HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-06-1993 Planning Commission Minutes• •
CITY OF SARATOGA
PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, July 6, 1993
Public Hearing on the Saratoga Draft Prezone Map
Regular Adjourned Meeting
ROLL CALL
Present: Chairperson Moran, Commissioners Asfour, Caldwell, Jacobs and
Wolfe
Absent: Commissioner Murakami
Staff Present: Planning Director Curtis and Associate Planner White
PUBLIC HEARING
1. DRAFT PREZONE MAP FOR THE PROPOSED SPHERE OF INFLUENCE
EXPANSION -Continued Public Hearing from the June 9, 1993 Planning
Commission Meeting.
Planning Director Curtis presented the Report dated July 6, 1993 which discussed the
Draft prezoning map for the proposed Sphere of influence expansion and included a
memo providing information on the powers and process relative to a Joint Powers
Authority, and information on the Hillside Specific Plan used by the Town of Los
Gatos.
Included in Planning Director Curtis' report on the Plan used by Los Gatos' was
information on its establishment and subsequent adoption by the County Board of
Supervisors, its implementation, and its powers, processes, and goals. Director Curtis
also reported on his conversation with the Planning Director of Los Gatos with regard
to the Plan and its effectiveness. He stated that the staff member from Los Gatos said
that Los Gatos Hillside Specific Plan is working, but Planning Director Curtis stated that
he sensed, from the conversation, that some compromises had been made between
what Los Gatos desired for certain developments and what the County actually
permitted. Planning Director Curtis also answered questions from the Commission
with regard to the Los Gatos Instrument, Los Gatos' Planning Directors comments,
Joint Powers Authorities in general, the amount of authority of a Joint Powers
Agreement Board, the County's lack of reaction or comment on the proposed
Saratoga sphere of influence expansion, the amount of land involved in the proposed
expanded sphere of influence, and etc.
1
• •
Planner White noted that two pieces of correspondence had been received since the
last public hearing on the item. He stated that one letter was from Wanda Alexander,
representing a group of homeowners who are seeking inclusion in the Monte Sereno
Sphere of Influence and requesting that Saratoga delete their properties from the
proposed Saratoga Sphere of Influence expansion. Associate Planner White noted
that the second correspondence was from Keith and Cynthia Riordan, residents of
Bohlman Road expressing opposition to the proposal.
Chairperson Moran reported that she had received correspondence from Doty
Bamford expressing her desire for certain properties to be excluded from Saratoga's
expanded sphere of influence. Chairperson Moran inquired if the proposed sphere of
influence boundaries had been readjusted to exclude those properties pursuing
inclusion in the Monte Sereno's sphere of influence. Associate Planner White stated
that this would need to be done when the Commission decided on the exact
expanded sphere of influence boundaries.
Chairperson Moran opened the public hearing.
Wayne Jopoline, 10701 Saratoga Road, inquired as to the number or percentage of
correspondence received that was in favor of the proposed expanded sphere of
influence.
Associate Planner White stated that approximately 10% of those noticed of the item in
some way responded and of that 10% approximately 70% were opposed to the sphere
expansion proposal.
Joe Montreal, 16681 Bohlman Road, stated that most of the opposition to the sphere
expansion is from the residents in the Bohlman Road area. He suggested that the
Commission just eliminate this area from the sphere expansion boundary map. He
also pointed this area out to the Commission on a map.
Randy Anderson, Planning Manager for the MidPeninsula Regional Open Space
District, explained that he was present to observe and better understand the goals of
the proposal. He encouraged the Commission to formally pursue a Joint Powers
Agreement. He also advised that the Commission be as specific as possible when
deciding on this agreement and its goals and powers.
Wanda Alexander, noted her letter previously submitted to the Commission, pointed
out her property to the Commission, spoke in opposition to her property being
included in the proposed sphere of influence and suggested that the old (or existing)
sphere of influence boundary line be maintained. Ms. Alexander also answered
questions from the Commission.
