Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-05-1975 City Council Minutes MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL TIME: Wednesday, November 5, 1975 - 7:30 P.M. PLACE: Saratoga City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, California TYPE: Regular Meeting I. ORGANIZATION A. ROLL CALL Present: Councilmen Brigham, Corr, Kraus, Matteoni, Bridges Absent: None B. MINUTES Councilwoman Corr noted a correction on page 3 of the October 21st minutes, Item III-C, indicating the motion voted on by the Council was to terminate negotiations, and'not leave them'open for discussion. It was moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded by Councilman Brigham the minutes of October 21, 1975, be approved, subject to this correction. The motion was carried, Mayor Bridges abstaining due toabsence from the October 21st meeting. II. CONSENT CALENDAR A. COMPOSITION OF CONSENT CALENDAR It was moved by Councilman Brigham and seconded by Councilman Kraus the Consent Calendar composition be approved. The motion was carried. B. ITEMS FOR CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Release of Bond a) SDR-967 Abel Carreia, Sarato'ga-Sunnyvale Road b) SDR-1058 Chaiko Kim, Zena Avenue c) SDR~ll20 Jeff Bryant, Monte Vista Drive 2. Agreements for Elimination of Model Home Sales Office (Authorization of Mayor's signature) a) Saratoga Foothills Development Corp., Black Walnut Court b) George Day Construction Co., Montauk Drive 3.Approval of Final Map Resolution and Authorize Mayor to Execute Building Site Approval Agreements a) SDR-1166 Wayne Leposavic, Verde Vista Lane b) SDR-1189 Charles Bilek, Sobey Road c) SDR-1191 Yoshihiro Uchida, Sarahills Drive d) SDR-1195 Larry Hoffart, Sobey Road. e) SDR-1201 Elaine Kolnes, Paul Avenue f) SDR-1204 Mary Koche, Paul Avenue 4. Pa3nnent of Claims~ It was moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded by Councilman Brigham the Consent Calendar be approved. The motion was carried unanimously. III. BIDS AND CONTRACTS A. HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SARATOGA AND LOS GATOS UNION ~HIGH'SCHObC°'DIS~RIC~ T(RE~ID~L~,~E~AND~SAR~TOGA~SUNNYVALE ROAD SIGNAL) It was moved by Councilman Kraus and ~econded by Councilman Brigham the Hold Harmless Agreement be approved. The motion was carried. IV. PETITIONS, ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS A. RESOLUTION NO. MV-103 Resolution Designating the Intersections of Via Escuela Dr. and. TenOaks Way and Michaels Drive and Dorsey Way as a Stop Intersection It was the staff's recommendation action onY~e~6~c~o~of~t~'~tion ypertaining t6T~i~'Escuela Drive'be'delayed until the staff has had a chance ~o ~ loOk~aL~_e' ent~ re 1 enOCh ~of~{hi ~ s~i relative" t6 ~ra~fi!( contr6~'~v~C~S~ Mr. Gray Proctor of Via Escuela Drive~*T~a~ the Council consider the location of Via Escuela Drive in-relation ~o'Cbngress Springs School, and commented that it is the feel'ing of the people in this neighborhood that'any stop signs in this area would be an improvement to the situation which exists now. Mr. Phil Craft, who resides on Dorsey Way, commented with respect to the pro- pQsed Michaels Drive/Dorsey Way stop intersection~ indicating there is a blind spot due to a very,steep grade at thi;s intersection, and he was concerned for the children who wait for the school bus in this location. Dr. Herman, residing on upper Michaels Drive, indicated he would object to the City putting a sign up on Michaels Drive without putting one on Dorsey Wa.y, as he felt this would increase the speed along Dorsey Way. He further commented he felt the problem would be somewhat alleviated when the construction in this area was completed, however, felt a warning sign indicating an i.ntersectioh would be beneficial. Mayor Bridges asked that the matter be re-agendized for the December 3rd Council Meeting, and the staff be directed to study this entire area and report at this meeting. B. QUITO ROAD WALKWAY BETWEEN BUCKNALL ROAD AND NORTHERLY CITY LIMITS (Cont'd.'7/2/75) The City Manager explained that this request was initiated by a petition received several months ago, signed by a number of residents along quito Road. He indicated that it is requested the City put in a~siidewalk, in conjunction with the widening project on Lawrence Expressway near the quito Road-Lawrence Expressway intersection. The sidewalk is requested for the length of Ouito Road from Paseo Cerro to Bucknall Road. He indicated the cost forthis facility is '~stimated at $3,700,.and it has been pointed out to the fronting property owners that: l) There are no funds bUdgeded in the current budget for con- struction of such pedestrian facilities; and 2) it is not the'City's policy to provide sidewalksin residential areas. He then brought to the attention of the Council two items of correspondence from: Mrs. Glenn L. Roper, 12585 Quito Road~ and Mrs. Arthur Phillips, 12545 Quito Road. Mr. Glenn L. Roper , 12585 Quito Road, indicated he consulted the County, and they advised him the traffic in this area is estimated at 14,000 cars per day, and after the shopping center is completed, it will go to 22,000 cars per day. He further commented that the widening of Lawrence~.Expressway is going to cause the cars to travel faster in this area, and the problem is that Quito Road is only 2 lanes in this'area. Mr. Roper estimated an average of 2 automobile wrecks a week in this area, and to walk this area in the wintertime when i't .is raining it is necessary to walk out in the road.: He felt this was a very hazardous situation, particularly for children. Wayne Brown, also residing on quito Road, commented that he didn't feel asphalt would do very good in this area because what they need is curbs also to help hold back the traffic. Mr. Brown further commented that his own child attends Baker School, and there is no way he Can walk to school unless he walks in the street. - 2- QUITO ROAD WALKWAY (Cont'd.) Mrs. Linda Brown of Quito Road commented that there is no way for children to cross Quito Road in this area, and there is so much traffic, she has to wait 20 minutes before she can pull out of her driveway. She commented that the ambulances use this road, and se~ms to be a main road for construction workers, etc. She indicated she wished something could be done as far as sidewalks or warning signs, as cars come from Lawrence Expressway 'traVelling from 45 to 60 60 miles per hour, and she was of the feeling the present situation was extremely serious. After some consideration of these comments, it was the feeling of the Council this was a critical situation, and agreed to individually go out and view this area and re-agendize the matter for the next regular meeting on November 19th. C. RESOLUTION NO. 752 ~ ~esolution Authori.Zin9 "the Santa Clara County Housi.n~ Authority to Act as the Designated Agency for the City of Saratoga to Appl~ for and Administer Section 8 Rental Housin~ Supplements Pursuant to t~e Hou~in~"and Community Development Act of 1974 It was moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded by Councilman Brigham Resolution No. 752 be adopted.. The motion was carried unanimously. V. SUBDIVISIONS, BUILDING SITES AND ZONING REQUESTS A. REQUEST FOR REZONING 'FROM R-1-20,O00 to R-I-IO,O00 OF A .714 ACRE PARCEL ON ALLENDALE AVENUE (APN 391-37-65) C-179, HANSON PROPERTY It was approved by the Council to set this matter for public hearing on December 3, 1975. B. TRACT 5461 AoT. COCCIARDI, MT. EDEN~ROAD The City Manager indicated there were some amendments made in the improvement plans for this tract, due to prior areas in the topographic analysis for this tract, which have been corrected, and it is necessary that the Mayor and City Attorney acknowledge th~og_~Ta't'~o~n.~ It was moved by Councilwoman Corr and seconded by Councilman Brigham to approve the amendment to the improvement-plans and authorize the Mayor to sign the amended contract. The motion was carried. C. SDR-1167 DENNIS BRYAN, BELLA VISTA AVE. Appeal of Planning Commission Decision. Regarding th~ Chan~e of Conditions of Buildin~ Site Approval The City Manager explained that after further reviewi ng this request for appeal, ~has concluded that this is not an appealable matter, based on the existing Subdivision Ordinance. He then reviewed the history of this site approval, explaining that the original tentative site approval was approved by the Planning Commission on June 25, 1975, when NS-5, the old Subdivision Ordinance, was in effect. Mr. Bryan came in after that date and requested modification of ~]~ion "P", which pertained to a fire hydrant and its location. Subsequently, there was a modification of this condition made, approved by the Planning Commission on September 24, 1975. This modification was made under the new Subdivision Ordinance, NS-60, which went into effect August 16, 1975. He explained that in!~ the appeal procedure under NS-5, there was no provision for anyone other than the applicant to appeal these conditions to the Council. Under NS-60, there are provisions for appealing by bther interested parties, under certain conditions, which are related to the General Planlor a specific plan. He indicated in reading Mr. Van der toorren's letter, he finds no basis for!