Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-22-1980 City Council Minutes MINUTES "~'~ ~'~ SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL ~ .... ? ~''~ TI}.~: Tuesday, April 22 1980 - 7:30 ~M. PLACE Saratoga City Councfl:Chambers,~}13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, Calif. TYPE: Adjourned Regular Meeting I. ~nT,T. ~AT.T. ROLL CALL Present: Councilmembers Clevenge~ Jensen, Mallory, Cal.lon Absent: None II. QUITO-WILDCAT CREEK PROJECT QUITO WILDCAT CREEK PROJECT · Acceptance offProject an~ Councilwoman Jensen expressed her Authorize Filing of Notice concern that this work'has not been of Completion .done.in a smooth manner. Additionally, it is her feeling the design of the drain entrance is a hazard and needs to be re-designed; · al.so, areas that are ~elt to be a hazard should be painted white; and the road marking on the side should form a lane the same width all the way down. Mr. Shook, Director of Public Works, advised that.the catch basin is located in accordance with. the plans, and if it is the desire to relocate~ it, he would r~commend doing so out- side of the existing contract. Painting of th~ areas mentioned by'- Mrs. Jensen has been scheduled with the Maintenance Department as well as relocation of the shoulder stripe. He recommended the work be accepted and authorization be granted to file the. Notice of Completion. M/S: Ma!lory/Clevenger to accept the Quito-Wildcat Creek project and auth6rize fi~in~ of th~ Notice.of Completion. Carried, 3 to 1, Councilwoman Jensen in opposition. III. RECO~.~_~ENDATIONS ON APPOINT~I'~ OF F~CO~4ENDATIONS ON APPOIN~,~MENT OF A ~A~AT~A ~F~TDENT TO T~ ~DITN~TT A SARATOGA P~SIDENT TO THE COUNCIL ~ ACT~ : ON AGING The City Manager indicated Dwight Bissell has represented the City on the Council on Aging over the last 3 years, and has indicated his interest in being re-appointed. Council concenSus to put this matter over to a future agenda while the Council considers nominations to this appointment~ AGENDA : ACTION IV. CONSIDERATION OF ISSUES RELATED CONSIDERATION OF ISSUES RELATED TO MEASUP~ "A" TO MEASURE "A" A. Hearing to ShOw Cause why work-, The City Manager advised the three and permits should not'remain applicants as set forth on the agenda suspended. have been notified of this hearing. Mr. Tichinin, acting as the City's attorney in matters dealing with Measure A, explaingd that the.purpose of the hearing i~'~o de~ermi~eif the\ ~ppli~a~tS-~can shd~ ~ pd~_s~a_~iye"or~.l~gal caus~ Why suspe~sfdd of the permits should not be continued in effect until the specific plan is carried out. ?ne Council .has imposed the suspension pursQant to his advise, as an excerciseof its inherent power to see. that the public health, safety; welfare and laws are pro- tected; it-wa~. not imposed speci- fically under Measure "A", as Measure.."A" is not yet in effect. However, since it is clearly going to go into effect, by operation df law; without the least doubt, and construction indonsistent with its terms would defeat the purposes of the measure, the Council has the authority to suspend the permits pending the adoption of the specific plan called for in Measure "A". It appears that the applicants all fall within the area depicted as Measure "A", and it also appears there was no reason to believe they ' did not have notice of the existence of the measure at the time permits were issued. For this reason, they would have been proceeding "at risk". Mayor Callon inquired :~-'f6.-f~hat <~:~=_~_oU~i'd~_~_~'lh~ TM cut tiff 'da t~7 Mr. Tic~{~ih"ostated the cut off date canada'be established, except on an individual basis. The date in question is'when the applicant learned of the existence of Measure ~i~s""for hardship exemptions, but first establish what provisions in the way of definitions the' Council wants to take up hardship applications under, and refer the hardship exemp-' tion request to a later meeting. 2 , AGENDA ACTION IV'. CONSIDERATION OF ISSUES RELATED (Jim M~a~ 3 - cont' d. ) TO MEASURE "A" (Cont' d. ) to meet the requirements of "HCRD" zoning. 1. Tract 6526 - Lots 4, 9, 17, 19 A tentative map application based o. "HCRD" Parker Ranch - Blackwell Homes zoni.g was filed on October ]9. ]977. - proposed tentative map requested that a JimI!~c~a~{,.. Attorney representln total of 101 lots be granted on the 218 Blackwell H6mes, addressed the acres commonly known as the Parker Ranch. Council. He presented a writte~ statement on behalf of Blackwell The Parker Ranch is divided into 2 phases. Homes, and proceeded to read thes The first phase is subdivision map 6526 comments into the record: and the second phase-is subdivision map T~e u ' tive Map Approval was filed with the City ~._~'~~'~&~e~'~t" ~T"'~: 6528. The initial application fop Tenta- '~lish~f~ctual and'to'~ e~t~t October 19, 1977. After 9 Planning .t~ )~l~ounds:i~a~kwell Commission meetings, the proposed tentative Homes relie~ in ~eqDesti~g't~tS~-Ll~ map received unanimous approval on .~ti~l d~v~lopm~n~o~O~l~'~ September 13, 1978. Thereafter, at 5 .~s ~h~ P~r~h~T ~Y~:i'Eh ~s ~'~, separate meetings, the City Council con- <~51~e~{E~tial' lots~8~l~' acres ~Eu{~ sidered the proposed'~ap, and approved ~of~pect ~jad. in~the~i~y~ ~p~Oda'~ the map on February 7, 1979 by a 4 to 1 ~b~'e~emp~ed~o~an~ ~itofiu~o~ ' ~ vote. The Final ~ap on 6526 was approved ~.~estpiction o~hF~~'~f~i'd'~ July lO, 1979, and the m~p was pecorded i6~'in~l~i'ng the construction of with the County ~ecordeP on Septembep 23, residential homes on said ppoject 8rid 1979. the sale of said homes. ~hen the Planning Co~ission~fop the City As you may know, procesSino of the of S~ratoga and the City Council fop the Papkep Ranch for pesidential development City of Saratoga apppoved the tentative beganin late 1973. At that time, at {he subdivision map doveping P~rker~Ranch,' pequest of the City, 818ckwell Homes sub- both bodies specifically fouhd that the mitted a Planned. Community development project complied with the dbjectives of application and pequested the apppopriate the 1974 General Plan and with all ~e- zoning fop such a project. Although qui.pements of t~e Zoning and'SubdiviSion -. ~lack~ell w~s prepaped to proceed ~ith Ordinance of the Ci.ty of Sapstoga.. the residential development consistent' ~easupe "A" which ~as passed by the voteps ~ith the ~-1-40,000 zoning then in effect specifically ppovided in SeCtion 7 that City