HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-02-1987 City Council Minutes MINUTES
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
TIME: December 2, 1987
. PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale AvenUe, Saratoga CA
TYPE: Regular Meeting
1. ROLL CALL: Vice Mayor Anderson,.Councilmembers Clevenger, Hlava, present at
7:35 P.M. Councilmember Moyles present at 7:37 P.M.
2. CEREMONIAL ITEMS: None.
3. ROUTINE MATTERS
A. Approvalof Minutes: Meetingof November 18, 1987
HLAVA/CLEVENGER MOVED APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 18, 1987, AS
PRESENTED. Passed 3-0, Councilmember Moyles absent.
B. Approval of Warrant List:
HLAVA/CLEVENGER MOVED TO 'APPROVE THE WARRANT LIST. Passed 3-0,
Councilmember Moyles absent.
C. Report of City Clerk on Posting of Agenda
Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly'posted on
November 25, 1987.
4. CONSENT CALENDAR:
A. Planning Commission Actions, November 17, 1987, - Noted and filed.
B. Heritage Preservation Commission Minutes, November 4, 1987, - Noted and filed.
C. CATV Policy Access Board Minutes, November. 17, 1987, - Noted and filed.
D. Public Safety Commission Minutes, November 9, 1987, - Noted and filed.
E. Notice of Completion, Saratoga/SunnyvaleRoadMedianLm~dscaping
F. Resolution 2429.6 Amending Budget to Provide Additional Funds for Above
G. Treasurer's Report - September and October, 1987 ,
H. Resolution 85-9.75 authorizing Addition to the Permanent Positions in City Service
CLEVENGER/ANDERSON MOVED APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR.' PaSsed 4:02 ............
4. CONSENT CALENDAR II - Claims
A. Claim of J. ReynOlds conceming damage to bumper from pipe in parking lot
CLEVENGER/HLAVA MOVED TO REFER CLAIM TO THE CITY MANAGER FOR
DISPOSITION. Passed 4-0.
5. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS AND THE PUBLIC:
A. Oral Communications from the Public and Commissions
MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 2
DECEMBER 2, 1987
_.- COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE COMMISSIONS AND THE PUBLIC Continued
Col. E. T. Barco addressed the followi,~g issues:
, Complimented the City Attorney on the Vicious Dog Ordinance
· Lack of sufficient Public Notification of Council and Planning Commission Agendas
Objected to the procedures followed pertaining to the new Design Review Ordinance
: :' Felt th~t the current Planning Commission was one of the best in the City's history
B. Written Coramunications from the Public
1, Charles and Norfine Little, 12526 Radoyka Dr., favoring interchange at
,. Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd. - Noted and filed.
2. G.W. Kreamer, 20794 Russell Lane, favoring completion of Highway 85 -
· . ; Noted and filed.
6. OLD. BUSINESS - None.
7. NEW BUSINESS
The City Manager stated that the League of California Cities had notified him of a legislative
hearing on December 9, 1987, relative to possible amendment or repeal of the recently enacted
S.B. 709. He requested permission to attend the heating on behalf of the City. Consensus
.: reached to allow the City Manager to attend Legislative Hearings on S.B. 709.
The Vice Mayor proceeded to City Council Items.
9. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS:
A. Discussion of Oral Communications not referred to Staff
With respect to comments regarding a lack of sufficient' public-notice of meetings, the City
Manager advised the Council that if they so wished, the agenda could be published in a San
Jos6 Mercury News display ad; review of funds available was necessary. Councilmember
· Moyles asked that information be compiled ~or review by the Council. ·
Councilmember Hiava questioned the accuracy of information presented in Communications
. regarding procedures pertaining to the new Design Review Ordinance; in addition, she objected
to "government by gossip," and stated ~hat she would not put credence in comments made.
B. Reports from Individual Councilmembers
Councilmember Hlava reported on Solid Waste Amendment on importation of solid waste
Councilmember Clevenger noted the upcoming HCD Meeting of December 3, 1987.
Councilmember Moyles noted that there had been no recent Traffic Authority Meeting;
he stated that there had been no recent Meeting of Hakone Foundation to report on.
He congratulated Councilmember Clevenger on the successful Sister City Visit~
Vice Mayor Anderson requested consideration of utilizing a service to update information
on current addresses of property owners; consensus to direct Staff to investigate
She noted that the light rail grand opening was scheduled for December 11, 1987.·
8. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Consideration of proposed cancellation of a Williamion Act Contract, subject to
various conditions. The property is 5.1 acres of partially developed lots and apricot
orchard at 20851 Saratoga Hills Rd. Applicant ultimately proposes to subdivide the
property into nine (9) residential lots. Property is bordered on the north by Trinity
Avenue, on the east by Pontiac Avenue, and on the south by Saratoga Hills Road and
Pontiac Avenues. (Applicant, Florence Nelson Foundation) (GP 87-003, ZC 87-003)
MEETING OFTHE CITY COUNCIL Page
DECEMBER 2, 1987
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued
Planner Caldwell presented the Memorandum of December 2, 1987, reviewed the history and
purposes of the Williamson Act and summarized the Findings necessary in order to cancel the
contract. Staff concurred that there was no proximate, nonconuracted land available for
development as proposed (Finding 2); however, Staff could not make Finding 1., namely, that
:'" there was substantial public benefit.
