Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-19-1975 City Council Minutes , 4~ MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL .TIME: Wednesday, November 19, 1935 - 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, Matteoni, Bridges Absent: Councilman Kraus B. MINUTES It was moved by Councilman Brigham an'd seconded by.Councilwoman Corr the minutes~bf'.O~'tqber 29, 1975 be approved, and the reading waived. The motion was carried. II. CONSENT CALENDAR A. COMPOSITION OF CONSENT CALENDAR B. ITEMS FOR CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Approval of Final Map and Executign of Building Site Approval Agreement a) SDR-1205 Santos Aparicio, Sobey Road, 1 Lot b) SDR-1210 Jerry Jordan, Saratoga Hills Road, 1 Lot 2. Approval of Deferred Improvement Agreement in Exchange for Improvement Bond (SDR-731, Sacred Heart Church) 3. Payment of Claims 4': City Clerk's Financial Report 5. City Treasurer's Report It was moved by Councilman Brigham and seconded by Councilwoman Corr the Consent Calendar be approved. The motion was carried. III. BIDS AND CONTRACTS A. AGREEMENT BETWEEN SANTA CLARA VALLEY ~MPLOYMENT AND TRAININC~ BOARD AND CITY OF SARATOGA FOR SUBGRANT UNDER CETA TITLE VI PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM It was moved by Councilman Brig!ham and seconded by Councilman Matteoni the Mayor be authorized to execute the contract. The motion was carried. IV. PETITIONS,'ORDIHANCES AND RESOLUTIONS A~ PETITION FROM NORTHWEST HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION REQUESTING LEFT-TURN LANE ON PROSPECT ROAD FOR WESTBOUND TRAFFIC TURNING ONTO COVINA COURT, AND ERECTION OF STOP SIGNS AT THE FOLLOWINr~ INTERSECTIONS: = 1) Four-Way Stop at Covina and .Merida ~ 2) Southbound Lanes on Kirkbrook at KnollWood 3) Northbound Lanes on Desanka at Knollwood This matter was referred to the Public Works staff for a report back to the Council in 45 to 60 days (January 7theMeeting). B. QUITO ROAD WALKWAY BETWEEN BUCKNALL R6AD AND NORTHERLY CITY LIMITS (Cont'd. 7/2/75) (Not being 8:00 P.M., the Council proceeded to Item VII, ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS) VII. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS A. MAYOR B. COUNCIL AND COMMISSION REPORTS 1. Planning Commission -~n'~_'_~_'.D~rector reported American Indian Council is ~onsi~ering withdrawing their reguest for Indian encampment for Bicentennial Celebration as a result of recent threats received. Further indicated that the Planning Commission at their last meeting took action to approve sending a letter to the Indian Council indicating the Commission's unhappiness with this incident, and encouraging them to continue with their application. It was then moved by Councilman Brigham and seconded. by Councilwoman Corr the City Council concur in such a letter. The motion was carried. 2. Councilwoman Corr - Inquired about the procedure for selecting an alternate for County Needs Assessment Advisory Committee. Mayor advised the City Manager would direct a letter to Mr. House. l~i~hairman of the Inter-City Council, inquiring about this. 3. Councilman Brigham - Reported that there is a proposal to P.P.C. from LAFCO tore-design the urban service area boundaries to some extent, and a report would be coming back to the Council on this matter in the near future. C. DEPARTMENT HEADS AND OFFICERS D. CITY MANAGER 1. Reported that Green Valley Disposal Company is reguesting a rate in- crease to $2.25 first-can service, and $1.40 each additional can, to become effective January 1, 1976. He indicated this would be age~dized for the ~6~r'F~l~'r'C6~il'~M~i~i~ D~'c'~mber-. Also announced there would be.a second pick-up for the Fall Clean-Up ~rash collection on December 5th for those people who called the City Office and left their name. Mayor Bridges suggested there be a notice placed in the newspaper that the City will be taking names for this second trash pick-up. 2. Proposed Human Service Area Boundaries - Council indicated its support of Human Service Planning Area No. 3, serving Saratoga, Monte Sereno, LOs Gatos and the unincorporated pockets, and to communicate with the County regarding acceptance of these boundaries. 