Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-07-1996 City Council Minutes MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL TIME: Wednesday, February 7, 1996 - 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Ave. TYPE: Regular Meeting The following matter was considered in the Administration Conference Room, after which the Council proceeded to the Civic Theater. Closed Session: CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-ANTICIPATED LITIGATION pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 54956.9 in one case. At 7:30 p.m. the meeting was convened into open session. Pledge of Allegiance 1. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. Councilmembers Burger, Moran, Tucker, Wolfe and Mayor Jacobs were present. Staff present: City Manager Peacock, City Attorney Riback, Public Works Director Perlin, Associate Planner Walgren and Community Development Director Curtis 2. CEREMONIAL ITEMS A. Proclamation on Science Fair Week MORAN/TUCKER TO APPROVE THE PROCLAMATION. PASSED 5-0. 3. REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA City Manager Peacock reported that pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on February 2. 4. COMMUNICATION8 FROM COMMISSION8 AND THE PUBLIC A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Dr. F. L. Stutzman, 15195 Park Drive, said he had received a telephone call Saturday regarding Measure G. The caller, when asked, identified herself as representing Saratoga Citizens Against Measure G. She said she had called about a thousand people and planned to call everyone in Saratoga. He then talked to her supervisor who informed him that the company making the calls was Protocol Telemarketers in Pleasanton. When Dr. Stutzman asked him who was paying for their' services, the supervisor answered it was being paid for by the Saratoga City Council and City Attorney. He also said the Saratoga City Council and City Attorney had briefed them before they made the calls. Dr. Stutzman said he was appalled that the City Council were the ones responsible and thought it was an illegal appropriation of funds. He said he received a second call this morning and the caller asked for his wife by name. Mrs. Stutzman passed away five years ago. He said it reminds him of the tactics employed by Mayor Daley in Chicago when the names of people who had passed away were used on absentee ballots. He told Council he would appreciate an explanation. B. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSION8 - None. C. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - None. 5. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Previously-Discussed Items - None. B. New Items 1) Planning Commission Actions, 1/24 - Note and file. 2} Approval of Check Register City Council Minutes 2 February 7, 1996 3) Resolution 96-0: authorizing Destruction of Certain City Records 4) Utility Users Tax Audit subpoena Resolution 96-04 WOLFE/MORANTO APPROVE CONSENTSCALENDAR ITEMS 5.B, i THROUGH 4. PASSED C. CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY - None. Mayor Jacobs moved the agenda to Item 7. 7. OLD BUSINESS - None. 8. NEW BUSINESS A. Oral Communications (continued) and instructions to staff regarding actions on=current oral communications Mayor Jacobs replied to Dr. Stutzman, stating that to his knowledge no one on staff, Council or from the City Attorney's office had anything to with the poll which he had only heard about after it was completed. B. Memo Authorizing PUblicity for Upcoming Hearings - Odd Fellows Project TUCKER/MORAN TO AUTHORIZE PUBLICITY AS RECOMMENDED. PASSED 5-0. 9. ROUTINE MATTERS A. Approval of Minutes - 1/9; 1/17; 1/22; 1/23 MORAN/BURGER TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 9, 1996 MEETING AS PRESENTED. PASSED 5-0 TUCKER/MORANTO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 17, 1996NEETINGAR. PRESENTED. PASSED 5-0 MORAN/BURGER TO APPROVE THE MINDTE8 OF THE JANUARY 22, 1996 MEETING AS PRESENTED. PASSED 5-0 WOLFE/MORAN TO APPROVE THE MINUTE8 OF THE JANUARY 23, 1996 MEETING AS PRESENTED. PASSED 5-0. 10. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS A. Agenda items for joint meeting'with Parks and Recreation Commission February 27 1. Future Options for Use of the warner Hutton House 2. Park Facilities Needs 3. Task Force Pollcy Guidelines Councilmember Moran suggested moving the Task Force Policy Guidelines to the beginning of the agenda; City Manager Peacock announced that the meeting would begin at 7:00 p.m. and that the Parks & Recreation Commission has prepared their list of priorities. The Commission also reviewed Council's Task Force Policy Guidelines at their last meeting. B. Other Mayor Jacobs announced the results of the closed session held at 7:00 p.m. regarding a letter received from the Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) concerning the City's collection of utility tax. Council decided they will place the utility users tax on the November 1996 ballot subject to the following conditions: 1. If the City is sued by the PLF or anyone else, they reserve the right to allow the issue to be decided by the court rather than hold an election. 2. If the issue is resolved prior to the election by legislation at the state level or City Council Minutes 3 February 7, 1996 by a court decision which validates the tax or resolves the retroactivity issue, the City reserves the right to withdraw it from the ballot. 3. The City will continue collecting the tax pending the election. Council also directed the City the Attorney to draft and send a letter to PLF setting forth that decision. 7:45 - 8:00 P.M. - RECESS 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS - 8:00 P.M. A. GPA-94-003, AZO-94-002, SD-95-008 & Tentative Cancellation of a Williamson Act Agricultural Preserve Contract (APN 503- 49-41 & 42) Applloant: TRINITY DEVELOPMENT COMPANY; 20851 SAPATOGA HILLS RD. Request for General Plan Amendment to allow two parcels totaling 5.1 acres to be reclassifled from an Open Space- Outdoor Recreational designation to Residential-Very Low Density and Medium Density. Request includes associated Zoning District amendment to allow the two parcels to be reclassifled from an Agrlcultural designation to R-1-40,000 and R-1-12,500. Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map approval is requested to subdivide the two parcels into nine single- family lots. Tentative cancellation of the properties~ Williamson Act agricultural preserve contract is includedas part of the project description. Pursuant to the terms and requirements of the Californla Enviroumental Quality Act an EIR has been prepared for the project. The Final EIR has been reviewed by the Planning Commission and recommended for certification to the City Council. City Manager Peacock noted receipt of written communications after the agenda was sent to the City Council from the following: Robin Kennedy (2); Bagher Navid; Mary Guth; Barton Hechtman of Matteoni Saxe & Nanda; Hoge, Fenton, Jones & Appel; Blossom Valley Investors, Inc.; Cheyenne Realty, Inc.; and Slobodan Galeb. He said Council also had an amended resolution relative to certifying the Environmental Impact Report. Director of Community Development Curtis presented the staff report and reviewed the process to date. He stated that the recommendation from the Planning Commission does not include any recommendation regarding cancellation of the Williamson Act. He noted that Chairman Murakami of the Planning Commission and Laura Worthington-Forbes, Michael Brandon and Associates were present to answer questions. In answer to Councilmember Moran s questions, he said he had reviewed the letters that had been received just prior to the meeting and did not feel they provided any new information. Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing at 8:09 P.M. Barton Hechtman of Matteoni Saxe & Nanda, spoke on behalf of the applicant, Trinity Development .Co., stating support for staff's recommendations. He said the correspondence received by Council recently is centered around the Williamson Act Cancellation. He had submitted a letter concerning the Williamson Act in hopes that he could provide a road map connecting the facts that are present in this situation to the findings CouncilI needs to make. He highlighted sections of his letter referring to extraordinary circumstances, filingof the notice of non-renewal (which he submitted as Exhibit A to his letter), the Santa Clara County Agricultural Commissioner's analysis that the soil conditions for the subject property make it a poor property for agricultural uses, a letter from Bruce risenman of the U. S. Department of Agriculture (submitted as Exhibit B), and a letter from Kevin Engstrom of Gruen, Gruen & Associates (submitted as Exhibit C). In reference to Robin Kennedy's letter which was received this evening, he said he saw it as a delaying tactic. He said the issues she raised will be addressed by the courts at the time of the lawsuit which will probably be filed by Friends of Nelson Garden and are not part of the findings regarding Williamson Act Cancellation. He introduced Virginia Fanelli. Ms. Fanelli, representing the Community Foundation, described the topography of the property under consideration and said it is City CouncilMinutes 4 February 7, 1996 surrounded by single-family residences. The closest agricultural uses are the Trinity Vineyard or th~ City's Heritage Orchard. In regard to the finding that There is no ~roximate, non-contracted land which is both available and suitable for the use to which it is proposed the contracted land be put, OR t~at development of the contracted land would provide more contiguous pattern of urban development than development of proximate, non-contracted land , she said the authors of the EIR identified three potential sites for non-contracted proximate land and Dr. Stutzman had submitted a list of eight. Ms. Fanelli reviewed the current; status of each of those sites. In addition to those properties, they had .researched the listing of properties which are availabie, proximate and non-contracted which would serve as a practical alternative. Only a few individual, non- contiguous lots were for sale,.and they are zoned for one residential unit each and are not subdividable. Dr. F. L. Stutzman, 15195 Park Drive, expressed objections to the cancellation of the WilliamsonAct Contract. He said the preliminary EIR proved totally inadequate and failed to address the issues. The final EIR did not add any new information or answer their questions. He said he was still opposed to the document on the same basis as originally. Their main objection to the cancellation is that they feel it is an illegal act. The findings for cancellation have not been met. The original intent for the use of the land was for a park. The Open Space Element of the General Plan specifically states that open space is valuable to the community and is to be protected. Saratoga is nearly built out and there.will soon be no open space. There is less open space and recreation'land per thousand residents in Saratoga than in any other community in the south bay area. He said they need this area to maintain the ambiance that brought people to Saratoga. If Council continue to refuse to recognize the obligations of the City to provide this need for its citizens just as it provides roads and utilities, their only recourse, will be through the legal system. Dr. Stutzman said if necessary, they have the means and resolve to have this issue heard by a more unbiased and objective body than they are dealing with here. Regarding the nature of the soil not being useful for agricultural purposes, he said he owns orchard land and trees and is familiar with soil analyses and agricultural use in orchards. He said the statement that the soil is not suitable for growing anything is ridiculous and he did not' know why Council had accepted such statements in the EIR. Robin Kennedy, 301 University Avenue, Palo Alto, said that whether the Council makes its decision On cancellatlon of the Williamson Act pursuant to the finding that the cancellation is within the purposes of the Act, or if it makes its determination on the basis that the cancellation is in the public interest, they need to make a specific finding that there is no proximate non-contracted land both available and suitable for development. ~She challenged Ms. Fanelli's definition of the word available She said it does not mean available for sale to the public but available fo~ the type of development that is being considered. The notion is that you can. overturn a Williamson Act Contract and cancel it early if the use that is being proposed for the land has n~ other place to go. The use being proposed for the property is nine single family houses, and more than nine will be built on the parcels shown on the map Ms. Fanelli referred to. Ms Kennedy stated that one of the letters Council received from her was in response to David Mitchell's letter in which he implies that a donor who makes a charitable gift, receives a deduction and makes it to a charitable organization that has a specific purpose that is consonant with the