONLY KNOWN AS unanimously by voice vote HALL PROPERTY, AND UNIT 3 OF PARKER RANCH (Cont'd.) C. PRESENTATION OF TENTATIVE ~'~ity M~er presented ~op~sed 5TH AND SUBSEQUENT (1979-82) ~prOjeCts for~i~clUs~On~in.fUnd~ng YEAR CO~MUNITY DEVELOPMENT r'~f6~the.next three years.~Meeting PLAN, INCLUDING PROPOSED PRO- .o~N~y~mb~r I5.th will con~! = _ JECTS BASED UPON COMMUNITY ~ ~pecificc~bposed program~ ..... -~:~ ~:~ NEED, CITIZEN PARTICIPATION .... · " AND PREVIOUS CITY PROJECTS ~ 6~ed the public hearing at (Cont'd. 10/18/78) 8:2~ P.M. ~ Richard Gregory, representing the Grey Panthers Of Santa Clara County,.10827 Minette Drive, Cupertino, addressed the Council. Organization is dedicated to bringing an end to age discrimi- nation, one~'!area which exists in Santa Clara County is housing. Joined new group in the County called "Housing Action". Purpose of "Housing Action" is to increase the supply of portable housing for low and moderate-income families, elderly and disabled persons. Crisis in housing documented by the County's housing task force; costs have escalated to average resale price of $80,300 in July, eliminating low and moderate-income families from purchasing homes. Rental market is tight, and little o~ no housing for families with children. Re: Response of the cities with regard to the Hgusing Task Force Report, a great majority of public officials admitted crisis in housing. Also '~'d{nf~t~dj~they weren't doing m~h abOht'it because there was no organized constituency demanding action. "We want to notify you that we have organized and we demand action." Urged Council to designate the use of Community Development Block Grant funds to ease the housing crisis. Requested 50 percent of AGENDA ACTION TAK'EN VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS C. PRESENTATION OF TENTATIVE funds be designated for land- 5TH YEAR AND SUBSEQUENT (1979-82 banking, and part of the funds YEAR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT be used to help start a non- PLAN, INCLUDING PROPOSED PRO- profit h, ous'ing development JECTS, BASED UPON COMMUNITY corporation'. ' Third, to consider NEED, CITIZEN PARTICIPATION spending at least 75 percent of AND PREVIOUS CITY .PROJECTS ~ Community Development Block Grant (Cont' d. ) funds on housing. Margaret Sherill', 14290 Paul Avenu.e, indicated she has been puzzled why it has taken so long to get housing for senior citizens. Also, disturbed that there seemed to be_fee_ling_~n past discussions that~eligi. bili~y should be .limited to Saratoga residents,, and she does not believe Saratoga !zlowns" the people of the United States. Re: Item 5, relative to barriers · ~ restricting mobility of elderly and handicapped, this community has been very tardy in helping these groups, and it is time this community adjusts its curbs as other communities haye. i Re: Item 2, malls and walkways, ~ she doesn't feel this money should be spent on malls. Elderly are covering distances under conditions of traffic hazards~? and exposing themselves to dangers. Suggested including benches at bus stops and shelters. Also addressed signs, indicating there are not adequate signs to find the Comnunity Center, the library, etc., suggesting money be put into ~ directional signs. Addressed corner at fire station where the Greyhound Bus stops, indicating there is no shelter, no public telephone. Corr: Currently two senior citizen units under construction in Saratoga -- they are not restricted to Saratoga residents. Blanche Walton, 21060 Saratoga Hills Road, would like to see funds landbanked toward the future to enable former Saratoga residents to return to Saratoga to retire. M/S: Kalb/Corr to continue the public hearing to the November 15th meeting of the Council. Carried unanimously by voice vote. 6 - AGENDA AC. TION TAKEN VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS 'D. TO CONSIDER APPEAL OF City Manager explained that a'ppeal PLANNING COMMISSION FINDINGS has been filed by others than the ON CONSISTENCY WITH CITY'S applicant on this subdivision, and GENERAL PLAN ON APPROVED is on the basis of~Pl'~g~' TENTATIVE MAP (SD- 1339, PARKER ~iC'~m~is ~{6H~fi~i~'~< ~' tenta- RANCH) tire ~a~ is ~S'i~tent'~ith the General Plan. Mr. Robinson, Plan ning Director, verified the Planning Commission's action to approve the tentative map on September 13, 1978. Staff report~ dated 10/24~78, details Planning Commission action°and staff recommendation. Mayor opened public hearing 8:53 P.M. 