Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-21-1988 City Council Minutes MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL DATE: December 21, 1988 - 7:30 P.M. PLACE: Civic Theater, ]_3777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting 1. Roll Call: Mayor Anderson, Councilmembers Clevenger, Moyles, Peterson present at 7:32 P.M; Councilmember Stutzman absent. 2. CEREMONIAL ITEMS: A. Resolution 2532 Commending David DeCarion. CLEVENGER/MOYLES MOVED APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 2532 COMMENDING DAVID DE CARION. Passed 4-0. B. Resolution 2533 Appointing Member of Finance Advisory Committee. CLEVENGERfMOYLES MOVED APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 2533 APPOINTING ROBERT HILTON A MEMBER OF THE FINANCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE. Passed 4-0. C. Administration of Oath of Office to Member of Finance Advisory Committee. Mayor Anderson administered the Oath of Office to Mr. Robert Hilton. 3. ROUTINE MATTERS: A. Approval of Minutes: Meeting of December 7, 1988, and December 13, 1988. MOYLES/PETERSON MOVED APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF DECEMBER 7, 1988, AS PRESENTED. Passed 4-0. MOYLES/CLEVENGER MOVED APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF DECEMBER 13, 1988, AS PRESENTED. Passed 4-0. B. ApprovalofWarrantList: MOYLES/PETERSON MOVED APPROVAL OF THE WARRANT LIST. Passed 4-0. C. Report of City Clerk on Posting of Agenda Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on December 16, 1988. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: A. Planning Commission Actions, December 14, 1988, - Noted and filed. B. Parks and Recreation Commission Minutcs, December 6, 1988, - Noted and filed. C. Heritage Preservation Commission, November 16, 1988, - Noted and filed. D. Public Safety Commission Minted, December 12, 1988, - Noted and filed. E. Saratoga Community Access Cable TV Foundation Board Minutes, November 15, 1988, and December 13, ]:988, - Noted and filed. F. Library Commission Minutes, December 14, 1988, - Noted and filed. G. Authorization for Attendance of three staff members at California Parks and Recreation Society Confore_nee, Sacramento, ~.~3/ch 1989, wi~/~ reasonable and ~ecessary expenses MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 2 DECEMBER 21, 1988 CONSENT CALENDAR Continued H. Resolution 2534 denying Leckrone Appeal heard December 7, 1988. I. Resolution 2535 denying Achkar Appeal heard December 7, 1988. J. Resolution 2536 denying Blum Appeal heard December 7, 1988. K. Resolution 2520.1 Amending Resolution. Denying Appeal of Primary Plus Use Permit L. Notiee of Completion,' lieConstruction and Overlay of Certain City Street:s, S~:hedule B and C ~' Piisch Construction' M. Notice of.Completion, Senior Center Addition - G. Swanson Construction N. FR~nsa] ~_W_t~Cde and Release of Bond, SDR 1569, Farwell Avenue (Developer, S. Berardo) O. Construction Acceptance and Release of Cash Bond, 20713 St. Charles St., Tr. 7811 (DeVeloper, St:. Charles Street: Investors) P. Resolution 2537 Approving Application under Conservation Bond Act of 1988 Q. Resolution 2492.7 Adjusting Budget for Special Audit and Recruiting City Manager requested removal of Consent Calendar Item O and continuance to January 4 1989. CLEVENGER/MOYLES MOVED APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR WITH REMOVAL OF ITEM O. Passed 4-0. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR II - CLAIMS: A. Claim of Schwartz in connection with collision with tree on Quito Rd. B. Claim of Judd in connection with fall in Village Parking District #3. CLEVENGER/MOYLES MOVED TO DENY CLAIMS OF SCHWARTZ AND JUDD, RE- FERRING BOTH TO THE CITY MANAGER FOR ADJUSTMENT.. Passed 4-0. 5. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS AND TIlE PUBLIC: A. Oral Communications from the Public and Commissions Col. E. T. Bar(o, Camino Bar(o, Saratoga, presented a copy of the San Jose Mercury News editorial, "A Fair Hearing;" he noted some deficits in this procedure and suggested a modified version be tried for a three month period to encourage more public input. B. Written Communications from the Public 1) Willera Kohler, 21842 Via Regina, expressing concerns with recent construction. - Received, filed and acknowledged. 2) Russell Crowther, 20788 Norada Ct., with suggestions on fleeway construction. - Received, filed and acknowledged. 3) Gladys Armstrong, Good Government Group, P.O. 'Box 371, with suggested actions on fleeway interchange negotiations. - Received, filed and acknowledged. 4) James Sunseri, 111 W. St. John St.,488~, San Jose 95113, supporting compromise on trial court funding issue. - Received, filed and acknowledged. 5)Rusty Rinehart, 16285 Los Gatos Blvd., Los Gatos 95032, similar to above. - Received, filed and acknowledged. 6) Penelope R. Lave, City of Los Altos, concerning attempts to improve cooperation among cities in Co,unty. Consensus reached to designate Mayor Anderson to attend. 