Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-21-1980 City Council Minutes..~_,5~,~_,.~ MINUTES _2 .~f.L~I' -~, SARATOGA I, CITY COUNCIL --~ ...... ~' · TIME: Wednesday, May 21, 1980 - 7:30 PT~M. PLACE': Saratoga!~City Council Ch~mbers,~ 13~777 Fruitvale Aver, saratoga, calif. TYPE: RegUlar Meeting ,~ i. ORGANIZATION ORGANIZATION A. ROLL CALL Present: Celvenger, Jensen, Mallory, Watson, Callon Absent: None B. MINUTES M/S:' CleVenger/Mallory to approve the minutes of April 22, 1980. Carried unanimously'. II. COMMUNICATIONS A. ORAL (Mayor commented relative to communi- cations and public participation. Advised that on notified public hearings, the public has the right to come forward and speak on the item. Also, public input is welcome during OP~L CO~fONICATIONS. It is up to the discretion of the presiding officer to allow discussion on other agenda items. The Council will hold evening office hours prior to the twice-monthlyCity Council Meeting, from 7:00 to 7:30 PM.i 1. Andrew Beverett, 19597 Via Monte Drive, Re: seque~c~ Mayor advised that the hearing would of items on the agenda. be held prior to the matter of site Requested holding public acquisition and improvements on hearing on Housing Element Cox Avenue and Saratoga=Sunnyvale (item V-A) prior to consider- Road. ing item IV-C Re: affordable housing, corner of Cox Ave.. and Saratoga-SUnnyvale Road. 2. Andrew Beverett, requesting Acknowledged. that items pertaining to senior citizens be placed higher on the agenda 3~ Terrill Barco', 19101 Camino Mayor Callon requested these comments Barco, re: proposed re- be forwarded in writing for in- location of Post Office clusion with the public hearing on facility. Addressed the this subject, scheduled for June 4, questions of need, design, ~ 1980. and money. He further addressed the adverse impacts of-the proDosed relocation, and the fa~t that the City Council has a say in this - matter. . / = AGENDA XCTION II. COMMUNICATIONS (Cont'd.) A ORAL 4. Russell Crowther, 20788 The Mayor asked 'that the Council Norada Court, Re: Measure re~d the material received from "Av. Commented relative Mr..Crowther and be prepared to to action in Morgan Hill, comment on it at the appropriat~ indicating that Measure time. "E" is bei~g upheld, whilcb is contrary to statements by the City Attorney. Mr. Crowther referenced' material which he distri- buted to the Council, including information re: the open space element and Williamson Adt inven- tories.; school site development in relation t, the open space element ant the General Plan; oolicfes and action programs to implement policies for hillside areas. -' --5~-.-Jef~:'S~artfi, San Marcos Mayor Callon repeated her comments -. Road, urging-the City earlier in the meeting relative ---~ Council to reconsider th'e to establishment of Council office procedure currently used hours prior to the City Council for citizen input to the Meeting. It was stressed the City Council. importance of dealing with regular agenda items, and this would not be possible if unlimited discussion were allowed on every subject. B. WRITTEN 1. Letter from Mrs. Doro'thy Noted and filed. Breeding, 5450'Mayme Ave., San Jose, rei the decline of the City of Saratoga.' 2. Mr. and Mrs. Stephen Noted and filed. DeBrock, 20546Reid t~ne, endorsing David Moyles for City Council va~.anCy. 3. Fran Mills, 20552 VerdeI .Noted ~ thi~ Fill be considered in Court, requesting-that th~ ~'cdnjunction wit~'.the puSlic hearing petition submitted on ' o~'th{~s subject.~ April 16, 1980, ~e: high denisty,'low-cost housing be continued.for inclusibr g - with the Housing Element' '~ ;.,_ 4. Dr. Bela Kraus, 18860 ~ Referre~ to ~ublic Works'staff for Aspesi Drive,.re: d~ngerou;=review and a report back within 30 intersectio~ at Saratoga 'days. Ave. and Dagmar Drive. - 2 -- = ~, ~, AGENDA ACTION - II. CO~4]JNICATIONS (Cont'd.) B. WRITTEN · -".."- 5. League of Wome~:.Voters o~f Noted ~'d.'filed. Los Gatos~Saratoga, indi~ "' cating its continued interest and support of '. the HCDA Program. 6. Letter from 2~'residents Noted; letter .to be included with of Saratoga expressing Public Hearing on this subject. opposition to rent subsi- dized housing in Saratoga, particularly concerning property on-Cox and Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road.r 7. Mr. and Mrs. Russell Ellis Noted; letter to be included with 12970 Brandywine Drive, discussion at the Committee of the recommending opposition to Whol'e Meeting on May 27, 1980, con- petition requesting sub-' cerning this sub'ject. stitution of a traffic signal from Brandywine ant Highway 9, to Blauer, Drive and Highway 9. 