'John Weir, 123343 Arguello, repre- senting himself and Arguello Homeowners Association, expressed feeling that tentative map is not at this time consistent with the General Plan. Tg o ding tO G ernment Code, ~ty '77Eounhit may not appr6ve~b~i~ision ~'k~h~ati~n~ 'i'f~design i~ likely to cause substantial environmental damage, if subdivision is likely to cause public hazards, if site is not suitable for the number of homes, or if subdivision plan or map is not c~nsistant with General Plan. Referenced page 14, Community sidering the visual impact of new development." Page 17, Communit7 subject to natural hazards shall be designed to protect the environment, the- inhabitants an~ general public in areas of extreme hazard, may be prohibited." Pages 58, 59 Circulation, "New development should be provide~ with adequate access to arterials, but local access streets should not be planned to accommodate through traffic." Page 83, Conservation, "New development in Saratoga and its sphere of influence will intensify runoff, put an even greater strain on the local flood control network. Action should be taken now to accommodate this in- crease before ~erfous problems arise." AGENDA ACTION TAKEN VI. PUBLIC/HEARINGS " D. TO CONSIDER APPEAL OF Re: specific areas of improvement: PLANNING COMMISSION FINDINGS Under scenic considerations, lots' ON CONSISTENCY WITH CITY'S 30, 28, and 27 in front of the GENERAL PLAN ON APPROVED Eucalyptus grove were eliminated TENTATIVE MAP (SD-1339, PAP~ER two years ago by the City Council, RANCH) (Cont!d.) and he believes these should be eliminated again. Mr. Weir The General Plan calls for no through streets from Prospect and The findings required under Stelling to Arguello through the 66474 by the Planning Commission school property. The Hillmoor are not correct in that the connection proposed. for the tenta- measures taken to remove the tive map violates the intent of adverse significant environ- the General Plan to prevent flow mental impacts of project do from Stelling and any other pro- not properly mitigate the ject. Hillmoor.connection should problems identified. Flooding, be moved entirely. Lots 68 and 75 traffic and scenic/safety prob- are built on what appears to be an lems have not be completely emergency access road which is to solved and addressed, Since be constructed to one-way street State Law prohibits City from standards -- in violation of the rejecting the final map if con- City ordinances, tractor complies with tenta- tive map, tentative map must Connection of the streets to tie be a firm solution to the pro- Chiquita and Comer to Stelling is ject's adverse impacts. The a violation of the Northwest courts can for.q~ approval of Circulation Plan, and the tenta- ~he~fi~r ~apif._Eity fails to tive map states: "Provide the do so~ volUntarily~i' C~d , right-of-way for future split ,~h~ ~h~y 'he~_a~ut~ih:~s '. street using emergency access road." -~oing~t~L~._~'fffef~n~-,-~'n~x~ Project encompasses 98 homes, as ~ime" -- w~eplbis .hous~.~i~fou~7~ stated in item 19 on the map, ~eet-U~de~'~ how~5~f~ but in the open space section on ..~pla'i~ t~a~"".-~xt't~l~ L~ ~, the map, it is annotated as !'open .-~Staff in~ts August-~Planning_ :~ space available for 101 future ~mmiSsi~ r~6~'~e.~v~the homes". This should be changed ~hr~Lf68~ b~-design ~h~n to be consistent with item 19 at any reasonable examination 98 homes. would have seen this would result in four feet of water Grading is allowed from April on the corner of Norada and through October; however the rains Arguelie. Staff is using as don't actually end until May. the one percent or 100 year Erosion ~ontrol planrings are not flood flood flows actual flows required until the end of November that are experienced'at least since several weeks are not every several years. They adequate for plantings to gain a want to be certain that before hold. this tentative map goes forward, Re: Geology - All of the mitigating it is certain the problems are measures ~y require approval by going to be solved. The only ~iG~o~'ech~ical Consultant, but he Safeguards that can be ~ei{~Ve's"~ should be also guaranteed are those which can approved by the City. be specifically called out in the tentative map, following The map also calls for moving the careful studies, to be abso- Arroyo de Arguello storm drain to lutely sure it can mitigate flow into the new storm drain and the environmental problems of building of an added storm drain this project for Prospect Creek -- however, - 8 - VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS D. TO CONSIDER APP~EAL OF 0 blended in b~tter if many more PLANNING CO%~ISSION~FINDINGS trees were added to the hillside. ON CONSISTENCY WITH CITY'S This should be considered in the GENERAL PLAN ON APPROVED mitigating measures. Scenic TENTATIVE MAP (SD-1339, PARKER easements should be extended as RANCH) (Cont'd.) many lots on the east side have large areas not under easement Mr. Weir control, expecially lots 28 and 30. passes the buck in the Planning Commission findings to the 'Coun~ Referenced findings in staff which has no money. His under~ report, dated August 31, 1978, standing is the plan calls for which states: ':'Tentative Map a 36-inch drain to be joined into drainage is based on the previous the new drain -- it does not say applications o/f_~e developer and it should be dumped below the two E.I.R.'s~'~il!'~f which have culvert into Prospect Creek. been proven~/to_be incomplete and fault~.