6. OLD BUSINESS: A. Freeway Agreements MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 3 DECEMBER 21, 1988 OLD BUSINESS Continued 1) Discussion of Resolution 2529 stating Council's intent to modify agreement relating to State Route 85. The Mayor recognized the following speakers. Ms.M. Ernst was very concerned regarding the proposed Route 85 interchanges; at recent City Council Meetings, she was unsure whether the Council would abide by the decision of the voters. She asked that Councilmember Peterson represent the interests of pro-interchange advocates and cautioned that delays in completing negotiations would be costly. Ms. Mary Guth, Reid Ln, Saratoga, felt that Mayor Anderson as the designated representative for the Freeway Agreement negotiations was concerned about the residents of Saratoga; she heartily endorsed her as the City's representative. Mayor Anderson read into the record Resolution 2529 which stated the Council's intent to modify Agreements regarding State Route 85 and included an interchange at Saratoga Ave. Councilmember Moyles, noting his absence at the last meetini and the contradictory interpretations he had received, stated that it was his understanding that the Resolution of intent made clear that the City of Saratoga would accept the Saratoga Ave. interchange without pre-conditions. Councilmember Peterson responded that he understood there was to be no quid pro quo. Mayor Anderson and Councilmember Clevenger confirmed that such was their understanding also. Councilmember Moyles confirmed that this being the ease, he endorsed the Resolution. 2) Status of Freeway Agreement Negotiations - Oral Report, Mayor Anderson Mayor Anderson reported on recent negotiations on the Freeway Agreement. Councilmember Clevenger commented on concerns raised by the public regarding possible delays in constructing the freeway; adjacent cities also had concerns about interchanges within their juris- dictions and had scheduled public hearings within the same time period as the City of Saratoga. She confirmed that Saratoga was not doing anything to delay construction and had simply requested additional information on the proposed interchange to insure the safety of the structure. Councilmember Moyles was confident that the public hearing would be held as scheduled; infor- mation requested would be available at that time. He questioned the reference made by Mayor Anderson to a half interchange at Prospect Ave. and asked if the Council had any interest in such. Mayor Anderson responded that the reason the half interchange at Prospect Ave. was brought up was that she had received conflicting reports from San Jose regarding such an interchange; it was her understanding that at this time, the City of San Jose was not considering this possibility. The Council summarized the objectives in negotiating a Freeway Agreement as follows: - The City would be pursuing a single interchange at Saratoga Ave; such would eliminate the un- certainty surrounding the location of the interchange in Saratoga - Safety and traffic management was of importance given the adjacent facilities of schools and a senior citizen complex, appropriate to a residential area and having the least impact - Aesthetic considerations included appropriate landscaping and h~nning - Mitigationofsoundimpacts B. Trial Court Funding Mr. Peter Stone, Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, commented on the needs of the citizens of Santa Clara County, including Saratoga residents, for a working court system; he reviewed current negotiations and urged that an agreement be reached before January 15, 1989. Mr. Bill Martin, Presiding Municipal Court Judge-elect, presented Mr. Leo Himmelsbach's letter strongly supporting trial court funding; Mr. Martin urged the Council to adopt a county-wide view of the justice system which was in a state of near collapse. Mr. Jim Towery, President, Santa Clara County Bar Association, concurred that the justice system was in collapse; he reviewed the needs of individuals who were seeking justice. Mayor Anderson proceeded to Public Hearings. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 4 DECEMBER 21, 1988 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 new homes. (Applicant, Ainsley Development; Owner, Nelson Foundation) (GPA 87-003) (Continued from July 20, 1988) Planning Director Emslie reviewed the Memorandum of December 21, 1988. The Pu,blic Hearing was opened at 8:25 P.M. Ms. Linda Callon, Representing Ainsley Development, presented and reviewed her written state- ment Re: GP-87-003 - Florence Nelson Foundation, dated December 21, 1988; she noted the letters received from beneficiaries of the Nelson Foundation. Mr. Les Housrath, Attorney, Florence Nelson Foundation, cited his letter of December 16, 1988. He submitted that no economic option other than development of the site had been proposed and no other legally viable option was found; he urged the Foundation's request for a General Plan Amendment and rezoning of the property be granted. Mayor Anderson stated that she, Councilmember Stutzman and Mr. Macrae, Ad Hoe Task Force, reviewed files of the State Parks Foundation; in addition, she had reviewed City files on this pro- perty. The history of the Nelson Garden site was briefly recounted. Mr. GaG' Nemetz, presented and reviewed the Nelson Garden Task Force Ad Hoe Committee Draft Re~rt. dated December 1, 1988. Mr. Lou Westin, 20774 Pontiac Ave., Saratoga, commented as follows: - Cited San Jose Mercury News story entitled, "Future of Nelson Garden may be decided in next week" which ran December 14, 1988 Questioned whether citizens of Saratoga had need of a sermon fi'om Ainsley Development on the subject of gifts for charity versus reducing open s ace/parks in Saratoga Questioned whether bribery was required in the ~rm of financial aid for Hakone Gardens and City parks as a quid pro quo from Ainsley Development for another diminution of open space Questioned whether the City needed to defend itself against a legal battle Ainsley Development defeat of efforts to woo residents to a General