~a~peal~ However, Mr. Van der toorren maintains that the final action by the Commission on September 24th was not under NS-60. DENNIS BRYAN (Cont'd.) Councilman Kraus asked what the Saratoga Swimming Club has to do with this. The City Manager explained the Swimming Club is located next to the Bryan property, and they use an easement owned by Mr. Bryan, and he has allowed the Swim_Club to use this driveway for a number of years however, "he is now property and planning to use this for his own driveway. Mr. Van der toorren,14555 Horseshoe Drive, addressed the Council, and stated that this easement is a recorded one, and to his knowledge, did not appear on the map presented to the Planning Commission or the Ci~ty CounCil. He further stated it is his belief the hearing which took place before the Planning-- Comm~si~n~w~_nOt' con~Ste~i!n accordan~ith ~60~h~]~T~a~aad · ~.R~B~o~., an a'~'~'{~'~6~T~d a"'~'~'~mF~6f the (66~d~e- Sa~6~a S~i~i~'~C1 ub. Mr. Booth~T262~iT~'Gri~, addressed the Council indicating that the Club does have a'~'~de~m~nt~er the property claimed by Mr. Bryan, and in his earlier plans approved with Condition "P", as well as the other conditions, the Club was quite satisfied with Mr. Bryan's access and the fire hydrant involved here. When Mr. Bryan came back and asked for a change in this condition which would adversely affect the Club's eas~ent rights over the 20-foot piece of property, the Commission did not make any findings on the matter, but merely approv~ it on a 3 to 2 vote, and ~ent it on. The appeal of the-Club followed, requesting that the matter be returned to the Planning Commission for com- pliance with the new Subdivision Map Act and Ordinance NS-60. However, the _~mmission did not make any (~b~grtunity to re-hear the matter with~P~la~'ih~'C6~i6~d,~"~f'~Cessary, b~ing this back to the Council for a decision as the Club's access road. He indicated they are quite concerned that their rights are now protected in this matter. Mayor Bridges comm6nted that he felt it must be determin~ whether or not the Council wants to accept this appeal, and also, if a hearing de novo would be a permitt~ proc~ure in this situation. Mr. Johnston, City Attorney, indicated he had not seen the actual notice of appeal, and didn't know if the appeal touch~ on any of the bases on which, according to the Subdivision Ordinance, someone other than the developer can appeal.. He stated if this is the case, it isn't a question of whether the Planning Commission did or did not make findings, etc. -- it is a question of whether or not this third party has the right to appeal in the first place. Therefore, you don't reach the next question of whether or not it should be a de. novo hearing. He then revi~ed the Notice of Appeal, and indicated this does not specif9 any of the grounds which the Government Code says a third person, other than a developer, has ~he right to appeal on. Mr. Booth suggested the matter be continued, and they would amend their request for appeal to specify in what regard they believe the General Plan has not been met by the approval of Planning in this matter. The City Attorney co~ented that he felt the Council would have the power, if it so chose, to specify the grounds which might come within the Government Code sections; therefore, there wouldn't be a notice of appeal, but an amplification. Therefore, by. specifying these grounds, it would be known in advance that they do or do not come within the criteria in the Government Code sections under which a third party,as distinguished from the developer,~can appea!. It was then moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded by Councilman Brigham the Council continue SDR-1167 until the next regular meeting to dete~ine whether or not the appeal is in order.- The motion was carried, 4 to 1, Councilman Matteoni abstaining, due to a professional conflict. VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS The Mayor indicated it has been requested consideration of the Parker Ranch matter begin after 9:00 P.~.; therefore, asked that the Council consider item B first. B. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGAAMENDING ORDINANCE NS-3, THE ZONING ORDINANCE, BY AMENDING SECTION 1.5 AND ARTICLE 15THEREOF RELATING TO NON- CONFORMING USES AND STRUCTURES, THEIR DEFINITIONS, CONTINUATION AND TERMINATION AND AMENDING SECTION 18.4 RELATING TO PUBLIC HEARINGS AND 18.11 RELATION TO CONDITIONAL RECLASSIFICATION (Cont'd. 10/21/75) The City Manager indicated at the last meeting when this'matter was heard, there was considerable discussion concerning'apparent confusion in the wording in Sections 1 and 2, pertaining to the Non-Conforming Use section, related to non- conforming sites in relation to non-conforming uses and non-co ~orming structures. He indicated in light of that discusZion, since that meeting, the City Attorney has prepared a proposed Section 3 in Article 15, to try to clarify this item. The City Manager read this proposed amendment, as follows: S~ "ect~on 39 Nothing hereinabove set forth in Sections 1 and 2 of this Ordinance is intended to in any way abrogate, modify, change or repeal the right to use non-conforming sites (as distinguished from non-conforming uses and non-conforming structures) as permitted by Section 14.3 of Ordinance NS.3." Be brought to the Council's A petition signed ~y 25 res]dent~; letter from'John Weir and _ The Mayor then declared the public hearing re-opened at 9:52~P.M., and asked if there was anyone in the audience who would like to address the Council. Margaret Sherill, 14290 Paul Avenue,. addressed theCouncil, indicating that she appreciates the added statement to clarify her previous questions; however,"it is difficult to know if this does clarify her questions at this point, and requested an opportunity for everyone who is involv~ in a non-conforming use situation to look over this amendment, as she felt there are many persons throughout Saratoga who might be affected. She felt there was some confusion which arrives out of DEFINITIONS, and when you read the definitions, it is very hard to clarify the confusion. She co~ented that all the people who have spoken to this seem to be very uncerltain as to the exact meaning of 'these terms, such as "Structures" and "Uses". She indicated there are the two definitions being offered in the amendment, and .they both speak of "structure" and "use", and then when you turn'to the definition of "Use" in the Code, it also speaks about purpose of site and structure, and if you interpret this to mean that use of site is structure, and use of structure a house, and use of house as residence, it becomes very confusing when you try to apply this. Therefore, she feels there is a danger when there is a lack of clarity. Mrs. Sherill'stated it is not just the present they are concern~ about, but they are looking at this from a long- range point of view, and she feels there is a moral responsibility to preserve property rights and human rights. The Mayor then read~ a~Ler'pres6nted by Mrs. Sh~ill, which was' signed by 24 other residents. Mr. Eschler, a citizen, co~ent~ that he has read quickly the addition to Section 3, and feels the aspects of "site" are covered very nicely; however, he is concerned about non-conforming uses and structures. Russell L. Crowther, 20788 Norada Court, address~ the Council, stating that he has also been concerned about the definitions, and perhaps the revised wording would clear this up. Mr. Crowther stated his largest concern is in Section 18.11, where certain wording has been changed relative to Planned Community reclassification. He indicated Section 4A.6 does reference Section 18.11, which states that "each such additional reclassification shall in all ca~es in~]U~h9 f~jlO~ing~ conditions." He i~icated it is a matter of clarity, ~nd~h~'~-~ ~on~F6ed~h~.i~t is not "crystal clear"if this has a mandatory requirement. 'He'ind~Cate~ that the present ordinance states: -5 - NS-3 ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS (Cont~d.) "In addition to the permitted conditions hereinafter set forth in this section, certain mandatory ~Onditions are set forth in Article 4-A of this ordinance, in relation to this ordinance in relation to reclassificati,on to a PC district." He L~o'~m6~d~n~"6~ .......... ~ .... ~ag~h=i~ is stated that t~'~.