8. John H. Tilton, 21172 Referred to Public Works/Inspection Bank Mill ROad, Lot 11 of Services staff f6r review and report ' Tollgate subdivision, re: back to Council within 30 days. oulvert flooding and drainage problems on Bank Mill Road. 9. Mr. W. R. Kanne, 19918 Noted; letter to be included with Bonnie Ridge Way, Public Hearing on this subject.' expressing approval of the proposed Housing Element amendment. III. SUBDIVISIONS, BUILDI.NG SITES, SUBDIVISIONS, BUILDING SITES, ZONING _REQUESTS ZONING REQUESTS IV. PETITIONS, ORDINANCES, RESOLU~ONS PETITIONS, ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS A. MEASUP~ "A" AND RELATED ISSUES 1. Hearing toshow cause w~y The City Manager recommended the work and permits should= Council take action to determine not remain suspended whetheror not these two applications (Cont'd. from5/7/80) would be affected by Measure "A", · ' and if so, schedule a hardship a) 14123 Pike Road hearing..l' (SDR-1445), Peter Nodns b) 13800 Pierce Road Mallory/Jensen to include 'the two lots under the provisions of (SDR-1325), Thomas MeaSure "1", and. allow'the applii Walker' cants to appl~ for a ~ardship hearing'. Carried unanimously. - 3 - '~ AGENDA ACTION IV. PETITIONS, ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIO~ " . A. MEASURE "A" AND RELATED ISSUE~ 1.'Hearing to show cause why M/S: Mallor~/Jensen to schedule. work and permits should a hardship hearing for the appli- not remain suspended cation on 14123 Pike Road, Peter !Cont'd. from 5/7/80 Noonan, for the dates of June 18 and July 2, 1980. Carried unanimously. Councilwoman Jensen further proposed a field trip be scheduledto review this site prior to the time of the public hearing. It was agreed to .schedule.this field trip prior to the time' o~ the first hearing and advise the applicant in order that he be present.. Mayor Callon requested the City Manager notify Mr. Walker con- cerning his right to request a hardship hearing.for the site on Pierce Road. 2. Conside.ration of Resol~i~ Mr. Tichinin, Attorney, indicated 956, R~S~L_U_~_I~/~_~=~ this-c'~esolution i~=in follow up .ApPROyI~Ji~APPLICATIONS FO[ to the Council's action on 5/7/80 LAND DEVELOPmeNT WITHIN to resolve to deny without prejudice THE NORTHWEST HILLSIDES to either an application for hard- AREA ship exemption or .subsequent appli- cation after the specific plan was prepared.those developments which fall within the Measure "A" area and are not exempted under "grand- father" and good faith reliance clauses of Measure "A", and which would be in danger of being approved by failure of the Council to act, and during the period in which the specific plan is being d~a~m up. Mayor Callon suggested re-Wording Section 3 of the resolution relative to timing on approving or disapprov- ing applications for development projects, and suggested this be modified in lin~ with Measure "A". Mr. Tichinin suggested the following wording he substituted in Section 3: "It is the intention of the Council to complete the plan within one year, or as soon thereafter as feasible." M/S: Mallory/Jensen' to adop[ Resolution 956, as.modified. Carried unanimously. - 4 ~ AGENDA ACTION IV. PETITIONS, ORDINANCES ~ 'RESOLUTIONS A. MEASURE "A" AND RELATED ISSUES 3. Consideration of Report Mr~ T~chi~nin commented that the from Legal Counsel Re: hardship criteria imposed by the HardShip Criteria Council was acted upon on less than a 4/5 vote of the Council~ Measure "A" standards require a 4/5 vote. Councilman Watson requested re- viewing the motion that was voted on by the Council concerning hard- ship criteria. Mr. Tichinin stated the motion, the me~ing of ApriI~22~ "Set up criteria to examine under the hardship criteria standards· that relate to owner-occupied buildings to be built in the Measure A area. There are to be single lots to be owner-occupied; they do not have to.be at the building permit process; we will look at structures in pro- , gress as a.possible Measure A .exemptiOn; and we will ask for information on granting relief if · the unit would meet Measure A standards, and grant some relief from the moratorium based on that." Mayor Callon advised that shehas clarified'her