Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-01-1986 City Council Minutes MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL TIME: October 1, 1986 PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga CA TYPE: Regular Meeting 1. ROLL CALL: Mayor Hlava, Councilmembers Clevenger, Peterson present 7:06 P.M. Absent: Councilmembers Moyles, Anderson 2. CEREMONIAL ITEMS: A. Resolution 2377 Concerning United Nations Day CLEVENGER/PETERSON MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION. Passed 3-0. Councilmember Anderson present at 7:10 P.M. 3. ROUTINE MATTERS A. Approval of Minutes: Councilmember Clevenger requested a correction of the Minutes of September 17, 1986, on page 5, first paragraph, first sentence, delete Councilmember Clevenger to read, "Mayor Hlava concurred..." Final sentence, delete Councilmember Clevenger to read, "Councilmember Anderson was assured..." Councilmember Moyles contacted CounCilmember CIevenger regarding his concern on the Batson Appeal, namely, that the Council needs to build the record of deliberation on the conversion of second units. Councilmember Moyles remembered a comment by the City Attorney that the City would be more favorable to converting existing attached second units rather then detached second units; he asked that the Minutes reflect the decision making process on this Appeal. The City Attorney suggested that the procedure would be to include a more detailed summary of this decision in the Minutes or amend the Resolution; he clarified this, stating that the Minutes were fairly complete and suggested to the Council that the Resolution be reviewed and amended, if necessary. Councilmember Clevenger restated Councilmember Moyles' concern; he feels that other appeals of this kind will be heard by the Council; appellants should be presented with guidelines by which the Council reaches decisions in this matter. Councilmember Moyles stated to Councilmember Clevenger that, "there is a value on having Minutes reviewed on Aspesi; we need to build the record, specifically, Councilmembers made a policy that attached (i.e. second units) are looked at differently, more generously, than detached." Councilmember Peterson stated that he did not recall that the Council was more favorable to attached second units than detached second units on the Batson Appeal. The City Attorney clarified his position stating that a detached second unit may have greater requirements; detached second units would require a larger land area. He advised the Council to amend the - Resolution. Councilmember Peterson stated that the Council wished to encourage citizens to legalize second units; he is not in favor of requiring that second units be attached in order fur the Council to review them. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL ~ Page 2 OCTOBER 1, 1986 ROUTINE MATTERS Continued Mayor Hlava noted the various findings made by Councilmembers on'ihe Batson appeal; consideration of attached second units Versus detached second units w. as not the issue. The City Attorney suggested that the Council approve the Minutes of September 17, 1986, and amend the Resolution at a later date. The City Attorney requested the following changes on page 3, first paragraph, fast sentence, delete City Attome, y Toppel to read, "Community Services Director Argow..." On page 5, New Business, delete sentence The City is not insured, to read, "The City has exposure with respect to self insured retension and must operate..." On the second sentence, delete the word City to read, "...delegates set~ement authority for certain claims to the Plan." On page 9, last paragraph, delete the second sentence and add, "The City is not proactive in the sense of seeking out violations; however, when a violation is known, the City enforces setback requirements in a residential district." CLEVENGEP,/ANDERS ON MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS AMENDED. Passed 4-0. B. Approval of Warrant List: CLEVENGER/ANDERSON MOVED TO APPROVE THE WARRANT LIST. Passed 4-0. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR - CLAIMS: A. Claim submitted by Pacific B~ll Security CLEVENGER/ANDERSON MOVED T° ACCEPT RECOMMENDED ACYION, DENYING CLA]3/I AND REFERRING CLAIM TO CITY MANAGER. Passed 4-0. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR - OTHER ITEMS: A. Planning Commission Actioqs, September 24, 1986, - Note and file. B. ' Parks and ecreat'o Commfssion Minutes, September 15, 1986, Note and file. R C. Library Commission Actions~ September 24, 1986, Note and file. D. Resolution 2378 upholding P!anning Commission Denial of Batson Application (heard September 17, 1986) I F. Final Acceptance and Resoluiion 2379 Accepting Dedication of Streets, Tr. 6766, Pinn Bros. E. Approval of Request for Street Closure subject to meeting all Municipal Code Requirements-Great S aratog~ to Los Gatos Footrace, January 1, 1987. G. Modification Agreement - Pr6missory Note. H. Construc:tion Acceptance, SD 1598, D. Flick, 14411 Quito Rd. I. Award of Contract for ConFess Springs Parking lot to Wattis Construction in the amount of $59,193.38 subject to receipt and execution of P.G.