~j~'Z~o~i't~o~'~for determi~n~ ~t~'l~ication ha~n'~et~' Mr. Crofther stated he ~ould like to ask that this sentence ~hich appears in the present ordinance be retained in the revised ordinance. He stated that another ma~or concern r~lates to the second paragraph on the top o~ page 6, ~hich'de~ines the conditions under ~hich the reclassi~ication has been met, and it appears that it could be d~termined, bas~ onl~ on criteria "A", "B", and "C" on the prior page, ~hich is speci~ical~ relating use, He indicat~ h~ ~ould like to see ~or~s included referring back to the mandator~ conditions under Section ~-A ~ith regard to Planned Co~unity zoning. The Cit~ Attorne~ indicat~ the letter ~r. Crofther sent tonight is almost the same that he sent t~o ~eeks ago, and the answer is still the same. He stated it was to c~ear up a gra~atical r~undanc~ that ~e took this language out. It indicated it appears in the ordinance under "PC", ~here appearin under the General Provisions, ~here it probabl~ doesn't belong. He ~in i~t~"he didn't think anything could be more mandator~ than the ~ords: '~'ShaIT'~h'all cases include . . .", and this is under the "PC" provisions, He cohented ~ith regard to Mr. Cro~ther's last sentence in his letter ~hi~h'~ta~ "We took the definition o~ non-con~o~ing use out sta~d ~that he couldn't concei~is, as on page S it defines non-con~o~ing use. ~here~ore, jt ~as his opinion thi~ statement b~ Mr. Crofther ~as incorrect. Mr. Crofther explained ,he agreed that this sentence ~as not ~orded correctly, and his concerns ~ere related to definitions, and he ~as hopeful these concerns ~ould be clarified b~ the suggested ~ording addition. He explained that ~ust to be sure there is not an interpretation problem, he ~ould like the ~ording retained ~hich exists in the presentsordinance. Mr. Oohnston commented that on~ o~ the problems here is that it has been 8 months s~nce this ordinance has been in e~ect -- there have been publ.ic h~arin~s before the Planning Commission, and these people never raised these points be~o~e. Margaret Chapman, 212~'Can~on V~e~ Drive, addressed the Counc~ and stated that she ~as contacted b~ one o~ her neighbors in regard to this ordinance and she ~as quite confused b~ it. Therefore, she decided to refer her ~riends and neighbors to a pro~essional consultant. She indicat~ her onl~ proble~ is she ~eels the~ all have become upset about the ~ording, in terms o~ tax la~s and ordinances, and she ~ould ~ike to suggest that legal terminolog~ that can't be interpreted b~ la~ people, perhaps there should be a brie~ summary or'~interpretation to help clear up a lot o~ the mis- understandings ~hich exist. Mr. Crowther again addressed the Council and commented that perhaps he did not do a good ~ob o~ expressing his bas~s ~or concern, and he ~ould like to-~cl~ari~ this. This relates to the second sentence and he proceeded to read this. Mr. Crofther indicated that h~ interprets this to refer back to the prior conditions stated in Section 18.~, and there is no re~erence made to the specific conditions under re~e~ence made in the present ordinance, and they are concerned about this, as it could be interpreted that satisfying conditions A, B, and C ~ould satisfy the conditions o~ reclassi~ication. Florence Eschler, 1~3g Paul Avenue, asked i~ Mr. Oohnston's reading o~ the proposed Section 3 amendment~6r C~i~i~ation ~ordino ~bout non-conforming site ~ould mean that this ~i1~ be pu~'Tn'~ a part Article Mr. Oohnston explain~ that th~ propos~ Section 3 would be inserted into the ordinance between Section 2 and Section ~ on page S o~ ~OceZNS-.3.32. -6 - NS-3 ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS Cont'd.) Robert Van der toorren, 14555 Horseshoe Drive, addressed the Council, indicat~ he would like to raise some very diverse points before he pinpoints his objections to the proposed ordinance. He ~tated that, in the first place, in Section 2, there is the definition of non-conforming structure and non-conforming use, and he believes under the U.B.C., there is another d~inj~]~n on the same situation, where ,~ ~!~'ihg~d~s'n!'t'~6~pl~ ~i~ ~h'~: ~e~ht code =~. and we now have it in the same code, ~ith't~o definitlion~','~o~e'Dnder'thE'Zoni~g Ordinance, and the other under the Building Code. He indicated his main point he is ob3ecting to is the idea that all non- conforming structures .be eliminated. He stated that he also objects to the'~act that this ordinance tries to prohibit increas]_ng a number of things, ]~]uding personal property used'1n carrying on and~duc~n such non-confOrmin With regard to alterations and additions to noneconforming structures, ~r. Van der toorren commented that it was his opi. nion Sect~ion 3-13 of the Code would prevent this. ~n-Sectio~ 15-8, '£here is a reservation ~F~di~.~,TZ)nO~-conforming ~t~'c~ures relating to 50% of something, and he feels without clarification of 50% of what, ~this could result in a mess. He indicated that the second paragraph of Section 15-8, which deals with properties that have suffered fire loss and other acts of God, sayS~th'at-a~bu:~qai,~g~6~:~6n~F~an]be ~epaired unless the owner conforms to the Zoni ~g Ordi~na~ce." ' In Section "f", he stated we have been trying to give the residential'section some preferential treatment, as in this section, it says "any district", and he wonders if this is intentiOna'l or accidental. In this-same section, it states that the removal date from the date the structure was 'originally constructed, which may be 1 year less than 25 years. 15 years, or 10 years. His question'was: "If we can live with it fqr 24 years longer or 14 years longer or 9 years longer, what is! the eminent danger that the City faces by having it continued indefinitely?" His main point being that even if he assumes that the City Council at all times acts in total compliance with the wishes and conformity of the people of Saratoga, and even when we say there never could be a discrepancy between the Council's actions and the people, then he still would deny the City the right to adopt the ordinance. He continued that if the stated purpose 6f the ordinance would, in his opinion, be true ahd he could believe it, this might make some difference. Mr. Van der toorren commented that he does not bel.ieve this ordinance is what it sets out to be, and he does not believe that every non-conforming use existing in this city are all subject to cause harm to people, and he does not believe every non-conforming structure in Saratoga is threatening to harm the people; He stated he does not believe in this ordinance, as he does not believe it is truthfully protecting the City of SaFatoga and its people from danger.~He~t~J= ,/~hi~'6F~'i~ahce i s designed to .~'i p6~eF' t6 ~{he 'S~ratoga Government, its t6n~nit~e~ ~nd to its ever-growing staff,-~ana he Stated he believes this power is illegitimate. He indicated that he believes the right of one individual is as great as the right of all of us together, and this ordinance presents eminent danger and real threats to public welfare, and to impose a certain mode of living on people wou3d'be wrong. He further stated that this ordinance does'not create eminent danger -- it creates power, and power is far more dangerous to the people than whatever buildi. ng conditions might exist in Saratoga. Mr. Van der toorren stated that in his opinion, there are morals at stake here, and this is what compels him to come before the Council and state that he feels this is wrong. Mayor Bridges commented thatF~ontra~y t~what ~;'Van der~toorren states, the Council is not building a gova'~nm~nt';'but [h~y a~'~'meHdi~g an o~dinante which has been in the Saratoga City Code for a good many years. He further stated in regard to Mr. Van der toorren's comments, there are two sides to this: You im- pose a way of life on people ~n two ways: 1) being allowed to do whatever whim comes to you; and 2) 1. ive within the law. He stated that our government is founded on the law, and the protection o~ the'rights of 6thers, and he thinks this has far more of a place than the complete lack of regulation. Councilman Brigham sdggested the public hearing be continued for two weeks in order that those people who had concerns could read and try to understand the amended Section 3. - 7- NS-3 ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS (Cont'd.) Councilman Kraus suggested perhaps holding a study session on this matter prior to the public hearing. He further commented that he has some real con- cerns with what Mr. Van der toorren has said this evening, and he felt a study session would help to clear this matter up with the citizens. Councilman Matteoni commented that in view of the new Section 3 which the City Attorney has sent to the Council, he has reviewed this, and it is his feeling the Ordinance has to be read as~-a whole -- you must look at the entire Zoning Code, which contains Article'14 and Section 14.3. ~He stated.that this is the section which guarantees the rights of the people~_a6~'thi~ l~nguage h~s' not been changed, but there is now some language which specifically r~ferehces this, and the amendments in'the new ordinance to not propose this right to use a non- conforming site. He commented that he tried to reassure these people of his understanding of the ordinance two weeks ago, that the guarantee remains and there will not be any rights lost today or in the future with regard to the ordinance unless there is an announced public hearing to modify Section 14.3, and he believes that this public hearing will never take place, as the Council does not have the right to take away the use of a non-conforming site. He commented that zoning ordinances have never been raised to interpret the police power in the sense of eminent danger, but was founded on the principal of regu- lating land use. He stated that his only comment would'be that zoning should be considered in its proper berspective, and eminent danger is ~ot the standard under which you would care to note, and Mr. Van der~toorren's comment about control of non-conforming uses is unwarranted. In this