HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-04-1976 City Council Minutes MINUTES
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
TIME: Wednesday, February 4,.1976 - 7:30 P.M. :'
PLACE: Saratoga City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California
TYPE: Regular Meeting
I. ORGANIZATION
A. ROLL CALL
Present: Councilmen Brigham, Kraus, Corr, Matteoni, Bridges
Absent: None
8. MINUTES
None.
',> ~ II. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. COMPOSITION .OF CONSENT CALENDAR
It was suggested items 4,~Authorization to Call for Bids for Improvements
at Saratoga Historical Park, and item 6, Ordinance 38.58-1, Amending the
Sarato,qa City Code Relating to Fire Prevention and the Adoption of the
1973 Uniform Fire Code, be removed ,from the Consent Calendar.- Thf~ ~vas
It w~s therefore moved by Councilman Bri~ham and seconded by Councilman
KrauS~ the Composition of the Consent Calendar, as amended, be approved.
The/motion was carried.
B. ITEMS FOR CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Notice of Completion for Striping Certain City Streets
2. Final Acceptance
l) Tract 4646 Davi.d S. Arata, Montalvo Road
2) Tract 4828.: Columbus Savings and Loan Assoc., Arroyo de Arguello
3) Tract 5069" Avco CommunilE"y Developers, Plumas Drive
4) Tract 5161~ R. Kobara and J. Battaglia, Apricot Hill
5) Tract 5233~ Avco Community Developers, Solana Drive
3. Approva] of Final Plans for Saratoga Historical Park
4. Resolution No.'.MV-108, Establishing Distinctive Pavement Markings on
6th Street and'. St. Charles
5. Payment of Cla,ims
It was moved by Counci~lman Brigham and seconded by Couneilman Kraus the Consent
Calendar be approved. The motion wa~ carrie~l.
III. BIDS AND CONTRACTS'
A. AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR BIDS FOR IMPROVEMENTS AT SARATOr~A HISTORICAL PARK
It was stated that: the estimates. received were $4,000 above what had been
budgeted for the project, and Councilmen Kraus and Brigham concurred that
they wanted to make sure the actual award of the contract came within the
budget. The City M~nager indicated that the bids would be set up in such a
way that there wou~d be items which could be cut, if necessary, to bring
the project within, the budgeted figures..
It was therefore m6ved by Councilman Kraus and seconded by Councilman Brigham
:t_h~e St'ai~f'6~'au~h6'~i~ed"to'TdVersise for bids on this project. The motion
was 'carriE~l. ~ ........
IV. PETITIONS, ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS
A. ORDINANCE NO. 38.58-1
An Ordinance Amending.~h~ Saratoga City Code Relating to Fire Prevention and
~he Adoption of the 1973 Uniform Fire Code (Introduction)
The Mayor acknowledged a letter received from Chief Ernie Kraule of the
Saratoga Fire District, which addressed some facts he felt should be taken
into consideration.prior to theCouncil's making a decision relevant to
amending Ordinance'38.58.
Followinq some dis(ussion of this' ordinance amendment<b~'S~_~eT.~6'~,~nd
~.~f~'~i~'c6~m~.from members in the audience, incuding J~'M(Cann
of'Pyrotronics Cor~6~tion (Red~Devil Fireworks), a~re~resentative of
Los Gatos Demoley Parents Club, Marjorie Foote (~peaking inher own behalf),
and Don Wade, representing Saratoga Sportsmen's' Club, it wa~ moved by
Councilmanl!Brigham ~and seconded by Mayor Bridges to introduce Ordinance
38.58-t and waive the reading. Aye votes: Councilmen Brigham, Bridges.
Noe Votes: Council~n Matteoni, Corr, Kraus~ The motion was, therefore,
defeated, thus continuing the ban on sale of "safe and sane" fireworks in
the City of Saratoga.
B. RESOLUTION NO. MV~106 .
R~sot.u~i~n Rrohibiti'ng Parking on a Portion of Oak Pla~e
It was moved by Councilman Brigha~ and seconded by Councilwoman Corr
Resolution MV-106 beadopted. The motion was carried unanimously.
C. RESOLUTION NO. MV-107
Resolution Designating the In~ersecti'ons of Covina Court and Merida Drive,
~irkbrook Drive'and K~ollwood Drive, and De Sanka Avenue and Knollwood Drive
as Stop Intersections
It was moved by Councilman Kraus ~nd seconded by Councilman Brigham
Resolution MV-107 be adopted. The motion was carried unanimously.
D. RESOLUTION NO. MV-109
Resolution Establishing Stop Intersections on Via Escuela Drive
The Mayor acknowledged a written communication on this issue from Mrs.
Mary Grace Galvin, 19890 Via Escuela Drive, expressing support of the
Public Works Engineer's recommendations regarding assessment of the oroblem
of traffic control at intersections on Via Escuela.
Comments were heard. from members in the audience, including Mr. Tom Campbell
of Charters Avenue, speaking in opposition to the proposed ordinance;
Mrs. Galvin of Via Escuela Drive, expressing her feelings that there is
a need for traffic control in this area; T.M. Biasedell, indicating his
support for stop intersections; and Gary Proctor of Via Escuela, voicing
his support of the proposed resolution.
It was th~ moved b~_Co~n~ilman Kraus~a~d~s. ec~d~by.~CounC~man Brigham
.'~R~_~s~gn M~I_O}. b~_~dop~.~_~he motion was carried ~ani~ously.
E. RESOLUTION NO. 760 ,
Resolution Approvin~ Concurrence of the City Council in the Solid~aste
Management Plan for,Santa Clara County
It was moved by Councilman Brigham and seconded by Councilman Kraus Resolution
760 be adopted. The motion was carried unanimously.
F. ORDINANCE NO. 38.63=1
Ordinance Amending the Saratoga City Code Relating to Weed and Rubbish
Abatement
Councilman Kraus suggested re.writing Section 6-10 so that the total adminis-
trative costs would~be~]~wi~_'.~on the property owners.
- 2 -
It was then moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded by Councilwoman Corr
Ordinance No. 38.63-1 be introduced as amended,and the reading waived.
Also, this ordinancebe set for public hearing on March 3, 1976. The
motion was carried Unanimously.
V. SUBDIVISIONS, BUILDING SITES AND ZONING REQUESTS
A. ORDINANCE NO. NS-3-ZC-75. An Ordinance Conditionally Reclassifying Certain
Property in the City of Saratoga to an "R-1-40.O00 PC" Zoning District,
Together with Certalin Reasons Therefnr'and Conditions Thereof (2nd Reading)
The City Manager explained that at its last regular meeting, the Council
had referred this matter back to the Planning Commission for review, based
on some modifications by the~Coun~il pertaining to the Site Development Plan.
Mr. Van Duyn indicated that the Planning Commission had reviewed the Council's
proposed modification of the Site Development Plan to eliminate lots 21, 22,
23, 24 and 25. It was.the Planning Commission's recommendation that the
more adequate comprdmise would beto eliminate all units south of the
eucalyptis grove ata point running perpendicular with unit number 29 on the
backside, and.this would eliminate the three questionable siting~f'~'nit~'dis-
cussed by the Council; however, it would leave lot number 21 in."~sO, it
was felt by the Planning Commission that the extension of the road for two
additional units would require additional~grading which they felt impractical,
and also, a driveway pad excavation that would have had to be made up in
another less desirable location. Mr. Van Duyn then proceeded to outline
the alternatives on this re-siting discussed by the Planning Commission. He
further outlined on the viewgraphshOwing the perspective of the site line
for unit number 21,Tas well as the other units proposed for removal.