~:~"Acce~s~f6 H{~i~o~ ...... Kalb: Correction to this state- ~6hid be'r~m0v~'7~e~eral Plan ment. It says "to a new bypass ~ibfts'hhe scho'01 property storm drain which will then con- from being tied to Arguello. vey water directly to Calabazas %S_'0.m_~TMstreets exceed 400 feet Creek." maximum cul-de-sac inTlength re- quired in the Subdivision Ordinances. Weir: Yes, but it is saying you Staff says it should be allowed, will take the 36-inch main and even though it does violate the connect it to the new storm ordinance. Hefeels the_City is drain, and the storm drain .~. not in the business of violating carries water into Prospect its own ordinances to help a Creek. This should be specific developer make money. "What is in saying the drain is going to the purpose of an ordinance if fall after the new storm drain it can be ignored?" There are lower in the creek; The c0nditi~ also more than 18 homes per c~l- should define the size of the new de-sac in the first unit, and storm drain; also, it should re- this violates the General Plan quire that the City Engineer policy of 15 homes. The Planning approve the design to assure tha Commission fi~dings relative to design meets the requirements. the tentative map says it complies The house designs require an with all the Zoning and Subdivision active or passive solar design, Ordinances in the General Plan. and those on the hillside would However, in above-mentioned cases, be an eyesore. it does not. ~.'~_~i~J impact. It calls out The report says to place homes to the re~oval of 3~.lots, relocation minimize visual impact; however, of several building sites,'and re there is no requirement for place- design of street areas to reduce ment review. There are many re- visual impact, and these specific views by contractors, but these items are not shown on the map. Changes should be re-drawn on the are not subject to City approval. map to show where they are and "'l It calls for, but provides no what is.to be done. Landscaping definition of Prospect Creek is only required on graded banks channel to Arguello. The staff exceeding 20 feet; this should report requiresa 3-foot berm at be on all areas or there will the end of the channel, and the be chunks of brown in places E.I.R. data does not substantiate where the bank is only 19 feet actual head .needed, and e~en the high. Landscape plan should be 3-foot berm causes 4 feet of water approved by Planning Commission and not thePlanning. Department. on Arguello. Opinion that the houses on the Staff report calls for consideration east slope'of the hill could be of alternatives to extensive cut and fill for road construction, VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS D.. TO CONSIDER APPEAL OF complete, and mitigating measures PLANNING COMMISSION FINDINGS are not yet identified." Thus, ON CONSISTENCY WITH CITY'S since the tentative map was approved GENERAL PLAN ON APPROVED simultaneously with approval of the TENTATIVE ~P (SD-1339, PARKER final E.I.R., there is no correction RANCH) (Cont'd.) totally addressed in the tentative map and it never can be forced on Mr. Weir the development unless the.mitigation measure is solved now. It releases the developer from ask that the Council send'Eh'~"ma~" the requirement to fabricate back with a strong set of guidelines adequate creek channel west of to the Planning Commission to get Arguel~o by indicating that- the job done right. the Santa Clara Valley Water District should do it -- even Matteoni: Inquired if references after the Water District said to design review approval in the they had no funds. The City Planning Staff Report meant design must require that the developer review approval through the be responsible. Planning Department and Commission. Also, when conditions are met by No provision for review and the applicant, what happens to it. approval of Prospect Creek and Arguello culvert design by the City Attorney: All plans and speci- City and Santa Clara Valley fications for all engineering that Water District -- just a state- gets done are already required by ment that the Contractor should City's Subdivision Ordinance prior use Santa Clara Valley Water to their being permitted to construct. District standards. Weir: In the case of a disagreement No mitigation measures for between "our" experts and "their" traffic conditions,'and no experts, what happens, given the mitigation measures for growth fact that tentative map has been inducing affects on surrounding appyoved2 properties. Mr. Robinson: There hase been Referenced page F-46 of the sufficient geotechnical review tentative map: "The 'citizens already-completed by ~ity's con- of Norada Court have identified suitant to~state that you qan put a serious problem in that water a structure as indicated on the could back up on Arguello and tentative map. They would have to Norada Court. The Santa Clara meet the City-'s standards.. Valley Water District, City of Saratoga Public Works Depart- Vince Garrod, 22600 Mount Eden Road, ment, the E.I.R. consultant suggested that the findings of the and the applicant's hydrologic Planning Commission follow the · consultant have worked to. General Plan, and the tentative identify the problems and map propose a use of land as it potential solutions~ However, has'been planned and authorized by due to the need to analyze the the General Plan. He would ask .cost and'feasibility