Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-18-1989 City Council Minutes MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL TIME: Wednesday, october 18, 1989 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: .Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue TYPE: Regular Meeting 1. ROLL CALL Councilmembers Anderson, Peterson, Stutzman and Mayor Clevenger present at 7:31 p.m.~ Councilmember Moyles present at 7:40 p.m. Mayor Clevenger announced that the severe earthquake on October 17 had caused relatively little damage in Saratoga, partly because structures were required to meet seismic standards. She reviewed the damage to buildings and roads, noting that some areas had lost power and water. She felt Saratoga was fortunate, considering its proximity to the epicenter of the quake. At a meeting with Vice President Quayle and the mayors of other Santa Clara County cities, she reported, most felt their cities had relatively minor damage. Councilmember Anderson added that Saratoga water was safe except in a limited area. 2. CEREMONIAL ITEMS - None. 3. ROUTINE MATTERS A. Approval of Minutes - 10/4 PETERSON/ANDERSON MOVED TO APPROVE AS SUBMITTED. Passed 4-0. B. Approval of Warrant List PETERSON/ANDERSON MOVED TO APPROVE AS SUBMITTED. 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 October 13. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Plannlng Commission Actions, 10/11 - Noted and filed. E. Parks and Recreation commission Minutes, 9/11 - Noted and filed. C. Heritage Preservation Commission Minutes, 9/20 - Noted and filed. D. Library Commission Minutes, 9/27 - Noted and filed. E. Final Building Site Approval, SD 88-013, Vine Street (2 lots) (Developer, Rivoir) F. Final Acceptance, SDR 1259, Pike Rd. (Developer, Politi) G. Final Acceptance, Resolution 36-B-239 accepting Dedication of Via Escuela Ct., and Release of Bond, Tr. 7794 (Developer, Pan Cal) Final Acceptance, Resolution 36-B-240 accepting dedication of Chardonnay Ct., and Release of bond, ~r. 7795 (Developer, J. Lohr Properties) I. Resolution 2600 authorizing destruction of records J. Resolution 2601 denying Sawyer Appeal heard 10/4 City Council Minutes, Oct. 18, 1989 K. Resolution 2602 modifying decision of Planning Commission in Magnuson appeal of Butler project heard 10/4 L. Ordinance 71.61E-1 Amending Ordinance 71.61E repealing restrictions on hours allowed for exterior landscape .watering (second reading and adoption) M. ordinance 71.69 Mending Section 15-45.060 concerning design review and approval of the Negative Declaration (second reading and adoption) PETERSON/ANDERSON MOVED TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR AS SUBMITTED. Passed 4-0. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR II- Claims A. Claim of Kalman, who alleges car window was damaged by gravel thrown up by passing car STUTZMAN/ANDERSON MOVED TO DENY CLAIM. Passed 4-0. 5. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS AND THE PUBLIC A. Oral Communications from the Public and Commissions - None. B. Written Communications from the Publlc 1) Marcia Fariss, 2450 Samaritan Dr., San Jose 95124, objecting to design of Highway 85 interchange at Saratoga Avenue. Consensus to receive, file, and acknowledge letter. Councilmember Anderson requested that the letter of acknowledgment note that the elevation of the interchange would be lower than had even been hoped for in Cupertino. 6. OLD BUSINESS A. Council Review of Draft Open Space Survey Instrument as recommended by Survey Review Committee Planning Director Emslie reported on the development of the survey instrument, noting that input had been obtained from the Planning and Parks and Recreation Commissions, as well as from the community. Councilmember Anderson requested that "Oak Street School" be added on p. 8 and the name of Blue Hills School be spelled correctly; the references to paying on p.' 15 should match the references to citizens taxing themselves through a bond measure on page 14. (Clerk's Note: Councilmember Moyles arrived at this point in the meeting.) Councilmember Peterson expressed philosophical concerns with the instrument. He had thought its purpose was to identify whether Saratogans wanted more open space and wanted to pay for it. The questionnaire, he felt, was almost entirely oriented toward what recreational facilities are desired in the parks. Hebelieved the thrust should be that we do not have enough open space; do we want to buy more for passive enjoyment. Mayor Clevenger agreed, adding that the substance of the survey appeared in Question 29 on p. 13. She feared that by the time respondents reached that point they would be tired of answering questions. Councilmember Stutzman stated that his idea of the purpose of the survey was to identify what we have and find out if it is adequate