2
• •
Michael Parsons, 15001 Montalvo Road, stated that he wanted to make the
Commission aware of the regional impact of an annexation and express appreciation
for the fact that MidPeninsula Regional Open Space and other types of land trusts are
best equipped to preserve the area. He explained that by leaving the land with the
County, an agency such as the MidPeninsula Regional Open Space District, Santa
Clara County Open Space Authority or other type of land trust could acquire the land
and preserve it in its natural state. He stated that he thought this action (of leaving the
land in the County and not expanding the Saratoga sphere of influence) would be
consistent with the Saratoga General Plan. Mr. Parsons stated that if the land became
a part of Saratoga's sphere of influence the value of the land would increase and,
therefore, encourage development.
Unidentified Speaker, asked if the letters received from the public on this item
would be forwarded on to LAFCO.
Chairperson Moran and Associate Planner White explained that the letters are part of
the public record and would be forwarded on to the City Council and also lAFCO for
any future public hearings.
Tom Warner, 16651 Bohlman Road, inquired about the City process with regard to
exclusion of the Bohlman Road area from the expanded sphere of Influence. He
specifically inquired about how the Commission would consider a petition or letter from
a clear majority of landowners expressing their preference either in support of or
opposition of the proposal.
Chairperson Moran explained that such correspondence would be considered and the
Commissioners would look at the reasons for the landowners' position on an issue.
She noted that all the Commissioners are attentive to what people want, but that each
Commissioner may weigh the correspondence differently. She also explained that a
letter or petition representing the position of a majority may not necessarily guarantee
the desired outcome or action on the part of the Commission.
Doug Ordahl, 16654 Bohlman Road, explained that the residents of the area are afraid
of development and expansion of the area. He noted that the area (especially the
hillsides) is not suitable for development, the roads would be difficult and expensive to
maintain and that the character of the land in general does not lend itself to "City-type"
living. He spoke in opposition to the proposed expanded sphere of influence
explaining that it may ultimately lead to annexation.
Frank Nemec, 16800 Bohlman Road, expressed concern with regard to the rural
hillside lands being placed under the kinds of restrictions that are more appropriate for
City-type lands. He noted that the City has made statements to the effect that the
hillside area is a valuable resource and he stated that if his land is considered a
resource the City should be willing to compensate him for the use of his land. He also
3
•
•
inquire as to the amount of opposition it would take to persuade the Commission to
recommend that the sphere of influence not include the Bohlman Road area. He
expressed concern with regard to property values increasing as a result of an
expanded Saratoga sphere of influence.
Ken Colby, 16600 Bohlman Road, inquired why the City Council has initiated the
expanded sphere of influence proposal. He stated that many landowners are opposed
to the proposed sphere of influence and urged the Commission to pursue a smaller
expansion and respect the expressed opposition of the landowners. He expressed
frustration with regard to the process and the reasoning behind expanding the City's
sphere of influence.
Commissioner Jacobs commented that the even though the people who presently live
in the subject area are opposed (to the proposal), by a vast majority, does not
necessarily mean that they have the right to plan in perpetuity what happens to the
land. He further stated that he does not know whether the people from the Bohlman
Road area should be more afraid of the City's annexation of their property or if the
City should be more afraid of annexing Bohlman Road because, he feels, that the
problems of Bohlman Road are something that he can't imagine the City ever wanting
to buy into. He stated that his perspective is that what is desired is encouragement of
preservation of the hillsides. He stated that leaving the land in the County may be a
better option since the County seems to practice benign neglect -nothing gets done
in the area. He expressed concern with the County's control or lack of control over
such things as trees and the possibility that one day the County may permit the
removal of a vast portion of the trees and development of the land. He stated that his
perspective of the objective of the sphere of influence is to protect the hillsides, retain
the hillsides in their natural state and impede development of the land. He stated that
he did not feel that the City desires responsibility of the Bohlman Road area.
Mr. Colby, stated that the Bohlman Road residents also want to keep the hillsides in
their natural state, but perceive this proposal as the initiation of a slow, but ultimate
process of annexation and development. He stated that the residents are trying to
stop this process before it can begin.