Plan Amendment and rezoning of the site In addition, such was a denial of Frank Nelson's express wish for the future of the Gardens Concluded that this memorial to the memory of Florence Nelson could be lost forever Asked that the Council further study this matter before reaching a decision Col. E. T. Barco, Gaming Barco, commented as follows: Ad Hoc Committee had two basic considerations, namely, did the City need Nelson Gardens as a heritage orchard, educational tool and open space area and if so, the sources of funding such Cited the minimum $25,000 annual maintenance costs which the City could not afford without neglecting other commitments Nelson Gardens Task Force Ad Hoc Draft Report D., Public Opinion Survey, recommended "...that the City should pursue some form of open space preservation;" he contended that the City had been pursuing open space preservation for some time Draft Report recommendation "...that most (residents) also would like to see some form of specialty park--educati0nal, agricultural, historical--in Saratoga;" the City already had an operating heritage orchard adjacent to the Saratoga Library ff survey participants had been given the above information, responses would have been con- siderably different; in addition, none of the respondents gave any indication that they knew of the existing heritage orchard Cited the results of the Teachers survey and suggested that the existing heritage orchard and parks be used as an educational tool Objected to spending taxpayer money to benefit those who were not aware of existing resources Felt that the proposed assessment to purchase this site would be difficult to collect from voters Recommended that the Nelson Foundation's request be approved Mr. Monty Boisen, 13896 Lindy Ave., Saratoga, stated he previously signed a petition favoring preservation of the site as open space; however, he now agreed with San Jose Mercury News editorial, "Too late for a park" printed December 21, 1988. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 5 DECEMBER 21, 1988 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Andrew Beverett presented a letter of Ms. Betty Eskeldson, President, Senior Coordinating Council, dated December 19, 1988, noting donations received from the Nelson Foundation. Ms. Mary Guth, Reid Ln., Saratoga, commented as followed: - Noted that the Directors of the Nelson Foundation were entrusted with preservation of this site - Questioned whether the property was being properly maintained - Understood that Directors of the Foundation and charitable organizations in Saratoga would financially benefit from the sale of the site - Felt that the City did not have many parks and such were crowded on weekends - Recommended that the City claim the property in question for the public domain and finance the purchase of the property through a bond measure - Noted that once this open space area was gone, it would be gone forever Ms. E. Fryer, 14029 Saratoga Hills Rd., Saratoga, cited Mr. Frank Nelson's comments made to her in the past. It was her understanding that he intended to preserve the Gardens which would be maintained by a trust fund. She contended that the Board of Directors neglected the Gardens and objected to construction of large homes on very steep slopes. Mr. Willera Kohler, Pierce Canyon Homeowners Association, objected to removal of this orchard; open space was disappearing in Saratoga. It was the Council's task to preserve open space areas. Mr. Jim Lindow, Saratoga Residents Association, admonished the Council not to approve the General Plan Amendment and rezoning requested for Nelson Gardens; areas of historical value should especially be preserved. Dr. Ann Waltonsmith, Ph.D., Saratoga Hills Rd. commented as follows: - Noted that some interested parties could not be present due to the proximity of the holidays - Favored preservation of the Nelson Gardens as a speciality park - Prospective developers seemed to be saying that if the Williamson Act were not cancelled, they would wait out the remaining years of the ConU'act; however, she contended that similar and/or more stringent conditions could prevail in the future - Felt the attempt to tear up an open space park which residents understood would remain open forever, was crass; residents would be more vigilant in the future to prevent such events - The money to exchange hands and the fiscal promise made by the developer was bribery - Even ifthe WilliamsonAct Contract were rescinded, the money offered should not be accepted - The Nelson Foundation had now stirred up local charities to lobby the Council on this issue; in addition, the Foundation manipulated these organizations to work against the City's interests - Deve~per's~f~r~fan~n-site~neacreparkw~u~ddecreasethefinancia~c~ntributi~n;theCity would not get both the money and the park - Public testimony indicated that individuals wished the Nelson Gardens to be preserved Mr. Keith Richardson, Eastfield Ming Quong Children's Center, stated that the Nelson Foundation had provided on-going support of the special services provided by the Center. Mr. John Higgins, Florence Nelson Foundation, wished to clarify the statement that there was a trust to maintain the Nelson Gardens; be assured the Council that there was no such special fund. He cited the testimony of Carol S. Lillibridge, Executive Directbr, Kara, dated December 7, 1988. Mayor Anderson questioned the draft agreement of transfer of assets from Florence Nelson Foun- dation to Arthur Young Foundation, December 30, 1976, found