of solutions that the Council accept the to the problem, a specific miti- recommendation Of the Planning gation measure to solve the floo~ Commission. has not yet been identified. Since it will take time to de- Carol Schuster, 20802 Hillmoor Drive,~ velop the specific design criteria indicated she spoke to'Planning and select the. best alternative . Commission in December re: Hillmoor solution, it is recommended if ! the tentative map is approved, it Drive and opening of the street, and is very concerned about the be conditioned so the project traffic that will be going through does not aggravate an existing there. She'would suggest the City downstream flooding problem." ~7~ cul-de-sac the~street t~go'~_._ Also, it says: "An analysis of through '~o~r~p~ ...... the flood proble~is not yet '~.l~'=~ ~r .: ~'~ 10 ~~,m~ , ! VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS Mr. Brumbaug~ D. TO CONSIDER APPEAL OF At some point, the developer is PLANNING COMMISSION FINDINGS going to have to be faced with "yes" ON CONSISTENCY WITH CITY'S or "no". The opportunity has been GENERAL PLAN ON APPROVED here for 2 years for him to hear TENTATIVE MAP (SD-1339, PARKER "yes", but he has.always heard "no" RANCH) (Cont'd.) in terms of "We're still working on the indiVidUal problems.". He 20785 Kreisler believes it is tire to say "no", ~oe~'Inot~know what the Council and go'fn another directions. has at stake -- whether it be political future or what. Guys He is concerned as a taxpayer in like John Weir have a lot at this city if someone else has mud stake. in his back yard and decides to sue the City and wins, he (Mr. Mayor Kraus insisted that Brumbaugh) is going to pay for that Mr. Bedell specifically address lawsuit.' He has no reason, when the issue. the opportunity was pre~ented and the people were not listened to, to Mr. Bedell: If the Council wants pay for that law suit. Suggested to do justice to this issue, the Council go the other way with the additional items of traffic , this issue. -andwater need to be solved, without just proceeding pall- Matteoni: Couple of years ago, mall with development. City looked at means of purchasing this property -- bond issue and Bill Stuckey, resident on exploration with Mid-Peninsula Open Arroyo de Arguelie, indicated Space District. InqUired if things he has had to deal with this have changed since that time, in flooding problem, and has to 'terms of the ability of citizens put sandbags out along the to bond themselves to purchase this streets. During last flood, property. they got a considerable-amount of flood in their garage. One Brumbaugh: He believes those of their big concerns is main- people who'had an interest in taining the value of their homes seeing that the land be usedas an and the problemthat results every open space park felt that the way time it rains. His feeling is the 2 issues hit the ballot was that if more water is going to "dirty politics". It seems strange be directed into Calabazas that there were 2 opposing issues · Creek, it should be dredged .... on the ballot. Nothing happened in terms of finding out what people Gary Brumbaugh, 20896Maureen wanted to do. If it is put back on Way, commented it seems to him the ballot, it should be very if all the elements of the plan. simple and only one issue. add up to a very poor plan, the plan ~hould be judged a "poo.r Callon: ~ointed out that the plan" and gotten rid of. He developer not only has an interest believes there are a couple of re: existing conditions on the other possibilities this city tentative map, but he owns property · . and has the right to de"~lop same. could address to the useage 'of Parker Ranch, and he doesn't Secondly, she personally~7was in- believe the City is going to volved with plea to state legislature address those issues if it and Mid-Peninsula Regional Park insists on building. homes on' District, and doesn't believe thos~ that hill called "Parker Ranch~" efforts are'going to.go anywhere. It.~is the only open hillside in this community that is still un- Brumbaugh: Comes from a family of developed..Any open space the developers. Little use to go ahead city does have has been chosen with a development p'~an that is not to be developed for fine parks, going to make a profit. If there b~t there is no open space that is an over-riding reason why the has been left in a natural state. property is not to be developed, He would submit the use of this the City Council and Planning property as an open space park. Commission have a perfect obligation to say "no". He believes the 11 - VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS .' Mr.. Crowther D. TO CONSIDER APPEAL OF Distributed letter summarizing PLANNING COMMISSIDN FINDINGS key bases for appeal. .E.I.R. is ON CONSISTENCY WITH CITY'S basis. Also, inquired re:~ State- GENERAL PLAN ON APPROVED' ment of Overriding Considerations TENTATIVE MAP (SD-1339, PARKER. filed with the County by the City. RANCH) (Cont'd.) Purpose of this Statement is to state the plan mitigates all adverse Mr. Brumbaugh ~ environmental impacts. There isn't evidence to support