perspective, he commented that he feels we have taken safeguards for smaller lots created~y" ~ ~ perhaps under the County regulations that are not now in conformance with the City's standards. It was then moved by Councilman Brigham and seconded by Councilwoman Corr the public hearing be continued to November 19th, and a study session be held to discuss this issue on November 11, 1975. The motion was carried. A. CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED CHANGE OF ZONING FOR BLACKWELL HOMES (PARKER RANCH), PROSPECT AND STELL'ING ROADS, FROM "R-1-40,O00" (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) AND "A" (AGRICULTURE) TO "R-1-40,O00 PC" (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, PLANNED COMMUNITY) THE 218-ACRE PARCEL SHOWN ON THE CROSS-HATCHED AREA ON THE ACCOMPANYING MAP (EXHIBIT "A") The Mayor indicated there was one item of correspondence received on this matter since the last public hearing on this matter, from: John H. Tilton, 21172 Bankmill Road, questioning the validity of statements and recommendations on the Parker Ranch issue. The Mayor<~H~lared the public hearing re-opened at 9:38 P.M. Quirino Santoriello, 20802 Norada Court, addressed the Council, stating that it will be 4 years this December that he has lived in this area in Saratoga. He stated it was wet the day he moved in, and he attributed flooding at that time to the newly developed property and the need for landscaping, etc. He stated the next year, he was called home from work during the rainy season to keep the house from floating away. He indicated he did this with the assistance of the Flood Control District. He stated that the streets were almost flooded in this area because of the grading of the hillside, and one of his neighbors decided to change his whole landscaping scheme to divert the water down between the houses and into the street. Mr. Santoriello stated that during.the third year, they came before the Planning Commission and told their story about the flooding, and ~ few months ago, he witnessed some of the conditions where residents have lost personal property during flooding last year. Now they have heard stories that we are going to be able to clear up the area and open up the sewers, but no one has mentioned anything about who is going to be cleaning out these drain lines, etc., and this is going to cost money. He indicated he has also listened to comments during the past two years with regard to the hillside development and conversations by organizations,such as U.S. Geological Survey, concerning soil fault lines and noise factors widening - 8- BLACkELL HOMES REZONING (Cont'd.) of the streets, police and fire protection services, and a good many of these things cost dollars. He commented that he hasn't heard of any additional money being available for these expenditures, and it is very difficult for him to see any additional revenues being added to the community. He further commented that San Mateo County found that hillside development was a losing proposition, ~ ~i'~'~6se~ andPalo Alto, as heunderstands, would rather be sued by the re~i~(nts than to encourage building in the hillsides. We, on the other hand, are considering rezoning and encouraging building in the hillsides. He stated _he objects to the loss of dollars in the hillside development, and he felt that ~'.S.p~h]~s ~'~lected~p~f2~6~j~!~ ~6~la ~ohSia~r ~het~c6~m~ty, and not be pressured by'jOd~es~' attorneys and largT~'6v~6per~ for.a plan'i~ this area. He commented that he doesn't blame them for-trying to make profits, but he didn't feel they should do so at the expense of the commuhity. Mr. Santoriello indicated he came to Saratoga because of the aesthetic values, the school district, the type of people who li.ve here; he would like to see it grow, but not at the expense of higher taxes, etc. It was his feeling that development of hillsides in this community is financially a losing proposition. Linda Stuckey, 22600 Prospect Road, passed out some packets to the Council con- taining information relevant to the Williamson Act, and asked if she could address this matter. Mrs. Stuckey indicated that in the packet given each of the Council is a summary 6~nthe Williamson Act, and,she has pulled a few things out of the Williamson Act which is State legislation passed in 1965, and there are a few items in this legislation'which she feels is very important. She indicated that on page 5, under Objectives of the Williamson Act, it states: ",~he discouragement of premature a6d unnecessary diversion of agricultural plans to urban is a matter of public interest and will be of benefit to urban dwellers themselves, and itwill discourage urban development patterns which unnecessarily increase the cost of community services . " She then'referred to item C, which states: "I~a rapidly urbanized society, agricultural land has a definite~ value as open space, and preservation and agricultural production, constitutes an important physical, social, aesthetic and economic asset to existing or pending urban development." Item E: "This ~hapter is necessary for the'promotion of the general welfare and protection of the public interest in agricultural lands." Page A, under CONTRACTS: "Every contract shall provide for ~xclusion of uses other than agricultural." She stated what is happening here is'that residential.use is being proposed for agricultural land. She further commented that the Williamson Act is for 10 years and is automatically renewed every year. Mrs. Stuckey stated that the important part of the Willi~H, ~t'~s'6~p~ge ll, CANCELLATION: ......... "You may consider cancellation only when the ~ontinued dedication of land under such contracts to agricultural-use is either necessary or.desirable for the purposes of this chapter.. You may aoprove the cancellation of a contract only if you findT'th~the cancel~at~o~ is not inconsistant with the purposes of this ~hap~e~nd t6e cahcellation is in the public interest." She commented that it is further stated~ . "The existance of an opportunity for another use of the land involved shall not be sufficient reason for the cancellation of a contract, but potential alternative use of the land may be considered only if there is no'contract - 9- BLACKWELL HOMES REZONING (Cont' d. ) l'and su~abl'~-:for the use for which is proposed contracted land be'put." Mrs. Stuckey commented that what this is saying to her is that if there are no other buildable lands in the area whlich is non-WilliamsonAct. She continued: "The uneconomic character of an existing agricultural use shall likewise not be sufficient reason for cancellation." She commented that on the Hall application, they have a total of 25 acres in the Williamson Act, and 17 to 18 acres are being considered for the Painless Parker development. Mrs. Stuckey indicated she would like to see the City keep this remaining land Qnder the Williamson Act. She further commented that Judge Hall applied for inclusion into the Williamson Act in December of 1971, and the Blackwell proposal was received in January 1972, after which time the Planning Commission came through with a staff report, indicating that it was strongly recommended by the Planning. Department that the Marshall Hall land be preserved under the realms of the Land Conservation Act. Mrs. Stucke~ further referenced a letter received from Mr. Braily, dated July 8, 1972, reque~!ting',the Planning Co~nission turn down the Hall application for several reasons, and she felt this letter raised some very important points. She further indicated she has been in contact with the State~Legislature regarding this matter, and they have replied that: "It was never the intent of the Legislature that the landowner could'cancel the contract when he or she wanted to develop the property, and the cancellation provisions were only to be used in exceptional cases." Mrs. Stuckey felt that if this land is allowed to come out of the Williamson Act, this would be abusing the law. Charles Hunter, 20846 Meadow Oak Lane, commented that he feels the concerns for this proposed development have been expressed in the past. He commented that he felt financial considerations forlthe taxpayer in this area shouldn't be slighted, and also, the possibility of flood control, road widening and increased fire and police protection. He mentioned that during heavy rains l~st year, there was slippage up'on the land, and tile proposed cuts and fills would present this problem in a much greater magnitude, and many of these.homes would be subject to slippage. Mr. Hunter commented that he felt there must be a better way to utilize this site, and some alternative proposals would be open space area for schools and wildlife area, or just left alone. Mr. Russell Crowther, 20788 Norada Court, indicated he would like to agree with the previous speaker, and ask that the Council not approve this rezonin~._Ue commented that he believes certain features of the plan w~l~'Td'~EeYyTaffeet' ~"~ all Saratoga citizens, and also, he beli eves many of the"~lements-of this '"" proposal are inconsistant with the General Plan. Mr. Crowther further commented that the Planned CommOnity Ordinance is being re-worded, and at a meeting a few weeks'ago, the