purpose of his gift can later change his mind. She said she did not think this was permissible under California law. She said she would like Council to consider whether the Nelson Garden may, under California law, have been dedicated to the public for the purpose of serving as a historical, educational and natural preserve. Such dedication would have been made by virtue of express statements by the previous owners of the unequivocal intention that the land be used for such a public purpose and that the public accepted the offer that the land be dedicated through the public's subsequent use of the property. She said she was not arguing that the Community Foundation does not own the land, but that they own it subject to a dedicated public use. Councilmember Tucker asked what constitutes public use. Ms. Kennedy said that during the 1970s when it was under the California State Parks City Council Minutes 5 February 7, 1996 Foundation the property was used by the elderly and school children. Ann Waltonsmith, 21060 Saratoga Hills Road, gave Council a letter written last year by an individual who had given her permission to use it to bring up some issues and said she had previously given them letters from Mike Clair, President of the Saratoga Hills Road Association and Bud Alexander, a Neighbor of Nelson Garden. She said she wanted to make four points: 1. They'are asking Council not to rescind the Williamson Act. The Nelson Garden site is not needed for more housing. 2. Why is Council continuing to go forward when there is a relevant initiative on the ballot? If it passes, let the citizens decide on the fate of the Garden. 3. In the letter from the owners they say the Friends of Nelson Garden have not made a good faith effort to raise the money to purchase the property. She said this was not true and described their efforts to work with Foundation representatives, the Trust for Public Land and the owners. 4. She said the EIR is not complete and should not be accepted by Council. She expressed concerns regarding excess water and drainage and said they have not been addressed. She described the problems on the hills behind the Garden and said it needs to be evaluated for water drainage, underground springs and earth slippage. Donald Macrae, 20679 Reid Lane, said Mary Guth was ill and has asked him to read her letter. The Mayor indicated that it was already part of the record. Mr. Macrae said the dedication of the Nelson Garden property as open space/nature preserve should only be withdrawn if there is an urgent need for such property for housing. He said he had identified numerous tracts of open land within a 2-3 miles radius of Nelson Garden which are potential building sites. Mr. Macrae said there are also many existing houses for sale and described some of the building occurring, including 94 homes on the former Paul Masson Winery site. He said he was perplexed by the single family zoning of Kevin Moran Park. He said it was hard to reconcile the City's avowed policy of preserving open space with the home-building frenzy going on in the City. This is inconsistent with the stated Open Space Element of the. General Plan. He said when he worked for the City of San Jose the City Manager wanted to develop every inch of the City and he hoped this was not so in Saratoga. Mayor Jacobs stated that Kevin Moran Park could not be converted to housing without it being put to a general election. City Manager Peacock said most of the City's parks have an underlying zoning of residential. Betty Peck, 14275 Saratoga Avenue, said she has lived here for 44 years, and during that time has seen many changes. She described the history of community gardens in the City, including the one on the Oddfellows property which operated for fifteen years and was visited by 6,000 school children a year. The properties where community gardens were in the past have now been subdivided. The Nelson property was open to the public for three years. She said she felt as though she was speaking for generations to come as she tries to preserve a small farming area for this kind of project. She said perhaps Saratoga could cooperate with Los Gates and Monte Serene in their efforts to preserve the Clarabelle Guernsey Farm Dairy. She said she is familiar with Mr. Nelson and his dream and asked Council to look around and see what can be done for generations to come. Jeff Schwartz, 19281 San Marcos Road, said the first year his family lived in Saratoga his daughter was in Mrs. Peck's kindergarten class and his children played at the community garden. He said that contrary to what Mayor Jacobs said, it would not require a vote to sell Kevin Moran Park. He cited an instance in which a park at Cox and Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road had been sold 12 years ago without a vote and little public discussion. Mr. Schwartz said Saratoga has far less open space than many communities. It is not only the people who live near the Nelson Garden who want it maintained as open space; there are many who share Mrs. Peck's dream. He said Council consistently shows that it has contempt for the General Plan, as shown by this action and the Oddfellows action. He said he thought a lot of citizens do not realize what is happening. Council was approached by the Community Foundation and its developer and offered money above and beyond any City Council Minutes ~ 6 February 7, 1996 development fees and application costs on a sliding scale: the more lots approved the more money ~they would give the City. He said if anyone else approached the City with that ~sort of offer they would be put in jail. He said what CoUncil did was blatantly illegal. They made a deal and pretended they didn't and then after having approved nine homes and made a binding!agreement- At that point, Council had It cost Council $10,000 in the already made their minds up. , , opposition's legal fees, now 'they re complaining in this morning s paper about legal fees. He asked what they expect when they do things that are blatantly illegal and give people no recourse. Now that Council is done with that they are going to try to correct the thing and rush to judgment and give. a vested map or a binding development agreement so that if the initiative passed in March. That smacks of bad faith. He suggested that Council wait to see what happens with the initiative and stop the process of canceling the Williamson Act. He said the Act was meant to save people tax money and is not meant to be taken lightly. He said the only interest Council has in taking the property out of the