Unidentified Speaker, responded to the comments made by Commissioner Jacobs
with regard to the question of whether a property owner has the right to plan the
future of a piece of property. He stated that planning what happens to property in the
future is, to him, a basic premise of private property ownership and that this tends to
get diminished as each additional government gets involved. He stated that what is
proposed, the sphere expansion, is the act of another governmental body getting
involved. There was no one else wishing to speak.
4
r~
~J
L~
ASFOUR/WOLFE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. PASSED 4-1
(COMMISSIONER CALDWELL OPPOSED.)
Commissioner Caldwell stated that she was opposed to closing the public hearing for
the reason of precluding further comment on any direction the Commission may want
to pursue with regard to the issue. She suggested that the public hearing remain
open until the end of the meeting. Commissioner Jacobs indicated that he had no
problem with keeping the public hearing open.
COMMISSIONER WOLFE AGREED WITH THE COMMENT OF COMMISSIONER
CALDWELL AND WITHDREW HIS SECOND OF THE MOTION. THE ORIGINAL
MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND AND THE PUBLIC HEARING
REMAINED OPEN.
Commissioner Caldwell inquired whether the act of the City pursuing an expanded
sphere of influence and an eventual annexation of some land would throw the City off
in regard to Saratoga's "fair share" of affordable housing.
Planning Director Curtis explained that should the expanded sphere be pursued and
an eventual annexation take place, this would not have an impact on the City's "fair
share" of affordable housing (as determined by the State).
Associate Planner White explained that since the last public hearing on the draft
prezone map for the proposed sphere of influence where the Commission indicated an
interest in exploring the possibility of establishing a policy statement with regard to the
issue, staff reviewed existing City documents and extrapolated some of the existing
policies to present to the Commission for discussion purposes. He noted that most of
the language was taken from the draft of the Open Space Element that was currently
being reviewed by the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Caldwell explained that she tried to re-work the language provided by
the staff (mentioned above) and incorporate some of the assurances that the
Commission provided in the last couple of years and address the concerns that have
been expressed with regard to this issue by both the public and the Commissioners.
She noted that in re-wording the language she had not addressed the annexation
issue and stated that the Commission may want to address the annexation issue in
the Policy statement. She stated that if a policy statement is generated by the
Commission, she feels strongly that the statement should be a General Plan
amendment. She explained that inclusion of the statement in the General Plan will give
it the weight necessary for execution.
5
• •
Chairperson Moran agreed with Commissioner Caldwell with regard to amending the
General Plan accordingly, should the Commission generate a Policy statement.
Commissioner Jacobs expressed concern with regard to the possibility of the
Commission establishing a policy statement, amending the General Plan to include the
statement and then in the future, the General Plan again being amended in a way that
the Policy statement is lost or deleted. Commissioner Jacobs also stated that he feels
that the City should expand its sphere of influence to include some areas such as the
Paul Mason Mountain Winery area, but that some of the other areas may be better off
or better protected by being left in the County and excluded from Saratoga's sphere of
influence.
Planning Director Curtis reminded the Commission that part of the issue that the
Commission is to review is the prezoning of the areas that are already included in the
City's sphere of influence. He explained that the Commission could proceed with the
prezoning of the current sphere of influence or expand the sphere of influence
boundaries and apply the ROS zoning. He explained that the current sphere of
influence needs to be prezoned, but the issue in question is whether or not to pursue
expansion of the sphere of influence boundaries. Planning Director Curtis and
Associate Planner White answered questions from the Commission with regard to
prezoning the current sphere of influence.
Commissioner Jacobs stated that prezoning the land in the current sphere of influence
may be encouraging development -the very thing the people don't want to see
happen.
Commissioner Asfour pointed out that there may be a danger in not doing anything.
He explained that if a proposal should be made which the City objects to and the
subject land/area is not prezoned, the City would have nothing to refer to with regard
to protesting the proposed development.