P18nneps thought ~ Planned pending final completion of the pequipements Community development would permit the: that a specific plan be developed, no City greater control ovep development, zoning changes shall be issued in the sub- and thepefope, ~l~ckwell developed a ject area. Therefope, the ppopbs~ pro- planned co~unity ppoject. Aftep ject is not-6nly Consistent with the numepous meetings of the Subdivision existing zoning, but it is consistent ~ith Committee, the Planning Commission, ppovisions of Section 7 of the adopted Tp~il and Pathways Tas~ Fopce, Design initiative in that the proposed project ~eview Co~ittee, and lO meetings at does not pequire any zoning. changes to which the City Council considered the permit its fupther development. Sub- project, the zoning ~as approved on division ~ap 6526 consists of 19 lots. ,yFebpuary 4, 1976, by a 4 to lvote of With pegapds to ~ of the 19 lots, the city council. However, thereafter, building pepmits have been obtained'and on ~apch 17, 1976, the City Council foundations have been poured. Building placed a peferendum on the ballot which permits fop 2 of the lots ~epe obtained ~as designed~the change the zoning fpo~ On ~apch 25th, and building pepmits on "PC" back to "~1-40,000". In June, ~ theother 2lots were obtained on April 2, 1976, the ballot ppoposal passed. The 1980. Subdivision ~ap 6528 consists of City then began a process of considepin9 76 lots, and the conditions to the ~hat zoning should. ultimately be placed tentative map pequiped extensive of~-site on' the ppoperty. Aftep numepous imppovements. heapings, the City genepal'planned the apea for "~C~D" zoning, and Black~ell After obtaining tentative map approvals Homes began work pe-designing the ppoje. c~ fop ~aps 6526 and 6528, and at the urging - 3 - AGENDA AC'TION ~ IV. CONSIDEP~TION OF ISSUES RELATED, (Jim {}~C~'e~ - cont' d. ) TO MEASURE "A"_,(Cont' d.) . ditions of the Tentative Map. Additionally, 1. Tract 6526 '- Lots 4, 9, 17, I9= the vast majority of the money was spent Parker 'Ranch - Blackwell Homes prior to mid-November, 1979. In light of the money that has been spent to date, the (Jim.~M~K~_e~_~cont' d.) fact that the Parker Ranch has a valid Tentative Map, and a Final Map as to of the City Council of the Cityof Phase I; that significant off-site improve- Saratoga, BlackWell Homes submitted to' ments have been made; and that construction the City of Saratoga an expedited of 4 homes has already begun, it would schedule for off-site improvements. constitutean extreme hardship on Blackwell That schedule was submitted August 6, ~ to prevent them from carrying out the con- 1979, and covered such off-site work ': struction and sale of the Parker Ranch. as ~ough grade, storm and. sanitary, With regards to off-site improvements, it Prospect Creek improvements, curb and ' must be noted that a substantial portion of gutter, landscape-irrigatiOn water the off-site improvements that were put in system, PG&E-telephone, and base rock-. by Blackwell Homes consisted of drainage asphalt concrete. The work was to be-. improvements designed to protect subdivisions gin August 8, 1979, and be completed i such as the Arroyo de Arguello from con- by mid-November, 1979. tinue to suffer the same historical flooding that it had suffered inthe past. Further, After submitted this proposed schedule, that this flooding was not caused by the Blackwell Homes did in fact do the off= development of the Parker Ranch and would site improvements indicated in its not be aggravated by the development of letter of August 6, 1979, a copy of the Parker Ranch. Therefore, essentially which is attached hereto and marked what Blackwell Homes has done is spend a Exhibit "B". Said August 6 letter was large amou,t of money to protect down- .in response to the letter of August 3, stream ~ubdivisions from drainage problems 1979 from the City Manager of 'the City which are not caused or related to the of Saratoga and addressed to William E. development of the Blackwell property. It Heiss, Project Engineer. A copy of that almost goes without saying that to permit letter is attached hereto. as Exhibit "A" Blackwell Homes tOspend a large sum of money to protect other homeowners and to In connection with the off-site solve their drainage problems, and then improvements that were a part of the pre~ent them from developing their property conditions of the Tentative Map is the heigh~ of inequity. approvals, Blackwell Homes has spent approximately $732,600 and are con- For 7-years, Blackwell Homes has been pro- tractually obligated to spend approxi- cesSi~g the Parker Ranch in an attempt to mately $183,000, making a total cost for. develop a project that will enhance the off-site work to the project, both City of Saratoga and carry out the housing Maps 6526 and 6528, of $9~5,000~. objectives of the City. Toward that end, Additionally, in connection with Map Blackwell Homes has spent in excess of 6526, Blackwell Homes has begun on~Sit~ $3,500,00 and has a Tentative Map for the improvements, including land acquisition project which is consistent with the and street work, landscaping, fencing General Plan of the City. Additionally, and retaining walls, and 4 foundations. Blackwell Homes has constructed significant The total cost of on-site work for Map' off-site improvmeents which would generally 6526 to date has been approximately benefit the City, and has even begun con- $1,365,000. ~ struction of 4 family homes. To prevent Blackwell ~omes from further development With regards to Map 6528, Blackwell Homes of its project not only. ~lies in the face has spent toward land acquisition and of fairness and the concept of private development costs approximately $1,411,00 .property dwners~ip, but also violates ' ~ear legal principles as expressed in It should be noted that essentially all Youngblood vs. Board ofTSupervisors, and of this money was spent after the TentaL Tr~ns-Oceanic Oil Corp. vs. San Barbara. rive Map was approved; was spent by For the reasons expressed herein, Blackwell Blackwell Homes upon reliance that'the. HOmes requests that it be exempted from any Tentative Map was valid; and was spent mOritorium imposed because of or in in an effort to satisfy t~e various con- connection with Measure "A". Respectfully ., submitted, Blackwell Homes-, b9 Jack Blackwell. -. 