Councilman Kraus commented with respect to lots 29 and 30, indicating that
this would allow for two houses on this ro~d.
Mr. Van Duyn commented that the problem involved here would be defining
adequate sites that would still' adhere to the Open space and setback require-
ments..~ Also, he pointed out that grading is an important factor. Another
S ntent~ of the Planning Commission was to not overly impact other areas by
_c~o~d~g.---Z:=~
Councilwoman Corr Commented that when tal king in terms of aethetics, she
would question whether eliminating the si'te by the creek would have a higher
priority tha~ elimi;nating the site onthe hill.
........ M~. Van DuVn indicated there would be some trade-offs to be oained;.~for
instance, one of the concepts o~ the pufti~i~h~-of~ay was~o place ~ ......
turn-outs to allow visitor parking at the designated turn-out areas, as
opposed to on-street parking, and this would be'l~if another si~were'
placed in this area.'
Councilman Matteoni~ commeF~d::t~';9~(sfi.eCtive of tli(tGFfi- {'b sti6n, he
~ian'~'Ye~l ~l'~c6m~n('6f an additional site in ~he cr~area would 'create
[n~;liouse affect, as-the~;hom6s ~fe ~taggered 'an~apRear ~O~h~ve a ~re~"'
'ae~l~ 6Y' outlbok" on=~p~n~space. :" ' -- ~ ~ '~ ....
T~e M~or then noted written communications received on this issue since
the previous meeting, as follows:
1) Copy of a 1ptter to Saratoga News from Mr. and Mrs. Henry Rulthausen,
12803 Arroyo de Arguello, urging citizens to write City Hall con-
cerning the Parker Ranch.
2) Barbara Mac~ae, 20679 Reid Lane, opposed to changing the existing
ordinance regarding the POrker Ranch.
3) Mr. and MrsL S. Larry Mehl, 13910 Ravenwood Drive, opposed to rezoning
of the Park~r Ranch.
4) Mr. and Mrs. Robert E. Owen, 19348 Columbine Court, oDposed to
development~of ~he Saratoga hillsides.
_Parker Ranch Rezonin~ Ordinance (Cont'd.
5) Mr. and Mrs. Earl Bessmer, 13620 Old Tree Way,~urging the Council
not approve the rezoning of the Parker Ranch "to permit excessive
building on this 'property".
6) Loretta L. Biehl and Family, 12074 Candy Lane, opposed to development
of the Parker Ranch.
7) Mr. and MrS. Gerald Duane, 13749 Lexington Court, opposed to Parker
Ranch development.
8. Mrs. FrankE. Kelly, 20074 Knollwood Drive, opposed to development
of Parker Ranch.
9. Russell'L. Crowther, Arguello'Homeowners Association, 20788 Norada
Court, with comments on the Parker Ranch Reclassification Ordinance.
10. John Weir, President, Arguello Homeowners Association, 12343 Arroyo
de ArguellO, with concerns that the agenda.d~d not indicate a public
hearing.
11. Q. Santoriello, 20802 Norada Court, challenging a number of Blackwell
Home statements on the affect of the proposed Parker Ranch develop-
ment on flQoding.
12. Eleanor Lipton, 1.5420 Monte Vista Drive~ in opposition to the
building ofl05 homes on the Parker Ranch property.
13. Howard I. Detro, Jr. and Beth A. Detro, 20096 Chateau Drive,
objecting to any development such as the Parker Ranch.
Councilman Matteoniacknowledged receipt of a letter, as did the other~members~
of the Council, from A. Zettler Greeley regarding.the siting reco~mnendation by
the Planning Commission.
It was the Council's f~eling the public hearing should be opened for dis-
cussion regarding the siting on this plan. The Mayor therefore opened the
public hearing at 8:53~P.M.
Russell Crowther, 20788" Norada Count, indicated he had 'a prepared statement
which he would .like.to present to~the Council this evening;~iT~'i~'~_ ........ ·
that it was broader'than just the~siting of homes.on the Par~r ~anch.'
The Mayor advised this could be taken up following the closing of the public
hearing.
It was then moved by Councilman M~tteoni and seconded byCounci~lman Brigham
the public hearingbe closed. The motion was carried. The public hearing
was closed at 8:55 ~.M.
Mr. Crowther again a~dressed the Council and read the statement which he
indicated was prepared by andgon the behalf of alarge number of Saratoga
citizens.
"For the past 2 years, I and numerous other citizens of Saratoga
have appeared before you, and in many meetings and ~any ways,
inc'luding submission of many petitions, have tried to make clear
toyou and the Planning Commission our deepest concerns about
the Saratoga Hillsides. Theimpact of hillside developments on
taxes and costs, public safety and scenic beauty have been par-
· ticu~r broad concerns throughout the city. Other local concerns
have been based on existing, flooding and traffic problems and
the long-term cumulative effects of hillside developments in com-
pounding these~problems. There also were concerns about changes
made in the 1974 General Plan, which removed prior General Plan
criteria for 1 in lO-acre zoning in some a~eas, a direction
opposite to community input in the General Pl'an hearings. For
example, a good ~part of the ridgeline on the Parker Ranch was
indicated as 1 in 30 acres in 1968 and 1972 General Plans. I and
others felt that our voices were not being heard.~ and for that
reason, drafted and were proponents of an initiative petition to
amend the General Plan to help provide policies,-criterias and
-4-
Parker Ranch Rezonin~ Ordinance (Cont'd.
standards for the o~derly, careful and safe development of the hill-
sides in Sartoga. In drafting this, we carefully chose a moderate
compromise position on hillside dwelling density standards which
was between the 1 dwelling in 10 acres desired by many citizens and
the much higher 1 to 2-acre densities that have been applied.
Tonight we would like to present to~{~_h~e.~j~y'~l~,a~ p~o~for that
initiative measure. This petition carries the signatures of over
3,700 Saratoga~citizens who feel that the time for i~proved'regu-
lation and more restrictive action is now. The 3,700 signatures
from all parts of Saratoga are evidence of broad deep concern
about hillsidesdevelopment throughout the community. The number
of residents who'have signed this petition are in excess of those
who voted at the last election. This should finally lay to rest
the question of whether those who are concerned~about hillside
developments in Saratoga area small minority.
The petition also asks that the existin~ hillside density resolution,
including the ~lope density equasion, be retained and applied to
'require a 2.5-acre minimum average land area per dwelling in the
Slope Conservation Zone of the 1974 General Plan.
In view of this petition, and considering the deep concerns of the
many citizens that signed it, we specifically request that: 1~! This
petition be. processed as expeditiously as possible; 2) that all
~t~n onT~he-~ke~ Ranch be held pending by resolution.
We requestL. that this be carried out, using the options available to
the City Counci.1, to implement the standards,.criteria and policies
of this petition in such a wa~ as to avoid increasing City costs."
Mr. Crowther then passed the peti~tion to the City Clerk, as well as.a brief
summary packet of the petition and some of the basis behind it.
In answer to Mayor Bridges' inquiry if it'~as possible to put the PaCker
Ranch back into a non-existant ordinance at this time, the Ci.~y/Attorney
explained that this! is a request to change the General Plan, irregardless
of its source', and would not in any way affect the Council's ability to
act on a rezoning request.