or whether more needed to be acquired. He agreed that Question 29 should be closer to the beginning of the survey. He believed that the survey as presented would not determine whether people are interested in open space. Page - 2 City Council Minutes, Oct. 18, 1989 Councilmember Moyles asked whether the survey instrument could be reviewed with the consultant. After further discussion, there was consensus to.review the instrument at a study session October 24 if the consultant were available. -7. NEW BUSINESS A. Computer Bquipment Purchase - Project 976 - FY 1989-1991 City Manager Peacock reviewed the report, noting that the current computer budget was not sufficient for the City's needs. STUTZMAN/PETERSON MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2575.6 ADDING $10,000 TO PROJECT 976 AND TO AUTHORIZE PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT FROM FORCE ENGINEERING NOT TO EXCEED $32,105. Passed 5-0. B. By-laws for Santa Clara County Cities Assooiation Mayor Clevenger reported that Eddie Sousa, the Mayor of Santa Clara, had recommended not disbanding the Mayor's Conference of Santa Clara County. The mayors had decided. to continue to meet until June 1990. The need for such a group had been pointed up by their timely gathering together after the earthquake for the meeting with Vice President Quayle. Councilmember Peterson stated that if the mayors wanted to continue to meet he had no objection, but it may conflict with the ability of the new group to grow and develop authority. Councilmember Anderson commented that when she was mayor she had felt the West Valley Mayors and Manager's group was more useful than the · County Mayors group. She favored trying the new group. PETERSON/ANDERSON MOVED TO ACCEPT BY-LAWS AS SUBMITTED. Passed 5-0. 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Financing Alternatives for Curbside Recycling Mayor Clevenger reported that the State had decreed that the cities reduce their waste stream by a certain percentage now and a higher percentage in the future. The Councils of Los Gatos, Campbell, Monte Sereno, and Saratoga, she said, have been working together for over a year to find a solution to this problem. Community Services Director Argow reviewed the history of the recycling effort, which culminated with the most cost effective proposal, presented by Green Valley Disposal. The Rate Review Committee, he said, had explored several different financing alternatives; the addition of $.82 per month tothe refuse collection bill was the recommended alternative. In answer to Councilmember Peterson, Mr. Argow stated that marketing the concept of recycling was included as part of the proposed contract with Green Valley Disposal. In answer to Councilmember Stutzman, Mr. Argow replied that recycling would prolong the life of the Guadalupe Landfill, depending on the extent of participation by the residents. With 25% participation, the prolongation would only be a few years; with 50% or better participation, it could be as much as ten years. He went on to say that when the landfill is filled to capacity, solid waste would have to be shipped away, used in a waste-to-energy plant, or dumped in the ocean--all costly alternatives. In answer to Councilmember Anderson, he stated that San Jose is investigating the possibility of a plant which would use recycled materials. The markets for recycled materials, however, are depressed, so at present the Kiwanis Recycling Center is losing money. He pointed out that in the proposed contract the City assumes no risk Page - 3 City Council Minutes, Oct. 18, 1989 in that connection. Legislation is coming on this matter, however, and Saratoga should support it, he said. The public hearing was opened at 8:05 p.m. Elizabeth Binkley, 21055 Sarahills Drive, spoke on behalf of the Saratoga High School Rain Forest Recycling Group. She favored the proposed contract and offered the assistance of the group if it were needed. Jean Barrick, 19907 Bonnie Ridge Way, speaking on behalf of a citizens group in Saratoga/Los Gatos, supported the proposal and offered assistance in educating the public. No one further appearing to speak, the public hearing was closed at 8:10 p.m. May6r Clevenger remarked that some East Coast cities were transporting their solid waste by train as far as Idaho at great cost. As for waste-to-energy plants, they produce a residue which must be disposed of; glass bricks which are a possible use of the residue are more expensive than glass bricks manufactured conventionally. Councilmember Moyles felt the City Council was moving in the right direction with the proposal; he commended staff for their work on it. To obtain the maximum participation, he suggested discussing at the next Policy Development Conference ways of developing public attitudes which would