3. Council Chambers Recording System - The City Manager presented a verbal report substantiating the need for this system, indicatine that the cost for such a system ($1,500.00)'would be obtain~dTb~hif'ti~g of some funds in the Administration and Planning Commission bu~tST''y VI.-~UBLIC HEARINGS A. CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED CHANGE OF ZONING FOR BLACKWELL HOMES (PARKER RANCH) PROSPECT AND STELLING ROADS, FROM "R-1-40,O00" (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) AND "A" (AGRICULTURE) TO "R:l-40,O00 PC" (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, PLANNED COMMUNITY) (Cont'd. 8/6; 8/26, lO/1, 11/5) -2- PaCker Ranch Rezoning (Cont'd.) The Mayor brought to the Council's attention items of correspondence related to this matter from: Russell L. Crowther, Arguello Homeowners Association (3 letters). The Mayor then re~opened the public hearing at 8:12 P.M. Russell Crowther, 20788 Norada court, addressed the Council, commenting that over the past few months the Arguello Homeowners Association has Voiced their concerns regarding(~'~e_~_n_'d.~ased flooding that will be caused by the develop- ment of the Parker Ranch. He indicated there is also concern that the mitigation plans seem to be directed primari'ly toward problems on Norada Court, and there seems to be more of a problem in other areas. Also, he commented that the re- zoning will result in a higher density than is desirable on this site. Mr. CroWther .then introduced a letter Which included .~h6~ph~'of some of the flooding which has taken ~lace on Ritanna Court. He't~'~oceeded to read this 1 etter~~'~d ~ .' ~'~'[~1 ~0~40T~h'~~'t~d~N~Yl'9, .Cf~7'5~'~i~ I~tTer 'Ha~ b~n-~de' a'~t 6f~t~'fi l~'i'n'thi's matter~ ~ Mr. C~6~ther ~dica~ed '~h~:~d Mrs. McLaughlin were unable to be present this evening; however, they had asked that he present their letter to the Council. Mr. Crowther indicated he felt,this is just one problem in this area, and many of the mi ti gating ;~ ~ a~ ~h~' :hTvT~_,~_en,~T~r,~0~~{"~~S6'f these problems. He indicated'h~ is also ~oncer~6a'~h'~{~ff~ ~robleTof~run-bff has been under-estimated, and the fact that '20D trees with a 12-inch or greater diameter will be cut. He then read a section from Ordinance 38.26, which is the City's tree ordinance, which he felt approaches on some of his concerns: "The wanton destruction of trees aids in injuring the scenic beauty of the City; causes erosion of top soil, creates flood hazard and risk of landslides, reduces property values, increases the cost ofcon- struction and maintenance of draining systems through the increased flow and diversion of surface waters, and eliminates oneof the prime oxygen producers in this area." Mr. Crowther commented that he felt the cutting of these trees in this area would have a very large impact; and' that this has not been mitigated in the planning and development of .this project. At the request'of Councilman Matteo~i, Mr. Crowthen then pointed out on the overhead map the lacation of Mr. McLaughlin's home on Ritanna Court in relation to Calabazas Creek. He further mentioned that there is also a new house being built b~tween!.the 'creek bed and Norad6 Court that he is somewhat concerned about, in that it doesn't look likeit is 7 feet above the creek bottom. Councilman Matteoni asked if he was concerned about the increased water run-off down Calabazas from this project, and the diversion from Prospect Creek back into Calabazas Creek. Mr. Crowther agreed wi~h this, and commented that he felt the run-off would be increased all through this area into Calabazas, a~d also into Prospect Creek. Also, he indicated. that there is a.box culvert runn~'ng right at the top (during heavy rains last winter), and he was concerned ~ha~ the entire Blue Hills area would be flooded. He commented that the 7% increase in flow which has been estimated will overflow ~hat area a!so. He indicated also, that he was con- cerned this development would set a precident for people who wanted to develop the lands up in the Mt. Eden area and perhaps_othEr areas as well. Mr. Crowther indicated he felt the immediate runToff,~.~.res~lt.