Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-15-1988 City Council Minutes MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL TIME: Wednesday, June 15, 1988 PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruiwalc Avenue, Saratoga CA TYPE: Regular Meeting 1. ROLL CALL: Mayor Peterson, Councilmembers Anderson, Clevenger, Hlava, Moyles present at 7:37 P.M. 2. CEREMONIAL ITEMS: A. Resolution 2488 appointing Mr. Tappan and Mr. Mitchell to the Planning Commission and Heritage Preservation Commission MOYLES/HLAVA MOVED APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 2488 APPOINTING MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION. Passed 5-0. B. Administration of Oath of Office to Mr. Tom Tappan. Mayor Peterson administered the Oath of Office to Mr. Tom Tappan. C. Proclamation honoring Councilmember Hlava Mayor Peterson presented a Proclamation honoring Councilmember Hlava. 3. ROUTINE MATTERS A. Approval of Minutes: Meeting of June 1, 1988 HLAVA/MOYLES MOVED APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JUNE 1, 1988, AS PRESENT- ED. Passed 5-0. B. Approval of Warrant List: ANDERSON/HLAVA MOVED APPROVAL OF THE WARRANT LIST. Passed 5-0. C. Report of City Clerk on Posting of Agenda Pursuant to Government Cede 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on June 10, 1988. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: A. Planning Commission Actions, June 8, 1988, - Noted and filed. B. Heritage Preservation Commission Minutes, May 18, 1988, - Noted and filed~ C. Construction acceptance and Release of Bond, Tr. 7794, Glen Brae Dr., (Developer, J. Lohr Properties) D. Construction Acceptance and Release of Bond, Tr., 7795, Via Escuela Dr., (Developer, J. Lohr Properties) E. Construction Acceptance and Release of Bond, SD 87-013, Paul Ave. (Developer, D. Cunningham) F. Authorization to attend Mayors and Councilmembers Executive Forum, Monterey, July 20-22, with reasonable and necessary expenses. G. Resolution 2489 Confuming Denial of Westbrook Appeal heard June 1, 1988. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page JUNE 15, 1988 CONSENT CALENDAR Continued H. Resolution 2490 appmving Boundary Map for Village Parking Dist. 3 I. Resolution 2491 Acceptance of easement for Story Drainage and Control at 14435 Big Basin Way as required by Condition 14 (DR 87-027.1) J. Award of Conucact for Reconsu'uction and Overlay of Various City Streets in the amount of $507,182.62 - Raisch Consta'uction K. Treasure's Report - May L. Investment Report - May M. Financial Report - May HLAVA/CLEVENGER MOVED APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR. Passed 5-0. 5. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS AND THE PUBLIC: A. Oral Communications from the Public and Commissions Ms. Ann Marie Gilman, 19218 Gunther Ct., Saratoga, noted the present condition of Brookglen Park where alcohol and drug paraphernalia were found; a petition was submiued with three recommendations for consideration. Consensus reached to refer item to Parks and Recreation Commission and to Staff for a Report Mr. Robert Barr, 13914 Camino Barco, Saratoga, asked for a resolution on a 3 inch fence encroachment into the north setback area of his property. Speaker was directed to apply for a Variance for the setback encrgachment of the fence. B. Written Communications from the Public - None. 6. OLD BUSINESS - None. Mayor Peterson proceeded to Public Hearings. 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Request for General Plan Amendment of 5.1 acres of partially developed property at 20851 Saratoga Hills Rd., to change the land use designation from Open Space, Outdoor Recreation (OSOR) to medium density residential (M-12.5) in order to construct a maximum of 9 homes. A Negative Declaration has been prepared. (Applicant, Ainsley Development; Owner, Nelson Foundation) (GPA 87-003) Planner Caldweli presented the Report to the Mayor and City Council, June 15, 1988. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:07 P.M. Ms. Linda Callon, Ainsley Development, commented as follows: Concurred with the Staff Report presented Development of the site benefited the City; Hakone Gardens, Parks Fund donations cited Issue of public benefit was under consideration for a General Plan Amendment Property in question had no economic use; orchard was failing and trees were diseased Ms. Louise Gager, 20972 Saratoga Hills Rd., Saratoga, commented as follows: Was happy to see the extent of public interest in this issue Noted the sense of hope that pervaded the community since the recent election Asked that pleas of Saratogans to save the community from the bulldozers be listened to Two unique open spaces were before the Council; noted the beauty of the Nelson Gardens Mr. Gary Nemetz, 13960 Pontiac Avenue, Saratoga, presented a signed proposal favoring preservation of the Nelson Gardens, no change in the General Plan designation of this site and formation of a volunteer committee to study alternatives for preservation of the Gardens. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page JUNE 15, 1988 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Lou Weston, 20774 Pontiac Ave., Saratoga, commented as follows: Cited his concerns about the Nelson Gardens Noted the negative environmental impacts imposed on Saratoga--the Cox Ave./Saratoga- Sunnyvale Ave. development, the three large homes built across from Arganout Center Examples cited were not isolated events and were not in the best interest of the City Urged careful evaluation of growth, often associated with greed, otherwise Saratoga would have the same problems associated with other communities such as Los Angeles Them was not a second chance to protect Saratoga's environment Williamson Act Contract protected the Nelson Gardens for many years from the tax burden The question was one of open space versus intense residential density Quality of life in Saratoga, enhanced by the Nelson Gardens, must not be destroyed Cited the clear and equivocal message of Saratoga voters on June 7th Dr. Anne Waltonsmith, 21060 Saratoga Hills Rd., Saratoga, commented as follows: Supported no change in the General Plan zoning designation of the Nelson Gardens Requested a 12 month period to investigate alter'native funding for purchase of the property Asked that the Nelson Foundation work in good faith with representatives of Friends of Nelson Gardens and the community to preserve this open space orchard and gaKien Commented on the following concerns often raised: ~ If the Nelson Garden remained open space, would the Foundation have to maintain it? No; Friends of the Nelson Gardens wished the land to be purchased and the City to have the property and funds to maintain the Gardens ~ If the developer did not buy the property, who would? A Representative from the Trust for Public Lands would speak to the issue; local pledges of money had already been made. Friends of Nelson Gardens had never been given the opportunity to raise funds ~ If the property became open space for Saratoga, would it continue to look so shabby? No; an open space/garden did not have to appear such ~ Will the community have a say in the use pennit/noise regulation if the property became an open space/garden? Absolutely; Saratoga Community Gardens was an example. Mr. Donald Mcrae, 20679 Reid Ln., Saratoga, endorsed comments of the previous speakers; while not opposed to funding Hakone Gardens, asked that the Nelson Gardens be preserved. Ms. Joan Hershkowitz, Protect Our Environment, added their support to Friends of Nelson Gardens to preserve the property and protect the character and environment of Saratoga. Ms. Doe a Grer~s, 13451 Old Oak Way, Saratoga, concurred with the above comments and added that members of the General Plan Committee did not even discuss subdivision of this property; such was viewed as open space. Ms. Nancy McKemghan, 20590 Canyon View Dr., Saratoga, commented as follows: Cited the limitations'of State Law on General Plan Amendments Questioned whether Saratoga wished the remaining Amendment to be the Nelson Gardens Strongly urged consideration of the Mr. Nemetz's proposal presented earlier in the Heating Asked that the Council not vote on a General Plan Amendment at this time Mr. Wil leaTt Kohler, Pierce Canyon Homeowners Association, which fully supported pre- servation of the Nelson Gardens; they asked that an alternative be found to preserve this site. Ms. Diana Parham, Treasurer of Saratoga Residents Association, cited their recent letter in support of the preservation of the Nelson Gardens. Mr. Rus-~Crowther strongly supported the appeal for the following masons: Questioned whether the Council would approve the project with a Negative Declaration; public interest required an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on this project Strongly opposed project approval without an EIR; opposed Staff Recommendation All possible action was to be undertaken to avoid removing property from Williamson Act Contracts; such had not been done in this case Ms. Mary Guth, 20785 Reid Ln., Saratoga, commented as follows: Cited applicable text of the General Plan Conservation Element Questioned statements in the Environmental Assessment prepared for this project Asked that the vote be delayed until further study of the above documents; cited examples MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 4 JUNE 15, 1988 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Ms. Kay Birch commented on the unstable hillside on Upper Hill Ct. and the underground springs in the area which must be drained; she concluded that if this property were lost to development, it could not be regained. Mr. Thomas Mills, Trust for Public Land, commented as follows: Reviewed purposes and goals of the organization While not convinced that there was a role the Trust could provide in this instance, he was impressed with the broad based support generated Reviewed the process used to save pmpertes and the services provided by the Trust In answer to questions from the Council, Mr. Mills responded as follows: The Trust usually took title to a property; their security being in the land value itself The Trust did not assume a property until they were convinced there were vehicles in place to remove the Trust in an eighteen month period Trust worked with non-profit and/or associations to