Council voted to'postpone discussions on the Fremont High School property until the PC Ordinance is finalized. Also, he felt there are unresolved safety hazards which could '- affect residents of this site. Mr. Crowther quoted a section of the'General Plan in which he felt this develop- ment would be inconsistent.. T. his isron page 14 of the document, and states: "Control the d~nsity of development i~ hill areas to protect the unique quality of the City's mountainous backdrop." He commented that he fe~ls particularly concerned about houses on the open hills, and also, houses being built around the Eu~ali~tus trees. He quoted another section of the General Plan which he felt this develop w~uld violate: "Preserve the low densgty and natural character of Saratoga by the in- clusion of permanent open snace.and landscaping within the City." With regard to this point, Mr. Crowther didn't feel scenic open space is being protected by this development. -lO- BLACKWELL HOMES REZONING (Cont'd.) Another point mentioned in the General Plan was: "Use open space to provide safety from hazards to human life such as wild- fires, earthquake 'destructi~on, landslides and flooding." Mr. Crowther commented that'this particular site is in a high fire hazard area, and also, is shown on County maps.a's an area having a high potential for land- slides. Further, it was his feeling this area really dictates a lower density. He then commented regarding th~ next:point: "In developed areas, protect residents from injuries and minimize property damage from, earthquakes." He stated the~O.~T~.T.~'m~s'~til~ .shaw .this ~ ah~area of very high potential for landslides.'He fd~ther 'Comme~t~'d~e~'i~'criteria in the General Plan which indicates this area is ahigh'hazard risk, and action should be taken to reduce density. He commented that he felt the development conservation polic.~ with respect to residential zoning should be applied to this site. Mr. Crowther further commented that he is in agreement with the section of the General Plan which states that additional parks are needed, particularly in the north portion of the city, and also conmnented that another section indicates Saratoga parks are 40% less than the norm, and he referenced a petition sub- mitted to the City sometime ago requesting that this site be considered for park development. Mr. Crowther commented wi~h [eg~r_d_t~ the Open Space Element, it states on page 74 that~ ......... ~ - ..... "Cities and counties ~ecognize that open space land is a limited and valuable resource which must be 'conserved whenever'possible. Every local jurisdiction will prepare .and carry out an open space plan, which, along with the State Regional Open Space Plan, etc., will accomplish the objecti'ves of the comprehensive open space program." "The law provides that no building permit shall be issued and no subdivision map approved, unless the proposed construction is con- sistent with the local open-space plan." He quotedon page 75: "Some of the acgicultural land is under contract, which will delay development for at least a decade." ~-~<!-" Enoouragemen~ sh!O~q'd'~be 'given' .to'~ll'. f~m~s -i n--the~ci'ty~s~sphere- of influenCe.to p]aceothe~r. holdings in a-_similar-protectjo~." ..... ~-_. On page 80, it states: "The hills that cup Saratoga on two sides provid'es the citg's most important and valuabl'e scenic beauty." On page 83, it states: "Conservation Element - 1) Control the density of development in hill areas to protect the neat qual'ity of the city mountainous background. 4) Provide the rural atmosphere Of Saratoga by considering the visual impact of new development." Mr. Crowther commented that he feels there has been consideration of visual impact, and steps have been taken in this development to improve visual impact; however, he feels the project still has a significant adverse impact which does not meet this condition under the General Plan. He pointed out that it also states: "Attention shall be given to preserve actual landscaping and/or orchard ' open space." Mr. Crowther commented that another area which came up and was discussed at length during the General Plan hearings was the possibility of incorporating Williams and Mocine's flow chart in th~ General Plan. He commented that if we -ll- BLACKWELL HOMES REZONING (Cont'd.) go back and apply this criteria to this site using the numbers they have on the chart, you would come up with something like 10 acres per site. He indicated it was decided not to use this specific chart with the General Plan, and at the time, there was a committme~t made to implement that in the Slope Conservation Zone Ordinance. Also, he stated the General Plan s~ates that the Slope Conservation Zoning Ordinance should be re-defined to revise the land area within a slope conservation zone beyond that of the 1972 General Plan to provide minimum density and to include conservation evaluation, slope, distance from'all other roads, water'service, sewer service, fire protection, geological hazards, vegetation, arterial access, etc. Mr. Crowther fel't that all of these things haven't been adequately considered in the decision on allowable density of the site, and they feel that a reduced density would reduce traffic problems, flooding, etc. Also, he did not feel the cost situation has been adequately addressed, such as main- tenance costs associated with maintaining water pi~pes and sewer services, un- stable soils, maintaining the water tanks, and pumping stations that will be re- quired, as well as maintaining siltation ponds. Also, he indicated there are going to be costs associated with maintaining the streets and roads, and he is also concerned with a traffic plan fo~ the area. Councilman Matteoni asked Mr. Crowthe'r in his statement regarding reduced density, was he saying there should be no development on this site, or should it be reduced to some degrees! Mr. Crowther replied that Ch'~'~6el[~>the interim ordinance which the Council adopted would be a fair development density, and i.t would allow a great re- duction of the impact on the resident.s of the area. Therefore, he feels 2½ acres is a fair compromise which would give a fair return in development and would reduce many of the environmental affects. Councilman Matteoni then asked Mr. Crowther specifically what he meant by his comment that thene would be some problem in dedicating open .space. Mr. Crowther replied that the Slope Conservation ZoninQ Ordinance, the original draft, seemed to be very closely ~_~i~ ~ to the Park~r Ranch, and that hid pro- visions in it for a scenic easement dedication to the City. Therefore, it was his understanding that one of the ~easons there were major changes recently made in this ordinance was because it was determined that there was a question if someone could dedicate this high of a percentage of land to the City as a scenic easement without have a potential legal problem. He commented that he believes it is possible for people living in homes, for example, the large group of homes up by Prospect Road near the power lines on lO,O00 square foot lots, and he wondered if a group of citizens in this area couldn't get together and avoid having to pay taxes on that land. Mr. Crowther commented that he feels the City Government could change, the citizens' attitudes could change, etc., and he would be very concerned about litigation in this area. He felt there are good reasons on this kind of property to maintain a low density for safety reasons. Mr. Crowther indicated he didn't know what the final outcome was going to be -- the Slope Conservation Ordinance is still under development, the~C'i~ty is re-writing the PC Ordinance, and'there are things in the General Plan that indicate "parks", and he believes all of this should be resolved we commit this type of land to residential use. Mr. Heiss, Civil Engineer for the Blackwell Homes project, addressed the Council, commenting that his firm feels'the Parker Ranch is a logical piece of land for development -- it is adjacent to urbanized areas, it has utilities throughout the property of adequate capacity, the Fire Chief has examined i~ and has not incicated any problems and recognizes that we will be providing water to the area, as well as circulation. A-lso~ they feel this land will carry its fair share of any tax burden, and they feel there are logical'development standards being imposed by the staff, and the quality of construction required will minimize potential hazards to the City at a later date. . He commented that he felt the siltati6n causing the maintainence problem is coming from the over overg~de slopes: Mr:' Heiss commented that they recognize there are floodinb problems i:n the ar~a -- thousands of dollars have been spent analyzing the flooding problems, and thousands have been spent analyzing the -12- BLACKWELL HOMES REZONING (Cont'd.) geologic and soils problems, and in the next stages of the project, tens of thousands of dollars will be spent in analysis design, and eventual'ly, hundreds of thousands of dollars in construction to insure that the project is economically feasibl e, both for the City and for the developer. He further commented that this area is certainly not a premature