& E. Contract PETERSON/CLEVENGERMOVED TO ADOPT CONSENT CALENDAR. Passed 4-0. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 3 OCTOBER 1, 1986 5. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS AND THE PUBLIC: A. Oral Communications from the Public and Commissions Ms. Dede Sandler, Saratoga Community Against Substance Abuse, (CASA), read a letter from Califomians for Drag Free Yout/~ al~ut Red Ribbon Week, October 27 - November 3, 1986. The purpose is to raise community awareness of the current drug abuse crisis and establish a commitment to stem the demand for drugs at the local level. The Saratoga City Council was asked to co-sponsor the event. Sec.on. dly, a copy of a request to the Sheriffs Department asking that one of their officers participate in the Impact Training Program was presented. B. Written Communications from the Public 1) Charles R. Bilek, requesting investigation of apparent hazardous road condition on Sobey Road. Councilmember Clevenger stated her concern regarding this situation and asked that the reply be expedited quickly. PETERS ON/CLEVENGER MOVED TO ACCEPT STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO REFER TO THE CITY ENGINEER FOR A REPLY. Passed 4-0. 2) Marcia Fariss, urging Council to maintain position against interchanges in Saratoga on Route 85. Staff recommendation to acknowledge and fde accepted. 3) Robert T. Borawskl, urging Council to take action to prevent G&K Tracking from operating a business in a residential zone. Councilmember Clevenger suggested that the appropriate action would be to send a copy of the Planning Director'S comments to Mr. Borawski. The City Manager stated that no action was required unless the Planning Commission were to review this; however, it appears that G&K TraCking is abiding by the Conditions of the Use Permit. The City will respond by letter. 6. OLD BUSINESS A. Report on Modification of Median on Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd., at its intersection with Verde Vista Lane Mr. Robert Shook, City Engineer, stated that this Item is before the City Council. Previously, the Council, with the advice of die Public Safety Commission, directed Staff to contact CalTrans regarding modification of the median at ~aratoga-Sunnyvale Rd. and Verde Vista Lane. A copy of the letter from CalTrans was available for review by the Council. Due to funding, this project will not be initiated until 1988-89 fiscal year; however, they will grant the City an encroachment permit to complete the work at the City's expense. Mr. Shook stated that this modification would improve the traffic situation at this intersection, ' however, there is not a high accident history at this location. He recommended that the City allow the State to fund this modification. In response to Councilmember Peterson's question, Mr. Shook stated that the City would not be reimbursed by the State upon completion of the project by die City. MEEI1NG OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 4 OCTOBER 1, 198;6 OLD BUSINESS Continued In response to questions by Councilmembers Peterson and Anderson, Mr. Shook stated that h*'e 1 viewed the etter as a commitment on th6 part of CalTrans that the project would be done; however, it would not be completed before the date given. Councilmember Clevenger asked that confirmation be sought from CalTrans regarding projected date of completion of the project. Councilmember Peterson stated that due to the increased congestion on Sunnyvale-Saratoga Rd. and the potential for an accident at this intersection, he is favorable to City completion of the necessary medifi~ation. Mr. Shookstated that contract documents 'seeking bids on this project could be ready in four weeks. Mayor Hlava questioned the urgency of the need and whether the City wishes to depend on CalTrans to complete the needed modification. The Mayor favor~l working with CalTrans on the $250,000 Big Basin Way project or the Route 85 Corridor rather than a $3,500 modification of an intersection. However, the City has not budgeted for the project; this item is currently not on the policy development agenda for discussion with other Capital Improvement Projects; the Mayor favored placing this item on the policy development agenda for discussion along with other capital project priorities for 1987-88. Councilmember Clevenger concurred and asked for further clarification from CalTrans. Council:member Peterson disagreed with placing the item on the policy development agenda and favored completing the project this year. Consensus reached that the modification of median on Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd. and Verde Vista Lane will be placed on the policy development agenda for consideration as a Capital Improvement Project for the coming fiscal year. Mr. Shook will seek further information from CalTmns. 