The City Attorney noted that there was a lack of precise definition in State Law; the following
language was addressed:
"proximate, noncontracted land" (Finding 2). Applicant maintained that in terms of a
, single parcel capable of subdividing into nine lots, even within a one mile radius, there was
no other land available for similar subdivision.
,. "non-productivity" of the parcel: State Law provisions created a presumption that parcels
--. . of a certain size were suitable for agricultural use; parcel in question was neither prime
(minimum ten acres) nor non-prime agricultural land (minimum forty acres)--thUs the
Council was not encumbered by the statutory presumption.
"substantial public benefit" was to be determined on a case-by-case basis; property taxes,
processing or application fees paid m the City for development of this parcel were not
considered to be a substantial public benefit.
The City Attorney noted that the Applicant had already submitted a notice of non-renewal; the
Applicant was entitled, ultimately, to terminate the contract. Finally, he advised the Council
! ' that, due tochanges in the State Law in calculation of cancellation fees, there were substantial
differences in fee schedules this year as opposed to schedules for 1988.
The Public Hearing wa~ opened at 8:24 P.M.
Mr. Roger W, Ross, Vice President, Florence Nelson Foundation, reviewed the history of the
family and property as stated in the letter of Mr. John Higgins, President of the Foundation.
He stated that the Foundation had decided to sell the property to increase the corpus of the mast
in order to continue the charitable contributions to local organizations. He noted objections to
the sale; however, continued maintenance of the property was too cumbersome and delayed the
inevitable. He cited Mr. Nelson's generosity in keeping the property as open space for almost
50 years. Questions addressed by the Council were answered.
Mr. Andrew Faber, Attorney for prospective buyers, asked that the Council tentatively agree to
the cancellation of the Williamson Act Contract in December, 1987. He cited the direct benefits
to the mast and noted the substantial increase in fees levied in 1988.
With respect to Findings, he commented as follows:
(1) "Other public concerns substantially outweigh the objectives of the Williamson Act..."
It was the responsibility of elected bodies to weigh public concerns
Objectives of the Williamson Act Contract no longer applied to the property in
question, nor could the property be properly classified as "open space"
, Williamson Act was not intended to preserve agricultural or open land in perpetuity;
there was a ten year contract provision containing canceilation and renewal provisions 5:':'
- Primary purpose of the Williamson Act was to preserve land in a certain condition for
as long as reasonably possible; such has been accomplished on this site
· . The "cOntiguous patterns of development;" encouraged by the Williamson'-Acr have
been accomplished
(2) "There is no proximate noncontracted land suitable and available for the proposed
alternative use of this property..."
Other proximate, vacant properties were either unsuitabie or unavailable
Mr. Gary Nemitz, 13960 Pontiac Ave., Saratoga, responded to comments made above:
Ten years would have to elapse before the Williamson Act Conuract could be terminated
Property in question was a wild life area
Requested a review of applicable court cases which defined the term :'promam"
Noted similar property adjacent to Foothill School
Questioned the lack of an Environmental Impact Review (EIR) on this property
Supreme Court rulings that property was not required to be an economic agricultural use
He asked for time to evaluate alternative uses for this site; possible funding sources were cited.
MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 4
DECEMBER 2, 1987
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued
Mr. Robert Gager, 20972 Saratoga Hi.lls Rd., Saratoga, noted the lack of a mailed notice. He
cited strong opposition to rezoning of this site; 31 additional petitions were presented. An
article published in the 1970's, San Jose Mercury News was cited. He asked that a six month
postponement of any action be granted to allow for exploration of alternatives.
... The City Attorney reviewed noticing requirements for Williamson Act Contract properties; in
addition, he stated that Staff had voluntarily posted notices adjacent to the property in question.
Mr. Lou Weston, 20774 Pontiac Ave., SaratOga, ~onsidered this area tO be a wild life habitat.
He objected to comments made by the Ainsley Development Company, letter of November 21,
1987, and stated that Saratoga did not need more traffic. He concluded with quotation from a
letter to the Editor, San Jose Mercury News, December 2, 1987.
Mr. Ray L. Byrne, 13904 Trinity Ave., Saratoga, stated that he, as well as other Foundation
members, were convinced that retention of the property in its present state was no longer
practice. He noted the greater good to .the community from the increased corpus of the
Foundation and cited Mr. Frank Nelson's desire to support the West Valley area.
Organizations benefiting from the Foundation were listed.
Mrs. Helen Nelson stated that she was sony her husband, Frank C. Nelson, could not attend;
she assured the Council that he would agree with the Board's decision in this matter.