Williamson Act Contract is to get money. Jim Shaw, 18735 Kosich Drive, said he was speaking as a Board Member of Saratoga Woods Homeowners Association and there had been no formal poll of the members. Saratoga Woods hoped that Council would keep in perspective their commitment to the neighborhoods and the retention of their unique character. The desires of the Nelson Garden supporters would mean resources for the entire City. Barton Hechtman, Matteoni, Saxe & Nanda, said no one has articulated any shortcomings in the EIR andlhe believes it is sufficient and should be certified. He said defining available land is difficult because neither the legislature nor a court decision have interpreted it. In his opinion, the definition suggested by Friends of Nelson Garden was absurd, inaccurate and not supportable. Williamson Act findings are complex and detailed. The purpose of the Williams Act is to protect valuable, productive agricultural land and that is not the Nelson Garden today. David Mitchell, attorney for the Community Foundation, responded to Ms. Kennedy's letter. He said the~issues raised regarding the dedication of the property were legal ones that were not before the City Council this evening. In conclusion, he said the Community Foundation has been working with the City of Saratoga for approximately two years to try to turn this property into something that can be used for charitable contributions. In answer to Mayor Jacobs' questions, City Attorney Riback. said it was a state law that City owned parks cannot be sold by the City Council without a vote of the people. Councilmember Moran stated the property sold 12 years ago was never Used as a park. City Manager Peacock confirmed that it had not been. improved until after its sale. Mr. Riback stated it is not uncommon for citizens to come before the Planning Commission or City Council during a public hearing on an application for a discretionary approval for development of property to raise the question of title. Uniformly the City has taken the position that that is a civil action between the'parties, and that it is a matter that the City cannot resolve and is more properly disposed of in a court of law. Mayor Jacobs closed the public hearing at 9:02 P.M. Councilmember Wolfe stated that he intends to retain the rural, residential ambiance of Saratoga. He said there is no home-building frenzy going on in Saratoga, nor will there be. The largest group of homes is being built on the former Paul Masson Winery which was once zoned for manufacturing. Reference had been made to legal fees having to be s~ent. He said it is not the City Council but rather Mr. Schwartz s group that is causing others to have to spend legal fees that would otherwise be unnecessary. Allusion was made that Council would approve the project because they want money. He said the funds would be used to improve the park system in the City and retain the green canopy that is Saratoga. Saratoga will retain its rural ambiance even if this project goes through. City Council Minutes 7 February 7, 1996 Councilmember Burger said it has been suggested that if Council approved the application the Friends of Nelson Garden would probably sue their decision. She said the City Council is not surprised and no one else should be. For the first six months of this fiscal year the City's budget set aside for litigation was overrun by 110%. She urged people to look at what lawsuits are outstanding against the City and who is involved. The same people are involved in most of them. She said they would then know why the City's budget is so lean that Council was forced to cut out youth and senior programs. In the letter received from Mr. David Mitchell dated Feb. 6 it indicates that it was in 1988 that the Nelson Foundation entered into an option for this property. The transaction which would have netted the foundation far more in purchase price than the present one did not make it through the zoning and Williamson Act process because there were individuals, many or whom are here this evening, who opposed it. Councilmember Burger read into the record from Mr. Mitchell s letter, In the more than six years which have passed since that opposition it waSnot until another development opportunity arose that any word was received indicating an interest in developing the Nelson site into a community garden. No fund raising effort of which we are aware was undertaken. The current opposition is nothing more than an effort by a relatively small number of individuals to protect their view rather than a serious effort to develop a community garden. A serious effort would have started shortly after the opponents' victory in 1989. Councilmember Moran said she appreciated Mrs. Peck's remarks and other who would support a community garden. She said she would invite people to join with Council and each other to try to identify a spot for a community garden. She said Council is in the process of planning how to use park development funds. She said she saw what was happening this evening as an effort to finalize the decision made several months ago. She expressed concern that future generations have access to a community garden or a historic, educational and natural reserve and she hoped that the energy and enthusiasm could be redirected in a serious effort to put together a community garden. She said she appreciated the enthusiasm and vision of Mrs. Peck and her supporters. in trying to come up with some sort of solution. In the meantime Council is engaged in putting together another solution for this particular property and that is to build nine houses there. She expressed support for that decision. Mayor Jacobs said there had been many technical arguments presented but the real question is what the future of this property should be. The technical concerns are being raised in an effort to direct the ultimate result. He said this is not unusual: a landowner wants to build houses on his property and a group of neighbors and others oppose that because they want the property to be a public park. He said aside from all the other facts he did not believe that the property is suitable for a public park and certainly not for a community garden. There is no direct or easy access from a major thoroughfare, the site is surrounded by homes, is relatively small and will not adequately serve the community. He said the City encounters resistance from people who live around areas proposed to be developed as parks, and this potential location is ripe for that exact sort of battle. He said the leap from wanting the