7. NEW BUSINESS A. Oral Report on Measure A Strategic Plan from Will Kempton, Executive Director, County Traffic Authority. [ Mr. Will Kempton stated that the major ~ontributors needed to develop a Strategic Plan, i.e, an action or implementation plan for the Measure A program are: Revenue situation with the Measure IA Program - Expeditures and scope of the Program. Inititally, when the Measure A Program was put together 1.1 billion dollars in revenues was forecast; revised conservative estimates'are now about 900 million dollars in escalated dollars over the ten year lii~ of the Measure A program. This projection was validated by a feasibility study performed by D~_k>itteHaskins and ~ ~vho participated in the development of the bonding proposal. I The cost of the Program: Balanced against the original 1.1 billion dollars in estimated revenues was a program cost at 1.2 billion dollars;! unfortunately the original estimate did not include such things as engineering cost (13% of total program cost), significant scope increases during the last two years in particular elements of the program. The program cost for the Measure A Program was defined in the original ballbt measure at 1.4 billion dollars. This results in a half billion dollar deficit; the strategic plan is!designed to deal with this deficit defining what is to be built and when it can be built. 1 There has been fairly extensive staff involvement in the development of this Plan; the Technical Advisory Committee consists of the Public Works Staff from the Cities involved as well as the County. Various interest groups have also contributed to the development of the Program. In addition, there have been meetings with the City Councils involved; workshops with the Measure A Policy Advisory Board have ~been conducted and discussions with the Traffic Authority have been held. : MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 5 OCTOBER 1, 1986 NEW BUSINESS Continued Mr. Kempton reiterated the current status of the Measure A Plan; originally an approach was adopted wherein the Traffic Authory would be presented with alternatives, i.e., a group of project listings that the Traffic Authority might select for funding of the Measure A program; implict in this approach was the fact that some work would fall out. Options explored were: A. focused improvements on Route 85 B. concentrated improvements on Highway 101 and Highway 237, setting a budget limit on the Route 85 corridor C. focused improvements on Route 237 When the Policy Adviso~ Board fu:st considered the status of the approach on the Measure A program, there was a basic problem of leaving elements of the program out. The PAB reminded the Traffic Authority that there should be a commitment to the total program and that it was necessary to maintain the original commitmenL The PAB further suggested that there be a technical ranking of projects so that they could be picked on the basis of their overall impact, either from a traffic alleviation standpoint or a cost effectiveness standpoint. The Traffic Authority responded by accepting the concept of the program, agreeing with the PAB that the commitment should be retained for the entire program; however, instead of the technical ranking suggested by the PAB, the Traffic Authority wanted a systems approach. Whatever is put together for the Measure A program, in terms of identifying what is to be funded with Measure A revenues as opposed to what is to be funded from other sources and through other means, should be done on a systems approach that works. The Traffic Authority proposes to develop a strategy as pan of the Measure A Strategic Plan to fund the remaining program. The prirna~ source of the additional funding will come through State and Federal sources. This is a change in the way business was done under the Measure A program; in the past funds were invested in the local system (the state highway system) and a requirement asking that the County minimum be satisfied and state and federal dollars were invested elsewhere in the state. As a result of change in philosophy, the state will be asked to put more money in Santa Clara County as a result of efforts made on the local level. There are five other locations in the state with Measures on the November ballot similar to Measure A in Santa Clara County; thus the county finds itself in a leadership position in this regard and the Measures in other locations should result in allies for Santa Clara County in dissussions with the State. These Measures are: In Contra Costa County, Measure C In Alameda County, Measure