increase participation beyond 25% and working with the school districts to get programs to educate children about recycling. He expressed a willingness to contribute City money if it looked promising. Councilmember Peterson noted that Saratoga had led the four-city group on this issue and congratulated Mr. Argow and the Council in reaching a solution. PETERSON/ANDERSON MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2603 APPROVING RECYCLING CONTRACT WITH GREEN VALLEY DISPOSAL. Passed 5-0. PETERSON/ANDERSON MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2604 MODIFYING RATE FOR REFUSE COLLECTION SERVICE. Passed 5-0. B. Ordinance amending Uniform Building Code to adopt minimum Class C roof covering for all residential buildings without height, size, occupancy or setback exceptions (first reading and introduction) Mayor Clevenger noted that Chief Building Inspector Joe Oncay and Community Services Director Argow had worked hard and done a professional job during the earthquake. Mr. Oncay stated that both the 1985 Lexington fire and the earthquake this week indicated a need for fire-safe roofs. He quoted statistics concerning the number of fires to be expected under various conditions and the number of fire engines required for response, stating that with an earthquake measuring 8.3 on the Richter scale a conflagration could be expected in Saratoga. In answer to Councilmember Moyles, the City Attorney discussed the opinion of the Attorney General, which stated that local agencies could not impose fire regulations more.restrictive than those imposed by the State. He felt Saratoga should proceed with the ordinance in spite of the opinion; the opinion focused on three specific sections under which a city may modify standards, but it does not comment on other sections that may permit local modifications. The opinion focused on residential and hotels, not commercial properties, he said; furthermore, the State Fire Marshall disagreed with the Attorney General. In answer to Councilmember Anderson, Mr. Oncay stated that the State Fire Marshall requirement was for Class C roofing. The Attorney Page - 4 City Council Minutes, Oct. 18, 1989 General's opinion would also affect otherlongstanding Saratoga fire safety regulations, as well as those of other cities, he said. In answer to Councilmember Stutzman, Mr. Oncay stated that recent research showed that wood shingles and shake material would remain fire retardant indefinitely. Other types of material are rated indefinitely. In response to Councilmember Stutzman, Mr. Oncay stated that there was no indication that a fire-retardant roof is more dangerous to occupants than an untreated wooden roof. He explained that when the fire "flashes" the house is uninhabitable in any case. In answer to Councilmember Moyles, City Attorney stated that he intended to study the State standards to see if there were any conflict with the proposed ordinance. In answer to Councilmember Anderson, Mr. Oncay stated that the members of the Fire Protection Association were fire safety professionals. In answer to Councilmember Anderson, he stated that in a house fire the previous day, adjacent structures were not burned because three residents supplied water from their hoses. The adjacent roof became very hot and could have caught fire without the water from the hoses. In answer to Councilmember Anderson, Mr. Oncay stated that the roofing industry claims that wood roofs treated for fire-retardancy can last as long as 15 years. 'In answer to Councilmember Stutzman, Mr. Oncay replied that he did not know whether insurance companies gave better rates for fire retardant roofs. However, in hazardous fire areas there are cases where the homeowners are unable to get insurance at all. The City Attorney stated that Mr. Oncay's comments would constitute part of the record as describing local conditions to justify the adoption of the building regulations. The public hearing was opened at 8:35 p.m. Harry Abney spoke as a field representative for the Cedar Shake and Shingle Industry. He recommended that the Council adopt the 1988 Uniform Building Code without requirement for fire retardant roofing. He stated that very few fires occurred in roofs or jump from one roof to another. He felt the fire-retardancy technology was expensive, and the requirement for it removed the homeowner's right of choice. He believed the insurance premium would be no different for a fire- retardant roof. He believed wood roofs were safer because they allowed the fire to burn through the top of the house. He also stated that Senator Campbell was in the process of sponsoring legislation on the matter. Councilmember Stutzman commented that if the water flow were disrupted, as in the earthquake, fires could spread from roof to roof. Elizabeth Bridgeman, 13621 Front