it, and there developer would want to come is a lot of evidence.to show that to some kind of conclusion. In it is wrong. the final analysis, City is Referenced Exhibit "D" of tentative dealing with the public vs a map, wherein in one case it says corporation, and corporations the developer should oonstruct an like to ~,Ikeep~their~skirts adequate channel from the silt basin clean.". to the existing inlet of the Arguello culvert. Also says he should con- Russ Crowther, 20~88 NoradaCourt,z struct berms around Arguello culvert pointed out the City of San Jose to prpvide 3 feet of head without has a regulation prohibiting flooding existing homes. Further building on slopes that are on, it says these things are under greater than 15 percent. In the jurisdiction of the Santa Clara this case, there should be Valley Water District; therefore, adequate evidence that there it is internally inconsistent. are hazards in that every home put on the site creates impervious There are public hazards which have surface which causes the water not been evaluated or addressed. to come off the hill in greater Geologic hazards and noise were not quantities and higher vel~c±ties., addressed. He has summarized that causing more erosion of ~e creek the City has not inventoried its banks. Mitigating measures open space resources; i.e., Parker proposed do not mitigate, and Ranch is not indicated as open in some cases, make conditions space. General Plan itself is worse. Believe the City's first internally inconsistent. obligation is to protect its Manyio~ ~s ~ve b~e~ l~in~'~ith~ residents. the fi0o~'i~g pr~Bl~mYo~ 'abo~t 8 Expressed strong objection to years. Present General Plan, which conditions that have been out~ was adopted 4 years ago, states: lined for this appeal, indicatihg "Action shnuld be taken now to he is not appealing only on the accommodate the increased run-off basis of inconsistency with the from additional development." Also General' Plan, but appealing mentions that 1.5 million dollars accordining to conditions of in damage was done in 1955 when Saratoga Ordinance 9.2, which there weren't many homes in that says you can appeal with regard area. We can't contine to develop to Section 66474 of the Californi and add more run-off and keep Government Code, which-provides worrying about problems of the the City shall not approve such . future -- we have to solve them a development if it creates first and then move ahead. public safety hazards, if it'is inconsistent with the General The portign of the General Plan Plan, or if the density pro- which states "The hills of Saratoga posed for development is gre~ter provide the City's most important than the site can tolerate. and valuable scenic beauty" also . relate to density of development, Belief is that all of public and one of the key things the City concerns are directly pro- should use in evaluating density portional to number of homes of development. allowed on the site.' - 12 V.I. PUBLIC HEARINGS D. TO CONSIDER APPEAL OF City Attorney advised that the PLANNING COMMISSION FINDINGS Subdivision Ordinance takes over ON CONSISTENCY WITH CITY'S and requires¥-~=~Y .... storm GENERAL PLAN ON APPROVED drains to our criteria, which is TENTATIVE MAP (SD-1339, PARKER never put on the tentative map. RANCH) (Cont'd.) Rouse: Would citizens have any Laura Maley, 20814 Norada Court, right of input or know when this supports John Weir in his work will be taken up by the Council? in investigating tentative map. Believes flooding issue has City Attorney: Recollection at the time Council certified E.I.R. been brushed under the carpet. as correct, one of the directions She does not believe we are going to say we will approve of Council was that all engineering the tentative map, assuming plans and specs, at least as to that the flooding problem will drainage, would be submitted to the Council for approval prior to be solved, when we donl~ know departmental approval. Therefore, if there is a solution which would allow 98 homes to be it would be up to-the City Council. built on that property and pro- vide the proper~run-off Rouse: If the soil should fail, · under whatever circumstances, under Joan Rouse, 12336 Arroyo de the homes built on steeper slopes, Arguello. Inquired if she is who retains financial liability? correct in understanding that City Manager replied the Project the developer will submit a Engineer is~responsible for certi- plan for drainage and sewer facilities and this will be fying that those meet the conditions. reviewed by Planning Committee Rouse: Any way that the City can and City Engineer. write it in such a way that those Mayor Kraus: The City Council who file the reports, their organi- has also requested to review. it. zational representatives, or the corporation assume responsibility in Inquired if approval is again the case of failure? put on an inadequate system, Matteoni: He does not believe what recourse will homeowners there is a case that has come down have. which would put that kind of City Manager: Normally in the liability on the City. land development process, the City