site to be a park and making it happen cannot be made. It is apiece of private property. Council cannot make the decision as to who owns the property or whether a dedication has taken place. They do not have the authority to make the decision to take this property and make it into a park. Mayor Jacobs said everyone would like to have open space around their home. That can be accomplished by individuals buying the property and keeping it as open space, or by collectively as a government buying the property at public expense and making it into a park. The City has never done anything to prevent private individuals from purchasing the property. The City has talked about buying the property for twenty years but does not have the public funds to b~y it. The budget reserve has dropped, and there is nothing in the City s economic future that indicates they will be able to purchase the property. He asked if it were fair to continue to deny a property owner the right to develop his property because we want it. He said they could wait four more years until the Williamson Act expires but he did not feel that would accomplish anything. The land is not being used for agricultural purposes and technically has not for some time served the purposes of the Williamson Act. If the property were to be City Council Minutes 8 February 7, 1996 farmed there would probably be trouble as there often is between homeowners and farmers. He sa~d he is not~opposed to people pursuing their dreams but nothing has come of it. He asked if Council allows this to continue, are they d ~ng their public duty or giving in to a o vocal minority? He said he respects the desire for a park but does not believe the citizens are obligated to pay for that dream nor that it would be a wise use of publi~ funds. He repeated that the City Council cannot settle technical questions. If the Friends of Nelson Garden feel those legal and technical questions must be pursued, they must be pursued in court. He Said Councilhas an obligation to bring this matter to rest and does ~ot have the.right to say they will not make a decision because they do not know what to do. With regard to the matters before Council at this time he said he believes that the EIR was not necessary and goes beyond what would have been required for similar parcels in the City. Councilmember Tucker said she was disturbed by the do as I say or I'll sue attitude that seems to be apparent in the City recently. To her that is a blatant misuse of legal system. She said she hoped the citizens can work together toward positive goals for the City including a community garden. She said she would like to see the people concerned about this work with the Parks and Recreation Commission to find an area in an existing park that can be donated as a community garden. She said she does not ~think they can stop what is in process this evening. She said the City has to look at the future to see how goals can be accomplished in a reasonable manner with cooperation among parties. BURGER/WOLFE TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 96-05 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA CERTIFYING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE PROJECT KNOWN AS NEL8ON GARDENS, TRINITY DEVELOPMENT COMPANY; 20851 SARATOGA HILLS RD. PASSED 5-0. WOLFE/BURGER TO INSTRUCT 8TAFFANDCITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE RESOLUTION APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENENENT, RESOLUTION APPROVING VESTING TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP, AND RESOLUTION APPROVING TENTATIVE CANCELLATION OF WILLIAMSON ACT CONTRACT,. FOR CONSIDERATION AT THE MEETING OF 2/21/96. PASSED 5-0. City Manager Peacock read the ordinance bytitle BURGER/WOLFE TO INTRODUCE ORDINANCE REZONING PROPERTY AND WAIVING FURTHER READING. PASSED 5-0. WOLFE/TUCKER TO REOPEN AND CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING TO THE MEETING OF 2/21/96 ONLY AS TO PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN i~ENUNENT ~ TENTATIVE CANCELLATION OF WILLIAMSON ACT CONTRACT. PASSED 5-0 RECESS - 9:30-9:40 P.M. Councilmember Moran called the:meeting to order at 9:40 P.M. as Mayor Jacobs had not returned to the dais. ~ B.1. GPA-95-002 (APN 517-36-008) - CITY OF SARATOGA/15001 BOHLMANRD. The City of Saratoga is initiating a General Plan map correction for the parcel of land identified as APN 517-36- 00S (Miller, 15001 Bohlman Rd.). The City,s current map shows this parcel as being a part of Hakone Gardens, a city park, and designated as Open Space-Outdoor Recreational. The correct General Plan designation for this parcel is Residential-very Low Density. An environmental Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project pursuant to the terms and requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. Director of Community Development Curtis presented the staff report. (Note: Mayor Jacobs returned to the dais at 9:43 p.m.) The City Attorney informed Council that they could take testimony on Items B.1 and B.2 at the same time but they must be acted on separately. City Council Minutes 9 February 7, 1996 City Manager Peacock announced that two pieces of correspondence had been received this evening in reference to item B.2, from Bart Fanolio and the McMains. B.2. GPA-95-001 & AZ0-95-002 (APN 517-13-012 & 517-36-008) - MILLER; 15001 BOHLMAN RD. Request to reallgn existing General Plan and Zoning District boundaries between two existing hillside parcels of record located off Bohlman Road. The realigned boundaries do not affect permitted residential uses or densities; approving the request would provide General Plan and Zoning District land use maps consistent with the reconfiqured parcel boundaries. An environmental Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project pursuant to the terms and requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. Associate Planner Walgren reviewed the staff report. He pointed out the parcels on a map and described the proposed boundary realignment. He said the adjustment would not affect any existing development or house size potential but would reflect actions taken by the Planning Commission and provide City general plan and zoning maps consistent with those actions. Mr. Walgren noted the issues raised by neighbors regarding availability of sufficient water, the substandard private access road, and tree protection and said conditions of approval are included that address these concerns. In regard to the validity of the two parcels, he noted that before the City would accept applications for