in State Parks Foundation files; Mr. Higgins responded that to his knowledge, this agreement never took place. Ms. Betty Peck, 14275 Saratoga Ave., Saratoga, noted that Frank Nelson used to present apricots at this time of the year and presented the Council and public with a gift of apricots. She noted that only three remaining farms now existed in Saratoga which represented open space in the City and read into the record a poem written for the occasion. Ms. Sally McElravey, Ad Hoc Task Force noted that for years the City erred in rejecting the gift of the Nelson property and urged that nee~ts of the present and future not be ignored; if acquired, the land could be restored for the educational use of the children and the preservation of its beauty. Ms. Adele Krammer read into the record the letter of Ms, Karen Alexander, December 5, 1988. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 6 DECEMBER21, 1988 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Ms. Edwina Kump, Florence Nelson Foundation, reminded the Council and the public that it was Mr. Frank Nelson's desire to sell the property; she noted the misconceptions that existed. Further- more, the Board of Directors would not receive any profit'from the sale of the roperty; she read the letter from the Hope Rehabilitation Services citing benefits derived from the fgundation. Ms. Karen Dowdy, President, Westbrook Homeowners Association, read a letter of the Board of Directors, December 20, 1988, urging the General Plan Amendment and rezoning of the site. Ms. Jackie Welch, Jacks Rd., Saratoga, noted the community's last opportunity to have a demon- stration orchard of Saratoga's agricultural past would perish with a General Plan Amendment and rezoning of this property; she urged that Frank Nelson's original dream be fulfilled. Mr. Rick Waltonsmith, 21060 Saratoga Hills Rd., Saratoga, noted the beauty of Hakone Gardens; the Council had the opportunity to create a similar resource. Ms. Kay Burt reviewed the site history noting that the City had a signed contract (Williamson Act); she felt that under this contract, the land was the City's to use. The potential cost of developing the site for residential use included an existing creek on-site and problems on adjacent properties with sliding. Proposed contributions from a General Plan Amendment and rezoning of the property would not be used in the City; furthermore, once the open space was lost, it could not be regained. Mr. Jim Compton, Ad Hoc Task Force, felt that too much was being made of the proposed contri- bution from the Nelson Foundation; whatever happened to the property, the Foundation would continue to contribute to charities. It was the clear intent of previous property owners, before the Foundation was in charge, that the site was to be used as an open space/park area; the only reason a reverter clause to insure the above use of the property was not inserted was that those responsible for such simply forgot to do so. Mr. Ed G o mersfill noted his past efforts to urge another City Council to purchase this property; he felt that insufficient information on options for this property was available at this time and he recommended that the request be denied upon condition of further study of this issue. Councilmember Clevenger noted that the Nelson Gardens had not been raised as a policy decision. Mr. G o mersall responded that it was his recollection in 1977 or 1978, the property had been offered in some manner to the City and a discussion by the Parks and Recreation Commission had ensued. At that time there was concern regarding long term maintenance costs and liability. Mr. Bill Glennon, former Mayor of Saratoga, cited an instance wherein residents were surveyed; while 95% wanted additional parks, less than 15% voted affirmatively to pay for acquiring such. He felt Saratoga residents would not be willing to pay for this small parcel of land; the property in question was not a significant parcel for the City. With respect to the proposed contribution and matching funds, the City should not accept the contribution. There was no reason not to fezone the property in question for residential use. Mr. Donald Macred, Ad Hoe Task Force, stated that it was his strong recommendation that Nelson Gardens remain under the Williamson Act Contract and that open space be preserved as a historical orchard garden/park for the enjoyment of citizens. He noted the beauty of the Nelson Gardens. Ms. Wanda Alexander, 15879 Ravine Rd., Los Gatos, commented as follows: Objected to the San Jose Mercury News editorial, "Too late for a park" Election indicated that Saratoga was very much concerned about environment and open space Was offended that Nelson Foundation was mixing environment, population and human needs A balance of human and environmental concerns was required, not competition between the two Human needs included open space areas, clean air and opportunity to experience rural life Mr. Claude Peckovitch, Radoyka Dr., Saratoga, commented as follows: - Took issuance with comments. that taxpayers in the late 1950's were reluctant to pay additional taxes to support parks; twenty five years ago, there was much open space in the City - The intent of Mr. Frank Nelson was clearly established, namely, open space/park area - The 2.4 million dollar cost of the site reflected a figure if the development took place; the market price would be significantly less if the Williamson Act Contract were not rescinded Recommended that the property be kept in the Williamson