Commissioner Caldwell pointed out that the City could refer to the General Plan and
the City's Development Standards.
Planning Director Curtis explained the purposes of prezoning the land in the current
sphere of influence. He noted that he did not feel that the action of prezoning this
land would necessarily encourage development. In brief the Planning Director
explained that prezoning is a long range planning tool that will establish certain
standards with regard to development of the area and make the County aware of the
City's development standards relative to the pre-zoning of the sphere of influence.
6
• •
Commissioner Caldwell asserted that even though land is prezoned and the City could
contest certain development proposals, the County would have final ruling on whether
or not to allow development.
Commissioner Wolfe stated that he does not see a conflict of vision with regard to
what the residents want and with regard to what the Commission wants. He pointed
out that all want to preserve the "pristine" state of the hillsides. He stated that the
issue of how to do this is the question. He stated that if someday things go amuck in
the County and the land is under the County jurisdiction, people will wonder what
happened and why the Planning Commission in 1993 allowed this to happen. He
stated that he feels the Commission has some obligation to the City to watch out for
this land and what could happen to it. He inquired if the Commission's goal is to put
together a preamble to present to the City Council with regard to the property rights of
all parties concerned and preservation of the area.
Commissioner Caldwell explained that she favored a General Plan amendment that
would clearly state the City's goals and objective with regard to preserving the area.
She stated that what she finds unclear is why the City is doing what it is considering
doing (expanding the sphere of influence). She noted that the only clear reasons that
have been articulated this far is that the City wants to avoid a situation where the
County or neighboring jurisdiction develops the property at a higher density or at a
standard that is not as appealing or environmentally protective as Saratoga's
standards. She pointed out the Saratoga Palms development noting that the City finds
this development objectionable, yet it is within the City's sphere of influence. She
stated that the City is not succeeding with applying its development standards to
properties within the current sphere. She questioned the validity of the sphere
expansion reasoning and the concerns regarding extending Saratoga's development
standards to the properties that would lie within an expanded sphere.
Commissioner Asfour stated that he has a problem with putting something in the
General Plan to prevent annexation. He pointed out that annexation does not happen
by chance . He explained that the residents would vote on whether or not their
property should be annexed into the City and he stated that he did not think the
Commission could prohibit annexation. He stated that after listening to the comments
made during the sessions with regard to this item, he feels that the action is a bit
ambitious and it needs to be scaled back. He pointed out that there is an area that
does not wish to be included in the proposed sphere. He also expressed his desire
for the Commission to decide on the direction to take with regard to the item and
move ahead with it.
Commissioner Jacobs expressed his concern with regard to expanding the sphere of
influence and stated that he feels the solution may be a Joint Agreement with the
County in which Saratoga's goals can some how be worked in with their goals.
7
• •
Commissioner Caldwell expressed her agreement with the comments and suggestion
from Commissioner Jacobs regarding a Joint Powers Agreement between the City and
the County.
Chairperson Moran stated that she is not enthusiastic about the proposal to expand
the sphere of influence. She stated that she believes that the City Council is interested
in pursuing the expanded sphere and explained that she would be interested in
sending the City Council some sort of plan so that if they (the Council) do pursue the
expansion, they respond to the concerns that have been raised by the public. She
stated that one of the concerns that have been raised and needs to be addressed is
the fact that people don't want the City to be evasive about the goals of the sphere
expansion. She stated that she did not support the proposed sphere expansion. With
regard to prezoning the existing sphere, she stated that she would be willing to
consider it further.
Commissioner Caldwell expressed an interest in having staff somehow educate the
Commission further on what having a JPA (Joint Powers Agreement) would be like
and to come back with a proposal with regard to a JPA. She suggested that staff
discuss with the County the issues involved in establishing and maintaining a Joint
Powers of Agreement. She noted that a number of Commissioners have expressed
their concerns with regard to pursuing a sphere of influence expansion.
Commissioner Caldwell also inquired if the Commission could take action (at this
meeting) to remove certain properties from the expanded sphere of influence.