discretionary permits, the applicant was required to submit to the City's consulting surveyor a request for a Certificate of Compliance to verify that these were two legal lots of record which had been created and recorded properly. The surveyor is certain they are two legal lots of record. Based on that and the mitigating conditions, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the applications. The neighbors had also raised the question of what is the public interest of the City approving these requests to readjust boundaries and general plan and zoning maps. He said the simple answer is that there are two legal lots of record that could be developed at any time. He cited some of the difficulties in building on parcel 2 as it is. The Planning Commission felt that by adjusting the boundary, two more suitable sites for development were being created. He said he thought it was in the City's and the public's best interest to have a general plan and zoning map that matches parcel boundaries as approved via the lot line adjustment. If the General Plan and zoning boundary amendments are not approved by the City Council this evening, the lot line adjustment would be null and void and the property would revert back to the two existing building sites that had the environmental constraints he had discussed earlier. Councilmember WoIfe asked if the green water tank was the water supply and if the fire hydrant worked. Mr. Walgren said the water for the houses and probably the hydrant came from the tank Councilmember Moran said it seems from what she saw on her visit to the property that it would be visually less obtrusive to build with the new configuration. Mr. Walgren agreed. He said there are no open space easements on these lots. Councilmember Burger reported that she met with Mr. Miller and visited the site with him. Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing at 10:00 P.M. Mary Kirkeby, civil engineer, representing Mr. Miller, requested that the mapping error (Item B.1) be approved. This would at a minimum legalize an existing residence. Regarding water supply, the fire department requires a 120,000 gallon tank and the one there contains 160,000 gallons. He said there were once three buildings on the property. ,He said the applicant has no problems with Planning Commission s conditions. Ray McMains, 15015 Bohlman, said his property is adjacent to and below the Miller property on the map. He said when they bought the property City Council Minutes 10 February 7, 1996 six years ago they bought int6 the hillside. It took a long time to save and prepare for that. Mr. McMains said there are not specific buildings proposed at this ti~e and it islobvious that Mr. Miller is planning to put two houses where there was one. The lot line adjustment is to facilitate that. He said their concern is that one of those houses may look down on theirTproperty and affect the value of their property. He said it could also affect their safety. The Fire Chief specifically requested a water system upgrade and there is a question of whether an additional person could be served by the current system. There is also a letter from the engineer,who built the water system saying it needs to be upgraded~ Mr. McMains said they would like this issue addressed prior the approval of a lot line adjustment because it will affect their living envirgnment and safety. The suggested removal of some of the tallest trees on the skyline would affect the view from their property and other properties. Jim and Judy Craig submitted a letter at the last meeting about the General Plan approval relative to the open space and recreation park dedication which has been discussed. He asked if this is a mistake, why is there an open space corridor designation shown on the map on both sides of this lot. It has always been designated this way and now the applicant wants to change it for development. Mr. McMains stated that Lot i is a non conforming lot. With the setback requirements for new construction it is possible to build something on that lot, but it would resemble a box car. He said the statement that the realignment of boundary does not increase development potential for either parcel in the staff report is incorrect; that's the reason it's being done. Referring his December 6 letter and the issues or privacy mentioned in it, Mr. McMains requested that the lot line adjustment be denied. He said they did not object to Mr. Miller rebuilding the house damaged by fire, but to the making of two lots where two houses could be built. He said that was why they raised questions about technicalities that they not sure were handled properly as well as the approval of the lot line adjustment before the open space recreational zoning was addressed. Councilmember Moran asked how ~he fact that Lot I is a non conforming lot fits into the equation. Mr. Walgren said it is a narrow lot that. would be more difficult to build on and would create a more irregular house that would be closer to the Hidden View Lane homes. It could be built on; it is a one acre parcel. He said a house in the 5,000-6,000 sq. ft. range could be built there. He pointed out on the map the building envelopes as they would be permitted with the reconfigured parcel boundaries. He said when he made the comment that the lot line adjustment would not increase density or intensity of development, two home can be built there now, and no more than two homes can be built there with the readjustment. In fact the allowable house size remains the same when slope deductions., etc. are considered. He said the map showed the 3 trees that would probably need to be removed on parcel 1 and said one might have to be removed on parcel 2. Councilmember Wolfe asked if there were a covenant requiring that new homes be similar to the existing house and the one that burned and be built of wood as they were. Mr. Walgren said' it would most appropriately be heard with the building site approval application that the Planning Commission would consider. Councilmember Wolfe asked if his concern could be brought to the Planning Commission. Mr. Walgren said they could refer to it by minute record when an application for design review was submitted. Mr. Walgren said there are some idiosyncrasies on the map that may have occurred years ago that are hard to trace. He said this situation is very unusual. He said in the past there were different approaches to how park sites and open space were designated; methods have changed over the years. Kristina McMains, 15015 Bohlman, said they are not against what