The City Manager p6int~d out that the filing d~te of the petition is the
date upon which th~ City Clerk,~ter reviewing the petition, determines
that it seems to meet the basic criteria. He then has 30 days in which to
see ~h~' ~!l_~_~H~'~.b'~_~,~s- ~e'~l id~d!~ San~.:~ta kas" 'I~'~(~.Tt~(.'~T" '~
registered voters which ~e~a'~',t~erti~i'ed to the Secretary Of S~ate by
the County Registrar of'Voters. :If the initiative petition is found to be
in order from a legal point of view, the City Council then has 2 alter-
natives: 1) Introduce an ordinance, without modification,~verbatum, as
presented in'the initiative petition and adopt it. 2) Order a special
election to be held not less than 74 days nor more than.89 days after the
date of the order. This,he stated, could be close to the June election.
Councilman Matteoni commented that as he understands it, the introduction
of the Parker Ranch~Reclassification Ordinance is just Phase I, and doesn't
break ground on that site. Therefore, he didn't feel any particular action
on the first phase of Planned Communit~ zoning is inconsistent with the
petition, assuming ~ts passage,~6d'i't'W~s'~he ~66C~n~O~'6f=t~ C6Un(il to
~tak~c'tion~n the' ~6pos6d~o~ai~nc~t~i-s eve~ni-ng, .......
Councilman Brigham ~hen made the motion that"YEx~h~ib~:t ')A" be amended to
eliminate lots 29 and 30, terminating the road in that area as shown, with
relocation of one uhit between .lots 80 and 84, and the:Second be left to
the discretion of the Planning Commission to find a suitable site, main-
taining the criteria as set out in the Ordinance. Councilman Kraus seconded
the motion. ~
The City Attorney suggested it beclarified what is being amended -- the
ordinance, the site'development plan, or suggesting~{h~"P]a.n_~fngICdmmission
be directed to re-s~te these two lots.
- 5 -
Parker Ranch Rezoning Ordinance (Cont'd.)
Councilman Brigham,indicated his second proposed modification woulld in-'
volve deletion of Section 4 pertaining to the Williamson Act from the
ordinance. He moved that Section 4 be deleted, as welt as al'l reference to
the Williamson Act,in Exhibit "A". The motion died, however, for lack of
a second.
The Mayor then asked for a vote on the first proposed amendment by Councilman
Brigham, instructing the. Planning Commission to eliminate lots 29 and 30, re-
siting in one~case~approximately between 30 and 84~ and in the second case,
allowing the Planning Commission to find a suitable site, maintaining all the
criteria as set out i~ the ordi-nance. The m-tion was carried unanimously.
It was moved by Councilman MatteOni and seconded by Counci:l~an Kraus the
adoption of Ordinance NS-3-ZC-75 with the amended Exhibit "A", and the
reading be waived., The motion w~s carried, 4 to 1 in favor, Councilman
Brigham voting in.dpposition.
Councilman Matteoni requested that further direction be given to the Planning
Commission to look'at the matter commented upon,by Mr. Greeley, regarding
taxation of the open space if development does proceed to conclusion. The
Council agreed tosend this comment along to the Planning Commission with
the ordinance transmission.
B. STORM SEWER EASEMENT ~OR TRACT 5462, DIVIDEND INDUSTRIES, BONNETT WAY
It was moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded by Councilman Brigham
Resolution No~ 763, Acceptin~ Dedication. of an Easement, be adopted,-a~d'~
C. TRACT 4651, DOUGLAS LANE - ABANDONMENT OF PORTION OF PUBLIC UTILITY
EASEMENT
Following discussion by .the Council, it was moved by Councilman Kraus and
seconded by Council:man Brinham Resolution 759, Abandonino._Bontion of Publ_i_c_
Utility Easement, b~e adopt~d,z'T-The motion was carriTd', 4 to ~,_ Councilman _
Matteoni abstaining from the vote, due to ~h~ f~'e~ ~e d~d.not participate
in the earlier discussion.
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. APPEAL FOR CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST TO GRANT A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 2.2
OF THE ZONING'ORDINANCE NS-3, PARAGRAPH f, TO ALLOW A CORRAL AND STABLE TO
COME WITHIN FOUR (4') FEET OF THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-~AY IN LIEU OF THE REQUIRED
30-FOOT SETBACK. V.IRGIL H~ VOSS,~14982 SOBEY ROAD (V-440)
The City Manager indicated the hearing on this. matter must be limited to the
4 points mentioned in Mr. Voss"s letter: 1) Justification for the variance
was adequately established in accordance with existingcriteria. 2) The
variance would in nb way compromise the purpose of the ordinance involved.
3) The unanimous sehti'ment of'those citizens who would be affected by the
variance in favor o~ its allowance. 4) The facility in ouestion is similar
in purpose and loca,tion to at least 10 others in the immediate vicinity.
The Mayor then opened the public h6aring at 9:571 P.M.
Prior to receiving~ublic testimony, Mr. Van Du~n, Planning Director, pre-
sented a summary of! past action concerning this.reQuest. He indicated that
the horse corral an~ stable constructed on his property are located 4 feet
from the property -l~ne, and the setback required 'is 50 ~eet. Additionall~.~,
the site selected'bylMr. 'Voss to blace the.corral '~eeded extensive grading,
which was done without a permit. He indicated.that the Planning Commission
felt there was available relatively flat area on which to place the corral
and stable, and should legally be located on this portion of the ~ropertv.
The Planning CommisSion has~ recommended denial of Mr. Voss's reouest on a
5 to 1 vote, and~l ~bstention.
Virgil H. Voss Appeal (Cont'd.)
The MayOr noted correspondence received on this matter from H. R. Harvey,
Attorney at Law, expressing support of this appeal; and Frank Small,
15020 Sobey Road, requesting this appeal be denied.
Mr. VoWs then addressed the Council, and commented that last summer when
his little girl fi6ally realized her long-time dream of acouiring a horse,
he built a little corral and stable, and unfortunately,'he'negl~cted to
exercise the discretion that he now understand~ is expected of him and
he didn't check with the City Planners.
Mr. VoSs pointed odt that ~he (g~l~i~tcei~d ~6'b9 ~V=an q~y~'~as ~ad~
by a City Inspector, Mr. Paulson~ ~6 happened to'pass by and notice'~h6
facility, and.to hi~s knowledge, there have been no ~ther specific complaints
regarding the facility. '.
He indicated that the basic objection of the City Planners to this appli-
cation was that there was an alternative site available on the property for
horse facilities. Mr. Voss stated it was not without considerable planning
and deliberation that he put the facility where it is, and the practical
difficulties were admitted in the City Planner's report, intended to' relocate
the facility in thelalternative l~ocation in the 40 by 80-foot area on top
of the hill. Mr. V. oss commented .that he didn't feel it'was necessary to go
into other difficul'ties of similar nature because there didn't seem to be
any objection to the facility by concerned citizens. For instance, he stated
if he were to put the corral in the acceptable location by ordinance, it
would be on top of .the hill, making exit and entrance of horse and rider some-
what precarious. ~'
Mr. Voss stated that all of the citizens whose property is located .in view of
the facility have s.ubstantiated his contention that it would constitute no
detriment to their Iproperty whatsoever. In considering the objections by the'
2 Citizens who wrOt. e letters, their comments did not really seem germain to
the issues at hand.~ He indicated if there were substantial negative response
to his application bY citizens who would be affected by the variance, he
could understand the necessity of considering his problems in light of their
objections. Mr. VoSs recalled the purpose of the ordinance for which this
variance is requested is to.protect residential properties from. noise,
illumination, unsightliness, odors, dust, smoke, vibration, heat, glare and
other objectionable influences. He stated that there has been no testimony
by any concerned citizen that the purpose of this ordinance wou.ld be
violated by the alldwance of this variance, and everyone concerned a~rees
that the end of theL ordinance would be better served by the allowance of the
variance than to enforce strict a~herence to the letter of its contents.