Planning Director Curtis stated that the meeting is a public hearing and the
Commission could make that recommendation. He also explained that with regard to
establishing the boundaries for an expanded sphere of influence the Commission may
make any recommendation as they see appropriate. He questioned an appropriate
criteria for establishing sphere of influence boundaries. He suggested, for example,
that they may want to include in the sphere of influence boundaries only that area
which can be seen from Saratoga.
Chairperson Moran asked the Commission what direction they would like to take with
regard to the issue.
Commissioner Caldwell stated that she did not want to pursue the sphere expansion.
Commissioner Jacobs stated that he would like to look at a sphere expansion that
would at least encompass all the areas and he feels that the Paul Masson Mountain
Winery is one of the areas that should be included in the City's sphere of influence.
s
• ~
There was discussion among the Commission and the staff with regard to actions the
Commission could take on this item. There was also discussion about the Paul
Masson Mountain Winery and prezoning and future annexation of the site into the City.
Planning Director Curtis stated that the Mountain Winery is in the process of preparing
a proposal to present to the City requesting annexation and that the developer of that
property was pursuing a sphere expansion through LAFCO on his own and at his own
expense."
Chairperson Moran stated that she could support "Recommendation 3 -Recommend
adoption of a Prezone Map for the existing Sphere of Influence only -with the
amendment that the southeast corner be "taken-care of".
Commissioner Jacobs stated that he was appalled with the direction of the City
Council to pursue the expanded sphere of influence. He also stated that he feels the
Planning Commission should recommend some sort of Joint Powers agreement.
Commissioner Caldwell stated that she feels that looking at the issues regarding a
Joint Power Agreement would be beneficial.
CALDWELL MOVED TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF A
PREZONE MAP FOR THE EXISTING SPHERE OF INFLUENCE ONLY.
Commissioner Wolfe suggested that the Planning Commission give the Council the
maximum amount of land to "chew-on".
COMMISSIONER CALDWELL WITHDREW HER MOTION FOR THE PURPOSE OF
DISCUSSION.
Commissioner Wolfe stated that he had no problem with recommending the expanded
sphere of influence and passing it on to the City Council so they may consider the full
impact of the action.
Commissioner Asfour spoke in favor of sending the City Council something that would
represent the Planning Commission's considerations and concerns. He stated that he
did not think the Planning Commission should just drop the Council direction to the
Commission to develop a plan for an expanded sphere of influence.
Commissioner Caldwell stated that she thought that it would be within the Planning
Commission's authority to send a recommendation to the City Council that just states
that the Planning Commission does not recommend an expanded sphere of influence.
9
• i
Commissioner Jacobs stated that he could support recommendation #3 -
Recommendation to adopt a Prezone Map for the existing sphere of Influence only -
with the proviso that the Prezoning be ROS -Minimum 20 acre lots.
Associate Planner White noted that to prezone the area ROS, the Commission would
have to revisit the ROS criteria to ensure that the properties could meet this criteria.
Chairperson Moran noted the late hour (9:35 p.m) and asked the Commission what
they wanted to do with regard to the item and suggested more consideration at
another meeting.
Commissioner Jacobs suggested that the Planning Commission recommend to the
City Council that 1) the sphere of influence boundaries not be expanded beyond the
existing boundaries; 2) with regard to prezoning that which is within the existing
boundaries, the Planning Commission is going to further study the issue.
Commissioner Jacobs suggested that this action would at least tell the City Council
something.
Planning Director Curtis noted that the prezoning of the existing sphere is the issue
and recommended that the Commission not send any recommendation with regard to
the prezoning until the Commission had a specific prezone designation for these
areas.
Commissioner Jacobs stated the he has a problem with the recommended HR zoning.
Commissioner Caldwell stated that she would be satisfied with sending a
recommendation to the City Council for adoption of the Prezone Map for the existing
Sphere of influence as recommended by staff Alternative #3.