development -~ it is adjacent to other develop- ments, it has contributed in assessment districts to bring a sewer to the area, etc. Mr. Heiss commented that they feel the matter of open space seems to be one of the major features in favor of this plan, as 150 acres of it is to be created as open space, and the basic difference here is that it isn't costing the taxpayers anything. Mr. Heiss commented that it has been brought out in letters to the editor, etc. what was paid for this land -- 21 years ago, and the question raised is: "What value would a person place per acre on a piece of property purchased 21 years ago, kept and paid.taxes on for those 21 years, and helped to pay an assessment dis- trict?" He indicated he would be interested in hearing some numbers in that respect; however, playing that number for acquiring this piece of land for open space, versus acquiring 150 acres of open space at no cost, makes a significant cost comparison. He indicated this project would be contributing in the form of bridges and providing circulation through the property as recommended by the City's traffic consultant. He commented that by reducing densities this would not affect, in his opinion, the level of improvements required, as there still would be a major circulation element ~hrough the propert~ -- the only logical circulation area that goes through the northwest area of Saratoga. Therefore, reducihg density really doesn't alter the fact that you must construct that road. In the matter of the Williamson Act.and the Hall property, Mr. He~ss commented this consists of 17 acres, which he outlined on the overhead map, and they don't feel this is premature for this piece of prbperty. He felt that one of the intentions under the Williamson Act is to keep premature development from occuring. He commented that development. has occurred all around the area below it, and when you examine it, it is logical for this'upper area to be developed in conjunction with any development that would occur on theParker Ranch. He commented that there is no question if Council did not want the Hall property to come out of the Williamson Act, that this would'have very little effect on the Parker Ranch project. The portion of the Hall ranch scheduled for development consists of the loop steet around the upper area and approximately 6 homes. He stated that if the Hall ranch is removed from the Parker Ranch development, it is a simple matter to terminate this street area, but it was his feeling this would be poor planning. He indicated this upper area is very logical to be developed with the Parker Ranch, whereas, if you exclude i.t, then you do a dis- service to that portion of the property, and there is no other access available'. Mr. Heiss pointed the location of the proposed trail system, and indicated this is another use for the City at no cost to the City. He further pointed out the fact that this property is not considered as prime agricultural land, and over 90% of it is kept as open space after development; therefore, the land would be allocated to open space and it no longer has a tax break, but this land is taxed back against the individual homeowners that have an undivide.d interest in that property, and also, the development potential is taken care of. With regard to some of the problems brought out in ~he E.I.R. hearings, Mr. Heiss indicated the nature of these problems have been recognized, and they will be speaking to solving these problems by development of engineering data, and a tremendous amount of public input, as well as review by the City Staff and by the Commission. As far as the General Plan and the alleged inconsistency, Mr. Heiss stated he was at all the hearings, and certainly the Planning Commission had a great deal to do with the General Plan, and they recommended approval of this rezoning by a unanimous vote. Councilman Kraus asked if Mr. Heiss could give him any indication on the ovehead map as to what the plans are to alleviate the flooding problems. Mr. Heiss indicated there are a series of flooding problems and caused by ~ different phenom~_~j~ and he feels the major one is Norada Court. He explained that this has a series of ravines on the Parker Ranch that contribute to the water that discharges onto Norada Court. He indicated that in their analysis, - 13- BLACKWELL HOMES REZONING (Cont'd.) they found that, based on the run-off factor assigned for undeveloped land, the capacity of this pipe was exceeded and nothing could be done about it. He indicated by development in this area, they ~l~:'~a~s~'~ rd~-b~'~'~roxi- mately 7%. They evolved the solution to construct a storm line which W~ul~ ~ intercept these 3 ravines and take the water directly to the channel-at Prospect Creek (~1.~ they would propose some improvement to the inlet structure at the back of these homes. He p~inted out another situation ibm. which a ~roblem was experienced last yea~' where there was a_3~'i'~'~)~l' ~t' ~'~u~]{~I~'~o~_~om~-'~me~ ~as filled and replaced with a pi~e."~Th"i'~a~6~n~ded more severly by the fact the inlet to that pipe was total'ly inadequate, and th~ pi~e bacame plugged and the water went over the pipe into these rear yards and down onto Arroyo de Arguello, causing a very severe.problems. He expl'ained that the development of the Parker Ranch doesn!!~t add or subtract to that problem, and the overall develop- ment into this area will add about 1% to that particular drainage area. How- ever, they feel they would be helping ~his situation by contribution of drainage ponds, and they would be contributing about $45,000 to the city's drainage system, which is intended to go toward down-stream drainage facilities, and they feel this would be a prime area in which to spend'this money. He indicated that the other problem area is Prospect Creek~and Calabazas Creek. Mr. Heiss indicated a hydrolics professor from San Jose State University examined this area, and he felt development along Calabazas Creek should have been pre- cluded itself. He indicated that Calabazas Creek keeps rising year after year, and this is from silt being brought down from upper areas down into this area, and it flattens out in this area and drops its silt load and raises the channel. He commented that Flood Control has constructed a silt retention basin near Comer Drive, and because of this, the amount of silt presently in there did not go downstream. He felt that this needs to be maintained, and probably the creek should be brought down by removal of silt throughout its entire reach. He stated that they feel this is a regional problem, and also Prospect Creek is silted up. He indicated that Blackwell Homes is proposihgto remove the silt in Prospect Creek. Mr. Heiss indicated that with the development of Parker B~QCh~ they are pro- posing a great deal of change in the use of this land~f~om its grazing config- uration and from many of the uncontrolled gull eys and'ravin~s that discharge. Therefore, it is felt as time goes on, the character of this land will change, and siltation will be reduced and the ability for this ground to wash away, coupled with the fact that many of those areas where there is uncontrolled drainage, they ~ill be controlling it and discharging it by controlled facilities into the channel. Also proposed a~e'siltbasins at various locations, and these will be maintained by the developer through the construction period and for a period of time after that. tat i~'bn some of th6"ot~ '~'o61~ms;!~h' as 'geology~ ~[c.' Mr. Heiss indicated as far as soils and geology,'~6'fe'~T~.ls':they have evolved sufficient ~nformation to identify the problems, a~d ~e*c6nsultant feels the probl~s are basically solvable, pending a more detail ed investigation prior to the tentative map stage. Councilman Matteoni then asked Mr. Heiss if the property were to be rezoned, if ~his~r.ezonin~ wouJd.be conditionea on such soils and geologic investinations:~ MrSHeirs ~61'i~8=~%~Fdin~' to '~ei?Frojected plan, after the rezoning was approve, the next step would be the in-depth soils and geologic study, and after that, they would begin preparation for the tentative map. He further commented that it is recognized there is a possibility that one or two sites may not be appropriate because of something that may be discovered; however, they are hopeful they might gain some areas that are presently not utilized. There- fore, they have the feeling if they lose some, they will probably gain some. BLACKWELL HOMES REZONING (Cont'd.) Mr. Heiss commented that it was his understanding and they had always antici- pated that if there were major changes required because of the information developed from the soils and geologic report, they would have to go back and amend the zoning. Councilwoman Corr asked Mr. Heiss if he would anticipate that the open space, land would be assessed at a different value than the residential property. Mr. Heiss explained that according to the Assessor, when a person buys a lot, he would own a lot, and also, a"l/lO5th interest in 150 acres, and the Assessor assesses the value of his indivudual lot on the basis of those two factors. Mr:G~?