Act and. place an advisory measure on the ballot to determine what residents of Saratoga wished to do MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 7 DECEMBER 21, 1988 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Ms. AnneKolb,,Saratoga, suggested a compromise to insure funds for charitable causes and the resident's enjoyment of the site, namely, that the City purchase the property. While she acknow- ledged resident's reluctance to pay for such facilities, there had been a change in attitude due to the continuing loss of open space and the influx of new residents. Mr. Housrath commented as follows: Noted that a Williamson Act Contract was for agricultural purposes not open space as such Summarized the results of the Public Opinion Survey conducted and noted that 65% of respon- dents had not even heard of the property; in addition, a very small sample was taken Despite a favorable response to preservation of open space, financing was not addressed Submitted that additional studies were not needed and asked that a decision be made Ms. Callon commented as follows: Site in question was not a park site; furthermore, there were several parks in the area Felt that some questions of the survey biased the responses received Number of individuals surveyed was so small that generalizations could not be made and the 20% of participants under 30 years of age were possibly not even property owners While one could understand the neighbor's opposition to commercial or townhouse develop- ment on this site, it was unfair to expect the rest of Saratoga to pay for property not needed by the City because a few neighbors wished to have the parcel maintained as open space Proposed residential sites would De larger in size than the surrounding parcels The comment that bribery was being used must sadden the Nelson Foundation; the Foundation was a charitable organization - The City Council had asked for an exaction and the funds would be used for parks in the City - Asked that a decision be made at the hearing; the land use proposed was appropriate CLEVENGER/PETERSON MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:31 P.M. Passed 4-0. Councilmember Peterson commented as follows: - Noted that Mr. Frank Nelson had a dream of a heritage orchard in Saratoga - Confirmed that he would never entertain a suggestion to condemn this privately owned property - Reviewed the proposed $2.4 million dollar cost with a $50,000.00 - $100,000.00 cost to bring the site to the desired use; furthermore, the City would have lost a $360,000.00 contribution in addition to the matching funds offered as part of the transaction - Suggested consideration of dedicating three acres of the existing heritage orchard to become the Frank C. Nelson demonstration orchard; in addition, the Warnet Hutton house, an 1890's farm house, would be relocated on-site - Developers could be asked for a $200,000.00 contribution rather than the $110,000.00, to be given to Parks and Recreation Commission to develop the site' - Proposed site was central to the City and would be appropriate to the vision of Mr. Nelson - In addition, the Foundation would be required to contribute $30,000.00 per year for mainten- ance of the heritage orchard Councilmember Clevenger commented as follows: - Was favorable to consideration of the above suggestion of Councilmember Peterson - The issue had been raised whether Nelson Garden was int:emded ~ be kept: as a public use. S he assured the ublic that full market value for the property would be paid ff the City purchased the p~perty. City Attorney responded that if there were ever a dedication for public use or a contract requiring such, he had not seen any documentation; while there was correspondence indicating the interest and hope of such a dedication of public use, he had not seen proof of a contractual obligation. Councilmember Clevenger continued as follows: Took issuance with the San Jose Mercury News editorial, "Too late for a park" and had reserva- tions regarding comments about past events surrounding an offer of the property to the City Clarified that the amount of money offered was $360,000.00 with $250,000.00 as a matching fund for Hakone Gardens; she had every confidence that Hakone Foundation would be able to raise a like sum if funds were not forthcoming from the sale of the Nelson property The question remained, what was best for Saratoga? Had significant concerns regarding the assessment district proposed in the ~ and questioned whether the public would vote in favor of an assessment However, the number of other possibilities were raised for purchase of the Nelson Gardens; she was reluctant to vote favorably on the General Plan Amendment and rezoning at this time Urged a great deal of thought be given to options available, including a community garden and the possibility of matching funds MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 8 DECEMBER 21, 1988 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Councilmember Moylcs commented as follows: - Item had been before the Council for twenty months; further study was unnecessary - Had been willing to continue the Application at the June bearing in consideration of the request made and to allow a Task Force to be assembled despite reservations that a Committee would have sufficient comrr~nality of purpose to make a recommendation; the Draft Report demon- strated that consensus was impossible - His conviction was unchanged by the new information presented Whether or not to rescind the Williamson Act Contract