*of the Parker Ranch develop- ment is going to cause all sorts of problems, and that'millions of dollars in damages would result with this development as it is proposed. Mr. Dick Hathaway; representing the:Northwest Saratoga Homeowners Association, addressed the Council and indicated they have been folloWing this issue through the news media, etc.; however, it is difficult to follow it is every aspect in order to be able to draw specific conclusions on one matter or the other. He further commented that a meeting was held in September in which a representative of the City (Don Burt) was invited;:however, he felt the City's representative failed to convince the homeowners a~sociation that there is a need for a higher - 3 - Parker Ranch Re~oning (Cont'd. ' density development in this area. Mr. Hathaway indicated the Northwest Saratooa Homeowners Association has held several meetings thereafter, and would support' the Arguello Homeowners Association's position regarding their great concern with respect to the development of this land, and also, their concerns with regard to the impact to adjacent lands. Mr. Heiss, Civil Engineer for Blackwell Homes, commented that it is apparent that there is an existing continuing problem with"Calabazas Creek; however, he felt the problems related to the Parker Ranch development are the result of the tremendous amount of silt that has built up d6~'~S~un-Of~ ffo~.~hTentire ~ ~e~"~i ~Tn{o' C~l ab~s '~ee~. T~e~nd i~C~d~t i t i ses ti~a{ed the increase as far as Calabaza~ Creek has been figured to be less than 1-percent. He further mentioned that the flooding which has occurred along Arroyo de Arguelifo was because of a private storm drain which was not~designed to handle this amount of water. With regard to Calabazas Creek, Mr. Heiss pointed out t ~t the Santa County tk~s'. C!ara Water D~strict would~be responsible for. maintaining With regard to proposed tree removal in this project, Mr. Heiss commented that this development has the distinction of being quite large, and therefore, the statistics are also large. He indicated this averages out to approximately 2 trees per home, which he does not feel is excessive, or less than 5 percent of the total trees with a 12-inch or less diameter. John Weir, 12343 Arroyo de Arguello, addressed the Council, commenting with regard to the flooding problem; He. indicated that something which was brought up in the E.I.R. is the fact that water would be running down th~se hills because it is.no longer being slowed down by culverts. He further commented this will result in a 1 percent increase in the Calabazas Creek, but a very serious condition with the culverts at their capacity. Mr. Weir commented that in listening to Mr. Heiss's comments, it is his impression that Mr. Heiss doesn't know what the flow or the capacity of the creek is; therefore, how does he know this will only result in 1 percent increase? Mr. Weir further commented that he thinks it should also be considered that there was a notice in the newspaper 2 to 3 weeks ago that the Fremont High School property is going to be put up for sale, and this could result in the addition of a considerable amount of water into the Prospect and Calabazas Creeks. Mr. Crowther again addressed the Council and advised that Mr~ McLaughlin has built a 2½-foot retaining wall which is concrete reinforced beyond his house, and this was constructed at the request of the Flood Control District. He indicated that during a heavy storm last winter, the wall was moved approxi- mately 4 feet, and the Flood Control District dredges the creek each year to prevent even more serious problems. He further indicated that Prospect Creek empties into Calabazas Creek before the water reaches Ritanna Court. Mr. Crowther further stated he has a great deal of trouble with the 150,000 cubic yards of cut and fill, as well as the large amount of trees being removed. He indicated he is also concerned with the higher velocity in which the water will be traveling along these hills, and he felt the erosion problem would be more serious than anticipated. Mr. Crowther commented that in his letter dated November 15th, there were a couple of questions and concerns regarding this development, and indicated he, as well as several other Saratoga citizens, would very much appreciate an