Crest Court, spoke as a roofing contractor working primarily in Saratoga. She submitted a petition with signatures of homeowners opposing the ordinance. She believed that most people were unaware of the proposed ordinance but would oppose it if they knew about it. She felt wood roofs added to the attractiveness of Saratoga and that fire-retardant treatment made shingles brittle. She believed Saratoga did not have many fires, and they did not jump from roof to roof. Most fires start inside a house, she said, and she felt it safer for a fire to burn through a roof. Ernie Kraule, Chief of the Saratoga Fire District, expressed support for the proposed ordinance. He felt that the factor of a wood roof allowing a fire to burn through was not significant for life safety because even sealed houses vent. .e Brett Borah, 19524 Northampton, spoke as chair of the Public Safety Commission. He stated that the Commission had studied the ordinance Page - 5 City Council Minutes, Oct. 18, 1989 extensively and supported it. He pointed out that even if a place has not had a conflagration in 40 years, that does not mean it will never have one. The value of Class C roofing is for homes adjacent to those already burning, he said. Eugene O'Rorke, 14031 Shadow Oaks Way, speaking as a Public Safety Commissioner, agreed with Mr. Borah. He noted that the Commission did not support any particular kind of roof, but made their recommendation using national standards to protect the City as a whole. No one further appearing to speak, the public hearing was closed at 9:01 p.m. Councilmember Peterson supported the ordinance in order to protect adjacent houses from fires. Councilmember Anderson opposed the ordinance to preserve the homeowner's right of choice and the appearance of shake roofs in Saratoga. She feared that if people were forced to use fire retardant roofs they might choose the less expensive, less attractive types. She was not convinced that fire-retardant roofs were significantly safer in Saratoga than shake roofs. She believed fires in Saratoga .usually did not involve other houses. Councilmember Moyles favored the ordinance. He was convinced by the unanimous opinions of the Public Safety Commission, staff, and fire professionals that the safety of homes adjacent to fires was at risk without the ordinance. Councilmember Stutzman favored the ordinance. After last night's earthquake, he said, he became convinced that a requirement for fire retardant roofs was worthwhile, even if it resulted in some lack of consistency in the types of roofs in Saratoga. He felt that the large trees, proximity of houses, high winds, and possible loss of water in an emergency could contribute to spread of fires without the ordinance. Mayor Clevenger opposed the ordinance, agreeing with Councilmember Anderson that the possible community benefit did not justify the extra expense. She felt the homeowner should be allowed to choose the type of his roof. MOYLES/PETERSON MOVED TO INTRODUCE THE ORDINANCE BY TITLE ONLY, WAIVING FURTHER READING. Passed 3-2 (Anderson, Clevenger opposed). The Mayor recessed the meeting from 9:15 to 9:25 p.m. C. Appeal of approval of 34-1ot subdivision varying in area from 0.92 acres to 1.89 acres in the R-1-40,000 zoning district. The property is located at the Odd Fellows property southerly to the senior care facility, between Gypsy Hill subdivision and Crisp Ave. A Final Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project'and certified by the Planning Commission. (Applicant, Rogers & Brooks; appellant, D. Lackner)(SDSS-00S) Planning Director Emslie reviewed the issues, noting that the Planning Commission wished to minimize the impact of traffic to any one. He explained other decisioDs of the Commission, including their preference for an open space easement rather than dedicated open space because the City would then receive significant in-lieu fees, while the land would still' remain open space. The Commission had specified design criteria, he said, so that as the lots are developed there are consistent standards. In answer to Councilmember Anderson, Stutzman and Clevenger, he explained a number of issues: he believed the elementary school servicing the houses was Oak Street School; staff had presented both sides of the issue of easement vs. dedicated open space; he believed acquisition of the open space should be considered even though the ~ Commission had recommended an easement; he stated that there wereno other subdividable parcels off Sobey Rd. Page 6 City Council Minutes, Oct. 18, 1989 The public hearing was opened at 9:35 p.m. Devorah Lackner, 14851 Sobey Road, spoke as the appellant, noting her concern about the impact of increased traffic on the schoolchildren and the environment. She believed the Environmental Impact Report was flawed because