4 - AGENDA ACTION IV. CONSIDERATION OF ISSUES RELATED Mr. Tichinin shggested that the TO ~{EASURE "A" (Cont'd.) Council not attempt to take up what he perceives to be Mr. M~e~i~= 1. Tract 6526 - Lots 4, 9,-17, 1~ request for a hardship exemption parker Ranch - Blac~ell Homes until it has had a' chance to determine what standards it would Mr. Tichinin, Attorney, commented want to impose in granting hard- that it appears the applicant is ship exemptions. He would propose ~.~ requestingan exemption, although '~h~ if '~Cbuncil gets an indi- some claim is made that the ~ti~'~H~ B~ackwell Homes is interim suspension woul'd appear tc asking for an exemption under the violate legal principles in m~o- hardship provisions, to calendar sided cases. He would disagree time to hear that specific request· with Mr. ~iCK_~__~b_~.~ statement wit~ respect to Youngblood~ Youngblood Mr.~e~h~expressed the fact that says nothing regarding suspensioh phase 2 of the tentative map is in of building permits in a situatior the final map stages, and it is his like. this. It only holds that understanding the information has once a tentative map has been been submitted to the city staff approved, a subsequent change to review to assure that phase 2 final the General Plan which would make map complies with the conditions of the tentative map inconsis te~t the tentative map. Mr.~Mc~e._h~n.: with the General Plan as changed, stated his understanding from the does not prohibit the approval of Council's last meeting is that · a final map, and in fact, require~ the Council intended to halt it. This deals with a different' processing of that map. The appli- issue of Whether or not building cant is objecting to this, and is permits are property suspended ~ asking that the final map be .under the measure, and this issue processed in the normal course ~ is specifically dealt with by the through the~ity~f~=~Tt~'f~i~lTt? California Supreme Court in AVCO theory is th~t/M~"~i'-~d~n6~ ' ~K Community Developers vs. South '~'tS~'Drod~i~':~M~'~'''~' "'~ ~n~c~d '~e~i~"~dy ~o b~gin Coast Regional Coastal Commission. The Court held that AVCO did notl the process of exhausing adminis- have a vested right to the issuance travie remedies relative to further' of the permit. With respect to ! application in securing the building the issue of changes in direction permits. They'also have to exhaust by 'the localgovernment after : the provisions of Measure "A" which various public approvals have been provide for hardship· That is why given, the Court made this philo- he submits the request for a hard- sophical point: ship exemption. He is requesting the City set the public hearing "If we were to accept the premise process in motion. that construction of subdivision improvements or the zoning of lahd Mr. Tichinin indicated h~ agrees L for a planned community are it would be most appropriate for sufficient to afford a developer the Council to respond positively a vested right to construct build- to Mr.~!~eh~t~request to notice .. · ings on the land in accordance a hearing ~or the application for ~ with laws in effect at the time exemption On all.t~ree matters that the improvements are made with the he requests exemption on; however, zoning enacted, there.could seriou he believes the only one ~the Council impairment of the government's might consider at all under.the right to control land use policy. terms of the ordinance are the four' In some cases, the inevitable permits that have.alreadT~b~e~' consequence would be tofreeze the issuedj zoning laws' applicable to a sub- division or a planned unit develo Councilwoman Jensen inquired if ment as of the time the'se events Mr. Blackwell was aware of the occurred." -'5 - AGENDA ACTION Iv. CONSIDS ATXON OF ISSUSS SanATmD eont'd.) TO ~EASURE "A". (Cont'd.) " Blackwell Homes acted reasonably 11 Tract 6526 - Lots 4, 9, 17,'1~ and prudent as. a businessman. Parker Ranch - Blackwell Home~ I~ney did not rush matters, but ~__~,,~_~.~ .~,~ ~ ~_~=--~_. proceeded for'the past 7 years to · (M~s?=J~ns~-~donf'd'7)--: . do what'the City has requested. Based on that, he'believes the initiative as of October 22nd. council should exer ~se its discretion and grant the p'e~mit Mr. Tichinin pointed out that and continue construction df at any building permits issued befor~ least those 4 homes. that d~te it would seem difficult Eo apply the restrictions of -' Councilman Mallory ~omm~nted that Measure "A" to. With-respect to he believes the'implementation of permits issued after that date, 'Measure "AT' does ,require fairness, the question is whether'or not and ~here has,been significant' at the time.they were issued, the money Spent for the welfare of the applicants knew of the existence City, over and above ~he welfare of of. Measure "A". Therefore, the the homes that,will be/built the~e.. specific dates he believes the He'believes the City Council should Council is interested in would be s~riously,cons~der these factors. March 25 and April .2.. Mr-~.Tich-inin commented that he tends M~..~L~.eb~ncommented that he.doub't~ to agree with the statement of I -that Mr. Tichinin is telling the Mr.'~F~Ke_~h~fi~that with ~espect.to the City Cohncil that it is without 4 building permits, the matter is discretion; rather, he is t.elling committed to the Council's discretion them they are with discretion. within the terms of the ordinance, The test is whether or not, base~ which indicates upon a'foUr=fifths on all the facts that were in z vote, in cases'of extreme h~rdship, existence as of the date.the and' in agreement-with the provisions person or company drew down on the of nhe ordinanc~U~' ~u f~ay gra~..' 