Councilman Kraus inquired if the ~orral on top of the hill would be on the
same level of his house. Mr. Voss verified this was so.
Bill Heiss addressed the~'~Ci~i~g'~ ~'a~'~_i~or~'Dr., V~SS, an~
loo~upon his home and th~'st~bl'e' i~-q~tTon, ~d'f~o~i~ ~erson~i o61~t'~f
view, he finds it alvery pleasant thing to see, as all the stables an~ corrals
are along Sobey Road. He commented that where it is located he feels is a
better location'than that which would be'the legal location.
Councilwoman Corr pointed out the'fact that this isn't the only example of
this type of zoning. viOlation, and it disburbS her that the City has ordinances
to regulate this, but evidently are not being enforced.
Mayor Bridges and C6uncilman Matteoni indicated they would like to'go out
and View this stable. The matter was therefore continued to the next regular
meeting of-=the CounCil on February 18th.
B. NS-3.33, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY'OF SARATOGAA~ENDIN~ ORDINANCE NS-3, THE
ZONING ORDINANCE, BY ESTABLISHINGA HILLSIDE Cb~SERVATION - OPEN SPACE ZONIN~
DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION BY ADDING=ARTICLE 3-A THERETO
The Mayor noted a written communication received on this matter from
Vince Garrod, President, Greater Saratoga P~operty owners Association, re-
questing the Council adopt the proposed Hillside Open Space Ordinance..
-¸7-
HC~OS Ordinance NS-3.33 (Cont'd.)
The City Manager pointed out that at the Council's Committee of th~ Whole
Meeting on January 27th, it was requested the staff look at 2 additional
tables, which are presented this evening for consideration. In addition,
an issue was raised relevant to tying in Section 3.2~23, the development
criteria, with the site area and density requirements. He indicated there
is proposed wording submitted to meet this objective.
The City Manager further pointed'out a l'etter ~eceived this evening from
Mr. and'Mrs. Dashiel, commenting .on the new slope density ordinances, and
requesting to go on record questioning those slope formulas currently being
considered.
The Mayor then opened the public hearing at 10:21 P.M.
Vince Garrod, representing the Greater Saratoga Property Owners Association,
addressed the Council, and presented a packet to the Council and City Attorney.
He indicated he prepared this packet to make sure everyone is talking about
the same property.
Mr. Garrod~: stated that the total acres in this district is 1,177 acres; the
total number of parcels in the district is 157;.and the number of homes in
this district is 92. He'indicated the assessed valuationlis approximately
$2,500,000. He stated there are ~52 acres in already-recorded subdivisions,
and within these subdivisions, there are approximately 16 homes and 35 parcels.
Also, there are about 216 acres in the Parker Ranch and 4 parcels. There are
46 acres in the Saratoga Golf Course, and 194 acres under the Wiliiamson Act,
comprising 90 parcels. He indicated that approximately 860 acres is served
by the Cupertino Sanitary Distr~c!t, and about 300 acres is served by Sanitation
District No. 4. The Calabazas Water Shed'and Sanitary District No. 8 consists
of approximately 860 acres, and 320 acres in the Saratoga Water Shed. There
are approximately 514 acres in this district are already assessed by the Sewer
District; water service is provided by San Jose'Water Works; and fire pro-
tection by the Saratoga..Fire District~
Mr. Garrod stated there are 82 parcels wi'th less than 2 acres; therefore, if
any kind'of zoning is done here, there are going to be 82 non-conforming uses.
On"leSs-than 5 acres, there are 35 parcels; and on less than 10 acres, there
are 9 parcels; 15 acres'there are 6 parcels; 20 acres and less than 30, there
are 5 parcels; 30 acres and less'than 50, there are 5;and 6n 50 acres and
less than 100 there are 2parcels; and on 100 acres and less than 130, there
are 2 parcels. He indicated in deducting the Parker Ranch, the Golf Course
and the subdivisions -- a total of 314 acres -- you wind up with 863 acres,
composed of 116 parcels and 72 homes.
He then outlined who the large parcels are owned by:
129 acres - San Jose Water Works, acquired in 1932.
75 acres - Paul Mason, acquired in 1946.
51 acres - Garrod Trust, acquired in 1951.
46 ac~es - Peninsula Recreat~on.(Saratoga Golf Course).
53 acres -.~H~b~f'Te~l'i~ ('us(-~'~ne orchard)
41 acres - ~nt~6n~ ~6cCiar~i~ ~aCQd'i'red'in'1943
29 acres - Ruth Peck, acquired in early 60's~
26 acres - Garborino family,.acquired in 1930-32.
24 acres - Boiserank family, acquired prior to 1892.
38 acres - TheodoreRobertra~, acquired in 1960.
Mr. Garrod stated there is some question whether the San Jose Water Work~
would ever subdivide their property, and this seems to be a moot question.
The Paul Mason property is the steepest parcel in the whole district, and
9 parcels in the,distr.ict are less than 1 acre, for a' total of 5 acres; and
a total of 17~'ae~es~h~rcels. of'5 acres or less. Therefore, any formula
the Council talks abo~,'~yare going to be talking about 91 parc6is, with
171 acres of less than 5 acres, andwith~ahg~-kind. of split, these people are
going to be penalized 50%.
Mr. Garrod commented that with the County allowing a greater density next
door, there .~6Dt~be~ ~ncentive other than the demand for extra sewers,
for one to annex to the City of Saratoga. Also, this is adjacent to the City
-8-
HC-OS Ordinance NS-3.33 Cont'd.)
of Cupertino. He further commented by accepting a formula that varies a
great deal from the one Currently being used b~ the County, the City is:
1) removing any incentive for land that exceeds 2 time~-the area of Saratoga
as ever had under its control; ~d 2) a great financial burden is placed on
the property. owners, especiall~ those with small parcels becauseof'the
reduction in value. Mr. Garrod further stated that'by reducing the lot yield,
base value of the property is reduced, and this reducti6n in value auto-
matically reduces financial statements and borrowing pow6r. He indicated
by increasing'the density,'if land values remain the same, a purchaser must
be more affluent, and the land is priced out of reach of any small or medium
price buyer.
Mr. Garrod further indicated'there would be a large maintenance problem with
these big parcels; however~ he stated if the density is decreased too much
this precludes the economic viabi,lity of sanitary sewers and public water.