CALDWELL/JACOBS MOVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF A PREZONE MAP FOR
THE EXISTING SPHERE OF INFLUENCE ONLY, AS RECOMMENDED IN THE
STAFF REPORT - AS ALTERNATIVE #3.
Chairperson Moran suggested that the Commission specifically state that it is not
recommending an expanded sphere of influence.
CALDWELL/JACOBS INCORPORATED CHAIRPERSON MORAN'S SUGGESTION
(ABOVE) INTO THE MOTION.
Chairperson Moran inquired about what the Commission could do to urge the City
Council to articulate their goals with regard to the sphere expansion, should the
Council reject the Planning Commission's recommendation against pursuit of an
expanded sphere.
io
•
•
Planning Director Curtis suggested that when the item appears on the City Council
agenda and if the Council expresses an interest in pursuing the expanded sphere, the
Planning Commission representative can at that time articulate the Planning
Commission's desire to have any expanded sphere of influence plans sent back to the
Commission so a General Plan amendment can be developed.
Commissioner Jacobs suggested that a second motion be made that recommends
that a Joint Powers Agreement be sought in ,lieu of expanding the sphere of influence.
Commissioner Caldwell spoke against Commissioner Jacobs' suggestion and stated
that before making such a recommendation she would like more information on Joint
Power Agreements.
Chairperson Moran asked Planning Director Curtis to read the motion made by
Caldwell and seconded by Jacobs.
Planning Director Curtis read the following motion :"CALDWELL/JACOBS MOVED
THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL
ADOPTION OF A PREZONE MAP FOR THE EXISTING SPHERE OF INFLUENCE
ONLY. THE PLANNING COMMISSION ALSO RECOMMENDS THAT THE
EXPANDED SPHERE OF INFLUENCE NOT BE PURSUED". THE MOTION PASSED
3-2 (WOLFE AND ASFOUR OPPOSED).
There was discussion among the Commission with regard to recommending to the
City Council pursuit of a Joint Powers Agreement.
JACOBS/CALDWELL MOVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL, THAT IN LIEU OF THE SPHERE
EXPANSION, A JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT GENERALLY CONSISTENT WITH
THE PROPOSED POLICY STATEMENT (COMPOSED BY CALDWELL) BE
PURSUED WITH THE COUNTY IN REGARD TO THE UNINCORPORATED
HILLSIDE AREA
Commissioner Asfour and Wolfe both stated that they would prefer further study
before making such a recommendation.
THE MOTION PASSED 3-2 (WOLFE AND ASFOUR OPPOSED).
There was discussion with regard to the public hearing remaining open and the
motions being made before the public hearing was closed. Planning Director Curtis
suggested that the Commission close the public hearing and then re-make the
motions and re-vote.
11
c~`-.• •
CALDWELL/ASFOUR MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING . THE MOTION
PASSED 5-0.
Chairperson Moran asked Planning Director Curtis to re-read the motions.
Planning Director Curtis read the following motion :"THAT THE PLANNING
COMMISSION RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF A
PREZONE MAP FOR THE EXISTING SPHERE OF INFLUENCE ONLY. THE
PLANNING COMMISSION ALSO RECOMMENDS THAT THE EXPANDED SPHERE
OF INFLUENCE NOT BE PURSUED". CALDWELL MOVED/JACOBS SECONDED
THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED 2-2 (WOLFE AND ASFOUR OPPOSED).
THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL,
THAT IN LIEU OF THE SPHERE EXPANSION, A JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT
GENERALLY CONSISTENT WITH THE PROPOSED POLICY STATEMENT
(COMPOSED BY CALDWELL) BE PURSUED WITH THE COUNTY IN REGARD TO
THE UNINCORPORATED HILLSIDE AREA. THE MOTION WAS MADE BY
JACOBS, SECONDED BY CALDWELL AND PASSED 3-2 (WOLFE AND ASFOUR
OPPOSED).
ADJOURNMENT
Chairperson Moran adjourned the meeting.
Andrea M . Chelemengos
Minutes Clerk
12