'f building permits, the Council exemptions. If the CoUndil chooses thinks it is fair and reasonable to interpret "extreme hardship" to to permit them to continue con- meanthe sort,s~of-economic'.expendi-: struction. In the case of tures ands=liabilities that"have Blackwell Homes, he would call to been incurred here~ the Council'Would the Council's attention the fact have the authority to grant the that it is true Bladb;ell was exemption. The one other thing aware ,that a proposal was on the the COuncil needs to conside~ is ballot which could or could not what does the te~rm "and in agreement pass. It is true they had spent: with the provi~!oDs of ~ea'~ure ~" 3~ million dollars in 7 years mean. In his opidion', 'this w6uld putting this project together. It tend to refer to the various con- is true they had a substantial i~- cerns about development in the area ,vestment in trying to build homes that are spoken to in Measure "A". and sell them in accordance with a These appear to relate to the open plan that had been adopted by the space potential, steep slopes, City Council on a 4-1 vote, and potential landsliding, geo~e~hnical by the Planning Commission on a hazards, ~raffic.hazards, circu- unanimous vote. It is true there lation problems or difficult access, are proposals in this'city on ' no excessive public expenditures, every ballot which are defeated*,· no excessiv~ grading, unacceptable · and some of which pass. It'is erosion, destruction of natural unreasonable to'think 'that a per- topography, degradation of natural son who has, a 4 million,dollar drainage systems, no financial risk investment is going.to-wait roses to the City for maintenance of what is going to happen on a ~ hillside streets and storm drains, -proposal going before the'voterSl and protection of the rural character AGENDA ACTION IV. CONSID~P~TION OF ISSUES RELATEDr '(Mr. Tichinin'- cont'd.) TO MEASURE "A" (Cont'd.) hardship exemption. The Council 1. Tradt 6526 - Lots 4,9, 17,:11 might wish to notice ~ hardship Parker Ranch - Blackwell Ho~e exemption hearing for all of the Tichinin cont'd') i other aspects of the development (Mr. - · .: he refers to, or to determine that the Phase 2 final map and the of the area .through substantialIy unissued permits are matters the lower density, to the.extent that Council is without the authority the building permits woUld'not Be to grant exceptions for because' inconsistentwiththe preservation Measure "A" prohibits it. of these t~ings and prevention of those hazards, and if.the Councfl Mayor Callon commented it was her perceives it 'to be an extreme understanding the whole cause of hardship it would have the dis- the "show cause" Hearing was to cretion to grant the exemption.. determine whether the applicant could continue u~til April 25th, Councilwoman Clevenger commented the effective date of the ordinance. she would like to know how more homes can be put in and not affe'Ct Mr..Tichinin replied the:purpose the drainage below. ' .'of-th~ ~'show"~aUse" order was to allow~the'ap'plic~n~ to show cause Mayor Callon explained that the7 why the restrictions of Measure "A" ' City Council and the Planning --~ should not be applied to him. The Commissi6n required all of the:~,~ :imp0'~itioh o~ ithe'~s~ension was off-site drainage to correct .'.. 'made p~rSuan't hnd~'the Council's 'Arguello. ~ authority to proteC[ the goals of Measure !'A". The Council would Bill Heiss, project engineer for have the ~uthority to suspend the Blackwell Homes,~commented that ¢~stop work order; however, the this is a situation where'there Council ~}ould theft have the duty to was a great deal of testimony by '!re-impose mtat the point Measure professionals who investigated th, "A" went into effect. Th~ question overall drainage and hydro~ogic before the Council atthis time is conditions in the entire area. to-make a determinatiOn'whether or The conclusion was that the not to continue its suspension and development.df the Parker RanCh stop work order in effedt, or to in itself would have a minor rescind it. effect upon the present drainage problem. This effect is minor ih M/S: Jensen/Mallory that the City relation to the probl~em as it- notice a hearing on the hardship existed, and this is evidenced by exemption provision for the 4 the significant amount of Work building permits for Black~ell Homes that was done.. - Upon the request of. Mr. Mc~e~~- Councilwoman j~H~en commented thA and recommendation of Mr. ~Ti~[inin, it seems there are two issues-her~ the motion was amended as follows:- One is whether Blackwell would be asking for a hardshlp=exemption,j M/S: .Jensen/Clevenger to schedule and this Would be for a later a hardship hearing to consider' hearing. The issue before the hardship exceptions of the Parker Council this evenipg is a. matter' F~b~_n~;~hne ~;'~'~980.' of whether 'or not there Was good q~¥~h~nimoU~l~. faith reliance. . ~=~~_ i~_~ . .KZS ~!"J~,~'~YZ-~tlory to allow Work Mr. Tichinin stated he-doeS'not t~ c~i~6!~"~'~uilding permits see a need for the'Coundil to ta~e until the effective date of the action in response to Mr. McKeon's ordinance, or April 25, 1980, presentation. other.than to notic~ a hearing on the request for a : ~.-. _.7 AGENDA ACTION IV. CONSIDERATIONOF ISSUES REEATED' (Peter Noonan ~ cont"d.) TO ~ASUP~ "A" (.EOnt'lld~l one lot; he is not a developer, 1. Tract 6526 - Lots 4,9, 17,,1! and he is attempting only tO b~ild Parke~ Ranch~BlackWell Ho~e~ one h0usefor himself. There was some thought that Proposition "A" Mr. Tichinin suggested it be made would not apply to single parcelS, clear the Council is not encoura- but it was aimed at major subdi~' ' ging or ordering work to be· . visions and developers. They pr~- undertaken. .. ceeded during the last year to year-and-a-half in getting their Mayor Callon indicated sh~ is building permit, and did everything ~oing toi~ote in favor of this in accord with the City of motion because she feels the legal Saratoga'Is requests. Upon reading · advise iS that when the ordinance the proposition carefully, it is effect~ve~ the Ci·ty. Council speaks about the amount of site, will consider theissue of whet~en the density, and the access to the the entire Parker Ranch should lot. The developers for Parker come under an exception' at a laten Ranch and Parnas Corporation and date. other-developers in the Pierce- Canyon area have different approaches. Councilmembers-Mallory and No matter what happens with Proposi- Clevenger voted in opposition to tion "A", Mr. Noonon stated he has the mot±on on theflo0r, and the one lot at the top of Pike Road motion failed~ and there is never going to be any other way to get up there except · 2~ SDR=1443 ~ Peter Noonan~ Pike· Pike Road. As far as' density, it ~oad is a 3.2 acre lot and he is building one house on it. In regards to Mr. wimberly, Director of the particular site, Mr. Noonan InSpection Servic~sr~ explained stated when they bought this lot, that MeaSure "A" States that any he couldlook across and see San lot which receiyed final approval Francisco Bay and San Leandro. within 2 years~ iS sUbjTect to the ~ecause of the site, the ridgeline proViSionS of Mea~ure'~A"~ It requirements. and the slope, all i~ on that bas. isl that he~ in- he can see'from h'is house now is cluded·the next 2 building per~ ·someone's 3-car garage. He is mits as being w~th!n the SpiritI. building at the flat bottom part and intention of the. Council's of the lot and not on the slope. direction the previous week. Even 2 days before thee~ection, The distinction from the preViou~ people said to him as he was getting discussion is7 thoSe·lots were his sewer permits: "It's not going created by~s.ubdivi~ion per se~· to apply to you." Mr, Tichinin commented that '~!