He then stated he would like to Offer.the following Suggestions: l) Accept
the ordinance as presented by the Planning Commission; or 2) Allow those
with 10 ac~es or l'ess to develop on'a parcel basis for the reasonable density,
and for those with more that lO acres, requ.ire that when development takes
place that it be done on a Planned Community bas~. This would use the open
space and allow the land'to be used .to its best capability and allow it to
be developed at its highest and best use. 3) Float a city bond issue, and
either buy the 'land outright and presere it, or buy development rights from
-th~ present owners. ~Mr. Garrod stated whatever decision the Council makes,
he would like them to make it on 'facts. He stated it should be understood
we are not talkinq about the Santa Cruz Mountains -- we are talking about
less than 800 acres, most of which cannot be seen from any portion of the
Santa Clara Valley fl.oor.
Mr. Garrod then related some of the history with regard to his family and
their establishment in Saratoga, ~and told of the ways in which they used
thi~'-land. Healso related how their family organized the first school bus
in the area, the telephone system, as well as helping to bring power into'
the area and public water. Due to the fact they were forced to find some
alternative use of this land rather than orchards, they came'up with the
idea of horses. The City helped byepassing the exclusive Agricultural-
Open Space Ordinance and~l]~we~'him t~'en~er i~to'a~ka~d'C6hs~r~a~ion
Contract, for which they are in~their 6t~ year. He indicated ~y'financed
the stable operation by borrowing on the land, and borrowing agencies only
look at this land as security; therefore, even if they don't plan to develop,
they would be very seriously inte.rested in keeping land values up.
Mr. G~rrod further commented with~ regard to taxes.. He' stated that the City
of Saratoga doesn't generate much~ taxes up in the hills, and'he did some
arithmetic . . . by taking the 658 acres, excluding the subdivisions, the
Parker Ranch and the Golf Course, this amounts to an assessed value of
approximately $1,215,000. You th'en deduct the 73 homes, taking away $494,000,
you wind up with an assessed value of the land of only $720,750, with a
composite of about $1,250. ~He stated that in one year, this land pays the
County of Santa~'Clara $19,453; it' pays the County Library $1,874; it pays
the City of SaratogaS1,852; Saratoga Fire District $5,148; schools $58,000;
regional parks $740; Flood Control and Water $2,000; and al'l others are
$1,000. Therefore, the total taxes for this 658 acres amounts to $90,000,
and each acre pays an average $136 per acre per year, over and above any
taxes paid on improvements.
· Heber Teerlink,21810 Mt. Eden Road, addressedthe Council, 'stating that he
had originally planned to present~to the Council in some greater depth an
analgsis of the-facts,and figures] Mrs' Garrod has mentioned.'He stated that
the Council now has some of the key figures which the property owners have
prepared, which have been considered by. the Plan~ing Commission in depth over
many months when they arrived'at their proposal,.and the 'owners~a~e prepared
to discuss these statistics and how they directly affect the property owners,
and how they wil,1 directly affect the tax base in ~he City of Saratoga,
and how they will directly affect the City of Saratoga if there is an inverse
condemnation of the acreage of these people why'have spent much of their. lives
in Saratoga. However, because of the hour, he wi'll limit this discussion.
- 9-
HC-OS Ordinance NS-3.33 (Cont'd.)
He indicated he would like to recall to members of the Council"a few cer-
tain basic facts:-~He commented that the~Council has before them 2 new
formulas which no one in this area has because they are never passed out
until 10 minutes before or after this hearing opened. He commented that
he noticed the League of WomenVoters submitted a graph,~ahd-he--has a
copy of their letter whilch was interp6~d?at the request of-.the Council
at their last study meeting, and:he had asked the ~!anning Commission to
do the same thing for that portion of the original NS-3. However, when he
arrived at Ci"ty Hall th'is morning, he was told they could not interpOl_~ "_
the slope density curve, which~was that approved by several people in 1972
involved with the areas ~mmediately adjacent to this area, so he didn't
feel it was a stranger to anyone on the Council. He stated they have not
as an organized group been provided with sufficient material.
He then indicated he would like to bring the Council up to date on the
Teerlink family. He indicated that because of the heritage granted by his
father, he brought his family to Saratoga some 18 years ago and bought an
acre on the corner of Pierce and Mt. Eden Road, which was a producing
orchard, which they kept producing so long as it was economically feasibl~
to do so. When the orchard could no. loQge~_b.e produced as an orchard, they
couldn't even get~_ng_S~o~e h61~'~ah~h~w~s gi~'en the same notice as
Mr. Garrod i.n which-it was ordered: "Abate'yo~r~weeds, or we'll do it for
you." To abate the weeds., hehad to go out and'get someone to plow an
orchard that is dead, and this cost him $600. In addition to this, because
it was zoned under NS-3 at 1 acre, sewers were brought up on a 1-acre basis,
and his sewer assessment for that 43 acres, based on the zoning of 1 acre,
was $32,000.
Mr. Teerlink indicated that of all the property owners mentioned by Mr.
Garrod earlier who own lO acres of land or more are represented here this
evening, either personally, or through Vi~nce Garrod as president, or through
himsel~f as Treasurer of this particular group. He stated that "Parker is
dead~'and there has hever been a study by this group!(City Council) as there
has by the Planning Commission~ ~ho has walked their property. Rather,
all of the focus has been on Parker, and there is less than 50 acres in this
district which will be able to be seen by those people in the flatlands. The
other 600 acres cannot be seen'.by anybody because it is on the other side of
the ridge. Further, hesCommented that the distortions heard by the Council
during the past weeks and months are not applicable here.
Mr. Teerli nk stated that they worked with the Planning Commission and compro-
mised, and they feel the Commission put a lot of effort into this, and now
the property owners are criticized because they are too soft and haven't
given enough facts to the Coun(il~ He indicated that they would like to have
it made clear to the Council that they are still willing to cooperate, but
they are through giving arbitrarily to some formula simflar to Monopoly --
the Council can throw away a man"s 1 acre building site worth $25,000 or
$30,000 just like it is another house on Pennsylvania Avenue. He stated they
are here to tell the Council they are here to cooperate and work with them,
but it hasto be done on a logical basis such as was done with the Planning
Commission.
Herman J. Mager.addressed the Council, indicating he was a long-term resident
and property of Saratoga. He stated hi's family has been in this area for
many generations, and he might add that they were smart -- they sold the
lowlands, and a good many people in this audience are residing on the land
which was sold years ago. He commented that he can personally sympathize
with the plight of people who held on to preserve the open space and the use
to which they would put.
Mr. Mager i.ndicated he was here this evening'~really as a friend of Marie Gaspare,
who was the owner of the old Paul Mason estate of approximately 15 acres. She
has owned that land for over 20 years, and he pointed out that this land is
encumbered and that this woman is in trouble, and is presently in the moratorium
proc~dune. What she is asking is to reasonably resolve this problem in a
reasonable time, bearing in mind this woman has a"'time bomb" at ~er head.
-10-
HC-OS Ordinance NS-3.33 (Cont'd.)
Mr. Mager commented that he would urge that the Council give not only
Marie Gaspare, but others not in her desparate situation, person-to-person
consideration and face-to-face concern.
Tom Dashiell, 18908 Ten Acres Road, commented he would li.ke to point out
some things in'his letter to the Council. He indicated he purchased his
property 't~~ ~dT~d'~'~6~"6~'~ '~Tqa~6r~ which hi s plans cost him
approxima~l~'~/O00. '~e'{h~'~n in~' ~{uation which many of the
people have run into -- changes'in ordinances -- and for 6½ years~it has
been a continual battle. The process under one of the proposed ordinances
requires that he put in sewers, 6-inch water mains, roads,'curbs, gutters
and underground uti.lities, and under this same ordinance, he ends up with
one lot. He ~tated that economically there is no possi'ble way that lot
can be developed in this kind of situation. He stated that if the ordinance
becomes sorestrictive that he can't put but one house on 'this property,
the City has basically taken $100,000 from him, and he can't afford to lose
that kind of money.