answer to these questions. Mayor Bridges pointed out that these questions are exactly the same as those placed in many previous instances by Mr. Crowther, and he feels they have been answered to the Council and Planning Commission's satisfaction. He indicated he feels some of these are not questions,-but statements of Mr. Crowther's position, and he is,'therefore, at a loss to instruct staff to spend further time in answering these. He asked that Mr. Crowther submit those questions he feels he has not received an answer to, and in which there are not editorial comments, he could address these questions to the Mayor personally, he would try to obtain the answers himself". -4-- Parker Ranch Rezoning (Cont'd.) Mr. Crowther indicated he is particularl~ concerned about questions 3 and 4 of his letter of November 15th. Mayor Bridges indicated that he believes the minutes of the 0ctob~r 1st meeting clearly state that the Council did not deal at that time with the rezoning issue, not due to the fact that the PC Ordinance was not developed, but rather, that the property was already consistent with the General Plan. He further indicated that the City Attorney at that'meeting andin Mr. Crowther's presence stated that the present zoning was consistent with the General Plan, and there was no need to persue the matter of what the density would be at this particular time. The ~i~v_~t~qr_qn~y_~Spo_~D_nde_d' tg_qu~_e~on 4~0f Mr._Crowther~ 1.~t~r, Which a~ks: "If~he. _Development! Pl an -~F~TtO~fol 1 o~T(~ ~(~%~'~'n wab t~T~ffi-~i'~6" ~f ~ir~m~nt~'i~ beSmBd~ ~nj~th~ Noti:aec6f b~te~]~n~ti~n~ite~'' He"'s~ated ~h~t~t~'~PC~Z6~'i=~g~0rdi6~('~'~YS~at th~= ~prova~ of a site development plan is by the Planning Commi'ssion, and in this particular case, the site development plan was approved by the Planning Co~ission a long time ago. Therefore, the site development plan for the purpose of PC has already been approved. He further indicated that once the Council decides to either approve and adopt the rezoning or. not t6~. rezone, at that time under the E.I.R., the Notice of Dete~ination is to be filed. Councilman Matteoni suggested that perhaps there is another vehicle by which to answer these questions, and indicated that there was a workshop approximately- one week ago with the Cduncil and Planning Co~ission, at which time they began totouch upon the staff report which was adopted by the Planning Co~ission with all the conditions which they would attach to their reco~endation on granting a rezoning. He felt that the Council was just starting to understand these conditions and how they may or may not require further attention, and also, many concerns were addressed regarding'mitigating'circumstances, etc., and indicated he would like, before taking any action on the application itself, have a total understanding of that staff report, by.way of a discussion between the Plannfng Commission and City Council, and this might provide the best vehicle in trying to sort these questi'ons out one final time. Mr. Crowther commented that they have a number of questions, particularly with regard to financial responsibility, which they do not find in these conditions, and would like to see this added. Mr. Fryer, Saratoga Hills Road, addressed the Council and asked if Mr. Crowther might provide information on what percentage run-off has been increased by his tract, with 4 houses per acre, and here we are talking about 1 house per 2 acres. He indicated it seems to be rather extr~e to be talking about a 2 percent increase in the creek. Pat Hunter, 20846 Meadow Oak Road, addressed the Council and indicated that she is very concerned about the vehicle aspect, as wel'l as the flooding. She continued that as a taxpayer, whatever is projected for the city, they suffer and pay the increased taxes because the Council may'have "goofed" in its decision. She indicated that another concern is assuming that everyone attending the meetings understand what is going on. Mayor Bridges commented that the Council is always glad to answer any questions that come up on any issue. Mrs. Hunter further co~ented that if one doesn't live in a certain area, he probably isn't aware of the water that rushes through, and every .year the wash- out increases, and you either put a cement bank up, out of your own pocket, or you get flooded out. Councilman Matteoni indicated he would like to have one other public hearing on this to focus on discussing publically all the concerns which have been raised relevant to the Planning Commission's approval of the project. He indicated as he Onderstands it, the Co~ission has recommended only that the overall zoning concept be applied, and there is a great deal more Work to be done until the plan is further approv~ and can be developed. - 5- Parker Ranch Rezoning (Cont'd.) Councilwoman Corr commented that she has some quesitons in her mind about the part of the property that is in the Williamson Act, and how this affects the Council's decision oh the rezoning.' Mayor Bridges agreed that this is a concern of his, and felt that the workshop would be good to look at th~ls,'.~s well as other specific issues. He suggested scheduling a workshop ~ith the Planning Co-mission on D~cember 9th, and the City Attorney also be present, to specifically address the matter of the Williamson Act, as well as the conditions contained in the staff report referred to earlier by Councilman Matteoni. This was agreeable to .the Council, and it was then moved bv Councilman Brigham and seconded bv Councilman Matteoni to continue the oublic~ hearing to December 17th, -~faTl] ~ww~'~S ~:.'~'d~'h~'T&~A~6;~m~e~"w] ~h~ ~ P l~ni ~ '~6~i ~. ~6~ ~i't~" ' ' -. ~A~'6~e~. '~e:mati6~'~as~F~a~ni:mouslg. - ........ "-'- -~- .' B. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING ORDINANCE NS-3, THE ZONING ORDINANCE, BY AMENDING SECTION 1.5 AND ARTICLE 15 THEREOF RELATING TO NON- CONFORMING USES AND STRUCTURES, THEIR DEFINITIONS, CONTINUATION AND TERMIN- ATION AND AMENDING SECTION 18.4 RELATING TO PUBLIC HEARINGS, AND 18.11 RELATING TO CONDITIONAL RECLASSIFICATION'(Cont'd. 10/21, 11/5) The Mayor re-opened the public hearing at 9:44 P.M. Hank Ferber, 20470 Fourth Street, addressed the Counci'l and indicated he hadTM some very specific questions on this matter which he would like to see clearly reflected in the Council minutes, as ~ell as the specific answers to these questions. MF. Ferber indicated that the proposed amendment to Article 15, as well as the article itself, seems to be somewhat ambiguous, and they find it difficult to read over and see how it applies to their own homes, and this particular area, the Mary Springer tract, -has;?for the most part, non-conforming sites with non- conforming residences. Mr. Ferber continued that Section 14.3 itself does require a minimum width in side and rear yards for non-conforming sites, and he asked if this means that any one of their houses sitting next to the property line, even though it was put in during the 1940's before the incorporation of the City, and if these non-conforming residences and structures on these non-conforming sites would be subject to elimination without any recourse by the property owners. Mr. Johnston, City Attorney, replied that he.didn't feel the addition of that which was put into the ordinance two weeks ago was necessary, but since there seemed to be a feeling that this was unclear, it didn't hurt to put it in. He indicated that the basic section relating to the elimination of uses and structures - ' ' i conforming structures n Js i others relate to non-conforming uses, even sub-section (f), and this relates to a non-conforming use in a non-conforming structure. 'Sub-section (e) provides, as it did before, that a non-conforming structure with a valuation of $500 or less is to be re- moved within a certain period of time, and this is not aimed at homes, but little shacks and old side-buildings, etc. Therefore, none of these provisions for elimination relate to a home inan "R'~ district, because this is a conforming use, and the only way the structure'could be non-conforming wouldbe because of side, rear or front yards, etc., but there is no pro~i~i~'ijn:thi~O~dinance requiring the removal of any such non-conforming structUr6, unless it is worth $500 or less. Mr. Ferber then presented some examples (posters), the.first exhibiting a house toward the front of ~ lot (non-conforming lot), with a 3-foot clearance between the edge of the home and the property line. He asked if this would be con- sidered a non-conforming structure. Mr. Johnston replied that i t would be considered non-conformi ng. -6- Ordinance NS-3s32 (Cont'd.) Mr. Ferber asked if under the ordinance as it stands or as it is amended, this structure would be subject to removal. Mr. Johnston replied: "No, unless it burned down, or unless it was worth less than $500." Mayor Bridgesinquired what would be the conditions for. re-building the structure if it did burn down. Mr. Johnston replied this would remain the same as before . . . 