~'~ With.'rega~ds to the hardship, Mr. :~he"i's ~not'i~ '~'b0siti0~ 't~' ~ ",I Noonan commented that he finds it give~h~ ~ini~' ~s ~0 whe~h~~ o~'I humorous that he is into this not the lot falls. under Section 8 project further than Blackwell of the initiative ordinance· He HOmes. would like to have the opportunit to review both the lot approval Mr. Noonan requested that his per- and the l·ocal SubdiviS~6n~ordin~ mit not be suspended, based upon ance with Mr~ Wimberly before the fact.he has only one site and advising on the application of is building at the absolute lowest the measure to th~sI lot and the density possible and on the lowest next one also. part of the ~ot perceivable, and he has done everything in accord Reter Noonan, owner of·the priest With. the Planning Department. at 14123 Pike Road, addressed 'the There was a tentative. building council ~tattng that he ~nl~'has site approval on this lot in 1977 or 1978 prior to his purchasing -8 - · ' AGENDA ACTION · IV. CONSIDERATION OF ,ISSUES RELATED~ Mr. Tichin{n again commented that TO MEASUP~ "A" (Cont'd.) he would like some opportunity to ': further research the issue before 2. SDR-1443 Peter Noonan, Pi~e making a recommendation. Road (Cont'd.) ' M/S: Jensen/Mallory t6 C6n~in~e; the lot; it is not like they be-' this item to the next regular gan to process this-with a meeting of the Council on May 7, moratorium coming up, but they ~ 1980.' The motion was carried started long before it. He unanimously. stated he does not believe it was theintent of the people who ~ 3. SDR-1325 - Thomas Walker, Pierce voted for Proposition I'A" to stop Road the one or two people, each year that try to build homes in Pierde- Mr. Wimberly explained that this Eanyon. He would therefore re-~ also was a single lot of record that quest they be allowed to continue fell s~bject to the City's Sub- construction. .division Ordinance. Mr. Walker took out his permit in January, Mr. Tichinin asked of Mr. 1980. Wimberly if the piece of pr6per~y Mr. Noonan makes reference to is Mayor Callon recommended that based described as a lot in the Sub- on Mr. Tichinin's comments relative divisi'on Ordinance, and if so, to the previous issue, this ite~ did he receive that lot approval be continued also. prior to April 25,, 1978. M/s: 'Jensen/Mal~ory to continue Mr. Wimberly re~lied, "no". ' , this item to the.next regular His understanding is that the t6t m~eting o~ May 7, 1980. Carried includes having a final map unanimously. approval. Ifat some time, with- in 15 yearS, that lot received final map approval. or site ~ approval, that site appr6val Mr. Stephen Bernard, representing. would exempt it from re-a~licati0n Parnas Corporation, indicated he of the Subdivision Ordinance. It isI would liketo apply for a hardship lack of previous application of~ exemption, f6r consfderation along the Subdivision Ordinance that fs with the other application, on ~he controlling.factor. May 21, 1980. Mr. Noonan commented 'that the ~ He proceeded to read into the record lots in the particular n.eighbor~' the following statement: hood at the Itop of Pike'Road wer.e .. split off and created separately "This statement is a request for an. exemption over the period between 1948 thru from any moratorium or restriction on the 1972, and each. lot was broken off development of two parcels of real property into 1,2 or 3-acre parcels. His' which are schedul'ed for development, and lot was processed through the LDC sale of residential homes by Parhas process. Corporation. Ihe two projects are con- ti~uouS, and while technically Separate Mr. Tichinin pointed out' tha't he projects, are bei n~ developed to~ether~. believes the pQint Mr. Wimber!y Ihe first project concerns approved is making is not the distinction. tentative map application SD-]373. ~ Ibis between a lot and. something else', project consists of approximately ]]0 but the distinction between final acres purchased' bylthe Parnas Corporation approval of a lot and something t from the San,josg. Water Works. The t :' other than final approval, as tha~ project is presently broken'down to ~4 ' term is indicated in the measure. lots and received tentative map aporoval It appears that it did not recei~ by the City of Saratoga Plan.ing ' final approval prior to the date. Commissioh on April 25, 1979.. - . ! The sec6nd project, which is contiguous to (Stephen Bernard'~ Parnas. Corp.) first project, consists'of 7 lots purchased from Mar.ie Gaspar for approximately The history of the purc'hase bears noting '.$600,000 (Tradt 5928)'. .The purchase of 'Th'e initial sales contract dalls for a this property by Parnas Corporation'was non-refundabl~ dep6sit of $F0~O00. The approved by qudge Wa~ren-C. Moore, .buyer of the property,"Parnas Corporatio~ Bankruptcy. Judge.for the United States was obligated to compl~telthe transT District Court, Northern District, in action once a .tentative map was Chapter XI, No. 575-3577-M, on May 11, by the'City o~ Saratoga. Planning.. ; 1979L At the time of the purchase, the Commission. The entire purchase priceT' project had an approved and recorded for the development was $1,100,000. As final map.~ The final -map was recorded previously indicated, tentative map on May 30, 1979', and escrow closed at approval occurred on April 25, 1979,.ahd that time.'