Mr. Dashiell stated that he finds it very difficult to u~derstand people
telling him they don't want to see houses in their hills, and he commented
that the owners have purchased this property and are paying taxes, and he
believes they have some property up here. He indicated he didn't feel this
should be the criteria in which {hey can develop their property or not.
He~indicated that only the very top peak of his property can'be seen, and
yet, with a piece of. property thatis basically flat with a cliff on one
side of it, he comes up with a slope density that seems to be Unbuildable.
Yet, if you took the same slope density on the flat piece, he has about a
10% grade on about 6 acres. He stated it doesn't seem to him the way this
is progressing is fair, and he feels the problem should be resolved, and
the owners should have some right to develop their property on a reasonable
basis.
Judy Corliss, President, League of Women Voters of. Los Gatos-Saratoga,
addressed the Council. She stated the League has been very concerned that
the proposed ordinance did not implement the .1974 General Plan, and they
did propose to the Planning Commission a slope ~hat went from 0 to 10% at
1 ~c~,San~ _then down tg_lO acres at 33-34%. She iHdi~a~d' the _]~agde ~lso
~]9~ted some o~T~h~<~jor.p6~nt~ion Table I of ~he latest proposed ordinance,
and t~e~ f~rl/closely fell into a straight line; therefore, they feel
Table I would be consistent with the 1974 General Plan.
Ms. Corliss indicated they have 2.'other questions they.would llike to have
clarified in their statement of J~nuary'21 -- one concerns the impact of
development criteria and whether'it could reduce the dens.ity, and she
commented that the amendment to 3.23 seems to answer that. The other
question concerns Section 3.27 inwhich thereis a list of modifications
which the advisory" agency may make without having a public hearing, and
density is included in this list Pf items, which they question.
Logan Belleville, 18550'Sobey Road,'addressed, the Counci'l and requested to
read a letter to' the Council, as follows:
"I moved to'California in1955~ and bought 8~ acres on ~hich there
was a home and an o~chard, mostly prunes. 'I was told the prune
.crop would. pay the taxes. The taxes went up,~and the value of the
prune crop went down. In 6 few years the prunes did pay for the
plowing; then no one picked them 'on the slopes, and they paid nothing.
For years this a~ea was zoned"'R-1-40,O00", which resulted in some~
very choice building sites, in addition'to my own home site. D6p.~ding.-
on what restrictions and slope formulas, my 7 extra building sites ~ay
shrink to 2. I know that NS-3 does not apply to this area, but it
does pose.a threat.to the next step. Surely beautifully landscaped
homes would be more attractive that a worn out prune orchard. A
reduction'.in the "R-1-40,OOO":density threatens a seri6us loss of
value to me,.and certainly a large potential loss of taxes. If the
citizens of Saratoga want open space and public land, this should be
done by a bond issue so all of us~=can share the costs. The error was
-ll -
HC-OS Ordinance NS-3.33 (Cont'd.)
~2 .~many years ago when this land was granted to someone as'private
property. I urge your carefOl and serious consideration."
Mr. Belleville stated there have been a lot of (ormulas kicked around,
and being an engineer at heart, he drew some graphs. The first graph
showed Tables I, II and III and the draft of October 22, 1975 of NS-3,
and also, the League of Women 'Voters' formula as he understands it. He
commented that each individual case needs a look at i'ts particular merit,
as there are many combinations. He indicated he was intrigued by the
League of Women Voters' formula., and he ran it down to flat land, or 0%
where it gets down to.81 acres per dwel'ling unit. As they ran up to 30%
at 4.4 acres; 31% at 5.17 acres;' 34% at. lO.84; 36% at 40.29 acres; 36.5%
goes up to 1'25.47 acres; 36.7%:.goes up to 813 acres; an'd at 36.735%4at
19,801; and 36,736% at 1,040,582. He stated that sometimes we have to
extend'our formulasLto see if they get out of hand, and he feels this one
did.
Mr. Hanson, a property owner in the~hills, addressed the Council, commented
that ,~6~ ~¥ t]~'~h%'n ~h~ fi~t
acre or an a~e' ~6~b6ut the '~e
buy more acres, and chose to hang onto it so he could have privacy, and now
he finds out what might have been an investment, people are talking about
taking it away from him. Mr. Hanson commented that he has heard a number
of reasons why we'shou]dclOwer our density in the hills, one of them being
the possibility of floods.to a number of people who built their homes in the
middle of a flood zone. He stated that these people said the Parker Ranch
may be responsible for landslides', earthquakes, etc., but all this was going
to contribute to their flood. Mr. Hanson stated that'in the County area,
the head waters of the Calabazas Creek are 5 dams of sizable nature, and
these 5 dams are about lO0-acre feet, and he doesn"t believe any of them
were constructed according to engineering standards. Mr..Hanson stated that
these people's problem is not Parker Ranch, for if we have an earthquake,.
they are built in a flood zone; however, maybe the Same~hj~g is true with
Stevens Creek Dam or Lexington Reservoir.
Mr. Hanson indicated when they first moved on this property, the first thing
they contributed to was natural gas, then along e~me the sewers, and he has
been paying on this sewe~ for about 6 years. They based it on approximately
an acre zoning by the fact that they put in 2 laterals, and now he finds
out with the zoning p'ropos'ed, he may not even have the use of those laterals.
He indicated he has talked to other cities to see where'they stand, and the
one thing brought out when he talked to Cupertino was that'~hen y6u apply
the Zoning Ordinance, unless you prepare to take care of the low and middle-
income people, you have a constitutional transpass, and he asked: "Where
are these low and middle-income people going to go?'! He stated the only
logical place to go is the hills..
Mr. Hanson stated that the bottomsline pertaining to this ordinance is
basically discrimination, and with an increase in zoning over and above what
all the surrounding cities are doing, this becomes "snob zoning", and it
will be attacked by other groups. He further stated that when it gets down
to the fact that he has been saving and fighting to keep the property heihas,
and then finds out he is going to lose half the value, he is going to call
for every proof that can help him, because he feels this ordinance is all
wrong when you look at the land that is not even showing. 'He stated if the
people can't see it and the City doesn't want it, the City should give it
back and allow the property owners to join some other city.
Mayor Bridges suggested scheduling this matter for the next Committee of the
Whole Meeting, and continue the public hearing to the next regular meeting.
Mr. Teerlink commented that he cannot be present for this meeting due to
legal committments, and therefore, requested a dela.y.
The Mayor, therefore, indicated the hearing would be continued to March 17th,
with the Committee of the Whole Meeting on March gth.
·
--,12-
HC-OS Ordinance NS-3.33 (Cont'd.)