Ms, Betty Peck, 14275 Saratoga Ave. Saratoga, spoke on behalf of the children ~f Saratoga;
the Youth Science Institute was willing to work with residents to retain this site as open space.
Dr. Ann Walton Smith, 21060 Saratoga Hills Rd., Saratoga, was against the subdivision of
this property for the following reasons:
Managers of the property had not considered the larger picture of the value of this site as
open space for the children and citizens of Saratoga. She felt that it was a wild life refuge.
Noted the importance of retaining land under cultivation in orderlto appreciate the value of
agricultural land and the history of the Santa Clam Valley
:Mr. John Mac Donald, President, Saratoga Residents Association, stated that the Association
felt that adequate and appropriate notice of the proposed change was not provided to residents
prior to consideration of this issue; such impacted their ability to become knowledgeable and to
evaluate alternatives. The Association requested that the Council delay any decision for a
period of 45 days.
W.B. Alexander, Trinity and P~ntiac Ave., Saratoga, volunteered his services within reason to
preserve this open space.
Mr. Dave Johnston,. Executive Director, Youth Science Institute, stated that he' was not
speaking in favor of nor against the cancellation of the Williamson Act Contract; however; he
noted that the question seemed to .be one of economics. He cited the following issues:
Noted that neither the Natare Conservancy nor the State Park Foundation could maintain a
· ' program for this land and suggested that there must have been reasons
'Noted the community interest in developing the resources necessary to presen, e this open
space and offered his services
.:
MR. Joanne MoOre, Representing Eastfield Child Center, stated that Saratoga benefited grea~y
from the Florence Nelson Foundation's charitable donations to organizations.
'Mr. Bud Greenlee, Advisory Member, Florence Nelson Foundation, favored cancellation of
the Williamson Act Contract; such was an issue of economics and was necessary in order to
meet the intent of the Foundation, namely, to provide charitable contributions for the area.
Ms. Braun, 20220 La Paloma, Saratoga, noted the following issues:
Cited complaints regarding noticing and felt that proper noticing was not being done
Questioned why the residents of Saratoga could not make the decision on whether or not
they wished the proposed development
Felt that a decision could not be made at this hearing
Questioned the criteria which would guide the Council in making a decision
Objected to the decisions made by the City in favor of'development
MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 5
DECEMBER 2, 1987
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued
Mr. Brace Bowen, Representing Ainsley Development, asked that the tentative cancellation be
issued; alternative uses for the property could still be investigated by interested parties.
I Ms. Carolyn Alexander, 20760 Trinity Ave., Saratoga, quoted Government Code 51282 and
_ ~ asked that legal questions be reviewed; she cited Sierra Club vs. the City of Hayward.
Mr. Yuen T. Gin, Director, Florence Nelson Foundation, personal Attorney for Mr. Nelson,
stated that Mr. Nelson had a special love for the Gardens and wished to preserve them as the
heritage of the Santa Clara Valley and the apricot industry. He noted that the Nature Con-
servancy had determined that maintaining the Gardens was not in their best interest due to a
lack of funding and a lack of interested individuals. When the California State Park
Foundation took over, Mr. Nelson furnished over half of the necessary financial support;
however, as his health deteriorated, there was no one else to fund the Gardens.
He stated that the Director of the National Park Association, formerly head of the State Park
Foundation, visited the Nelson Gardens regularly and attempted to maintain them in conformity
with Mr. Nelson's wishes; however, he also reached the conclusion that these Gardens could
not be maintained as an apricot orchard due to a lack of funding as well as the inability to
involve the City of Saratoga. Costs and the difficulty of finding a caretaker for the orchard
were cited; maintaining the garden in perpetuity through good intentions was not practical.
Mr. Gin concluded, stating that Mr. Nelson was very aware of the transition of this property
and supported the selling of this parcel in order that the proceeds benefit charitable organ-
izations; in the opinion of Mr. Nelson and the Board, retaining the property as open space
would only benefit a few individuals. He answered questions addressed by the Council.
Dr. Stetsman questioned the $50,000 figure quoted for maintenance of the orchard.
Mr. Faber responding to legal points raised, made the following comments:
Property in question was not a wildlife habitat as officially defined in the Williamson Act
Property in question could not be put to reasonable or comparable agricultural use
Mr.Ross responded, assuring the Council that costs amounted to $50,000 per year.
ThePublic Hearing remained open.
Councilmember Clevenger was favorable to the request for a continuance of this Hearing.
Councilmember Moyles concurred; however, he suggested a two week continuance.
Councilmember Hlava asked that this Item be continued to after the holidays.
Vice Mayor Anderson suggested the second meeting in January.
HLAVA/CLEVENGER MOVED TO CONTINUE GP 87-003, ZC 87-003 TO JANUARY 20,
1988. Passed 4-0.
ADJQURNMENT: TO EXECUTIVE SESSION AT 10:07 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,