preserve entire parcels as open space; however, due the high cost of land, compromise solutions were sometimes necessary Such compromise solutions would need to be supported by the community There was often a need to subsidize land cost through limited development of a property Confirmed that he was aware of the approximate~2.4 million cost of the property Ms. Cheriel Jensen, 12727 Quito Rd., Saratoga, formally asked that an Environmental Impact Report be prep .ar~ on this property addressing inconsistencies with the General Plan designa- tion, loss of aggregate open space, mitiga~on of such and loss of educational value of the site. Ms. Callon clarified for the record the following items: Applicants requested a General Plan Amendment Reviewed Planning Commission Minutes, noting their concern about the Public Interest; Conmissioners viewed a 9 lot subdivision as consistent with the surrounding area Foundation wished to develop the site in order to conuibute to charitable organizations Noted that the two precincts surrounding this property, 4714 and 4689, did not vote for candidates that seemed to stand for preservation of open space on the Nelson property An election mandate had not been given on this property; nonetheless, an election occurred and there would be changes Applicants wished solutions; asked that a General Plan Amendment be adopted, con- ditioned upon 6 buildable lots with a dedication of a mini-park/open space area Such would not requir6 third party financing; compromise would benefit the City, neighbors, the Foundation and developer CLEVENGER/HLAVA MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:54 P.M. Passed 5-0. The City Attorney reviewed applicable regulations on General Plan Amendments. Councilmember Moyles commented as follows: Noted his vote to rescind the Williamson Act Contract; his convictions had not changed; Recognized that the new Council would be seated at the time of the final vote on this issue Wished to be party to the initiation of a new dialogue and thus, would support continuance of this Item in order to allow for the establishment of a task force Asked that the task force include the property owner and technical expertise Noted his own interest in being part of the task force since he grew up in thig area Councilmember Clevenger commented as follows: Felt that it would be to the Applicant's advantage to agree to an additional 90 day post- ponement beyond the six month decision' period already peurtittad Asked that the committee consider the suggestion of 6 buildable lots with a mini-park Asked that individuals beyond the immediate neighborhood volunteer for the committee; a broad based committee would have more impact Councilmember Hlava commented as follows: While understanding the intent of the committee, t~ie land in question was private property The Applicant had not been heard from on the issue of formation of a committee Rights of private property ownership noted, namely, the right not to sell the property at this time--or any time in the future, right to sell only to the current party negotiating a sale MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page JUNE 15, 1988 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Councilmember Hlava continued as follows: Questioned the reaction of members of the audience as private property owners if they were told a committee was being formed to discuss alternative funding while prohibiting the sale of one's property for six months to a year The Nelson Foundation was a private property owner; society operated on rights of the private property owner She had previously spoken with the Trust for Public Lands regarding alternatives Asked that the Applicant be consulted on participation of any committee formed Councilmember Clevenger noted that the Williamson Act Contract had to be cancelled and the General Plan amended; such was not the same as selling an unencumbered parcel of property. Councilmember Hlava responded that the Contract had nine remaining years; the property owner could defer sale of the property for that period of time or sell to a prospective buyer who would hold the property for the remaining years of the Williamson Act Contract. She reiterated her request that the Applicant be consulted before a committee were formed. Ms. Callon stated that the decision to acquiesce to an additional 90 day postponement was unable to be made at this time; there was no authority present to make such a decision. Councilmember Anderson commented as follows: Favored the six month continuance with an additional 90 day postponement Favored a broad based community task force composed of approximately seven members; invited interested individuals to submit their names for consideration Understood that neighbors were interested in exploring opportunities; everyone may not come to the same conclusion at the same time With the high level of interest in the property, time to explore alternatives was necessary Mayor Peterson commented as follows: Favored a continuance of this Application in order to consider alternatives ff left to him, he would vote in favor of a 6 lot subdivision with open space Felt very strongly that