Engineer gives final write H.S. Banion, 20775 Norada Court, off, based on conditions of Commented re: Prospect Road tentative map. Homeowners will narrowing at Via Roncole to 2 lanes. not necessarily have any re- The little piece of property at course if it seems to be in- this locat'ion protrudes out to adequate at that time. Prospect, creating dangerous situation. He inquired what pro- Kalb: Condition "L" on tenta- vision the Cityis making on that tive map says the developer is area of Prospect past Via Roncole to construct storm line as p&r to Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. Also master drainage plan, and commented about chuckholes, parti- directed by the Director of cularly on the right side of the Public Works, compatible with road in front of the barber shop· the E.I.R. recommendations. He is disturbed thinking about the Question re: E.I.R. recommen- additional traffic Vith or without dations. Does this mean if the Parker Ranch. the Council feels there' are larger mitigating measures re- Kraus: The City has no plans for quired of the storm drainage improvement at this time, due to than are suggested in the E.I.R. lack of funds· or tentative map, that we are City Manager advised if the property stuck? ---. .... _ ............. ~ were developed and Texaco Station VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS Mr. Heiss D.. TO CONSIDER APPEAL OF This is work to be done by the PLANNING COmmISSION FIIqDINGS developer, and the developer is to ON CONSISTENCY WITH CITY'S construct a storm drain along the GENERAL PLAN ON APPROVED east side of the project, per the TENTATIVE ~P (SD-1339, PARKER requirements of the City Engineer. RANCH) (Cont'd.). The storm drain will have to go into a 100-year storm driteria. City Manager Re:'grading Prospect Creek. No question that the developer.'is going improved, and the frontagei~'I~- improved, the street would bE" to dredge the Creek. widened. Only way the City . Re: construction ~f' storm drain from could take initiative is to Arroyo de Arguello to CalabaZas · condemn the frontage and widen Creek, conyeying flow from Prospect the street. Creek which,presently cannot be handled by existing culvert. Dick Feldon, 20817 Hillmoor~ indicated he would make a plea In addition,!~existing 36-inch RCP that the Council think care- shall be disconnected from existing fully before allowing Hillmoor culvert and conveyed by a new by- to be connected in any way with pass storm drain which will convey a street like Stelling. Another water directly to Calabazas Creek. 'danger is during the summer months during hours when people These are .specifically sp~lled out in the mitigation measures that are are returning from work,' the th~ developer's responsibility, and suns hangs over the hills, and turning ontozHillmoor from no question that through this re- Arroyo, you cannot see traffic view, the problem will be fixed. orpeople on the street. The This will result in an expenditure of $300,000 by the devel6per. school property, if developed, would carry about 78 homes, so there would be the thru traffic Re: conditions. He has never from Stelling, traffic'from seen a set of more rigorous, de- Parker Ranch, traffic fr6m the manding, excessive conditions than school property, and believes. it were developed on this particular is against the intent of the project, and they were done~o to General Plan toLhave a neighbor- speak to all the concerns brought out. hood road connected with a major Additionally, design review criteria road like Stelling. will have ~o be met~ A great deal was done to make absolutely sure Bill Heiss, 925 Regent Street, what you ended up with was a totally San Jose, When original sub- aesthetic and pleasing proposition. division approved, it was re- viewed by the County Engine&r's Re: open space. There are approxi- Office, and plans were done in mately 67 acres still in open space, an entirely different way than with an additional 40 acres, which they are today. His feeling that approximates 111 acres of land con- enough data has been gathered trolled by scenic easem'ents. so that resulting improvements will take care of the problems. Re: traffic circulation. Pointed In the mitigation discussions, out on the contour. map possible it was verbalized what the connections, indicating with this intention was, and there are plan, it allows the choice -= Drovisos throughout all of the depending on what'development takes conditions that the City place -- where the connections would Engineer has the right to review be made. Explained concept of 'loop direct, correct and even system, indicating if this is in after e~erybody is signed off, the community interest~ this could ~he City Engineer can still re- be done. Plan 'does not commit the quire data. Re: criter{a of the City.to any decision. Santa Clara Valley Water District they continually up the~eriteria Kalb: Re: concern over who is for the 1 percent~torm. responsible for making various water improvements, is there no question VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS D. TO CONSIDER APPEAL OF Crowther: If you go back to. PLANNING CO~{ISSION FINDINGS Exhibit "B", it refers to social an ON CONSISTENCY WITH CITY'S economic conditions, which make it GENERAL PLAN ON APPROVED infeasible to do the work on Prospect TENTATIVE MAP (SD-1339, PARKER Creek. Above that, it says: "Santa RANCH) (Cont'd.) Clara Valley Water District shall be responsible for 'improvements Mr. Katb around the Arguello culvert." of who is responsible for making Heiss: There. was a statement in improvements. the'~.E~7!