traffic estimates were too low. She felt the traffic on Sobey Rd. was already dangerous and should not be increased. Further, parents would have to drive their children in a roundabout way to get them to school because of the configuration of the roads. She felt open space was now becoming scarce and should be preserved for future generations. Pauline Seales presented a petition opposing the development because of increased traffic. She pointed out that a letter from the school district said it was preferable for students to have access to their schools through their own district only. Virginia Fanelli spoke as the representative of Rogers and Brook, the applicant. She stated that the Planning Comission had thoroughly reviewed all the questions being brought up. Over 20% of the property is to be held for open space for public use, she said. If the open space were held as an easement, she said, the City would not have to pay for maintenance and would receive $175,000 as in-lieu park dedication fees; the public would have access to the land by trail throughout the entire area. She noted previous problems with use of the land for Community Gardens and Odd Fellows picnics. With 11/2 acres per home, she said, the proposed development was less dense than surrounding developments. As to schoolchildren's routes, she pointed out that approximately 1/3 of the children on Sobey Road have gone to Saratoga schools for years with no apparent problems. As to the map, she said it was not the applicant's choice, but they could live with it. She felt the Odd Fellows access, however, was not good planning; the three cul de sacs create small isolated enclaves. Residents will have to drive 2/3 of a mile through the Odd Fellows archway to reach their property. She preferred a two-cul de sac alternative, noting that the Environmental Impact Report did not say that the traffic would be unacceptable. Councilmember Anderson stated that she wished to review the possibility of closing Chester at San Marcos. Peggy Cocker spoke as the attorney for Odd Fellows, noting that Odd Fellows was not a party to the appeal but nevertheless was an interested party. She characterized the proposal as a high-quality, low-density development but opposed the access, which "cut through the heart" of the Odd Fellows Home. In answer to a suggestion that the Odd Fellows not sell part of their property to avoid the undesirable access, she stated that the Odd Fellows needed to sell the entire property in order to raise funds tobring their facilities into compliance with regulations. She opposed the Odd Fellows access because of the impact on the safety of the 400 elderly residents of the home; the road would separate the care facilities from the residential facilities. As to the restriction on access from Crisp Avenue, she felt that the Council had made that 1978 decision without enough publicity or input either from the public or from the staff. Moreover, she felt its main purpose was simply to assure that Crisp would remain a cul de sac. She reiterated that Odd Fellows did not have the choice of not selling part of the property. They had the right and the need to sell, she said, and should not be penalized for doing so. She favored the two-cul de sac map, believing it to be the best land use decision and the best public safety decision. Art Mandel, 14950 Sobey Rd., spoke against putting more traffic on Sobey Rd. He felt the Odd Fellows should accept an access, or else the project.should be sent back for reconsideration. Paul Maskovich, 14672 Gypsy Hill Rd., representing a group of new buyers, spoke against any more housing in the area. If more housing Page - 7 City Council Minutes, oct. 18, 1989 were to be built, he said, Odd Fellows should shoulder their share of the adverse impact and accept an access. If other areas needed to accept access, he said, it should be divided more equally. Larry Wilkinson, Executive Director of Odd Fellows, spoke of the need to improve their facilities without delay. He described the current living conditions and noted that, with the general population becoming older, more facilities would be needed for care of the elderly. He favored the two-cul de sac plan. Martin Date, 1284 Redondo Drive, San Jose, a representative of the Sierra Club, spoke against the loss of remaining oak and grassland areas. If development is necessary, he said, they supported cul de sacs with no roads bisecting parcels. This, he felt, would allow for movement of wildlife; he also supported the dedication of open space. He believed that traffic impacts could be lessened by approving fewer lots. Sue Creegan, 107 E10livar, Los Gatos, Director of Nursing at the Odd Fellows, expressed concern that the three-cul de sac plan would not be safe for the Odd Fellows residents, who needed level