he would not support an intensification of use in this neighborhood Saratoga Community Gardens and Youth Institute represented such a use intensification The City Attorney asked that a decision from the Applicant be forthcoming in a tunely manner regarding a 90 day postponement; such would enable other parties to better assess the situation. Consensus reached to take applications for the Committee with selection of members to be done at the Adjourned Regular Meeting of July 12 th; continuance of the Application to July 6, 1988, at which time the structure and time schedule of the Committee would be determined. CLEVENGER/ANDERSON MOVED TO CONTINUE GP-87-003 TO JULY 6, 1988. Passed 5-0. Councilmember Moyles asked that the City Attorney formally communicate with Ms. Callon regarding the request for a 90 day extension following the six month continuance; Mayor Peterson to formally invite the Nelson Foundation to join the committee. Break: 9:20 - 9:35 P.M. B. Appeal of Tentative map approval to subdivide 52.5 acres of land at 22631 Mt. Eden Rd., into a total of 5 lots, four of which will be developed with single family homes (21.5 acres); the last parcel (31 acres) will remain under a Williamson Act contract. A Negative Declaration has been prepared (Appellant, Kohler/Grens; applicant, Cocciardi) (SD-87-008). Planner Caldwell reviewed the Report to the Mayor and City Council, June 15, 1988. The Public Hearing was opened at 9:42 P.M. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 6 JUNE 15, 1988 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Ronald Stein, Attorney for Pierce Canyon Homeowners Association, commented: Noted the lack to time to study the issue well and asked for a continuance of the Item Amazed that no Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was done on the Quarry Repair Project; such was an intricate part of the Application under consideration Amazed that an EIR was not done on the cancellation of the Williamson Act Contract nor on the encroachment pemdt granted to the Water Company Questioned how anyone could consider these actions separate projects under the Cali- fornia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); projects in question were closely aligned Cited the CEQA definition of project; what was important was that 'project' referred to the activity being approved and which may be subject to several discretionary approvals by the government agency; 'project' did not mean each separate, governmental approval There was significant difference in how a project was defined as to the type of environ- mental review done If the project were viewed as Quarry Creek repair, removal of land to repair site, can- cellation of a Williamson Act Contract and alSproval of a Tentative Map--one could argue that each action taken separately did not have significant impacts on the environment Viewed as a total project, one must ask whether such would have environmental impacts Suggested that such had devastating environmental impacts for the area Noted conditions of the StipulatiOn for Settlement Agreement and stated that clearly the lead agency, the City of Saratoga, knew exactly what Mr. Cocciardi planned At such a point,-CEQA required an environmental analysis at the earliest possible date rather than reduce the project to parts in order to avoid doing such an analysis An EIR should have been conducted rother than a Negative Declaration If additional proof were required that projects were tied together, he cited the following: ~ Geotechnical Investigation on Vaquero Ct., done by Tetra Tech, 1986, page 3 ~ Application of Mr. Cocciardi, page 1., 14. Under CEQA, the City was required to show the source of data that there would not be an environmental impact Studies completed under CEQA should be done prior to Tentative Map Approval since the decision on project approval rested with the Council; secondly, if a Tentative Map were approved without geological study, the homeowner would be required to complete such and may find that the lot was unbuildable Noted for the record the Mitigated Negative Declaration, namely, impacts found initially could be mitigated; the General Plan requirement for site specific soils investigation/ geologic study; the Tiered Environmental Impact Report of which there was no evidence; and finally the possibility of incorporating a former EIR, such did not seem to be the case. Only an initial study existed which stated that there were no environmental impacts Asked that the necessary investigation be done before Tentative Map Approval Cited Department of Fish and Games concerns Mr. Will. era Kohler, Appellant, commented as follows: Noted that a group of individuals had signed the appeal Reviewed the action of the Planning Commission Comments at the Planning Commission Hearing demonstrated the need for an EIR: ~ Applicant's Attorney stated that Quarry Repair and the Tentative Map were separate; such was not true; noted for the record that Lot 4 had a drainage pipe across the site N An "ancient" landslide on Lot 4 was not on maps/reports; such had not been addressed Asked that an Environmental Impact Report be completed Added that Lot 4 was zoned for a