B Following the Traffic Authority's response, staff was directed to develop Alternative D; this was a minimum plan, i.e, a plan to focus on the system, putting available Measure A revenues into the system in a workable approach and identifying as pan of the Strategic Planning effort that portion of the program which will be funded from the other sources. Staffproposesto meet with the Technical Adviso~ Committee involving the Public Works staff in the coming weeks to review this approach. On October 16th there will be another meeting of the PAB to consider the report and the information derived from Technical Adviso~ staff; on October 23rd, the Traffic Authority will be presented with this plan for adoption of a draft document. This document will be circulated for comment, public meetings will be held and a final document will be presented to the Traffic Authority on December 1 st for adoption of the Strategic Plan. In response to Councilmember Peterson's question, Mr. Kempton stated that the Environmental Document included a figure of 40-60 million dollars for a full 20 ft. deep depression of the freeway through the entire city limits of Saratoga; cost estimates are currently being prepared. The question of depression of the freeway will be reviewed, not only for the City of Saratoga, but for areas in San Jose also; other alternatives may be considered, such as panial depression of the freeway. Much can be done to accommodate the needs of the communities involved. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIl Page 6 OCTOBER 1, 1986 NEW BUSINESS Continued In response to Councilmember Clevenger's question, Mr. Kempton stated that two things will be done to make up for the financial sh0rtfall: Reducing the scope of some projects to reduce the dollar amount. For example, a review of the 1.4 billion dollar program, which contains elements far beyond the scope of the original Measure A program; an example of this is the 237-880 intemhange which was originally proposed at 32 million dollars and is no~included in the 1.4 billion dollar figure, at 156 million dollars. Review of imtovative financing techniques i.e, pumhasing federal aid apportio. nment at 80 cents on the dollar which netted 6 million dollars this year. Them is always the hope that the economy will turn around and revenues will increase. The bulk of the money will have to come from State and Federal resources. Projects like 237 and 880 will qualify for federal funds. The projects which best qualify for state and federal funds are 237 and 880 because there are high state priorities; Route 85 is a Federal Urban Route and is of more significance locally. In response to Councilmember Anderson's question, Mr. Kemp ton stated that: Alternative A. focused the bulk of the Measure A dollars on Route 85 Alternative B. set a budget level for Route 85, with greater funding for 237 and 101 Alternative C involved extensive improvements on Route 237, including the 8 laning of that facility which was never intended in the Measure A program; this entailed a cost of 400 million dollars , Alternative D, which staff was asked to develop, was a minimum plan approach looking at deferring interchanges at certain locations, phasing improvements, omitting some lower waffle volume freeway-to-freeway Connectors, allowing the use of monies available to all pans of the program and deferring some construction for state and federal participation or wherever additional funding will bd found. Alternative D is the preferred aiternalive at this ~th r W' espect to depression of the freew!y, Mr. Kempton stated that mitigation is a very expensive element of the total conslruction cost; however, the Traffic Authority has made it clear that they are interested in a very stlong mitigation program. Intemhanges cost 2 1/2 - 5 million dollars per intemhange; elimination of the intemhanges at Prospect Rd., Saratoga Ave. and Quito Rd. would result in a savings: of about 10 million dollars. In response to Mayor Hlava's questions! Mr. Kempton stated that once the draft of the Strategic Plan is adopted by the Traffic Authority, public meetings will be held; they will not be public hearings since this will not be a formal legal process. City Councils will be offered an opportunity for a formal presentation~on the plan and comments from City Councils will be welcome. The circulation process is to insure that the opportunity for comment is present. On December 1st, at the regular Traffic Authority Meeting, the plan will be adopted. · . 1 onceruing F e Be B. Agreement c nr 11 Mayor Hlava reviewed the background pf the agreemenL PETERSON/CLEVENGER MOVED TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA. Passed 4-0. C. Resolution establishing Schedule of Fees and Deposits The City Manager stated that when the City Council adopted the new Code, the City Attorney placed a general lartguage statement in each section stating that fees will be set on a periodic basis by Resolution. of the City Council. The old Code has been reviewed and new fees were listed as needed. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 7 OCTOBER 1, 1986 NEW BUSINESS Continued Councilmember Clevenger stated her concern regarding changes in the fee swucture. The City Manager replied that the two major changes were: 1. The Resolution contains an entirely new fee structure for Building Permits based upon the 1985 Uniform Building Code 2. Planning Permit Application fees have been combined and added in the Noticing fees which previously were billed separately. Other than the above, the fees are esdentially the same. Some fees not specified, were added, such as an applications for off-road vehicle permits or card club licenses. Staff has done extensive study on the number of hours required to process applications; the finance department applied hourly rates. State law requires that cities cannot charge more than ihe cost of providing the service; however, to be fair, taxpayers should not have to subsidize fees. The interests of the applicant must be balanced with fairness to the taxpayer. This was the structure upon which the fee schedule was built. Councilmember Clevenger noted the lack of supporting information upon which the fee schedule was developed and requested that the Council have an opportunity to discuss any questions they may have. Some specific questions were discussed with the City Manager, in particular, Councilmember Clevenger asked that the cost of appeals regarding neighborhood subdivisions be discussed. The City Manager stated that the fee schedule presented took four months to complile. Previous fee schedules were found in various places in the Municipal Code; it has now been assembled into a cohesive document. This is a major accomplishment. Councilmember Clevenger asked that approval of the fee schedule be delayed until discussion has occurred regarding existing fees as compared to proposed fees. Councilmember Peterson favored adoption of the resolution; Councilmember Anderson wished to discuss at least the portions of the Fee Schedule Councilmember Clevenger brought up. City Attomey Toppel noted a change on Exhibit "A" Fee Schedule, page 2, Peddlers & solicitors, Permit application fee to read, $100; Permit renewal fee to read, $30. Mayor Hlava stated that there was a desire by the Council to further discuss this issue; the City Manager replied that concerns heard from the City Council on the issue of cost of appeal for neighborhood subdivisions (Exhibit "B" appeals) would suggest that if this is the Council's primary concern, the cost of such an appeal could be changed to a figure acceptable m the Council. This could be revised later as necessary. However, a compilation of old fees or a report comparing old and new fees is not the issue; the issue is the cost of providing these services as opposed to the cost of providing services in the past. An example of a fee charged to the City of Monte Sereno which has not been updated since 1962 was cited. The City Manager was directed to make available the spreadsheets used to compile the proposed Fee Schedule. This Item will be continued until the City Council Meeting of October 15, 1986. 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Request for General Plan Amendment from very low density residential (1,09 dwelling units per acre) to medium density residential (3.48 units per acre) and rezoning of property from R-l-40,000 to R-1-12,500 (PC). Property is approximately 1.982 acres and is vacant, located at the southwest comer of Glen Una Dr. and Saratoga-Los Gatos Rd. (GPA 86-002) (Duncan) Planning Director Hsia read the "Report to Mayor and City Council," dated September 23, 1986. In response to Councilmember Clevenger's question, he stated that in the past 6 years there have been a total of 11 General Plan changes initiated by similar applications, of which 10 of these appeals were adopted. In additon, there were 5 General Plan changes done for the General Plan Text itself. MEETING OF 'rile CITY COUNCIL Page 8 OCTOBER l, 1.986 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued City Attorney clarified that anyone can apply for a rezoning of their property; both the City Code and State law provide for such application. The City is required to process such applications; however, property owners or the public do not have the right to initiate General Plan changes; this is solely up to the City, through the action of the City Council and the Planning Commission. Thus if an individual applies for a zoning change and because that change is inconsistent with the General Plan, in order to process the application, the City would have to add an amendment to the General Hun. Zoning must be in conformity with the General Plan. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:23 P.M. Mr. Roger Griffin, Paragon Design Group, Inc., representative for the Appellant, stated that the proposal before the Council is for six single story senior citizen homes in three single buildings; these structures will be situated on the site in a manner that preserves all major trees. Over 85% of the :site remains open and without structures. The masonry wall noted on the plan will be placed belfind existing trees which results in a mature, park-like view of the property from off-site. The only access to the property is a deeded entry offof Glen Una Drive. Off-site appearance will be of an estate compound similar to surrounding homes. He asslured the Council that these homes will be individually deeded. This site has approval for two homes. The current proposal is for approximately 12,300 sq. ft. of coverage; development by two 5,000 sq. ft` homes with 3 car garages would result in 11,400 sq. ft` of coverage. These homes are intended for affluent senior citizens in Saratoga. Traffic generation from senior citizen use of this property would be less than two homes with families. Expected population from two homes would be 6-10; this proposal estimates a comparable popni.ation of 9-10. The quality of these homes will be equal to, or greater than the quality of surrounding homes. f th r n open during this procesS;. prior to filing The Duncans, orators o e p openy, h, ave bee very formal application, invitations were sent to neighbors to explain the proposal. The proposal was also presented to a study session of the Planning Commission; the Duncans demonstrated their desire to cooperate by lowering the proposal from 8 homes to 6 homes. Mr. Griffin cited the General Plan, stating that this proposal addresses alternatives needed by residents of the City. He stated that the site in question is appropriate for the proposed use due to its central proximity to transportation, the Village, iSenior Citizen Center, West Valley College, library and medical factires. He reiterated statements made at the Planning Commission Heating addressing the issues raised in the Staff Report. The appellant was prepared to accept as a condition of approval, that should the plan not be completed, the zoning would revert hack to current zoning. I In response to Councilmember Peterson.'s question, Mr. Griffin stated that these units would be approximately 1600. sq. ft`, 2000 sq.f.t. including the garage; price range would be around $400,000. i Mr. John Rankin, 19518 Glen Una Dr., Saratoga, stated that he and his wife are strongly opposed to the drastic zoning changes on the Duncan property which will depreciate the value of their property tremendously. In addition, this change will cause a traffic hazard. Mr. John Nunan, 19651 Glen Una Dr., Saratoga, stated that at the Planning Commission Hearing there was s. large outpouring of i~ublic sentiment against this project, He and his wife are opposed to the rezoning in any form and he believes that the character of the neighborhood would change. In addition, the possibili67 of similar zoning changes would be opened up on other parcels of property. There is a considerable number of condominiums for sale in Saratoga. One of the main functions of city government is to protect citizens from spot zoning changes; individuals moving into an area have a right m assume that spot zoning would not be allowed. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 9 OCTOBER 1, 1986 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Dave Morrison, 19590 Juniper Lane, Saratoga, stated that for the last 60 years this area has been a one acre minimum zoning area; this proposal is a classic example of spot zoning within a detached single family area. He is strongly opposed to the application and provided the Council with a list 707 condominiums in Saratoga, of which 35 are currently for sale. The last two condominium developments in a simillar price range sold slowly and after a year, half of, these condominiums have been turned into rental units. Mr. Duane Walker, 19733 Saratoga-Los Gatos Rd., Saratoga, presented a letter dated October 1, 1986, opposing the project. Mr. Bernard Alter, 19511 Glen Una Dr., Saratoga, stated that he is strongly opposed and feels that this appeal is a step backward for the area. The recreation area of the proposed condominiums will be located in the area adjoining the Alter's property. Approval of this appeal will present a temptation to buy parcels of property for the purpose of development and rezoning property for multi unit use. This will be a precedent that will encourage rezoning. Mrs. Ruth Alter, 19511 Glen Una Dr., Saratoga, stated that she does not appreciate the fact that the proposed recreation build'rag would adjoin the lot line of their property. In addition, there is a