. escrow on the property closed shortly ' thereafter. ,. In reliance on the recorded final map, Parnas Corporation has spent in excess Origina!ly,'.the development WaseH- ~ of $175,000 in various fees ~nd bonds titled to 52 dwelling units pursuant to to the City of Saratoga, San Jose Water the slope of the site and other zoning~ Works, and the local sewer district. and land use restrictions. However, the The first residence to be placed in the tentative map approval provided for 34 project was on Lot 8. That residence lots, with the remainder of the property has been designed and received design to be dedicated for open space, recrea- approval from the Planning Commission of ~ional areas, and other uses. In re-" ~ ~the'~ity. 6f Saratoga.: The status of this lianceupon the tentative map approval~ project is thata fdlq set ~f..working Parhas Corporation has incurred $62,550 drawings must be prepared by the architect in civil engineering costs, out of'a ! and then submitted for approval, and at total of $105,267 incurred in total '~ · t~a( ti~e,7.a'building permit should be civil engineering costs. The $62,550 Lissued. was spent in trying to fulfill the .... '~ · various tentative map conditions. In conclusion, it thus appears that Parnas. Parhas Corporation has further expended Corporation has expended in excess of in soils engineering the sum'of $31,000 $2,000,00Q based on the actions of the after approval of the tentative map, out .Planning ~ommission-and the City Council of a total soils engineering cost of . of the City o~'Sa~at6ga. It would' $59,912.'45. In further reliance upon clearly be inequitable and a great hard- the approved tentati.ve map,-the Parnas ship on Parnas Corporation to be subjected Corporation incurred landscape and opeh to the. moratorium restrictions after space design engineering fees in the complying with all requests and conditions sum of $7,800. The landscape and open' placed upon it by the City of Saratoga." space design was approved by the By: Leonard Borello, Parnas Corporation Planning Commission on March 12, 1980.' Other costs, including interest~' fees, Mr. Bernard requested this matter legal' expenses, etc., have total.ed over be scheduleall.for a hardship exemption . $100,000 since the tentative map was on May 21st, along ~ith Blact~well approved. Homes. - On ~pril 6, 1980, the civil .engineer i~ Due to the full agenda on l~ay 21st, charge of the project completed all re. Mayor Callon suggested this item visions and submitted the final set of! be considered for public hearing on plans to ~he city staff for final map June .4. approval. -' Mr. Tichinin pointed .out that this This project is clearly c'ons]stent with application is one which Measure "A" . the General -Plah of the City of Saratoga, does not give the City Council consistent with subdivision and zoning authority to grant because building ordinances, and does not require any permits have not been issued. He zoning' changes. would suggest that it would' be .- 10 AGENDA ACTION IV. CONSIDERATION OF ISSUES RELATED Frank Lee Crisp, Jr., representing TO MEASURE "A" (Cont'd.) the Fremont Union High School ~_A~-:H~aring~f~Sho~Cause_~(Cont,d. District, indicated this property ., I is described in the upper portion ~'('~ '~i~i~'~cont"d~)~ of the overhead map. Mr. Crist Mr T~ ~ appropriate to .schedule the s~ated the High School District hearing because it has been re- litigated this matter on the basis quested, in order to give the : ,that the petition was unclear and applicant the opportunity tO : ambiguous, and susceptible to mis- exhaust his administrative interpretation by the voters. remedies. There was a considerable amount of testimony, and this included repre- It was the Council concensus to sentations made by those who passed set this matter for public hearin the petitions, that the school on June 4, 1980. district property was not included in the petition. There were four Mr. Wimberly requested the Coun~i affidavits submitted' to this fact. clarify the policy relative to The face sheet of the petition all processing on applications. does not describe in any way what- so as to communicate 'this in soever the school district property. writing to all applicants af~ecte~ In looking at the Subject map area, in what the judge in his ruling M/S: Jensen/Mallory to terminate described as a "~rudely drawn" map, processing onall applications fox and which the judge further described · ~ivej~{~ih~Y~b~i~isi0n~ in his opinion after the trial, that ' ~a~7 {H'~&~rd~{[h"~'~ianguage a reasonable man could not ascertain in Measure "A", until such time whether or not'the school district as there has been adopted a was included or not included, and specific plan and given specific that the map was ambiguous and un- instructions on each application clear and uncertain. In Judge that was in process, as of the Bruno's.mind, there was absolutely effective da~e of the initiativel no question that a reasonable man The motion was carried unanimous.1~ reading that ordinance would not ~ conclude that the school property' ~-"~i~R~Y~'~f Policies a~d Issues was included in the proposed "Regarding Implementation of initiative ordinance. Measure A Mr. Crist further commented that The City Manager referenced staff you are not afforded in j dozen- report, dated 3~27/80, outlining Zoning process~byi~itiativ~ ~' ~'~ concerns and issues requiring ordinance the opp0r~Un~ey . '~. . ~' Council direction to allow the 1) to receive speciflc notice, nor implementation process to commence 2) the public hearings .you are normally,afforded.if'it iS?a!/,..~.... The first issue relates to the Council initiated dox~h-~oning~ ~ Subject Area. For implementation It seems that the ultimate require- purposes, clarification is needed ment of constitutional'notice of as to the area for inclusion under being specific is even more so in Measure A. He referenced the the case of the. initiative ordinance. overhead map, which indicates in' The requirements~ that th~ public yellow the area contained within know what they are voting about'and the exhibit to the petition, ~ whose property ~s included ought to referred to as the "HCRD" zoning~ be more stringent because we are district. not entitled to appear before the Planning Commission and City Council, Councilwoman Jensen commented that and if there is any ambiguity in she does not feel there is a sub- this initiative ordinance, it would stantialquestion as to boundaries seem the.property owner who is not clearly described should be excluded. The Mayor opened this issue for The judgehas made it clear how he public discussion. feels about this ordinance, and how -.11 AGENDA ACTION (Mrs. Jensen - cont ' d .) IV. CONSIDERATION OF ISSUES RELATED~ study purposes and for the purposes TO ~EASURE "A" (Cont'd.) of the provisions of Measure "A", regardless of what. decisions are B o Review of Policies and Issues made with respect to what Measure "A" Regarding Implementation of said on the ballot. Measure A ~ Subject Area