50 percent or less, you could re-build; over 50 percent, you would have to conform to 14.3, which says that you must have certain minimum side~yard a~dcfront-yard setbacks, even though it is a non-conf6rming 'site. He further pointed out the conditions are no different in this ordinance .than they have been since 1961. Mr. Ferber then asked how an addition to a house would be affected, and what conditions would then have to apply, and would it be prohibited to have this upgrade or addition. Mr. Johnston' replied that this ordinance doesn't change this regdlation, which is the same as those in 1961, and state that you cannot increase the dis- crepancy Mr. Ferber indicated that Example No. 2 shows a'house with an attached garage, which garage is 1 foot from the property line. He asked if this garage were valued at less than $500 and was attached to the house, would this be subject to removal? Mr. Johnston replied that it would.not if it was attached. Mr. Van Duyn pointed out this is included under ,the Definitions as a part of the principal structure or principal coverage. Mr. Ferber commented he is not sur~ what would be worth $500 in value, and once you put a slab down, this is worth about $1,000. Mr. Johnston pointed out this relates to assessed value, and the theory is to eliminate shacks and outbuildings, etc. that are encroaching on side, rear"or front yards. He further indicated]that this provision is not something new, but is identical to the 1961 Ordinance. Mr. Ferber then presented a third example in which a house is centered on a lot with all setback requirements being met, and there is an outbuilding in back which is within 1 foot of the rear property line, and he asked how this would be affected. Mr. Johnston replied that if the assessor has this structure assessed at less than $500, then it has to conform to the side-yard setbacks -- otherwise, nothing is done with it, unless it burns down or is abandoned. Mr. Van Duyn, Planning Director, further commented that in the case of an out- building such as described, this wouldn't be prohibited from maintaining in order to bring this up to a value over $500 or more. Margaret Sherill, 14290 Paul Avenue, addressed the Council and asked the date of Saratoga's incorporation. The City Attorney replied that it was October, 1956. Mrs. Sherill then asked when the Zoning Ordinance was effective. Mr. Johnston replied that the Zoning Ordinance was adopted the day after the City's incorporation, and in 1961, the City adopted NS-3. - 7- Ordinance NS-3-32 (Cont'd.) Mrs. Sherill then asked if the original Zoning Ordinance contained all of the same regu l ati ons as ~i n ~ h~h'(~3~7~"..'" Mr. Johnston replied that it contained all of the provisions of the Santa Clara County Zoning Code, whi.ch are very similar to the ones existing in NS-3. Mrs. Sherill commented that the area which she and the homeowners association represents is an old area, which possibly was the first subdivision that came into Saratoga, and it was before Santa Clara County had its ordinance. She asked if this proposed ordinance would be applied retroactively. Mr. Johnston explained that the purpose of a non-conforming use ordinance is that it apply to existing conditions, and this would also apply retroactively. However, he indicated this doesn't mean elimination of non-conforming structures in a residential zone. He indicated that if there is a non-conforming structure which is burned down or eliminated by an Act of God~ it must be re-built to com- ply with present setback requirements, etc. Mrs. Sherill asked if this was saying that any home~that existed in Saratoga, even before the County had'an ordinance, is a non-conforming use because it ~c sits on a property line.