should be the extent of the deliberations - Acquisition of the property was discussed as an alternative; however, such considerations lost track of the fact that a willing buyer and seller was essential in such a transaction The Nelson Foundation indicated they were entertaining a proposal from Ainsley Deyelopment Option condemning a property remained; he stated he would never entertain such a consideration Urged rescission of the Williamson Act Contract at a time when the City had some leverage regarding development of the site at less than the allowed density and to secure a contribution to be used for City parks and Hakone Gardens Regarding Nelson Gardens Task Force Ad Hoc Committee Draft Report. he noted for the record: ~ August 10, 1988, conversation between Mayor Anderson and Mr. William Penn Mort Jr., former head of the California State Parks Foundation, which brought into question the character and motivation of the Nelson Foundation Trustees. He regretted very much that the above was published in a document that carried the appar- ent sanction of the City; it was never within the purview of the Task Force nor the intention of the Council that the sincerity or motivation of the Nelson Foundation be questioned; to have suggested that the Trustees had exploited the advanced age of Mr. Nelson or utilized his wife in an effort to overcome his reason, judgment or will to reverse his convictions was unfair. He expressed regret that no one had the decency to edit out such a comment. ~ Representations made in a letter of Dr. Stutzman, August 30, 1988, which solicited support of physicians by representing to them that Saratoga was deficient in parklands as measured by County standards and based on population density. The City Manager had informed the Council last Spring that such was not true. The letter continued with a statement that the City had previously refused Mr. Nelson's offer of a park, but would presently like to acquire the site. He was not aware the City had made any determination; however, recipients of the letter would accept such at face value. Letters provided for physicians to sign and return stated, "I wish to commend Mr. Frank Nelson for his generous civic desire to donate the Nelson Gardens to the City of Saratoga." The problem was that Mr. Nelson's desire to donate the Gardens to the City was made in 1971. It was unfair to Mr. Nelson to hold him to an offer made 17 years before; the impli- cation that the offer was current was less than straight forward. Mr. Nelson had reiterated on several occasions that notwithstanding his original intention that this property be pre- served as an open space orchard, he had come to the conclusion that such was no longer possible nor feasible. The fact that it took from 1971 to 1987 to reach such a conclusion did not suggest that Mr. Nelson was swept away by the Board of Directors; on the contrary~ such indicated that he deliberately, rationally and possibly, reluctantly came to the conclusion that his original intention was no longer feasible. Papers provided by the Task Fome demonstrated the possibility that this property may not always succeed in this capacity was explicitly recognized. Document dated February 27, 1984, a Resolution of the Nelson Foundation was cited and reviewed. Councilmember Moyles continued as follows: - The City's open space needs were already addressed by City parks and land use practices - Acreage currently maintained by the City as an orchard/open space was not financially viable - Felt Councilmember Peterson's suggestion was a good one and deserved further consideration - The City could not afford to purchase Nelson Gardens; cited the sale of other City property in order to maintain existing sites - The City did not have a willing seller; thus condemnation would possibly be considered - Questioned whether the Council would have the necessary four-fifths vote to condemn this site - ff a ballot initiative were considered, he wished to make known his opposition to anything other than a property tax over ride provided for in Proposition 13 - Was prepared to take all actions appropriate to a Resolution to amend the General Plan MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 9 DECEMBER 21, 1988 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mayor Anderson commented as follows: - Issue required consideration of the site's appropriateness for residential, agricultural or park use - Task Force did not foresee vacant land for the remaining years of the Williamson Act Contract Past difficulties to creating a park were no longer relevant; site was available for public use - Objected to the San Jose Mercury News editorial entitled, "Too late for a park" Park use was feasible for the neighborhood in question - Traffic experienced in the past need not rcoccur as the intention would be to open the park as an educational resource; impacts could be alleviated while maintaining the site as a garden - The record did not show that neighbors had protested the use of this site as a public use If the Williamson Act Contract were not rescinded, the issue Of the loss of a $360,000.00 contribution and the offer of matching funds had been raised In addition, the statement was made that the City would have more control of development occurring on-site; in the view of the Planning Commission Chair, there would he no appreciable difference between a nine lot subdivision and what the Commission might approve in the future - The question regarding a possible loss of contribution and matching