Councilman Matteoni suggested some questions he felt Should be explored in
judging this matter. He commented that he~a6~]~t'bel~i~6 ah~ of the
formulas are answering the question-of why 33% is conSi~r~bl~ more difficult
to develop and demands an extremely greater increment in land size than 32%,
or whv 25% is greatly more difficult than 24%. 'He commented that_many of
those'~f~,TS~.~dl'~ ~i~"pl~'tea~makes-~6~ ~k the'ph~i~lTq~e~ion:~"~ha~'do~S"the
land say th~£ '~'h~'e'£6' b~ ~o~ Tseve~e~'~F t~ 6~'~ "A~ {~e ~&m~'~,,'~
felt that Saratoga has to look and be consistent, not on paper with some
statement that is subject to interpretation in the Genera~ Plan, but an
ordinance to withstand attack has to be reasonably related to the lland,
reasonably related to wh'at has taken~ce i~,th~ past, what b~s been done
with other land simil'arly situated,rand'~h~t ~as, be~:d6h~'nd s~i~ ~n'the
Monte Belle Ridge Study. Also, he felt i~ should 6~e~ami'~ed '06 a b~ead
basis consistency with what the Count9 is doing with the 'sphere of influence,
whether the Count9 is operating with or without sewers, etc. Therefore, he
felt it should be examined the reasons behind lines, and what are the par-
ticular physical problems that dictate we should have a larger lot at any
given slope percentage. He indic'ated that he buys the concept that "the
steeper'the land, the more diffi(ult i~t iS to develop and the more problems
it might creat~ upon development", but that doesn't tell him what size to
make it, and what formu~la to pick.
He stated that he has found some attractiveness to what the PlanniOg ConmHssion
has suggested in~'terms of a base to ~hich you could add when you found out the
physical problems, and he would like ~ome input in re-examining that artpreach
and the merit of same.
It was then moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded by Councilman Brigham the
public hearing be continued to March 17. The.motion was carried.
C. REZONING FROM "R-1-12,500" AND "R-l-15,000" (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) TO
"R-1-20,O00 PC" (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, PLANNED COMMUNITY) THE 47.39
ACRES BELONGING TO THE FREMONT UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT, BOUNDED ON ~E NORTH
BY THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD TRACKS AND PROSPECT ROAD, ON THE EAST BY
T~CTS ~4508 AND ~4536 (KNOWN AS "PHEASANT RIDGE"), ON THE'.WEST BY THE PROPERTY
CO~ONLY KNOWN AS THE PARKER RANCH SITE, AND ON THE SOUTH BY TRAC~ ~4886
KNOWN AS ARROYO DE ARGUELLO) (Cont'd. 8/20/75, 10/1/75)
The Mayor opened the public hearing at 11:37 P.M.
John Weir, 12343 Arroyo de Arguelie, indicated he wouldlike to reiterate a
couple of points regarding this ~atter. He stated he wantedS~to go back to
the point that this area is being.considered for "PC" zoning, and this is what
concerns him more than anything else, as you have a piece of propert,~ which
you are essentially giving a blank check to without a development plan, and
there would be no assurances in the future that the citizens would haveno
opportunity in the future for public hearings and a means of'Tinteracting on
what is proposed. In addition, he commented for a~development of this type,
you would expect to have an E."I.R~ and probably public hearings to interact
with both Planned Co~unity zoning and the E.I.R.
He stated_that when Councilman Ma~teoni was'on thePlanning Commission, the
consideration of putting Planned Community on was to tryto protect the
property, the thought bei.ng that it does have some steep slopes in one corner,
although not on flat lands up near Cupertino, and that by putting Planned
Co~unity on it, the Planning Co~ission could control how the land was
developed~ Under those circumstances, the City-'coOld do something about re-
arranging the developmen~ on the steeper slopes. However, he feels'this opens
a bag of worms by leaving it "Planned Community" with an open check, ~nd he
as well as the Arguello Home~wners Group objects to it.
He further commented'it is their desire, as people who.totally surroun~ this
property, to have this property i:n ~ 1-acre zoning, rather than the now 1/4
acre and 1/3-acre zoning it is Furrently'sitting in. ~He felt it was important
that the.Council look at this now, rather than put it off longer. He commened
that it is known the school is prepared to sell this prop'erty -- they are
planning to unload 2 properties that they own, and although it isuncertain
whether this one will be sold in ~he spring or fall, it is very clear that it
is in their m~nd to sell it and raise funds for the school district.
- 13-
Fremont Union School District (Cont'd.)
Mr. Weir con~nented that it seems logical to him when the houses bordering
· it, although zoned for 1/4 acre~ are much closer.to 15,000 to 1'8,000 square
foot properties, mainly because the developer couldn't sell the smaller
pieces and divided the property up into larger pieces to sell them. On the
other side is the Parker Ranch, which, regardless which slope is used, is
at least'2 acres per home. He'indicated that a logical transition zone is 1
acre, and not 1/2 acre on that property.
Russell Crowther, 20788 Norada Court, commented that another major objection
they have against Planned Community is that Ci'~ l~ok'~'lTk'~"~i~T '.
give higher density on that site, primari'ly b~t~Fee3~t~'~llside~
which will 'come under the slope~ensity equasion, there is the easement for
the PG&E wires, there are the Prospect Creek lands at the northern end of
the propety, and the railroad tr~cks which will requi:re setbacks. He
stated it is now clear to them under the~'Planned Community requirements that
you couldn't use all the land to determine the number of s~ites, and this is
one of the key objections. The second objection is that the Planned Community
O~dinance is not yet available. Therefore, he requested that Planned
Community zoning be taken off relative to this property.
Councilman Matteoni indicated'he'.would like to suggest the~Council not take
action, and the protect the concern about Planned Community and the llack of
a public hearing, the Council pa~s a policy resolution regarding any Planned
Community permit applications for this' property having to have a public
hearing, and give direction to~the Planning Commission to so notice it.
This would allow the Council to further study this matter.
Mayor Bridges inquired if this is'a zoning action which was begun by the
Planning Commission. I .~
Mr. Van Duyn commented that it was originally thought of as'a matter that
needed to brought into consistency, and it was begQn by the Planning Commission.
Then it was determined, after' the. Council came up with ~the consistency nolicy,
that the 12-500 and 1'5~,000 zoning on'the property now. i's consistent wi'th that
established policy. However, the Planning Commission still felt it should be
developed into R-1-20,O00 PC, and transferred their recommendation on to the
Council. He stated that whether the "PC" designation is.d~opped or not,
there is not going to' b~ a. public hearin~ on development of Ithis site;~'
~Mr.--Van Duyn~-furthe~ commented that there'was~mention made~about the slope
density formula in the higher parcels, and there is no Slope density formula.
He explained that ~T~the Hillside Conservation ~ Open Space District Ordinance
as proposed is not ~o be applied ito that particular site, at least if you
superimpose the hillside area as established in the General Plan. Secondly,
the Council hasn't even decidedwhat they are going to.do wi.th the land
connected with the 10% slone that was formally covered i~ NS-5," ~:ch will
probably not be covered in the new HC-OS Ordinance.
Councilman Matteoni adv~edc~thBt~he School District has to give the City notice
before putting the property on the market to give the City the opportunity
to decide if t~ are interested in purchasing the land.
~Th~"C'i'ty'A~o~ney Commented that the "PC" Ordinance is in its infancy, and the
e~isting "PC" Ordinance requires a site development plan, and-that site
development plan would normally be part of the public hearing process in the
rezoning itself. Therefore, if you rezoned to "R-1-20,OOOPC", without the
site development plan, but not provide for a public hearing at some later date
when the site development plan comes .i'n, this would create a problem. However,
if the intent was no.t to~talk'about rezoning this piece of property until
there was a new "PC" Ordinance, then you would probably be talking about con-
tinuing this matter. He further stated that "PC'! requires conditional re-
zoning.