· Mayor B~idges explained that jus~ b~cau~e the structure is non-conforming does not necessarily ~an it ,ts_!~legal.' He continued that as long as it it=used · as a residence~'i.t~6~l:d r~mai'n. However, if there is a catastrophe that takes the structure do~nT(h~i~'~outd b~ required to be rebuilt in accordance with the Ordinance reguirements. M~s. Sherill commented that she is concerned about future interpretations of this ordinance, and she would like to see somethine in the minutes to indicate ~'~t~at'~'~"s io~i~n tO e~iminate these ~t~uctures. She then proceeded '~6'~ead ~"p6rtibn ~f S~ctfoh'15~l o~ the proposed Ordinance, and asked: "How are you going to bring these non-conforming structures up to district regu- lations when they are too close to the property line?" Councilman Matteoni again explained that only when the structure has an assessed valuation'of $500 or less would it fall into this category. He further pointed out that he felt Section 14.3 of the Zoning Ordinance would recognize those concerns Mrs. Sherill[mentioned. Mrs. Sherill indicated that she is concerned with regard to this $500 assessed valuation figure, and commented that some of these homes existed so long ago that it is possible they had a very low assessed valuation at one time, and then somewhere along the line, these. places became non-conforming. She as ked if these structures would now be bulldozed. Mayor Bridges replied that there is. nothing in this ordinance which would permit this or propose this, and it is hard to imagine any dwelling unit that has ever been worth less than $500. He further commented that the $500 figure is necessary to be in the ordinance to protect the health and welfare of the community. Councilwoman Corr indicated it was her understanding the only time an accessa~V structure might fall under this $500 valuation is tf it were allowed to become completely run down or abandoned to a condition of non-repair, and felt if it is being used and kept as alittle dwelling, there isn't any Question. Councilman Matteoni suggested in adopting this ordinance,~'~6~i~'.'b~/stated'st' that it is not the Council's intention to apply the new amend~e~ differe~{l~" than in the prior ordinance on non-c~nforming dwellings or non-conforming sites. Florence Eschler, 14339 Paul Avenue, then addressed the Council indicating that she would like to reco~end to the Council use of wording in the proposed ordinance similar to that of Milpitas' non-conforming use ordinance, and she felt this ordinance addressed very specifically the problem-she felt Saratoga has, which is interpretation by the people. - 8- Ordinance NS-3-32 (Cont'd.) Mayor Bridges, as w~ll as other members of the Council, commented that they felt Milpitas' ordinance was much more d~scretionary than Saratoga's. Mrs. Es~hler commented that~thei~ O~in~nCe'~'~oTs~y'tTat'T~e 'De6pl~ W~'d-~ ,-no~'~e ~e~d~ ~h~"~'~ ~n3oy 'the 'rights and' pri~i!l~s'due' to lbt-restri~dns The City Attorney indicated he has talked to Jack Goodman, City Attorne~ for Milpitas, and one of their problems is that they r'estrict. i~ ~'16~(~'~'ord~ and if you happen to have a site by meets and bounds, you'are i~ig ~r'ouSie' in Milpitas. He indicated that their ordiinance only refers to lots, and Saratoga's ordinance provides for any s.ite, whe'theF it is shown by a Deed, Contract of Sale, Subdivision Map, Record of Survey~ etc., and therefore,' we have more latitude than does iMi~pitas. It was then moved by Councilman Brigham and seconded by Council.woman Corr the public hearing be closed.' The motion was carried. The public hearing was closed at 10:15 P.M. Councilman Matteoni commented that the purpose of Section 14.3 is to accomplish the wording Mrs. Eschler was agreeing with for Milpitas, and did not feel any re-drafting of this ordinance was necessary. It was then moved by Mayor Bridges ahd seconded by Councilwoman Corr Ordinance Councilwoman Corr Con~nented that she is interested in historical sites in Saratoga, and suggested that some of the people in th~s area communicate with the Historical Society with regard to some of these old houses. A. ~R[TTEN 1. Ann Miller, 20745 Ashley ~ay, expressing thoughts on the library site issue. - Noted and filed~ City M~nager to respond. 