traffic hazard at this location. She is vehemently opposed to this type of building. Mayor Hlava summarized the concems the Council has heard as: traffic safety at this location decreased property values setting of a precedent for the city this proposal does not address the identified need of low-cost senior housing opposition to spot zoning historically this area is one acre, low density zoning the possibility of renting the proposed units violation of the General Plan an inappropriate use Dr. Van-Dat-Nguyen, 1955 Three Oaks Way, Saratoga, presented a signed petition and stated two main issues .of concern, namely: opposition to rezoning of this parcel :of property if in fact, these units were for senior citizens, protection should be provided from the traffic hazards of this location. Mr. Walter Andrus, 19431 Saratoga-Los Gatos Rd., Saratoga, stated that all citizens wanted the protection of existing zoning. Of the 20 homeowners he contacted, none were in favor of this proposal. Dr. E. Lawrence, 15200 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, noted that he presented written objections to the Planning Commission and asked that the Council uphold the decision of the Commission. Mrs. Frieda MacKensy, 15311 Belle Ct., Saratoga, stated that she objects to the proposal under consideration; she also objected to the fact that she did not receive any notice of this hearing. Councilmember Peterson informed the audience of noticing procedures and stated that Mrs. MacKensy lives outside the 500 ft. noticing radius. Ms. Fran Franklin, 15177 Park Dr., Saratoga, stated that she is opposed to the spot rezoning of this lot. One argument not mentioned was lack of sewers; the residents of this area are on septic tank system. Six additional houses with septic tanks and fields could very possibly create unwarranted problems. In response to Councilmember Clevenger's question, Ms. Franklin stated that she understood that a sewer linewas being installed; however, it will not extend to Glen Una Dr. ' ' The Mayor asked for a show of hands from the audience of those who opposed this proposal. Mr. Griffin briefly responded to the above statements and stated that the applicants would have to bring the sewer across Saratoga-Los Gatos Rd. in order to develop this property. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 10 OCTOBER 1, 1986 PUBLIC HEAPJjNGS Continued CLEVENGER/PETERSON MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:52 P.Ivl. Passed 4-0· COuncilmember C. levenger addressed the following issues: .Rezoning would dramatically change the Glen Una area and set a precedent for other areas in the City. Good land use is not accomplished by one parcel rezoning. Saratoga residents are c. oncemed that properties will be bought with the intent of tearing down whatever is there and put up something new; the City must guard against such a practice. This appealis precedent setting. Concern by residents that the City "allowed" this project to happen. She noted statements made by the C~ty Attorney addressing this issue. There have been several appeals regarding the Glen Una area; in every appeal the City has upheld the integrity of this area by denying the applicationS. The City has been protective of this area and has a commitment to preserving the area. Councilmember Peterson noted his commitment to senior citizen housing, alternative housing for single families!. and luxury townhomes; however, the General Plan is the guideline fox the City. He is strongly opposed to changing the General Plan in the Glen Una area and will not support a Genera/Plan change. He noted that the hearing of this appeal is the system at work. The Councilmember did not view this proposal as a serious effort to meet the need for senior citizen housing and stated that this proposal would clearly change the character of the area. Councilmember Amderson concurred with opposition to spot zoning and stated that spot zoning is inappropriate for the Glen Una area, as well as for any other area of the city. She affirmed her commitment to the City; the Paul Masson Winery Plan has been carefully worked to properly develop the site. Senior housi~g will be provided on that site; there is no reason for senior housing in the Glen Una area. She noted the sufficiency of $400,000 condominiums in the City at present. She cannot find for this area of the city to be rezoned. Mayor Hlava noted that the Glen Una area has always been R-l-40,000; the length of Saratoga-Los Gatos Rd. does not have a single multi family housing structure. There is no rationale for spot zoning this one parcel :of property. HLAVA/ANDERSON MOVED TO ACCEPT THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT GPA 86-002. Passed 4-0. I · . . I . . . f v n T B. Consideranon o Re ocauon of Business LIce se issued to ree Surgeon Association I The City Manager called attention to the Memorandum from the Community Services Officer, Mr. Lapic, to the City Manager and the City Clerk indicating the nature of the incidents attributed to the individual company inv61ved and the notices of violations fried; in addition a copy of a letter ~'om the Deputy City Clerk was presented for review by the Council. The Public Hearing; was opened at 9:00 P.M. There were no speakers. CLEVENGER/ANDERSON MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:01 P.I~I. Passed 4-0. ANDERSON/PETERSON MOVED TO REVOKE THE BUSINESS LICENSE ISSUED 7'0 TREE SURGEON ASSOCIATION. Passed 4-0. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 11 OCTOBER 1, 1986 9. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS: A. Discussion of Oral Conununications not referred to Staff The requests of C.A.S.A. for participation in Red Ribbon Day were accepted. With respect to participation in the Impact Training Program the Council indicated this is a matter for,the Sheriff' s Department to decide. PETERSON/CLEVENGER MOVED TO REAPPOINT THE THREE INCUMBENTS TO THE PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION. Passed 4-0. With regard to the appointment of a new Commissioner to the Public Safety Commission, Councilmember Clevenger asked that the Commission be expanded to seven Commissioners. The three applicants who applied were all excellent; in the past the Public Safety Commission requested more members. Councilmember Clevenger made a motion to appoint the three applicants to the Public Safety Commission. Mayor Hlava expressed a reluctance to expand the Commission without further consideration; Councilmember Peterson suggested that the Public Safety Commission be consulted and the Council accept their decision. The applicants will be notified of the referral to the Public Safety Commission for consideration of expanding the Commission to seven members to accommodate the three excellent applicants. B. Reports from Individual Councilmembers Councilmember Peterson stated that he attended the Inter City Council Meeting; discussion centered on City - School relationships and the issues surrounding cities with multiple school districts. He stated that at a Meeting on the Village Plan unanimous agreement was reached on the Master Plan; this was returned to Staff for development of an action plan to implement die Master Plan. Consensus reached that the consultant did an excellent job; Mayor Hlava concurred. Councilmember Clevenger asked whether the City will lose monies from P.G.& E.; the City Manager stated that the City Engineer is preparing a plan for undergrounding utilities as part of the Master Plan for undergrounding capital improvements. This plan is expected to be ready by February 1, 1987. In response to Councilmember Anderson's question, Councilmember Peterson stated that .: no City action required at present to in~plement the state mandate with regard to city - school relationship; there was no discussion on this aspect of the issue. Mayor Hlava .~. noted the effects of Proposition 13 and stated that the Cupertino-Sunnyvale School District ~ ,". and the Freemerit School Diswict recently completed a study on unification of separate I. Councilmember Anderson stated that C.A.S.A. is happy regarding the adoption of ii~e" "~'2'!i:) D.U.I. Program by the City. The owner of 7-11 Store asked the City Council and ~; ' C.A.S.A. to aid the store with respect to problems with children loitering in the area; a letter from the Council and C.A.S.A. to Southland Corporation lending support to the request of the owner to close the store from midnight to 2 A.M. and to remove video machines. The City will send a letter to Southland Corporation in support of the owner's requestuponreceiptofaletterfromthe0wneraskingforsuch- ~2f 7~,~. 2 The Evergreen Association wishes to be considered a resource m the Council in the areas of land use; the Association expressed concern that the Council and the Planning Department seems to be losing sight of this resource of information and personnel available to the City. ,', ..: f.~. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 12 OCTOBER 1, 1986 CITY COUNCIL rFEMS Continued I n~ Cou c' member Anderson stated that Mr. Trinidad equested an editorial cartoon in the Saratoga News; appreciation extended to Ms. Barnett for the cartoon. Halcone Brochnres have been completed. Mayor Hlava will extend a note of appreciation for the donation made. Transportation Commission approv~d the Transportation 2000 Plan; since the Public Hearing has not been held, a protest was noted by one third of the members. Councilmemtx~,rs Anderson and Moyles Spoke at the West Valley Republician Woman's Group on the subject of Route 85. AD.IOURNMENT_;. The meeting of the City Council was adjourned at 9:23 P.M. - Respectfully subrttLtted, Carol A. Probst-Caughey ? Recording S ecretmy