~'~ '~n~. ~h~mi~iga~i6n ........ . recomn~dat'i~ns tha~ !~hey did not" Mr. Heiss: Correct;~'.in-the-mifi~ incorporate -- that because of ~'iSh~f~' i~"'~D~6~ic~llX ~!'~ ~ social economic conditions, they st~te~"~h~'~h~'~g~%7~'~[o do. could not build this. It talks It is purely the developer's about a siltation facility on the responsibility. school property, and it was con- cluded this would be an unusually Kalb: Mr. Heiss had previously excessive burden placed on the indicated roads on the front Parker Ranch development. Under side of the hill would not in- condition 5, it require~ con. volve anything more than a 3 to struction of appropriate siltation 1 cut; in looking at the.tenta- facilities within the project. tive map, most of the roads One item that.was incorporated are specified with 2 to 1 cuts.. under the mitigation measures Requested clarification. recommehded by the E.I.R. was the construction of this siltation Heiss: The .typical section facility. illustrates a 2 to 1 as a maximum; however, in looking .Mr. RobinsOn: Under the California at specific grading criteria, EnVironmental Quality Act guide- they are all shown at 3. to~ 1. lines Planning Commission is only Jlso, condition J~of~he = required to make 1 of the 3 required ? ~nf~t'i~S~if'ihall~~ findings.., "B" and "C" on page 3 'i~df~tes'3~o"r'~r~di~g~' ' clearly indicates that alterati~H~ are within the responsibility'0~ Callon: Where th~ emergency jurisdictions of another public gate is and the 2 c~l-de-sacs agency, and such changes have been go back-to-back, how~many adopted by such other other homes are served..on each side? agencies and can and should be adopted by other agencies. There- Heiss: Approximately 25 each. fore, if they made this finding, Parker Ranch may not be resDonsible Russell Crowther, ~eferred to for this. "C" says !'I.~ake~ i~easible findings of the Planning the following possibleTmitigation Commission and a note that measures. The Planning Commission says: "The storm drain system was able to make those two particular as shown on the tentative map findings.l" Item "A" is the key is not approved." Yet, Mr. finding involved -- they were able Heiss refers to the tentative to make the other two which are map plan as the one that applies. beyond the s'cope ~Parker RanCh This is somewhat confusing. development. Kraus: He believes the intent Crowther: The other specific .was that while there was some conditions that go with the tentative storm drainage shown on the map don't address these issues at tentative map, that was not the all. The only thing that addresses complete system. it is Exhibit D.. He would contest · ' this in'that it is not purely a problem of Santa Clara Water District. There are 2 public agencies involved. VI?'.PUBLIC HEARINGS D. TO CONSIDER APPEAL OF Jack Styles, 20626 Ritanna Court, PLANNING COMMISSION FINDINGS concerned that Council may be over- ON CONSISTENCY WITH CITY'S looking capacity of Calabazas Creek GENERAL PLAN ON APPROVED and the culvert that goes under the TENTATIVE MAP (SD-1339, PARKER intersection at Prospect and Saratoga- RANCH) (Cont'.d.) Sunnyvale.I Commented re: creek conditions during last winter, where- George Sycular, Profesbor of by creek was about 30 feet wide and Civil Engineering, San Jose 5 feet deep., going 30 to 40 miles per State, specialty: hydrolics hour. Concerned that Kelley-Gordon and water resources. Retained channel may dump into that same by Heiss to look at this pro- culvert. ject. Mayor Kraus pointed out City Council The berms were designed to con- will be meeting with Santa Clara tain the flow from Prospect Valley W~ter District next Tuesday Creek and to prevent from to look at some of these issues. running into the subdivision. At the present time, if no M/S: Matteoni/Kalb to close the projectis built and the public hearing. Carried unanimously. 100-year flood occurred, it Public hearing closed at 11:00 P.M. would be a, disaster. The pro- posal would not make the .~aib.'F'~ed' ~nc~ r~?._~.~ situation worse -- it would ~'iSu~ i~acts..'Also'referenceS make the situation better, and 'in'~neral'PlaH're~:'/~tte~'~° he is confused by t~e oppos~ionl ~'f~{[~ ~f~i~p~s~'e.i~h ~FFo~'~'= ~ ~_~_.ArgU.e. ~jj ~!~.~.e~,~o~t~_~b~ ~_f~o.