2. Copy of a letter to the Santa Clara County Library Commission from Mrs. Ratricia Mosher, 16350 Ridgecrest Ave., Monte Sereno, expressing opposition toSaratoga-Sunnyvale Road, Cox Avenue site. - Noted and filed~ City Manager to respond. 3. David A. Cooling, Headmaster, Saint Andrew'~ School~ 13601 Saratoga Ave., supporting a library site close to both Sacred Heart School and Saint Andrews School. - Noted and filed~ City ~anager to respond. 4. Russell L. Crowther, Arguello Homeowners Association, encouraging a "Long- term comprehensive plan be developed and implemented" in Saratoga with regard to hillside development. - Noted and fil~d~ City Manager to respond. S. John ~eir and Russell Crowther, Arguello Homeo~ners Association, concerning their thoughts on Geologic Consultant for City of Saratoga. - Noted~-letter to be taken under advisement. 6. ~ols~?~e~ltgrs,.~361 ~_~r~gga~S_~u.~yvale Road, concerning ~heir thoughts ~ o~ boss i bl e'.ff~u~ing. ~'h~age~ ;~.~Noted' and fi led. 7. Petition f~om 17 residents of Saratoga requesting the immediate selection and ra~i~ica~ion of a city-owned site fop the building of library ~n the .. City of Saratoga. - Noted and filed~ City ~anagep ~o respond. 8. Copy of a petition ~o ~he County Board o~ Supervisors asking ~h~ ~o imm~i a~ely ratify a city-owned si te for ~he building of a library i n Saratoga ~pom the A.A.U.W., Los Ga~os-Sara~oga Branch. E- Not~ and -9- 9. Arthur Anderson, 21150 Ambric Knolls, requesting extension of his Building Site Approval for property on Sobey Road. - Due to the fact Dr. Anderson's TentatiVeSite Approval has already expired, it was indicated he had no basis on which to receive an extension; therefore, the Council denied this request. I0. John Weir and Russel'l Crowther,~Arguello Homeownlers,Association, urging the Council to ~ot approve the proposed Parker Ranch rezoning to "Planned Community", and the associated development plan. - NOted and filed. 11. Judith Corliss, ~resideHt,' League of Women Voters, Los Gatos-Saratoga, expressing concern over the new policy of charging for City Council agendas and packets. - City Manager to respond and indicate the Council's golicy in this regard,'and also, mention the fact that Councilwoman Corr is working to help establish guidelines fo~ allowing this and other similar~type groups to continue receiving the agendas and a. packet at no charge. 12. Richardt~Snow, Jr., Attorney representing Mr. and Mrs. Snow and Mr: and Mrs. Canote, Harleigh Drive, requesting the City vacate the easement over their'.~ "'. respective properties for the e~tension of Harleigh Drive, along with a petition from 91 residents of that area supporting ~he vacation of the easement at the end'of Harleigh Drive. - Referred to the staff for a renort back at the next regular meeting. 13. Petition from ~esiden~s in the Pierce Road area, requesting the installation of a landscaped traffic barrier between the end of the service road behind Argonaut-Safeway Shopping Center and the end of Pierce Road. - Referred to staff for a report back at the December 17th regular meeting. 14. John Weir and Russell Crowther, Arguello Homeowners Association, supporting the League of Women Voters' conclusions regarding.the ilntent of the 1974 General Plan. - Noted and filed. 15. John Weir and Russell Crowther, Arguello Homeowners Association, regarding questions concerning Parker Ranch. - Noted and filed; Ci.ty Manager to respond. B. ORAL The Mayor acknowledged the presence.of public group representatives in the audience, as follows: Dorothy Parker, Good Government Group; April Barrett, LeagUe of Women Voters; John Weir, Arguello Homeowners Association; Nat Abrams, Pride's Crossing Homeowners Association; John Powers, Quito Merchants' Association; and Hank Ferber, Old Village Home- owners Association. IX. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Councilman Brigham and seconded by Councilwoman Corr the meeting be adjourned to an Executive Session. The motion was carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:50 P.M. spectf . submitted, Rob - 10-