It was then moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded by Councilwoman Corr this
public hearing be continued to the next regular meeting of the Council. The
motion was carried.
VII. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS
A. MAYOR
B. COUNCIL AND COMMISSION REPORTS
I. Councilman BrighaT - Advised that at last Planning Policy Con~nission
Meeting, there was a speaker from ABAG, and made
reference to a Land Use Manual which will soon be
available for review.
2. Councilman Brigha
Conservation and Land Use.
3. Councilman Brigham - Requested time to bring up an idea on a solar
municipal facility.
4. Parks and Recreation Commissi'on Report Re: Campbell Union School District
Surplus Property on Allendale AVe.
It was moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded by Councilwoman Corr the
City Manager indidate to the Campbell Union School District that the City
is not interested-~in purchasi~ng this property. The motion was carried.
5. Parks and Recreation Commission =.Report Re: Review'of Midpeninsula
Regional Park District Trails
Task Force Progress Report
It was moved by by Councilman Brigham and seconded by Councilman Kraus
the comments of the Parks andRecreation.'~egarding the'Midpeninsula r
Regional Park District progress report be forwarded to the Regional
Park District. The motion was carried.
.~ DEPARTMENT HEADS AND OFFICERS
1. ]lanning Director~ReDort Re: Ordinance No. 61, An Emergency Ordinance
~f the City of Saratoga Placing aMoratorium
on Condominium and Other Community Housing
Conversions from Rental Housing in Said City
Pending Adoption of Permanent'Community Housing
Conversion Regulations
Mr. Van Duyn advised that due to the fact they are running into timing
problems in getting the Condominium Conversion Ordinance compl'eted, they
are requesting a 2-month extension of this ordinance, and it is required
a public hearing be held to do this.
It was agreeable t'o the Council to set this matter for public hearing on
March 3, 1976.
2. Planning Director TReport Re: Problems at Argonaut Shopping Center
~..~ Advised the DesignI Review met w~th Mr. Marburg re~resenting'Mr. SanFellipo
who is the owner of the shopping center and discussed matters pertaining
to the garbage pro'blem and enclosures, maintenance problems, 3andscapin~
of the first 3 lot's, buffering techniques~ alternative delivery times,
the problem of early-morning garbage pickups, etc. He'indicated he would
be receiving another status report from Mr. Baker, representin~ Safeway,
in the near future concerning these problems.
The Council requested Mr. Van Duyn attempt to have a report for the next
Committee of the Whole Meeting.
3. Director of PublicSWorks Report Re: Santa Clara County Bus System Expansion -
Express and Mid-day Routes
Continued for discussion at next Committee of the Whole Meeting.
4. Director'of publiciWorks Report Re: Tollgate Street Lighting
The Council sel d the~alternative position of doing nothing on this
ecte
request, th~s requiring the Homeowners Association continue to maintain
the lights by joining the existing district or creating a new district.
- 15 -
5. Director of Public'Works Status Report Re: Improvmement of Quito Road/Pollard
Intersection
It was moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded by Councilman'Brigham to
approve the modified plan for~h~vement widening providing for a right-turn
lane from Quito onto Prospect Road, and also, for installation of the street
light at this location. The:motion was carried.
D. CITY MANAGER
1. Claim for Property Damage - John and Phyllis Dunstan
It was moved by Councilman B~igham and seconded by Councilman Kraus the
Council deny this cIlaim and ~efer it to the City's insurance carrier.
The motion was.carried.
2. Application for LeaVe to Present Late Claim - P~ul's Pak, Inc.
It was moved by Councilman Matteoni and seconded by Councilwoman Corr
the City reject this application and refer to the City's insurance
carrier. The motioln was carried.
3. AB 337 (Boatright Bill) - SCheduled for discussion at the Committee of
the Whole Meeting.
VIII. COMMUNICATIONS ~
1.Mr. and Mrs. Daniel.Murphy, 18660 Harleigh Drive, with concerns regarding
the Harleigh Drive cul-de-sac. -!Noted and filed.
2. Margaret Dunn, 19521 Douglass Lane, and Glenda Morley, 19607 Kenosha Court,
expressing support of the Los Gatos Council's resolution which asks the
City Councils of Campbell, Monte Sereno, Santa Clara and Saratoga to request
an ~iudience with the West Valley Colt'ege Board, in the interest of urging
restraint in the levying of property taxes. - City Manager to co~nQnicate
with Los Gatos City Council indi~ating~support of this resolution.
3. B. Michael Anderson, 13983 Pike ~oad, requesting a6-month extension of his
Minimum Access Street Reimbursement Agreement - Referred to staff for review
and report.
4. Copy of letter to West Valley Col'lege Governing Board from Mr. Joseoh Molale,
13387 Christie Drive, thanking them for completion of the football stadium
and recommending the Board and C~unci'l get together and see if something
can be done about installing l~ghts. - Noted and filed.
5. Mr. A. J. Schrager, 20375 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, requesting the Council
endorse the completion of West Valley College Stadium plans. - City Manager
to respond-, advising City~ s position on this issue.
6. Mrs. Mary Ruth Ow~n, 14180 Victor Place, urging the Council to: 1) Make a
maximum effort to inform people of what is happening in our local government;
and 2) publicize other actions which City is taking to reduce costs. - Referred
to Councilwoman Corr for response.
7. Mrs. Mel E. Rabedeau, 18631HarleighDrive, expressing opposition to abandon-
ment of easement on Harteigh Drive. - Letter tO be made a part of the record
for discussion at the next regular City Council Meeting.
8. Mr. and Mrs. Glenn H. Robinson, 18741 Harleigh Drive, reou~sting the pedestrian
walkway across the Harleigh Drive easement be established now so that residents
in the neighborhood can enjoy safe access to these areas. - Letter to be made
part of the record, and Planning Commission to report at next regular meeting.
B. ORAL
1. Jim Isaak, 13685 C~lle Tacuba, requesting ORAL COMMUNICATIONS be put
on the earlier portion of the agenda
2. Jim Isaak, reque~tigg the status of signs or other improvements at Cox
railroad crossing. ,- The Director of Public Works advised the City
maintenance staff has done what they can do to improve this situation.
Southern Pacific is' in'the process of making additional improvements at-
this crossing. ~ '
C. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICE REPRESENTAT.ION
The Mayor acknowledged the presence of the foliowing group representatives:
Dorothy. Parker, Good GoVernment Group Sandi Cuenca, Chamber of Commerce
Roger LeuCk, Good Goverpment Group April Barrett, League of Women Voters
Linda Callon, Planning fiommission'er George Whelen, Bicentennial Committee'
Judy Corliss, League ofWomen Vot'ers Jim Isaak, Library Commission
Lynn Belanger, Planning. Con~ni.ssion john Powers, Chamber of Commerce
G. Carlson, Brookview Homeowners Assn. John Weir, Arguello Homeowners Assn.
Nancy MacDonald, Republican Central Comm. Marlene Duffin, Wildwood Heinhts Assn.
Marjorie Foote, A.A.U.W. "
IX- ADJOURNMENT
It was moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded by Councilwoman Corr the meet~nn
be adjourned. The motion was carried. The meeting was adjourned'at 12:45 .M.
nectfully submitted,
Rober
- 17-