~_Zl_6~21450 Prospect Road, addreSsed the Council, and asked in the issue of the Williamson Act, he was correct in udderstanding that if the Council would grant a rezoning, that that rezoning would be conditional on removal of the Hall property in some suitable way under the Williamson Act. Mayor Bridges replied that this is one possible'~oorOach~he Council could use. Mr. Greeley stated the reason he asks this is that~_n~_an_exc~6 ~__f .... correspondence between the City Attorney and the Planning Co~ission on July 1, 1974, the City Attorney did state that:" "0n the other hand, if a parcel is rezoned to other than exclusive "A", and is still under the Williamson Act, the fact that other zofiing exists on the proBerty does not take precedence over the Williamson Act, but, on the contrary, the contract still remains in full force and effect until either the necessary procedure and the notice of non- renewal " Mr. Greeley asked if this was still the City Attorney's view, and if the Council was going to incorhorate that in their.considerati'Ons. Mayor Bridges repl i e~ that ~he fel t. i t would be i nc0rporated. i n the Counci 1 ' s con- siderations; however, he didn't know if the zoning would be condition~ on this. Mr. John Weir, 12343 Arroyo de Arguello, co~ented that he would like to address a couple of poi~mts not yet brought up. He co~ented that in looking at the PC Ordinance as it stands now, there se~s to be a few questions on the way we are proceeding, and he indicated in Section 4-A.4, it says that all of the said side areas shall be under one ownership at.the time of change of zoning from a residential district to a combined Planned Community di.strict, and he did not see where this occurs in this case. He continued that there are two pieces of property -- one belonging to Judge Hall under the Williamson Act, and the other owned by a number of owners as the Parker Ranch -- and~Td~t_s6e~h~ ~he Council could actually make the decision at this time to change it to PC zoning. He further stated that in Section 4-A.6, it states that each reclassification to a Planned Community district shall be a conditional reclassification, in accord with Section 18.11 hereof, and each said conditional reclassification shall, in all cases, include the following general conditions: That the entire site shall be developed in accordance with a final site develgpment plan previous'ly approved by the City Planning Commission. Therefore, Mr. Weiy felt the~e should have been a development plan submitted to the C0un~itl prior to any change t6 PC'2oning, and he doesn't see that any final development plan has been presented. With regard to Mr. Heiss's statement'that perhaps they would find there are more suitable areas where they might want to add additional homes or take some off, Mr. Weir felt this leaves the situation where perhaps they would be building on considerably more density than presently. Mr. Weir further co~ented that without a development plan, PC does allow co~unity centers, private recreational centers, medical centers, etc., as a part of this planned co~unity, and he would say that unless the Council puts some conditions into this, he didn't see any way these couldn't be added at a 1 ater date. -15- BLACKWELL HOMES REZONING (Cont'd.) Mr. Weir commented that the ordinance further states that the City Planning Commission may recommend a change of zoning to a Planned Community district, if, on the basis of the application, the Commission makes a finding described in Section 18.6 of this ordinance, and makes the following additional findings: That the proposed location of a Planned Community district-Tis in accord wi~h the,~_ objectives of°the'Zoning Ordinance and the General Plan, and the purpose drY'the' district in which the site is located'. Mr. Weir commented that it is his under standing this area is located in the slope conservation district that was described in the General Plan, and there is not at this timea Slope ConSer- vation Ordinance under which thisPC zoning can be applied or added to. There- fore, he felt the Council was a little early in trying to make this decision ~or PC zoning until a Slope Conservation Ordinance exists. Mr. Weir also felt it would be helpful if the City would contact the County Assessor and ask him to.rule as to how he would treat this open space, and he felt there seems to be some inconsistency in the way the County Assessor applies his logic, and he would like to see some written document to the City, stating how he would treat it. With regard to some of the trails shown~oT~66 Willia~son Act property and the advantages that this development properted to provide because of the trails, Mr. Weir commented that at this point, trails already exist here and are in current use. Therefore, he felt this. has. no encouragement to have the property removed from the Williamson Act. Mr. Weir further commented with regard to the visual impact of this development, stating that if the Council chooses to proceed with PC zoning, it ought to make a condition that the homes around the Eucalyptus grove be r~moved. Another point mentioned was the fact that the developer was asked by the Planning Commission that development be retained at the R-1-40,O00 level, and the developer is pro- posing 105 homes to be divided up into 1-acre lots. Therefore, it was his under- standing 105 homes would exceed the slope standards allowed by the City, and thus, decrease the property value. Mr. Weir commented that these opinions do not represent a small minority group, and they are actively working on a petition with approximately 1,000 signatures; therefore, felt this represents a good portion of Saratoga residents who are opposed to this hillside development. Ronald Knapp,~20885 Wardell Road, inquired if the horse trails in this area would be left open for public use. Mr. Van Duyn, Planning Director, advised that it is not known if this proposed trail is going to go in, as it is only in the planning stages at this point. The City Manager indicated this a~ea~s still o~en_s~ace, and would remain under private ownership~h~o~'6~s~'~e~icated t6 t~itV,~"~Wo~d~be maintained bv the homeowners assd~atio~.- '~ ..... ' ......... ~"'~'~ Mr. Knapp, 20885 Ward~ll Road, express'ed concern with reoard to the traffic flow in this area as a result of the proposed development, an~ understood this traffic study fo the northwest area of the city hadn't yet been accepted. He felt this traffic study should either be accepted or rejected by the City before considering t~e rez~ning. ~r~>~e~-,hc recomm~ded-that~a~*traffic plan-be-adopte~ firs~ before nrnceedind~w~h th~,~pTnn~nn ~ ~ _ .... , ............ -.:: = _ -. , ...... ~ ................ It was then moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded by Councilwoman Corr the public hearing be continu~ to the next regular meeting on November 19, 1975. The motion was carried. Councilman Matteonj i ndicate~ woU]d .b~v.e~ cogent with regard to the matter of open space preservation,~hen ah:e~sementisdesignated as open space under PC. He commented that it was hisfeel~,:i~-'.u6ld technically s~ill be considered as open space, and to change this would require a public hearing. He indicated he would like to ask that the staf~ examine this matter. -16- C. HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1974 The City Manager reviewed the process undergone 1 year ago for filing an application with the County of Santa Clara and the Department of Housing and Urban Development to receive funds under the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974. He indicated that the City submitted a first year program which spoke to essentially 3 areas: 1) Neighborhood Improvement Program; 2) Phase II development of E1Quito Park; and 3) beautification in the Village area. He explained that the City has entered into an agreement with 6 other cities in County for a program for the development of a County cooperative housing rehab program. He indicated the purpose of this hearing was to discuss was to review officially prior to any expenditure o~ these funds or proceeding with these' specific projects. He indicated there are 2 amendments recommended to th~s program: The first pertains to the work of the Senior Citizens Housing Task Force, with the recommendation that $.1,500 be shifted from the funds earmarked for Senior Citizen Housing,t~the firSt-year program!~6T'o.