possible 12,000 sq. ft. home ' Presented a copy of a letter from the Water Company and stated that he did not want the water supplied to the developer without an EIR or a Negative Declaration being completed Noted Department of Fish and Gnme's concerns and asked that such be made public Mr. Bill Peretti, 13485 Old Oak Way, Saratoga, presented a prepared statement dated June 15th, asl~ng that the developer complete prior cOmmitments before receiving additional permits Ms. Mary Feinstein, Quarry Rd., Saratoga, commented as follows: Was never consulted about the project; had there been ELR hearings, she would have testified; in order to fred out what was happening, she was required to buy a set of plans No EIR was done; she was told that such was unnecessary since this was an emergency-- an emergency which had been going on for the ten years she lived in Saratoga Realized that significant Oak trees destroyed could not be restored Felt her property was destroyed for the sake of this development; asked that the proposed subdivision be postponed until justice were done for existing property owners MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 7 JUNE 15, 1988 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Ms. Dora Gren~, 13451 Old Oak Way, Saratoga, commented as follows: Questioned the emergency status of this project due to the Vaquero Ct. homes which slid Reiterated that this situation had gone on for a minimum of three years Problems in the Creek were caused from upstream debris from unmalntained property which backed up, eroded the Creek bed and undercut the mad Cited the near fatal accident of her 14 year old son, who tried to unjarn the logs Vaquero Creek and this project were connected due to the drainage and f~l Reports from Terra Tech and Cotton Associates both stated that there was not a moving landslide on Vaquero Ct. nor on the banks of Quarry Creek There was no dire emergency that prevented an EIR from being completed; the Council was not told the truth about the situation Fish and Game closed the project down and were seeking criminal charges against the City Urged that an EIR be completed and CEQA rules followed Ms. Cheriel Jensen, 12127 Quito Rd., Saratoga, commented as follows: Formally requested an EIR be completed Questioned geological reports; o:mlxEnts reade by the oeolocrist wild ' had not visited the site, why reports available predated the iemovid of the fill and the lack of exhibits showing letters referenced, conformity with the General Plan Cited a fatal accident and the destruction of a hillside due to a moving landslide Urged discussion of the erosion and necessary mitigation; asked that an EIR be completed Ms. Joan Hershkowitz, Protect Our Environment (POE), commented as follows: Questioned why the Nordmo Report was not submitted until after the grading for the Quarry Creek Project had been completed Noted for the record that according to CEQA, projects having significant impact on the en- vironment, exposing individuals/structures to major geologic hazards, an EIR was required Added the support of POE to the efforts of Pierce Canyon Homeowners Association Mr. Russ rowther was appalled at the destruction on Ms. Feinstein's property and stated that it was time that Saratoga not ignore laws of the State of California. Ms. Diana Parham, Saratoga Residents Association, noted the complexity of the issue and asked that the City consider the recommendation of Pierce Canyon Homeowners Association. Mr. Tobin, Attorney for the Applicant, commented as follows: Reviewed the history of the Measure A lawsuits, the Quarry Creek Repair Project, Cocciardi and Chadwick Estates developments Reviewed Stipulation for Set~ement Agreement, costs/over runs of the repair project Noted geotechnical/engineering studies completed on the project and conclusions reached Stated that the Repair Project was a community effort The City made the determination that a Negative Declaration was sufficient for both the Quarry Creek Repair Project and the Cancellation of the Williamson Act Contract Asked that the Planning Commission's determination that a Negative Declaration was snfficient be upheld Department of Fish and Game released the project to the Army Corps of Engineers; the Corps had no great concem about conducting an EIR Mr. Ronald Stein asked for a continuance m allow Department of Fish and Game to respond regarding whether or not they had a concern about this project. Mr. Crowther stated that it was his understanding that the Council had been advised that they had no choice in voting on such issues as cancellation of Williamson Act Contracts and Tentative Map Applications; Mayor Peterson disputed the statement. Mr. Crowther added that Measure A was adopted by the voters and the City had circumvented such. Ms. Grens noted a discrepancy in that the Appllcant's Attorney stated that there was integration between the two projects; she questioned why the agreement reached on this project absolved the parties from responsibility for completing an EIR. CLEVENGER/HLAVA MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:41 P.M. Passed 5-0. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page JUNE 15, 1988 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued The City Attorney commented as follows: The issue before the Council was whether an EIR should be done. Staff had made a deter- mination that the four lot subdivision would not have significant impacts The Council could accept such or request that an EIR be prepared by the Applicant Zoning would be under the Design Review guidelines and was not an issue at this time The subdivision was being processed under the Northwestern Hillside Residential Zoning Regulation (Measure A); density proposed was consistent with Measure A The City Engineer provided information requested on the capacity of the culvert. Councilmember CIevenger commented as follows: Was familiar with the history of the Quarry Creek Repair Project; however, she had sufficient doubts to ask that a focused Environmental Impact Report be completed Was sufficiently concerned regarding residents comments about events Noted the lack of engineering expertise on the Council and preferred to ask for an EIR Councilmember Hlava commented as follows: Concurred that the Repair Project had significant impacts; however, the Repair was designed to deal with significant problems Did not feel a 4 lot subdivision on 25 acres would have significant environmental impacts Per Staff Recommendation, she did not feel an EIR was called for on this project nor would the project have the same impacts as the Repair Project Councilmember Anderson cited the following concerns: Neighbors would be relieved to see the Repair completed before approval of any houses Noted the complexity of geologic problems in the hillside area and the fact that the preliminary geologic report was done before the hill had been carved off If, as she understood, the Department of Fish and Game were going to require an EIR, it would made sense to complete such at this time Favored the EIR with Tentative Map Application to follow Concerned that residents did not feel heard by the City; an EIR would allow public input Mayor Peterson commented as follows: Praised the Cotton Associates for geotechnical reports provided on this project Noted that Saratoga was on the leading edge of geotechnieai research Would accept an EIR ff such was the will of the Council majority; however, he felt that existing geotechnical and engineering reports were sufficient Acknowledged that this information had not been made available to residents in the area; an EIR may mend the existing communication gap The City Attorney, responding to Councilmember Moyles' question, stated that the Tentative Map Application would be the focus of an EIR, if required; both the proposed subdivision and drainage leading into the Quarry Creek area would be the subject of an EIR. Drainage from this property was part of hydrology studies done in connection with the Repair Project. Councilmember Moyles commented as follows: It would be most irregular for the Depzu uxxent of Fish and Game to contact one Council- member .and not the Mayor, City Manager or City Attorney and insinuating that the City was under criminal investigation; suggested that the Coancll not be influenced by such Noted lawsuits filed after the implementation of Measure A and his commitment to end land use policy which resulted in litigation; set~ements saved taxpayers millions of dollars The Counc~ was advised that no stipulated agreement could abrogate State Law A legitimate state of emergency had existed and public health/safety was endangered; the categorical exemption of the Quare/Creek Repair Project was appropriat~ To allow orderly development of private property in the Saratoga hillsides in an environ- mentally sensitive fashion was the center of his concerns at this hearing While not doubting the extent and cost of previous studies, such were spread out over time An EIR would allow a synthesis of previous studies, giving a clear focus of the impact a Tentative Map may have on other properties downstream Such would also insure that concerns of the public were addressed Noted his admiration for the work of the City Attorney on this complex problem Favored sustaining the appeal requiring an EIR on the Tentative Map Application MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 9 JUNE 15, 1988 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued The City Attorney advised the Council after completion of an EIR and Tentative Map Approval, if there were no appeals, the Council would not hear tins item again. If concerns relative to the Tentative Map Approval existed, such should be noted at this time. MOYLES/CLEVENGER MOVED TO SUSTAIN THE APPEAL, RESCIND THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND DIRECTING THAT AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) BE PREPARED ON THE TENTATIVE MAP APPLICATION. Passed 4-1, Councilmember Hlava dissenting. The Council instructed the Planning Commission that the Tentative Map be conditioned upon completion of the uarry Creek Rep. alr Project before final map approval ard that all parcels be subject to ~eEsign review hearif~. C. Discussion of Median Design at Saratoga Ave. and Kosich Dr. The City Engineer reviewed the Report to the Mayor