ground to walk. Harry L~wlor, Ruth and Going, San Jose, spoke as a civil engineer. He stated that none of the four potential accesses through the Odd Fellows property is desirable. He pointed out that the Environmental Impact Report says a two-cul de sac plan would meet the needs of Saratoga. Herb Ratting, 14050 Chester Avenue, stated that those living on Sobey drive down Chester; contrary to Ms. Cocker's assertion, a two-cul de sac map would not be best for public safety. There have been several accidents on Chester, he said. He went on to say that Jerry Lohr had presented an approach for the cul de sac situation which would make the distribution of traffic more even. He requested that the Planning Commission consider this proposal if the project were returned to them. Mr. Tompkins, 14740 Sobey Rd., stated~that he had two children attending Marshall Lane School. He felt the road was not now safe for schoolchildren because of traffic, and no more traffic should be added. He believed that neither he nor anyone near him had been notified of the public hearing. He also believed that the Odd Fellows should take the "developer's risk" and accept access or find a better solution. Nancy Grossman, 15002 Sperry Lane, stated that the traffic on Sobey Road was a problem for equestrians. She believed that 18 more homes would add 50 more cars. Mayor Clevenger brought up the question of traffic movement from Gypsy Hill Road. Ms. Grossman said the traffic does not split; it goes equally both ways, and drivers avoid Quito. Karin Dowdy spoke on her own behalf,.noting, however, that she was President of the Westbrook Homeowners Association. She believed the Odd Fellows should not have to accept a public road on their property. Odd Fellows, she said, already provides a public service by bearing traffic on their private road from Fellowship Plaza, a 150-unit' Housing and Urban Development project. Crisp Avenue, she stated, is considered a collector street in the General Plan, and can handle increased traffic. She stated further that it was not the obligation of Odd Fellows to provide public open space. The proceeds from the sale of their property should not be considered profits, she said, but proceeds which will be used to bring their facilities into compliance with codes. Bob Swanson, 19305 Crisp Avenue, favored access through the Odd Fellows property, with access for only seven lots coming through Crisp. He believed the Environmental Impact Report was not accurate as to traffic. He felt the institution which sold the land should shoulder the burden of increased traffic unless it were physically impossible. He believed the proposed project violated the General Page - 8 City Council Minutes, Oct. 18, 1989 Plan in that the Area G section says that no through street shQuld be allowed. Although the Planning Commission thought the Crisp Avenue commitment for access for no more than seven lots was illegal, he felt it was a valid commitment made by the City government which should be honored. Wanda Allenger, 14520 Fruitvale Ave., felt that her area was taking its share of the traffic burden, since over 200 cars go in and out of the private road daily. She felt the Odd Fellows should have been notified that there could be no more than seven houses accessing from Crisp. She believed that more people would have been present to support her position if it had not been for the earthquake. Margaret Fisher, 14520 Fruitvale, spoke as a resident of Fellowship Plaza who favored wildlife and historic values. She believed that a private road through the development was a good solution, with an arch at the Crisp and Gypsy Hill entrances and speed bumps. She wanted open public hearings to be held to address the Environmental Impact Report, and she said she had not received notice of the hearing. Michael Farrell, 14451 Sobey Road, opposed the development because of increased traffic on Sobey Road. He believed the Crisp Avenue agreement should be honored, and the Odd Fellows should bear the traffic. There were children and older people living on Sobey who would be adversely impacted by traffic, he said. Leo Satterly stated his opinion that access through the Odd Fellows would give the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Bob Barton, Project Engineer for the Odd Fellows upgrading project, said he had been working for two years to update the facilities. He described the work that needed to be done on existing buildings and the new buildings needed. He felt none of ~he possible accesses through the Odd Fellows property was a good solution, in part because the Odd Fellows could not maintain control over such accesses. He supported the two-access plan, believing that it was within the General Plan and the Environmental Impact Report. Dick Merwyn, 14466 Sobey Road, felt that the