~l_lo~w~d. ," P~ss Crowther: Received a state- ment from Santa3Clara Valley Callon: Concern re: proposed Water District that they thought density.. Traffic proposed is the culvert under Pr,ospect for more than this hillside should bear. the 100-year flow would take. 420 cubic feet per second of Following additional deliberation, flow, with 3 feet of head. M/S: Corr/Matteoni to uphold the Also indicated the annual. Planning Commission's decision tha~ flood flow was 20 cubic feet the tentative map is consistent. per second. For a much larger with the General Plan. The motion culvert, it can be seen there was carried 3 to 2, Councilmen is no way that culvert can Kalb and Callon in opposition. pass less flow than the one under Prospect. Further, 3 feet above the culvert is level with the railroad tracks, and howyou can construct a berm that goes up as high as the rail. road tracks and.protect homes that are 5 feet below that. In analyzing cu~erts,. it can be found that toL~pass: ,~20:~'~B'i~if~t~ ~f':~e~d~7 i~ tak~ 'm~re-fT~ 6 ~e~ of .... head through the culvert. Referenced Synn home on Canyon. View Drive and the fact there is a present law suit attacking the City for allowing a building permit of that home. .- VIII. COMMUNICATIONS (taken out of COMMUNICATIONS order) A. ~hil Young, 14101 Pepper M/S: Kalb/M~'~'f"~~d the Lane, requesting refund of storm drain fees under 50 percent Parks and Recreation and Storm fees, in lieu of his terminating Drain Fee construction until neWio~dinance is adopted and in lieu of his con- tributions toward making that process possible. Carried unanimously by voice vote~= Recess and Reconvene VII. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS' ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS A. MAYOR B. COUNCIL AND COMMISSION REPORTS 1.~.CITY~OUNCIL-RE~PORT~RE-:_..CO~7< At the request of Colonel Barco, ~ S~DEtL~TION'OF REQUEST BY -_~< this request continued to the ER~ES% f' BARCO'REi ~ITE~ ..~ next regular meeting of the Council. D~S,~AN_q~F~BLEM' AT ~A~%NO'~ BARCO AND ALEENDALE AVENUE " 2 7 ALr0N - ATTENDANCE TO Reported Planning Commission dis- '~ ~'P~N~f~G COMMISSION MEETING cussed proposal to extend Canyon View Drive to a cul-de-sac. This will again be discussed by the Planning Commission. 3.~Q R~- COUNT -H.C'.D.~A..--~i Reported that n6n-entitlement MEE~NG~'~'~"="~=~~ cities, along Wit,h the Count~, have determined goal of 60 percent of Community Development money to be spent on housing and housing related projects. 4. KALB - TRANSPORTATION Reported Upcoming review of status AGENCY MEETING of existing FoA.U. Program for receiving public comments and project proposals - November 22nd. C. DEPARTMENT HEADS AND OFFICERS DEPARTMENT HEADS AND OFFICERS 1. REPORTS'FROM DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS RE: a. Entrance to Argonaut Public WorkS;Director to follow up Shopping Center with Argonaut Shopping ~nter owner pertaining to change of island on internal portion of shopping center Status report to follow. b. Problems with Pine council affirmed policy re: mainten- Beetles in Peach Hill tenance. of streetgtrees, directing Road Area staff to notify respective property owners concerning responsibility. VII. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS Cont'd.). ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS D. CITY MANAGER 1. Revenue and Expenditure :Noted. No comments at this time. Report for 1st Quarter, 1978-79 Fiscal Year 2. Report on Traffic, ~ .... ~'~'~ Approved City Manager's report, Geologic, Hydrologi~nd' and authorized to proceed with Economic.Impact on , agreements for subject work. Development in West~rn~L' Hill Area 3. Report Re: Modified Agenda Approved with modifications as Format submitted to City Manager. City Manager to follow up with formal resolution for November 15 meeting. 4. Letter from Superintendent Council concurred in City Manager's at West Valley College Re:. recommendation to respond that Use Permit Condition 7. is appropriate the'~Icotteg~I'~aMe~a formal request for' modifi~ti0n to use permit. VIII. COMMUNICATIONS (Cont'd.) COMMUNICATIONS A. ~ITTEN (Cont'd.) 1. Charles Hunter, 20846 Noted and filed; City Manager to Meadow Oak Drive, with respond. information re: Parker Ranch E.I.R. 2. Ms. ~oan L. Rouse, Noted and filed; City Manager to 12336 Arroyo de Arguello, respond. re: flooding problem 3. John A. Brigham, Jr., Noted and filed; City Manager to 18591 Perego Way, re: respond. Saratoga Community Library Solar Heating Unit, etc. 4.1Ms. Connie CurryLawrence, Noted and filed; City Manager to 21823 Via Regina, opposing respond. Water Improvement Project 78-~ 5. John W&ir,'Arroyo de Noted and f~led: Arguello, reply to City Mgr~s letter 10/24/78, re; Parker Ranch E.I.R. 6. Dorothy and O.I. SchmaeIzle Noted. and filed; City Manager to 14410 Nutwood Lane, objecting respond. to change of name - Douglass Lane. 7. ~be ~'= i, '~ Noted and filed. 20685 'Warderl'RoaaT~re': ~- posed development ParkerRand VIII. COI~4UNICATIONS .(Cont'd.) 8. Petition from residents of ~ Noted and filed; City Manager to Douglass Lane objecting to respond re: Council action~ changing a portion of'Douglass Lane to Bonita Ave. 9. Letter to Planning Comm{ssion~ Noted and filed. from Deryl Cram, Associate Superintendent-Business, Cupertin6 Union School Dist., enclosing Resolution re: bicycle lanes. IX. ADJOURNMENT ADJOURNMENT il M/S: Callon/Corr the meeting be adjourned. Carried unanimously. ,~ Meeting adjourned at 1:00 A.M. .CityR°b~r~