and City Council, June ]5, 1988. The Public Hearing was opened at 11:20 P.M. Mr. Richard Tyrrell, 12336 Obrad Dr., Saratoga, commented as foilows: Used this intersection every day; noted the changing complexion of the neighborhood Cited the Barton-Aschman Report and instoBy of the adjacent property development Presented an 0udine of Specifications and cited examples of existing traffic hazards Stated that it was not possible to make a safe U-turn at this intersection Mr. Don Nurse, Kosich Dr., Saratoga, commented as follows: Barton-Aschman Report covered Kosich Dr./Saratoga Ave. only Most volatile comer was Lawrence Expressway/Saratoga Ave./Quito Rd; with four lanes of Irafile merging into two; cited existing traffic haT~rds Questioned allowing the Cypress Properties devebpment at this location, namely, allowing R-1 zoning to be used for commemial use (parking lot) Reviewed the Barton-Aschman Levels of Service for the nearby intersections Mr. Bob Pecotich, Saratoga Park Woods Homeowners Association, commented as follows: Noted the number of individuals in the audience interested in tins Item Noted the petition opposing elimination of a left hand stacking lane at Saratoga Ave./Kosich Dr. and the reasons given for such a request 75-80% Of residents in the Association used the Kosich Dr. exit as the most convenient . method of egress into north bound lanes of Saratoga Ave; cited the traffic hazards of such Staff's recommendation did not adequately address concerns of the homeowners Homeowners were unanimous on having the stacking lane as previously existed and secondly, that they would work with the City to f'md the optimum solution to this problem Homeowners felt that the changes occurred without sufficient notice or input from them Mr. Ray Simpson, Saratoga Park Woods Homeowners Association, commented as follows: Noted concern that the safety outlet was removed and felt that improper notice was given The stacking lane was a long-standing safety feature for residents of tins area Traffic had increased, making the stacking lane more of a necessity Demanded that the stacking lane be restored and the island reconfigured as before Ms. Dora Grens, 13451 Old Oak Wy., Saratoga, noted that the neighborhood did not approach the City unless a significant problem existed; asked that their request be granted. Dr. Ann Waltonsmith commented that sevdral complex issues were on one agenda; such pitted one group of citizens against another. Mr. An Bliss noted the character of the neighborhood and was concerned about safety hazards. Mr. Tim Shonan, Cypress Properties, commented as follows: Wished to find workable alternatives, cited commitment made on the approvals granted Made available consultants in civil engineering and ~affic reporting Assumed that traffic modifications made would be satisfactory and safe for everyone Mr. Ron Reid, Saratoga Ave., Saratoga, noted traffic hazards on Kosich Dr./Saratoga Ave. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 'l 0 JUNE 15, 1988 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Ms. Jerri Patterson, Saratoga Rd., suggested that U-turns be made at Bucknail. Mr. A1 Levine, Saratoga Creek Dr., Saratoga, added that there was a lot of traffic on this street; traffic hazards and accidents from cars driving into his front yard were noted. Ms. Kris Lundgren, 12356 Obrad Dr., Saratoga, stated that although not happy with the Cypress Development, everyone had to find safe ways for customers to leave the site. Mr. Gary Black, Barton-Aschman, reviewed preferred solutions for traffic in the area; The City Engineer stated that the preferred solution was not approved by Staff since a U-turn north of Kosich Dr. was too close to the shopping center exit to provide safe maneuvering. Mr. Paul Phelps, 12303 Kosich Ct., Saratoga, cited traffic impacts at 5 P.M. and noted that the traffic signals at Lawrence Expressway and Prospect Ave., did not stop traffic. There was no way to cross from the residential area into the stacking lane. CLEVENGER/HLAVA MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 12:10 A.M. Passed 5-0. A member of the audience stated that there would be problems putting a stacking lane at West- view because of landscaping and the large trees at the comer, Kosich Dr. had better visibility. Councilmember Clevenger felt that neither Kosich nor Westview was appropriate for a stacking lane; people would not be able to access a U-turn across from the Medical Center. There did not seem to be a good alternative; however, Bucknail seemed the best place for a U-turn. Councilmember Anderson favored returning the intersection to its former configuration; her original concern was that increased traffic would make it even more difficult for residents to make a left hand turn. Councilmember Hlava suggested prohibiting parking in this area; she concurred with residents that a left hand turn stacking lane was necessary. Design alternatives were discussed. An Unidentified Speaker stated traffic speeds were 30-40 mph; it would be impossible to exit the shopping center, cut across three lanes of traffic and make it to the U-turn lane. Councilmember Moyles seconded Councilmember Clevengefs