intent of the motion in a memorandum to the Council this evening, requesting the Council re- view this 'and be prepared to comment at the next regular meeting. \ 4. Public Hearing on Con- sideration of Requests in Accordance with the- Provisions of Section 7 gf Measure "A", Interim Restrictions as Related to Hardship Cases a) Blackwell Homes Jim McKeehan, Attorney on behalf of (Tract 6526) -~i~lSE)~ Blackwell Homes addressed the Council Heindicated he has a Drepared state- ment which he'would like readlinto the record. "This statement is submitted for the purpose of,supporting Blackwell Homes' previously submftt~d ~equest that its residential development, commonly known as the Parker Ranch - 5 - ~ AGENDA ACTION (Jim'McKeehan - Cont'd.) be excepted from any moratorium im- it can constit~t{~hally bei~pp:lied, po~ed as a direct or indirect result and shall th~refor~e 'apply to ~.li of Measure A having, been passed and; pending deyelopments unless the adopted by the City.' Blackwell'Ho~s propertyI~,wner has, before the . request is based on two theories. effective dale'of this or~'ih~hcp~ The first theory is that'pursuant to 'both ob~;aine~ a-f~{~al ~ui.lding,"" Section 7 of Measure A, the e~tire permit ~nd· ~e'~onned~s~antia'~' Parker Ranch project shall be exemDte~ worksand incurr'ed substantial from the operation of Measure A. The liabilities in good'f~i%h reliance second theory is that under Section 8 onsaid permit after Qbtaining it.' of Measure A, the Parker P~nch is not .. ~. ~, ~" - subject to the operation of the. The obvious p~pOs. e of 'Sedtio~k8 is · initiative. Section 7 of the init{~-' to designate what projects do not ti~e provides: come within the purview of the 'Pending final comgleti~n of the- 'InitiatiVe. If a final approval requirements of Se'ction '3, no for a lot was obtained, two years zoning changes, lahd divisions, s~ prior to the effective date of divisions'~. buil'ding Or g~ading Measure A, or-if the developer has permits'fo~ cons.tructioh of a new! a finalbuilding permit and has residence, or other land develop- performed substantial work in ment approvais of a~y kind shall be good faith reliance on the permit, iss6ed in the subject area nor any ' then the Initiative does not even ' apply to those proj&cts and no application accepted therefore; · exception need be granted by a I. provided that upon a showing of 4/5ths vote of the City Council. extreme hardship and in agreement with the provisions of this initiative, eXCeptions may bel Reading Section 7 together with · Section 8, it is clear that Section granted after two.noticed public hearings by a 4/5ths v6te of the 7 is designed to deal with projects 'City Council ' that are requesting they be exempted · ' . from the operation of Measure A A reading Bf Section'7 makes it clear and Section 8 deals with projects that do not come within.the scope that the City Council, upon being 'sho~m an extreme hards'hip exists and. of Measure A. that the proposed exception would be consistent'with the purposes of the Therefore, in its application for an exemption under the hardship Initiative, may except.~ny project. provisions of Section 7 of the Act, from the interim restrictions'that are Blackwell Homes is requesting that imposed pursuant to.Section 7.. THis. its project, in its entirety, be' means that upon a prope~showing be exempted from the application.of the City Council can permit zoning Measure A, because to not do so will changes, grant building or grading ~ cause an extreme hardship, and the permits for construction of new residence~ and all other land develop- Parker Ranch development is in agreement with the purposes and pro- ment approvals necessary to construct visions of the Initiative. To and selt a. Subdivision project. support the proposition that the 'The right to' grant exceptions pursuant failure to exempt the Parker Ranch from the operation of Measure'~" to Section 7 should not be confused would constitute an extreme hardship, with'Section 8 of the Act which pro-: Blackwell Homes would like to draw vides: the Council's attention to the 'No part of this ordinance sh~ll following facts: apply to an~ lot that has. received 1. This City Council' has apparently final approval two years.or more prior to the effective date'hereofl adopted the position that economic Subject only'to the foregoing hardship is no,t ,releVant'to the con- .exception, this