Mayor Callon commented she would (Mr. Crist - cont'd.) like the Council to interpret what it thinks it has on the measure it- it applies to the school property. self -- not what we are now-~creating He did not strike the initiative as new study boundaries. ordinance because he'did not at that stage, before it was voted Councilwoman Jensen clarified her upon, feel that because of this+ motion to indicate acceptance of defect, he could declare the 'Exhibit A from the initiative as entire ordinance unconstitutional. the study boundary, as further There is no question in his mind defined by the map before the when the 'school district~'lgoes Council this evening. back~ where they .are going to stand. They are going to be out Councilwoman Clevenger seconded He asking the City Council to the motion. The motion was- carried recognize what Judge Bruno said, unanimously. and to treat the Fremont Union High School accordingly. Section 3 speaks to the preparation of a Specific Plan. Mr. Robinson, Rus sell Crowther, Norada Court, Planning Director, sL~.mmarized, the stated that he believes the map' two opinions outlined in' staff is clear if you look at the ~ memorandum, dated 3~27/80, relative Saratoga General Plan and c.ompare to Specific Plan. He explained that it, or the map on the wall, as 6ption #1 is a much more detailed there' is curvature along the rail- plan, and option ~-~2 deals with road tracks and along the boundar regulations- and controls applicable of the school property that clearl~ in dealing wfth this particular area. shows up on the map. Also, thej He further po±nted out that option current General Plan shows that ~2 i's consistent with the ~lan of site as a school site, and it the Town of Los Gatos. also shows a park on it. If ther is any .other zoning on it, this! CouncilwOman Jensen requested an would be clearly inconsistent wit~ interpretation from Mr. Tichinin the City's General Plan~ Althoug~ as~ .tO wh~t Measure "A" calls for the judge made a number of in considerin~ a Specific Plan. comments about ambiguity, he awarded in the opposite direction. Mr. Tichinin commented that what He said in his conclusions that z MeaSure "A!' require~' is that the the ordinance was not constitu- . c~y'.~dopt 'a S~edi~ic plan fo~ the tionally uncertain. Mr.' C~owther ' subjedt ~a~e~ p~rsuant tO the pro~ stated he believes this would be visions for Specific plans provided the key issue to come up before in thel Government Code~ Those the courts. would appe~ar ~to him to have in mind the more detailed Specific Plan aS Councilwoman Jensen made the ~utlined .in Option following motion :' ' Mayor Callon inquired how the Move that we certify boundaries City. would deal Wicth the issue O.f in yellow, including what is in' placement of every lot and its orange, as the area covered by SetBack ~eq.u~rements in a subdivision the provisions of Measure "A", and if there is any question Mr.. Robinson co~nented that the regarding boundaries, that it be SpeCific Plan for Los ~atoS does the Council decision to adopt talk a~out these 'sD'ecific items. those boundaries for the Council '~ He 'would: encourage~ the' 'Council to - 12 AGENDA ACTION IV. CONSIDERATION OF ISSUES RELATED Section 4, Standards. TO MEASURE "A" (Cont' d. ) The City Manager indicated there is B. Review of Policies and Issues a need tq look at the formula that Regarding Implementation of. will have to be amended into the Measure A -~Specific Plan Code relevant to the determination of those points between 0 at 2 acres review this in more detail and and 10 at 50%. give further direction at its nex meeting~ Option #2 meets the Councilwoman Jensen commented that intent of the GoVernment' Code re- determining this is really premature quirements and gives criteria to until the City has made a decision developers. regarding its overall direction. Councilwoman Jensen commented she Mayor Cat.lon commented she feels feels there are some serious obligated to take the proponents' questions we are facing city-wide interpretation of the measure. regarding whether or not our re- sources tare going to stretch undez It was the concensus of the Council the General Plan. In the first to postpone consideration of item (1) place, we don"t have a General relative Ito the "straight lineii ' Plan that designates density. I formula until formulation of the l,~Tithin the 4 to 5 years, we have citizens 'advisory committee to come up a~ainst some resource con- clarify this particular point. traints we didn't know we had, and the problem of those constraints RelatiVe to item (3), relating to is basic to whether or not we .~ "grandfather clause'.', Mayor Callon could do a specific plan that commented she thought it was clear would meet our needs. It is " in the initiative in Section 7 as important for us to at least pro.- to what was caught up in the sense ceed with this planning effort in of 2-year retroactivitv conjunction with the General Plan revision, and get some of those . Mr~ TiChiner agreed with this, issues back on the '~able while We indicating the Council would not look at some of the more detailed have authority to "grandfather issues-that are part of the clause" exceptions. Previous erosion study. She would like to Council action has clarified this. see some of these larger issues addressed. She would like to Relative to item (Z~), it was the see the staff begin with a resource concensus of the Council to continue study. implementation of tree removal for clearance,. i~nprovements to guard Councilman Mallory commented it is rails of .bridges, and restoration his feeling the Cit~ owes it to ~ of centerline ~s,triDing. the public to move ahead with ~'~"~Measure "A" as rapidly as possible RelatiVe'to'Access and Circulation, He would favor asking the ~ the City Manager advised there ~s Measure "A" committee to make some a hearing scheduled'on th'e~issf~e~ ' recommendations. of the Circulation Element ih ~May.b M/S: Mallory/Callo~ Co adoDt M/S: Mailory/Clevenger to fold' option'"b", with the idea that ! this section into the review process additional details, ~ould Be added with .the Circulation Element. at 'a later date by the Council, if Carried uhanim~usly. necessary. ~e motion was carried ~ 3 to 1,. Counc~lw~an Jensen .in Relative to Pr'~s~rvation of Rural oppos~tion; Character, it is reco~ended the Council/Planning Co~ission/Citizens Co~ittee review the ordinances now on the book to see if they meet the intent. These. would be included with the work program. This reco~endation was acceptable to .