comments. Mayor Peterson was also concerned about the U-turn; he suggested that the heaviest traffic would be in the morning and a. stacking lane would be most useful. Councilmember Hlava suggested that the developer may be willing to install the stacking lane as it previously existed; otherwise the City may be required to pay the cost itself. Mr. Shonan suggested that experts determine the best alternative. A member of the public stated that if a left hand turn were put in at Kosich Dr./Saratoga Ave. a traffic signal should be installed to prevent injuries. CLEVENGER/ANDERSON MOVED TO HAVE THE DEVELOPER REINSTALL THE MEDIAN SO THAT THERE WAS NO LEFT HAND TURN AT KOSICH DR. GOING SOUTH AND TO INSTALL APPROPRIATE SIGNAGE. Passed 5-0. D. Resolution 2478.4 Protest Heating on Landscaping and Lighting District LLA-1 The City Attorney reviewed the Report on the Landscaping and Lighting District. The Public Hearing was opened at 12:33 A.M. There were no speakers. MOYLES/ANDERSON MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 12:33 A.M. Passed 5-0. CLEVENGER/HLAVA MOVED APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 2478.4 OVERRULING PROTESTS AND ORDERING THE IMPROVEMENTS AND CONFIRMING THE DIAGRAM AND ASSESSMENT. Passed 5-0. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page JUNE 15, 1988 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued E. City of Saratoga 1988-89 Budget The Public Hearing was opened at 12:35 A.M. There were no speakers. MOYLES/ANDERSON MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARINGS AT 12:35 A.M. Passed 5-0 1) Resolution 2493 Adopting Budget MOYLES/HLAVA MOVED APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 249 3AMENDING THE CON- SOLIDATED BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEARS 1987-89, MAKING APPRO- PRIATIONS AND AUTHORIZING CARRY-OVERS THERETO AND EXPENDITURES THEREFROM. Passed 5-0. 2) Resolution 2494 Adopting Gann Appropriations Limit CLEVENGER/HLAVA MOVED APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 2494 ESTABLISHING THE 1988-89 FISCAL YEAR APPROPRIATION LIMIT FOR THE CITY. Passed 5-0. 3) Resolution 2495 Authorizing Permanent Positions in City Service CLEVENGER/HLAVA MOVED APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 2495 AUTHORIZING PERMANENT POSITIONS IN CITY SERVICE. Passed 5-0. 4) Res. flS-gZ77 Adding to Basic Salary Classes and Employee Position Classifi- cations CLEVENGER/MOYLES MOVED APPROVAL OF RES, 8 5-9.77 ADDING TO BASIC SALARY CLASSES AND EMPLOYEE POSITION CLASSIFICATIONS. Passed 5-0 5) Resolution 85-9.71~ Setting Management Salary Ranges CLEVENGER/HLAVA MOVED APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 85-9.7'8 AMENDING RESOLUTION 85-9.69 SETHNG MANAGEMENT SALARY RANGES FOR FISCAL YEAR 1988-89. Passed 5-0. 6) Resolution 2496 Adopting Pay Schedule for Pan-Time Temporary Employees CLEVENGEPjMOYLES MOVED APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 2496 ADOPTING PAY SCHEDULE FOR PART-TIME TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES FOR 1988-89. F. Ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance to require design review approval of any single story structure over 18 feet in height (first reading) The City Attorney recommended that due to the late hour, this Item be continued. ANDERSON/MOYLES MOVED TO CONTINUE ITEM TO JULY 6, 1988. Passed 5-0. 7. NEW BUSINESS A. Resolution 2495 Renewal of City Attorney Contract Councilmember Moyles seconded the Motion, commending the City Attorney for his service to the City; Councilmember .Hlava concurred. HLAVA/MOYLES MOVED RESOLUTION 2492 APPROVING PROPOSAL FOR RENEWAL OF CITY ATTORNEY EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF CONTRACT THEREFOR. Passed 5-0. B. Report on Publicity for Upcoming Hearing - La Trattoria Appeal CLEVENGER/MOVED TO ADOPT STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON UPCOMING HEARINGS. Passed 5-0. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 12 JUNE 15, 1988 NEW BUSINESS Continued C. Santa Clara County Hazardous Waste Management Plan MOYLES/HLAVA MOVED TO AUTHORIZE SENDING OF THE DRAFT LETTER. Passed 5-0. 9. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS: A. Reports from Individual Councilmembers Councilmember Clevenger reported on recent developments of Sanitation District 4 Coancilroember Anderson reported on die recent Mayor's Conference MOYLES/ANDERSON MOVED TO PLACE ON THE AGENDA A REPORT ON STATE ASSEMBLY BILL ON THE HRE SAFETY. Passed 5-0. reported on the recent State Asserobly Bill on Fire Safety in the Hillside area; he recommended that a letter be sent appropriate individuals and to sent representation from the City to the hearings on this legislation. MOYLES/ANDERSON MOVED TO SEND A LETYER AND REPRESENTATION TO THE STATE LEGISLATURE.' Passed 5-0. Meeting of the City Council was adjourned at 12:45 A.M. to June 30, 1988, at 5:30P.M. for: A. Actions in Connection with VLllage Parking District 3 1) Approval of Plans and Specifications 2) Call for Bids 3) Acceptance of Engineers Report 4) Adoption of Negative Declaration 5) Setting Hearing to form the District Respectfully suhnitted, Car]APrbtC h o . o s- aug ey Recording Secretary