ordinance shall cept of extreme hardship as expressed apply to every,development to which in the Initiative. I say'apparently' ~ A~GENDA ACTION (Jim McKeehan - Cont'd.) ': ' " because the Council has said ~hat'an approximately $3,723,000'to bring owner building his own residence does' % the ~roperty.'i~tO a'eondition where qualify for extreme hardship. Such: .residential lOts~.ap_be developed a position is totally ineonsistentas and sold. This money was spent in the only hardship single and multiple good faith and in the belief that home builders suffer in a moratorium the Tentative Map'which was approved is economic. The only difference i~ by the C~ty Council and the Planning ' the multiple home builde~ suffers' Cd.mmission was !a Valid map. greater economic loss t~an the single *Essentially; ~all the money was spent home builder. Essentially, this after the Tentative ~{ap was approved Council has said that the party -: and was spent in an effort to satisfy suffering the least hardship suffers'. the various conditions of the . extreme hardship, while ~he party '- Tentative Map. From an economic suffering the most hardshfp does not'. standpoint, the amount of money the Such a position is inconsistent, developer is willing to spend on illogical and violarive of suchbasi'c a project is in'direct proportion constitutional provisions,as equal ' to the number of units that the. protection of the laws and due proce's~ developer is-permitted to build in .' :" ~ connection with.'that project. To date, Blackwell Homes has spen6 Obviously, if the number of units are $3,481,000 to develop the Parker Ranc[ gre~ter, the amount of. improvements units 1 and 'of y : is $478,000 construct are greater because the referred to in the development' cost ofthose.improvements can be · business as "off-site improvements".. spread over a wider base. it is 7' Off-site improvements are those that: elementary.that if you are going are done f6r the benefit of th& City: to build two houses, you cannot afford or are not allocable to either unit tospend $1,000,000 in'ma. king off- of the project. As was previo.us.ly site improvements because you only pointed out in the statement sub- have two houses to share the improve- mitted to the City Council at th? ment costs. Whereas, if you are- meeting on ~pril 22; 1980, a sub- going to build 100 houses,. then you ' stantial portion of the off-site can afford perhaps to build $1,000,000 improvements that were:pUt in by . 'of improvements because instead of Blackwell Homes consisted of drainage each house having to bear. one-half improvements designed to p.rotect sub~ of the cost of the improvements, divisions such as the.the A~ro~0 de' each house now only bears 1/100th .Arguello from continuing to suffer th{ of the cost of improvements. There- same historical flooding that it has: fore, Blackwell Homes'willingness suffered in the past. This flooding. to spend over $3,700,000 to develop was not caused or aggravated by the · the property and install the off-. development'of PaCker Ranch. .At the; site impTovements that were re-' City's request, Blackwell Homes has quested by the City was a direct spent a large sum of money to protec~ function of the number of units that downstream:subdivisions from drainage 'the City permitted Blackwell to. con- problems which are. not caused or re- struct. To modify the number of lated to the development of'the units that Blackwell Homes is Blackwell property. To re'quire permittedto build on the project Blackwell Homes to. spend a large sum would substantially adversely affect' of money to protect other homeOwners- the economic feasibility' of the pro- and solve their drainagepr6blems, ject, as each home will have to and' then prevent Blackwell. fr6m bear.,a larger portion of the cost developing their o~rn property w6uld be of the porject. Needless to say, the height 'of inequity. Additionally,~.',a~,!~me'poifff; 'the market will not from a financial standpoint, Blackwell p~rmit th&;ho~esto be sold for a Homes has obligated itse:lf to spend an price necessary,~to recover the additional $235,000 to complete the , cost. of all the improvements. At improvements that were requiredby t~e that Point, th~ proje&t becomes not Tentative Map approval.' Upon com- ' :,only~ ~c6pa~i~ltygRfeasible, but pletion'of these improvements, a substantial amgu~t of money will Blackwell Homes will have spent '.:. - 7 - ~ ~ AGENDA ACTION (Jim McKeehan - C0nt'd.) be lost because the houses cannot be improvement costs per home is marketed at a price necessary to re- tripled. With land vatue~ included turn all of the investment that was in Unit I, the lot cost goes from required by the City. Surely, this. $228,000 to $397,285, and in Unit II, kind of economic imDact creates an from $248,000 to .