Mr. Miller is trying. to do. Their concern is that given the way their house is located, a pink Mediterranean house might sit right behind them. She said when they bought the house they paid more because of the view and so they would not see their neighbors. When they asked the former owner, they were told that no house would be built there because Lot I was non-conforming and Mr. Miller knew nothing could be built there. Mr. Walgren had told them that moving the lot line would not change anything else, but that is not true. She said it would City Council Minutes 11 February 7, 1996 create congestion, water problems, traffic and tree removal. Ms. McMains said Judy Craig had her lot surveyed and what is in the report as Mr. Miller's lot is Ms. Craig's lot, so the lot size might be smaller than indicted in the staff report. Ms. McMains repeated concerns about the water system and the road expressed by the fire chief. Regarding the driveway that goes to Mr. Miller's land, she said she would like to know how he would obtain the land needed to widen it. She said she hoped Council could answer her concerns. Mr. Kirkeby responded that Lot 1 is one acre, not 40,000 feet. He said in his opinion the proposed building site on Lot 1 is farther to the north and could not be seen from the McMains. There would be a hill between the McMains and the house on Lot 2. In regard to concerns about water, Mr. Kirkeby repeated that there is a condition that says if the situation is not right it must be corrected. In answer to questions about road access, Mr. Kirkeby said there is an easement for the driveway from Bohlman Road to the property. The portion that the Fire Chief wants widened could be done within the existing easement and no other right of way would be required. He said there is a limited access road across Parcel 1 to get to Parcel 2. Kristina McMains said they had talked to the architect and he said the road is a non-conforming road. The new owner will need to acquire an easement. Mr. Walgren informed Councilmember Tucker that the McMains' house is 250-300 ft. from the building pad of parcel 1 and farther from parcel 2. The access road runs between them and will be shared. He said coming off Mr. Miller's property the easement is 12 ft. so that would restrict a future driveway to 12 ft. The entire private road is very substandard and the fire chief's fire protection conditions are incorporated in the conditions. If an additional easement could not be obtained, the road could only be improved to 12 ft. He reiterated that since this an existing privately owned roadway the City is limited as to what they can require in terms of roadway improvements. At 10:32 P.M. Mayor Jacobs closed the public hearing. Councilmember Burger described the approach to the property and pointed out on the map the location of theMcMains' house and the driveway. She said she visited the site and had tried to see the McMains' house from different locations. In some cases she could glimpse it through the heavily wooded lots. If there were a lot line adjustment the house on the new lot 2 would almost be in a bowl more or less nestled into the hillside. She said there are very large estate type homes in the Hidden Hill subdivision and from those homes you have to look up hill to see the two lots that would result from a lot line adjustment. She said they might see a portion of a roof, but the home site is in a depression. There probably would be some view of the home on lot 1 from the lots below. Councilmember Wolfe said he inspected the property. He said the Planning Commission is always very sensitive to contiguous neighbors as to any tree removal, view shed and privacy. The fire chief has stated his conditions regarding water. Mr. Kirkeby mentioned that any homes on the sites probably would not be visible to present neighbors, or at least the neighbor on the lower end. Councilmember Wolfe said there are two buildable sites, but to leave them as they are would make one of the sites extremely difficult because of extensive tree removal and earth movement. He said it appears that what is being requested is a more prudent use of the two sites. Councilmember Tucker agreed that the proposal makes two lots that will be more workable for building houses with less impact on the neighbors. She said she was concerned about the water situation but trusted that it will be part of the conditions of approval and that the McMains will follow up on that issue. She said she was also comfortable with the provisions made for road improvements. BURGER/TUCKER TO APPROVE THE NEOATIVEDECLARATION FOR GPA-95-002 (ITEM 6.B.1) (APN 517-36-008) - CITY OF SARATOGA/15001 BOHLMAN RD. Councilmember Moran agreed that this is probably a better solution than City Council Minutes 12 February 7, 1996 the current situation, but tha~ the McMains had raised important issues about the water supply, safety~ and trees. She said she was persuaded by the record that these issues have been addressed by the Planning Commission and staff and hoped that Mr. 'Wolfe's concerns about the design of the house that it would be. conveyed to the Planning Commission by the staff as thfs goes forward into development. Mayor Jacobs agreed with the comments that had been made. There are two legal lots and the question is~should there be two houses. The Craigs are concerned about neighborhood compatibility. He said he thought that was reasonable and that it is desirable not only for them but for the people who will be moving int6 the houses on the Miller property. He stated that he would vote for both changes and suggested that there be a proviso that would reassure them that during the development process this neighborhood compatibility issue is not forgotten. It might be five or ten years before this is developed and he did not want the constraints discussed this evening to be forgotten. He said he did not want to slow down decisions tobe made at this meeting but asked staff what could be done to ensure the concerns are met. He said he thought there could be a win win situation for the neighbors and the owners, but it does mean that this issue has to be addressed as well. THE MOTION TO APPROVE THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAS8ED 5-0. BURGER/TUCKER TO ADOPTRESOLUTION 96-06AMENDING THE GENERAL PLANMAP. PASSED 5-0. ITEM 6.B.2. - BURGER/TUCKER TO APPROVE THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR GPA-95-001 & AZO-95-002 (APN 517-13-012 & 517-36-008) - MILLER; 10051 BOHLMAN RD. PASSED 5-0 BURGER/TUCKER TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 