~l~"those funds in the second-year to be allocated toward computer analysi~~S~F'ta~ulation of the 400 surveys conducted by the Senior Citizens Task Force. ~he second item is an item allocated in the second-year program year, which is the removal of the Arco service station in the Village. It is now recommended, in light of the previous discussions on the site, and the interest in getting it cleaned up and possibly using it in part for a transportation facility, that this be included in the first-year program, by transferring $2,500 from the E1Quito Park program for this year into the second-year program. The Mayor then opened the public'he~ri'ng a~ 11:52 P'.M. John Powers, 13376 Ronnie Way, addressed the. Council, and asked what the City Manager meant by "home 'improvement". Mayor Bridges explained that one of the proposals in the Community Development Act was the concept of low-cost loans~ and grants for the purpose of beautification and rehabilitation of some of the more run-down structures in census tracts 5073.01 and 5073.02. The City Manager explained that this is based on the Windshield Survey and the census data and information in the Housing Assistance Report, and this demon- strated that there are needs in these areas relative to home improvement. The exact nature of this program is still in the process of being determined -- it might end up being a clean-up program, or a program providing improvements only to slum areas -- and there are a number ~ alternatives available. He indicated the City is now in the process of refin~g~ those alternatives, but the staff has never perceived it as being a big housing rehab program. He-further advised that the intent is to hold public meetings with the residents in the area of these two census tracts prior to anything being done . It was them moved by Councilman Kraus~ and seconded by CounCilwoman Corr the public hearing be closed. The motion' was carried. The public hearing was closed at 11:54 P.M. It was then moved b~ Councilman Brioham and seconded by C'ouncilwoman Corr Resolution No. 751,!'~e:~p6~ed~HoGs~i<~"and~omm~i~l.'Development Act Program Amendments, be adopt~."'Th~ ~ibn'was ~arried.~' ' ' V~I. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS The Mayor asked that(a~y ~ifTic ~gjes'ts on the agenda be taken out of con- text and presented at th]'~ ti~e. Mrs. Paula Smith asked that consideration be given to her reQueSt for a refund of building permit fees. After considering the comments in the Ci~ty Building Official's report regarding thi.s matter, it was moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded by Councilman Brigham the City approve fefunding(8j%~the City of Saratoga's portion of buildin~ permit fees, amounting to $103.20. ~he motion was carried. - 1:~- B. COUNCIL AND COMMISSION REPORTS 1. Parks and Recreation Commission Re: Recommendation on E1 Quito Park Master Plan The City Manager explained that the Parks and Recreation Co~hission in reviewing the approved Master PlaH for E1 nuito Park, finds that there are modifications recommended in terms of impl e~entation. The Council indicated they would like to review the E1Quito Park Master Plan and pro- posed modifications at a Committee of the Whole Meeting. This will be agendized for the November l~th Committee of the Whole Meeting. C. DEPARTMENT HEADS AND OFFICERS 1.-Bdilding Official Report Re: Appeal for Refund of Building Permit Fees - See action above. 2. Director of Public Works Re: Pollard Road Bridge - Noted and filed. 3. Director of Public Works Re: Office of Traffic Safety Inventory. It was moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded by Councilwoman Corr the ' City accept funding in the amount of $16,500 from the State for the Traffic Control Device Inventory. The motion was carried. D. CITY MANAGER 1. Reported that he attended the County Library Meeting. on Monday evening, and no acti on was taken regarding the City's recommendati on for a library site. The Commission agreed, however, that once it has received the infor- mation from the Board of Supervisors, they would hold a special meeting. 2. Report Re:!~Bradley-Burns Sales Tax Agreement Between Cities and County The City Manager outlined 4 possible courses of action available to' the City regarding this matter, indicating it would be his recommendation that the City take the position of maintaining a status quo in this matter. The Council discussed these alternatives, and it was the feeling of Councilman Kraus and Councilman Brigham should take the No. 3 c6urse of, action, that being to actively support the County of Santa Clara, and complely forego the possibility of recouping the estimated $20,500 of net receipts to the County in fiscal year 1975-76. The other Council members were in agreement with the City Manager's recommendation. 3. Report Re: Request for Authorization to Proceed to Negotiate Agreement for Consulting Engineering Geologist It was moved by Councilman Brigham and seconded by Councilwoman Corr the C~ty Manager be authorized to proceed to negotiate an agreement with the Consulting Engineering Geologist. The motion was carried. 4. Report Re: Solid Waste Management Plan - ~h~ty Manager presented 'a summary report on this plan, outlining the objectives and recommendations~ He indicated a final report of the Solid Waste Management Study would be re- leased the latter part of November, and a resolution would be forthcoming to the Council relevant to four areas of the plan, including: l) objective§; 2) methods and/or organization for implementation; 3) financing procedures; and 4) role identified by the City. 5. West Valley College E.I.R. Re: Proposed Bleachers and Lighting - City Manager advised that he sent a letter requesing time to speak at the Board Meeting tomorrow evening. 6. Gift of arbors, planter boxes and benches by architecture students at Villa Montalvo It was moved by Councilman Brigham and seconded byCouncilman Kraus the Council accept the gift of abors, planter boxes and benches used in an exhibit at Villa Montalvo. The motion was carried. VIII. COMMUNICATIONS A. WRITTEN 1.' Mr, and Mrs. Gary Proctors 19721 Via Escuela Drive, reQuesti nginstallatio n of stop signs in the Via Escuela area. - Referred to staff for report in 30 days. 2. Mrs William L, Groteguth, 18S46 Ten Acres Road, expressing views against the proposed regulation and limitation of the use of l~nd. - Noted and filed. 3. Mr. and Mrs. Charles Guichard, 21130 Wardell Road, requesting their property be zoned "A" (Agricultural), etc. ~ Referred to Planning staff for additional detail and clarification, and a report back to the Council. 4. Mr. Robert Van der toorren,.President, Saratoga Swimming Club, Inc., re- questing reconsideration of items dealing with SDR-1167, Dennis Bryan. - See item V-C, above. 5. Mr. John H. Til ton, 21172 Bankmill: Road, questioning the validity of state- ments and recommendations on the P~rker Ranch issue. - Noted and filed. 6. Mr. Shelley Williams, Shelley Williams Associate~, Inc., offering his services as a negotiator between the City and Dr. Abrams for the library site near Cox and Saratoga Avenue as part of a "second effort". - Council re-affirmed its previous determination to terminat~ negotiations on the Saratoga-Cox Avenue site. 7. Everett G. McNicholas, District Superintendent, Saratoga Union School District, thanking the City for its cooperation with Foothill School Outdoor Education Committee in the development of FoOthill Park. - Noted and filed. 8. Mrs. G1 enn L. Roper, 12585 Quito Road, clarifying the petiti on submitted on May 17, 1975, to the City Council ~or sidewalks and curbs on Quito Road. - This matter scheduled for November 19th meeting. 9. Petition Re: Saratog a Zoning Ordinance relating to non-conforming structures and uses from 25 Saratoga residents. - Noted and filed; City Manager to resDond. 10. Friends of the Saratoga Libraries, P. O. Box 642, Saratoga, endorsing the City Council's decision to build the new library on proDert~ owned by the City at the corner of Cox Avenue and Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. - Noted and filed, 11. Roy W. Strasburger, Rector, Saint Andrew's Episcopal Church, 13601 Saratoga Avenue, urging prompt action in the matter of the selection of a city library site. - Noted and filed. 12. Mildred Gordon, 20299 Blauer Drive, disapproving the new lib[ary site and the high cost of building. - Noted and filed. 13. Geraldine L. Barrett, 14050 Marilyn Lane, requesting the City Council re- examine its position on the selection of the Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, Cox Avenue library site. - Noted and filed. 14. Gladys Armstrong and Martha Beverett, President and Area Representative,. A.A.U.~., supporting the City council,s choice of library ~ite. - Noted and filed. 15. Mrs. Barbara Heinrich, 19701 Via Escuela, requestihg a stop sign at the intersection of Ten Oak~ Way and Via Escuela. - Noted and filed. ~R'~f~d"T' to staff for report in 30 days. · Hom~owners Association, expressing 16. John Weir6~'~uss~l'~th~r~ Arguei to· concerns R~:~Ordi~nte ~S~3~327~'Noted"and filed. B. .ORAL The Mayor acknowledged the presence of public group representatives in the audience this evening, as follows: Stan Marshall - Chairman, Planning~Commission; Mary Moss - Library Con~nissioner; George Whelan - Chairman, Bicentennial Committee; Linda Callon - Planning Co~i ssi oner.; Jim Isaac - Library Commissioner; Roger Lueck - Good Government Group; Nat Abrams - President, Prid~'s Crossing Homeowners Association; John Powers - Quito Merchant's Assn.; Marjorie Foote - American Association of University Women; April Barrett - League of Women Voters; Mildred Gor~on - Parks and Recreation Commissioner; John Weir - President, Greater Argpello Homeowners Association. IX. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Councilman Brighamand seconded by Councilwoman Corr the meeting be adjourned to an Executive'Session this evening, and to an Adjourned Regular Meeting next Tuesday, November llth. Th~ motion was carried. The meeting was adjourned at 12:55 P.M. spect~ ~bmit'ted, R? 20-