safety of the residents on Sobey Rd. was more of an issue than that of the Odd Fellows residents. He believed access should be shared more equally, either by having three cul de sacs, with less traffic on Sobey, or by developing fewer lots than proposed. Virginia Fanelli rose again to speak on the proposal of Mr. Lohr which had been referred to as a possible solution for the traffic problems; the grade would have been an undesirable 26%. As to the schoolchildren's route, she said that in years past children on Quito Road were going to Foothill School. Further, an arborist had reviewed the entire site, as well as an archeologist and other experts. She pointed out that the open space would be permanent, and an oak tree which had been singled out as especially beautiful would be preserved. The 34 proposed lots would not impact the open space, she said. .They would like to have the trail running. through it be as natural as possible. She pointed out that the Environmental Impact Report is prepared under the direction of the City, and the developer simply pays for it; it showed that 35 lots were well within limits. She requested that the project not be returned to the Planning Commission; they had resolved the various issues, she said, and now the decision on the map was up to the City Council, based on what the Council believed was best. Pauline Seales rose again to express skepticism about how the open space was going to work. She expected an endless stream of variances to be requested as the development progressed. She agreed that the Council should decide forxthe greatest good for the greatest number of people, and she felt the greatest number lived on Sobey Road and Chester. She believed another option was reducing the density. No one further appearing to speak, the public hearing was closed at 11:10. Page - 9 City Council Minutes, Oct. 18, 1989 councilmembers discussed various aspects of the project. In answer to Councilmember Anderson, Planning Director Emslie replied that the status of the open space as an easement or dedicated land would make no difference in controlling off-road vehicles. He felt, however, that a dedication was more permanent. City Manager Peacock explained'that if the City were to have title to the land, 34 lots would not have to pay the in-lieu park fees required by the Quimby Act. The obligation to maintain the land would be the City's, he said, but there would be little practical difference. .Mayor Clevenger addressed the traffic question, saying that if some of the houses on Gypsy Hill left by way of Chester, the traffic on Sobey Road would be reduced. Councilmember Moyles stated that he felt comfortable about the noticing which had been done for the hearing. Tonight's testimony was consistent with the previous record, so he had no qualms about proceeding with a decision. He believed the Environmental Impact Report to be acceptable, as the Planning Commission had unanimously agreed. The Commission has already done all it could, he felt, and it was now up to the Council to make a decision. The proposed density was within ordinance requirements, and the 20% open space is good, he said. He preferred to have title to the open space rather than an easement, even though the City would lose the in-lieu fees. He believed the traffic impacts were not bad, adding only about three cars per hour. He agreed that the previous Council's decision on Crisp Avenue should be honored, but he opposed access through the Odd Fellows property; he favored allowing more traffic on Sobey Road. Councilmember Anderson wished to relieve traffic on Gypsy Hill but uphold the restriction on Crisp Avenue. She proposed opening Chester where it is now closed and having the Odd Fellows take access on their road. She approved the proposed density and preferred dedicated open space to an easement. Councilmember Peterson preferred an easement so that the City would obtain $175,000 in in-lieu fees. He felt it would be as permanent as a dedication. As to the houses, he pointed out that they would come to the Planning Commission for review so that the impact would not be unduly great on the neighbors; variances are allowed but not often granted. He felt the Crisp Avenue restriction had been poor planning, but he supported it because the Council was committed to it. As to a cul de sac, he said he lived on a 32-home cul de sac and experienced no significant traffic problems. If the Odd Fellows opposed the access, he said, they had the option of not selling all of the property. Councilmember Stutzman conceded that the problem was a difficult one because no matter how it was solved the majority of people would be dissatisfied. Subdivisions do not enhance the quality of life, but they are part of life, he said, and he supported the Planning Commission decision. He