funds was a tough choice for the Council On the other hand the City had an opportunity to preserve the parcel in some form of open space; such required further study - Ad Hoc Task Force Committee did not make a recommendation; such was not possible with the make-up of/he Committee; however, the majority saw the potential of this parcel as a City park It pained her to see the lost opportunities to acquire this parcel; however, if the property was to be acquired now, the parcel would have to be purchased Urged the Foundation not to limit options for the sale of the property to the current proposal - Asked for time to explore options including Community Gardens and a variety of park uses Wished further study to be conducted and the voters to have an opportunity to make a decision If the property could not be secured, then Councilmember Peterson's suggestion was excellent In response to Councilmember PetersoWs questions, Mr. Housrath responded that the Board of Directors of the Nelson Foundation had not had a chance to consider the Councilmember's proposal and he was not authorized to speak for the Board on this matter. Councilmember Moyles advised proponents of preservation open space they were doing serious harm if they discussed a condemnation process to acquire this land, as stated in the Draft Report. MOYLES/PETERSON MOVED TO APPROVE A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT DESIGNATING THE FLORENCE NELSON PROPERTY MEDIUM AND VERY LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. Failed 2-2, Mayor Anderson, Council- member Clevenger dissenting. Break: 11:22 - 11:40 P.M. B. Request for Certification of Environmental Impact Report, General Plan Amendment and Rezoning of Property for former Paul Masson Winery site at 13150 Saratoga Ave. The proposal is to amend the land use element of the General Plan from M to MU-PD and rezone the property from L-1 to MU-PD. (Applicant, Les Maisons ProvencaD (GPA 88- 002; ZC 88-001) (Continued from December 7, 1988) Planning Director Eroslie reviewed the Memorandum of December 7, 1988. The Public Hearing was opened at 11:42 P.M. Mr. D. Reinhardt, Managing General Partner, Les Maisons Provencal, deferred to other Speakers: Mr. Andrew Beverett, Senior Coordinating Council, presented the Board of Director's letter urging certification of Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and approval of the Application. Mr. Ernest Card cited Bay Area Air Quality Management Reports which listed the number of days with excessive carbon monoxide levels; methods to reduce excessive levels were reviewed. Councilmember Clevengerprovided recent information from the Bay Area Quality Management District and concluded that the care facility should be placed furthest from Route 85. The EIR did not address these concerns; in fact, the E1R seemed to operate from a position that the proposed project would not significantly impact carbon monoxide levels in the area rather than the potential impacts of air pollution on'the residents. Such concerns had to be addressed in the final EIR. MEETENG OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 10 DECEMBER 21, 1988 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Dennis Reinhardt commented as follows: Applicants had investigated the economic feasibility of installing a system to reduce carbon mon- oxide levels; they had not yet identified a practical application despite contacts all over the country Conversations were held with experts in the pollution control field; experts were astonished that the levels found in the area adjacent to Route 85 or in the South Bay area were an issue Typical levels of carbon monoxide of concern to the experts were significantly higher; applicants had not found one facility that screened out carbon monoxide at the levels found in the area While the technology was available to screen out the carbon monoxide levels found in the area, it would not be economically feasible to do so - There was controversy among medical professionals regarding the levels of carbon monoxide unhealthy for an individual; there was no empirical evidence for the levels discussed - The Route 85 interchange at Saratoga Ave. was becoming the problem of Applicants; he did not wish this to be so; he submitted that the interchange would reduce the carbon monoxide levels - One intended mitigation measure was to locate air vents away from Saratoga Ave. and Route 85 - There was no reason to expect carbon monoxide, which was lighter than air, to disperse on-site - Confirmed that Applicants accepted all mitigations recommended in the EIR - Applicants would work with the City and the Air Quality Manageraemt District to purse the' installation of a monitoring station at the project site - Smoking would be prohibited 6r located away from the skilled nursing facility; gas appliances, pilot lights would not be used - Applicants would continue to do whatever possible to reduce carbon monoxide levels on-site Councilmember Clevenger cited the letter of the .Mr Qualit',/blanagoxrent District in the Environmental Impact Report; Mr. Reinhardt responded that Applicants had not intended to address air pollution problems in the Cox Ave. area. The Councilmember questioned whether Applicants would do the modeling suggested in the EIR; · City Manager responded that the October 10th letter from LSA Associates addressed the concern. Mr. Reinhardt reviewed the mitigation measures Applicants intended to undertake to ensure a low- ering of the carbon monoxide levels