96-07 APPROVING A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT. PASSED 5-0. BURGER/TUCKER TO INTRODUCE THE ORDIN/tNCE AMENDING THE ZONING MAP BY TITLE ONLY, WAIVING FURTHER READING. PASSED 5-0. Planner Walgren wanted to remind Council and the neighbors that any application for development of.the property will be separately noticed and subject to design review before the Planning Commission and the criteria of design review are ~hat new structures are compatible with existing homes, that they don't invade on the neighbors' privacy and don't unnecessarily impose on views or solar accessibility. Mr. Curtis suggested that beyond that if! Council wiahes to be more specific in terms of building materials, etc. a minute action record can be attached to the building site approval file that the Planning Commission has acted on previously that Would remain in the City's permanent files. Councilmember Tucker said CounCil should not be hampering the Planning Commission and there is nothing before them at this time. The Mayor s recommendations will be in the minutes of this meeting and she said she was sure the neighbors are going to look at any design that comes up and give their input. ; Mayor Jacobs said they do not know what style of house might be proposed for the property but want to make sure there is not a pink palace there and that is was discussed at this meeting in consideration of the concernsEexpressed by the neighbor. He said he thought Council made their decision in light of their feelings about what we wanted to see happen Councilmember Burger said she shared Councilmember Tucker's concern that Council was reverting to their former roles as Planning Commissioners. She said the thought the record of this meeting would · , show Councxl s very strong concern about compatibility and that they emphasized that those concerns should be made a strong part of this evening's record. Mayor Jacobs stated that he would like the record to follow the application. City Manager Peacock said the minutes of the meeting are put in the file. Associate Planner Walgren said staff would make sure the records are attached to the Planning Commission s file when they City Council Minutes 13 February 7, 1996 consider site approval. Mr. Peacock stated that Council could review the minutes at the next meeting and see whether they are sufficient or not in terms of their concerns. Councilmember Moran said their concerns are compatibility in terms of design, placement of the house and tree removal so they would have a minimal visual impact on the neighbors, and safety. Councilmember Burger stated these are policies that are already in place. Councilmember Moran said the neighbors have gone to a lot of trouble to have their input and she thought it should be written down. Councilmember Tucker said she thought the neighbors would come back with .their concerns. Mayor Jacobs repeated that he would like the record to be there so this Council or future ones will remember what was done. C. Cellular Antenna Moratorium - Ordinance extending, for a period of 10 months and 15 days, Ordinance 3E-26, which temporarily restricted the acceptance or processing of applications for cellular telephone facilities at sites in the City during a contemplated study of cellular telephone facility sites. Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing at 10:50 P.M. Barton Hechtman, Matteoni, Saxe & Nanda, representing GTE Mobilnet, offered their assistance and said they would like to be a part of the endeavor to define a policy. They have a lot of expertise they can make available and would like to work closely with Council through the process. Suzanne Hook, 844 Dubuque Avenue, South San Francisco, said she is a representative of Pacific Bell Mobile Services. Pacific Bell purchased a license with the Federal Communications Commission to provide. personal communication services throughout San Francisco and the South Bay area. She said she appreciated the City's desire to evaluate the process by which they want to review new applications for telecommunications within Saratoga. She offered her services and expertise and said.she had attended the Planning Commission retreat and hoped to continue the relationship. Mayor Jacobs closed the public hearing at 10:55 P.M. and Said it was a pleasure to have people come forward and offer to work with them. He said it appegrs that the world of communications is somewhat in chaos and we don t know what is going to happen as a result of the new laws that are being passed in Washington. Council is hoping to bring order out of chaos and it is not their desire to interfere with improvements in communication. There needs to be order. He said Council look forward to working with Mr. Hechtman and Ms. Hook and anyone else in Saratoga who wants to help. It appears that Saratoga is one of the first communities to tackle this issue. MORAN/TUCKER TO ADOPT THE ORDINANCE 3E-27 EXTENDING THE MORATORIUMFOR A PERIOD OF 10 MONTH8 AND 15 DAYS. PASSED 5-0. D. Resolution adopting the County of Santa Clara Integrated Waste Management Plan SummalT Plan and Siting Elument. City Manager Peacock presented a brief staff report. Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing at 10:57 P.M. No one wished to speak and the public hearing was closed. MORAN/BURGER TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 96-08 APPROVING ~ ADOPTING THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA iNTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENTPLANSUMMARY PLANAND SITING ELEMENT PURSUANT TO PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 41750 ET SEQ. PASSED 5-0. Councilmember Burger requested that at a future study session there be on the agenda a discussion about submission of written conununications. Mayor Jacobs agreed. Councilmember Wolfe said first amendment issues City Council Minutes ! 14 February 7, 1996 should be considered, but Council should encourage submission of documents as early as possible!. ~ 11. A]~IOURMM~NT ~ M~yor Jacobs requested that the meeting be adjourned in memory of Gene O Rorke. He was a member of the Planning Commission. He also served two full terms on the Public Safety Commission and had been asked to serve another term with the 'two term limit waived. City Manager Peacock said O'Rorke was the father of the City's emergency plan. WOLFE/BURGER TO ADJOURN TO THE M~ETING AT 7500 P.M. ON TUEBDAY, FEBRUARY 13, AT ADMINISTRATION MEETINe ROOM, 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE. Respectfully submitted, Roberta Wolfe Minutes Clerk