also supported the Crisp Avenue restriction. He favored dedication of the open space because it was more permanent. Although he had empathy for the Odd Fellows, he believed they had other options, such as an underground access. Furthermore, he believed that the parcels in question might be used for a senior care facility rather than the Paul Masson property. The Odd Fellows could also retain it for their own use, he said. Mayor Clevenger wished to honor the Crisp Avenue restriction and take dedication of the open space rather than an easement; she approved the proposed density. On the chance that the 9-lot area might not be developed, she supported the decision of the Planning Commission. She hoped that the Odd Fellows would put a senior retirement center there rather than homes; she believed a nine-lot subdivision would not be very salable. Virginia Fanelli rose again to speak to the issue of dedication of the open space. She had understood that if the open space were dedicated rather than accepted as an easement, neither the floor area ratio nor Page - i0 City Council Minutes, Oct. 18, 1989 the density of the plan would be affected. There was consensus that they would not be affected. Mayor Clevenger brought up the posssibility of the City's charging a fee for the improvement of Sobey Road. City Manager agreed that it would be reasonable, and perhaps current residents should also pay for such improvements. He said the City needed to prepare an improvement plan for Sobey Road. There was consensus to charge residents for the improvements. Councilmember Anderson brought up the possibility of requiring xeriscape landscaping with native plants in the CC&R's of the development in order to make the development appear to be open space. ANDERSON/PETERSON MOVED TO UPHOLD THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION, INCLUDING THE APPROVED DENSITY; DEDICATION OF OPEN SPACE (RATHER THAN OPEN SPACE EASEMENT); CONFIRMATION OF COUNCIL'S PREVIOUS COMMITMENT TO LIMIT ACCESS ON CRISP AVENUE TO 7 LOTS; ACCESS THROUGH THREE CUL-DE- SACS; REQUIREMENT THAT IN THE EVENT SOBEY ROAD IS IMPROVED, LOTS ACCESSING VIA SOBEY ROAD MUST PAY A PRO-RATA SHARE OF THE COST OF IMPROVEMENTS. Passed 4-1 (Moyles opposed). Councilmember Peterson indicated he would be in favor of taking a look at changing the General Plan in order to place a senior retirement center on the nine-lot subdivision. Mayor Clevenger stated she felt it was a good option. Margaret Fisher requested that a historic barn on the property be saved. 9. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS A. Heritage Preservation Commission Vacancy MOYLES/ANDERSON MOVED TO APPOINT STEVEN BENZING TO THE VACANCY CREATED BY THE RESIGNATION OF SHARON LANDSNESS. Passed 5-0 B. Council statement of support for Measure A Projeots vis a vis MTC Implementation of Contingency Plan per Judge Henderson,s order re: 1982 Clean Air Aot (Sierra Club and CBE vs. MTC et al.) Councilmembers Anderson and Stutzman and Mayor Clevenger expressed reservations about the draft letter's references to the effects of freeways on air quality. PETERSON/MOYLES MOVED TO SEND THE DRAFT LETTER WITH THE MAYOR'S SIGNATURE. Passed 3-2 (Anderson, Stutzman opposed). C. Reports from Indivldual Councilmembers Clevenger - Reported that Muko officials had called from Japan to determine whether the Sister City visit was still on schedule in spite of the serious earthquake October 17; she had replied that it was. Moyles - reported that Villa Montalvo may be closed to the public because of the earthquake,. which may necessitate a change in part of the schedule. Clevenger - Reported that Villa Montalvo was willing to waive the setup fee for the Muko exhibit. Clevenger - Reported that a resident had had problems with a car which drove over her lawn; Community Services officer Mike Nottoli had been most helpful to the resident. Clevenger = Reported that the Santa Clara County mayors had met with Vice President Dan Quayle in the aftermath of the earthquake; most cities had not suffered extensive damage. Stutzman - Reported that the pine trees at Hakone Gardens were being attacked by pine beetles, and some may be lost. Page - 11 City Council Minutes, Oct. 18, 1989 Moyles Complimented the City staff on their response to the earthquake emergency. The City Manager reported that a number of City employees, including Argow, Cadwallader, Dorsey, Enriquez, King, Martin, and Muser had been present after hours at the informal emergency operating center. There was consensus for the Council to send them a letter of appreciation from the Council. The City Manager felt that the Emergency Plan had worked well. 10. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 12:20 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Grace E. Cory Deputy City Clerk Page - 12