on-site. MOYLES/CLEVENGER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 12:27 A.M. Passed 4-0. Councilmember Moyles felt the E1R presented was adequate; information available indicated that mitigation measures were being applied to a prudent standard. He concurred with the decision of the Planning Commission and the recommendation of Staff. The City Attorney suggested that a recommendation be sent to the Planning Commission regarding the Council's concerns on the placement of the air vents and asked that such be incorporated as part of the review of the Conceptual Development Plan. MOYLES/PETERSON MOVED APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 2538 CERTIFYING AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE LES MAISONS PROVENCAL AT 13150 SARATOGA AVE. Passed 4-0. PETERSON/CLEVENGER MOVED APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 2539 AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT AND TEXT TO ACCOMMODATE DEVELOPMENT OF THE FORMER PAUL MASSON WINERY SITE ON SARATOGA AVENUE (APN 389-11- 04, 05, 08, 09, 010). Passed 4-0. PETERSON/CLEVENGER MOVED TO INTRODUCE ORDtlq~qCE NS3-ZC-96 REZONING CERTAIN TERRITORY OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AND AMENDING THE ZONING MAP, APN 389-11-04, 05, 08-10. Passed 4-0. The Public Hearing on the following Items was opened at 12:31 A. M. C. Ordinance Amending City Code Relating to the Vesting of Tentative Maps as applied to Commercial Projects. City Attorney reviewed a Report on Application of Vesting Tentative Maps to Commercial Projects. CLEVENGER/PETERSON MOVED TO INTRODUCE AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SEC- TION 14-80.010 RELATING TO VESTING TENTATIVE MAPS BY TITLE ONLY. Passed 4-0. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 11 DECEMBER 21, 1988 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued D. Ordinance Amending City Code Concerning Alarm Systems. City Attorney reviewed the Memorandum dated November 1, 1988. PETERSON/CLEVENGER MOVED TO INTRODUCE AN ORDINANCE BY TITLE ONLY, AMENDING SECTION 6-10.080, REPEALING SECTION 6-10.090, AND AMENDING SECTIONS 6-10.100, 6-10.110 AND 6-10.120 OF THE CITY CODE RELATING TO ALARM SYSTEMS. Passed 4-0 E. Ordinance Amending City Code Relating to Off-Street Vehicle Operation. The City Attorney reviewed the Memorandum dated November 4, 1988. CLEVENGER/MOYLES MOVED TO INTRODUCE AN ORDINANCE BY TITLE ONLY, AMENDING SECTION 9-45.030 OF THE CITY CODE RELATING TO OFF-STREET VEHICLE OPERATION. Passed 4-0. F. Ordinance Amending City Code Relating to Unauthorized Use of Garbage Collection Service. The City Attorney reviewed the Memorandum dated November 10, 1988. MOYLES/CLEVENGER MOVED TO INTRODUCE AN ORDINANCE BY TITLE ONLY, AMENDING SECTION 7-05.310 OF THE CITY CODE RELATING TO UNAUTHORIZED USE OF GARBAGE COLLECTION SERVICE. Passed 4-0. G. OrdinanceAmendingCityCodeRegardingMinutesofCityCouncilMeetings. The City Attorney reviewed the Report Re: Minutes of City Council Meetings. MOYLES/CLEVENGER MOVED TO INTRODUCE AN ORDINANCE BY TITLE ONLY, AMENDING SECTION 2-10.060 AND REPEALING SUBSECTION 2-10.120 (d) OF THE CITY CODE REGARDING MINUTES OF CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS. Passed 4-0. The Mayor returned to Old Business. The City Attomey asked that the following item be added to the agenda due to circumstances that occurred after the agenda was posted; he reviewed litigation concerning this area and asked that the Council authorize the City Manager to sign a contract agreement on an improvement project in the amount of $124, 000.00 for the drainage galleries on this street. C. Authorizing the City Manager to sign contract agreement on an improvement project for Sarahills Drive- Soil Engineering Construction CLEVENGER/MOYLES MOVED TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO SIGN CONTRACT AGREEMENT ON AN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FOR SARAHILLS DRIVE IN THE AMOUNT OF $124,100.00. Passed 4-0. 7. NEW BUSINESS: A. Assumption of Transit Assist Vehicle Liability Insurance by Saratoga CLEVENGER/PETERSON MOVED TO DIRECT THE CITY MANAGER TO REQUEST ASSUMPTION OF VEHICLE LIABILITY COVERAGE THROUGH ABAG PLAN CORPORA- TION FROM THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS FOR TRANSIT ASSIST OPERA- TIONS COVERAGE UNDER THE CITY'S PREMIUM WITH ABAG PLAN. Passed 4-0. B. Authorization for City Manager to sign contract for consultant services with Geoff Paulsen for development of revised Emergency Operations Plan. MOYLES/CLEVENGER MOVED TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO SIGN CON- TRACT FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES ON BEHALF OF THE CITY WITH GEOFF PAULSEN FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A REVISED EMERGENCY OPERATIONS PLAN USING FUNDS BUDGETED FOR AN ADMINISTRATIVE INTERN TO FINANCE THE PROJECT. Passed 4-0. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 12 DECEMBER 21, 1988 9. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS: A. Sewer District Lateral Reconstruction Assessment Policy - West Valley Sanitation District The City Manager reviewed the Sewer District Lateral Reconstruction Assessment Policy and assessment policies of other areas. Councilmember Clevenger reviewed the history of this Policy and practices Of adjacent cities; it ~c~o~:t tO note the e were no scw r dis icts thts rated rcas for s eci l consideration. Counc: B. Reports from Individual Councilmembers - None. The Meeting of the City Council was adjourned at 1:06 A.M. Re~ u~a.m't~ S It , ar Col A. Probst-Caughey