~he COuncil. 13 - A. GE'NDA' ACTION IV CONSIDERATION OF ISSUES RELATED' Relative to Section 7, Interim TO MEASURE "A" (Cont'd'.) Restrictions,, it ±s suggested'a policy be established to determine B. Review 6f Policies and Issues consideration of hardship cases. Regarding Implementation of. Measure A - Specific Plan Mr. Tichin~n indicated he perceives the extreme hardship.issue just to (City Manager - cont'd.) be limited to continuing with con- struction unde~ presently issued Rela[ive to-Staging ~f Growth, building permits. He indicated he would outline some alternatives for this is a question of whether or not the'Council wanted to provid~ standards with respect to granting any overall policy direction in of "extreme hardship" exemptions, the initial stages'or allow th~ for the next regular'meeting of.the: ' Counc{1. Planning Commission or Citizens Committee to deal wfth'this"issue Due to the fact the Council would 'It. wa~.'the'concensus of the Coundi not have 'a Specific Plan adopted to allow the planning process to within the time limitations imposed take care of the issue of Staging· by AB-884, hesugg~sted'the Council · at its next meeting direct staff to o'f Growth., i deny all pending applications in the Relative to Street and-Storm Dra:ir subject area, without prejudice to the right of the applicants to make Maintenance. . . .a new application after the Specific It was the concensus of the Council Plan has. been adopted. .to bonsider this section as a . specific part of t~e work 'program.i Relative to Section 5, Public Participation, it is recommended '. ~' ":"~':~ ,-~ the committee be represented'by ' ', ,.-%". at leabt one representative of ' each of the three homeowners associations that exist in the~.~ ~ . . study area. It is further :,. suggested ther~ be a representa- tive.~rom the geographic area representing the ten planning areasasdelineatedin the '74 General Plan, and three represen~ tatives from property owners in' ' the subje'ct area, and three CoUnt] representatives of the area with~ in the sphere of influence and urban service area, totaling 19, The COuncil discu'ssedalternatives ~o this committee representation. It was agreed to agendize this item to the next regular. meeting: on May 7. : Relative to Section 6, Consisten[' Zoning, it is reeommended,t~is- be included in t.he-Planning pro- cess. Th'is was agreeable to the Council. AGENDA7 ACTION V. OTHER BUSI~ZSS . OTHER BUSINESS A. .Review Proposed Project in The City!Manager explained there is Town of Los Gatos at Corner a proposed development in the Town of Quito Road and POllard of Los Gatos at the Quito-Pollard (Portion in City of Saratoga) intersection. It is proposed to include as part of this development :'2_~r~,~ D~6~ty fn~'the City of Sa~og~e~:Ru'%:~0,000. Los Gatos ha~ pr~viousl~ mad&tapplication to LAFCO to de-annex from Saratoga and anneX.~his land to Los Gatos. The City;,of Saraltoga has indicated its ~ position .to Los' Gatos that this de- annexation is premature. The Council expressed concern with regard tO.any'proposal that would c~ange the rural~haracter of this neighborh0o~.~ There was a%so con- .qer~ expressed wft~"~eg~d ~ the~. I fact 'this land ha'~Been sl~ed ~s' flood plain. Councilwoman Jensen proposed sending a letter to the Town of Los Gatos stating the'City of Saratoga's oppositionto the proposed de- annexation and zone change, and also protesting the NegatiVe Declaration~ and asking that the City of Saratoga be considered a r~sponsible party in decisions concerning environmental documents. It was further proposed a letter be sent to LAFCO indicating the City's position with respect to Saratoga planning ,areas. M/S: Jensen/Mallory to send letters to the Town of Los Gatos and to LAFCO including comments as indicated. Carried unanimously. Recess and Reconvene - 15 - AGENDA 'ACTION V. OTHER BUSINESS (Cont'd.) B. Quito Shoppin~ Cente~,"'~','I,, Councilwoman Jensen conmented it Expansion Approval appears that there is a requirement for public hearings to approve this development proposal. Mr. Robinson, Planning Director, advised that according to the City's Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance,' there is no requirement for public hearing for. final building site approval. Councilwoman Ctevenger, inquired if if would be possible, since a building permit has not'been issued, to hold a public hearing. It, was indicated this ~ould require ~ legal opinion. Councilwoman Jensen requested the following questions be responded to -at the next regular meeting of the Council': 1) A legal opinion if the City could hold dp the building permit until the Coumil has made a review if'all decisions were ~d~'i~acco'rd'Wieh'the City Code-and State Law. 2) A legal opini6n on whether or not the Council can review the Negative Declaration and '~' make a different decision relative to impact. The City Manager indicated he would provide responses to thewe questions at the next regular meeting of the Council. C. City CounCil Vacancy Selectioz The date of Friday, May 2~d, at Process 5:30 P.M., was established to inter- view applicants for City Council. ~ ' 5~-in~I~d~8"Z~'~ f[em for consider- ' artion at the ~ext City Council · Meeting. She indicated she would have a-draft"ordinance for distri- bution to the Council. E. Sanitation DiStrict No. 4 and Councilwoman Jensen commented she is Proposed Rate Modific'ations concerned that it appears the City is picking up a'large tab for a great deal of construction at the Santa Clara Sewage Treatment Plant. The City Manager indicated he would obtain a report from Steve Goodman, Manager and Engineer, of Sanitation District No. 4. 16 - AGENDA ACTION V. OTHER BUSINESS' (Co~'d.) Fi City Cohndil Assignments to The followfng Council assignments Boards and Commissions were mad~ to serve as representatives on county boards and commissions: IGC and ICC Callon Clevenger (Alt.) A.B.A.G Cl~Venger Transportation M~llory Commission Sanitation Dist,~ Jensen Callon (hit.) Water Commission: .~ppen Flood Control Open Advisory ~.oard HcD Coun i 'Cbmm.l'Cle en e , VI. ADJOURNMENT ADJOURN~4ENT M/S': Clevenger/Mallory to adjourn this meeting tb a Special Meeting on May 2, 1980,~a'[ B:30 P~TM. -Carried unanimously. The mee~{ng was adjourned at II1:50 P.M. spec iTbmitted, pec 17