$434,782. extreme hardship and is the type that Tragically, the home buyer'~[ill was contemDlated by Section 7 of gets 'the same lot... Measure A. 4. A fourth problem which the 2. In addition to the monies that City must address is that Subdivision have already been spent, should a Map '6528 was granted a one-year moratorium be imposed which would in- extension on February 27, 1980. This clude the Parker Ranch, Blackwell 'means that'the Final Map must be Homes would be compelled to carry the recorded on or before February 27, property during the moratorium period 1981, and that prior to the recording At the present cost of money,.the cos of the Final Map, all of the con- of carrying the Drolect is aDproxi- ditions imposed by the Tentative Map mately $10,000 p~r ~eek, plu~what-' must be met. The'Final Map for ever re~l property taxes are assessed 6528 is presently before the City against the property~ This cost will Staff for its review in connection eventually be passed on to the home with Blackwell Homes' request for buyers which means that the'~uyers Final Map approval. Should the will be paying more and getting less. City impose a moratorium pursuant because a portionof what they will be to Measure A, theoreticaliy, that paying will go to pay the finance moratorium will l~st for at least charges of carrying the property, one year, and could last longer~if which money has not produced any the Specific Plan that is to be better product for the ultimate con- developed pursuant to the Initiative ~umer. Additionally,'should the takes longer than one year to de- number of units be reduced, the pro- velopo This would mean that the portionate amount of the carrying Final Map could not be aDDroved costs that each homeox~ner will have tc prior to the date of~exp{~ation, bear will increase and there is the which is February 27, 1981. potential for the same type of prob-= Essentially, this would mean that lem that was previously noted above, the City had approved a Tentative namely, at some point the ~arket will Map for Blackwell Homes' Parker not bear the cost that will have to be Ranch development; that Blac~ell charged to the houses in order to Homes had done substantially ~11 redeem the amount of money that was the improvements requested and spent put into the property to develop it. in excess of $2,.000,000 satisfying those Conditions; and that the City 3. If this Council does not think refused to process the Final Map, that hardship to the developer is thereby forcing the Map to die important, perhaps it will consider because it did not get approved hardship to the future citizens of :within the time limit set forth your City. Much is made of the cost by the City's Ordinance. It is of housing in Santa Clara County. Ouz difficult to think of a more engineer computed the increased cost- inequitable position than the City Der'lot caused solely by spreading th~ requiring certain work to be done cost of improvements the City has re- within a specified time in order to quired' over the minimum number of .obtain a Final Map, that work being units Measure A would permit accordin~ done at great cost and then the City to the City Staff's re~ort versus the refusing to process the Map, thereby number of units presently allocated. killing the Map because the time Parker Ranch. In Unit I, the improve- limitations have expired. This type ment cost goes from $78,090 per home of hardshiD is clearly the type that to $247,285. In Unit.II, the improve- the City Council should avoid when ment costs go from $97,425 per home exercising its discretion to exempt to $284,782. In other words, the projects from the operation of MeaSure A. - 8 ~ AGENDA ~ ACTION -' (Jim.~{.cKeehan - Co{~t'd.) "" ' ' ~' '~ .5. Based upon the approval of the' being able to make the improvements Tentative Map and with regard to thereby suffering a severe and un- Subdivision 6526, based upon the warranted further financial loss approval of the Final Map,..Blackwel! while the City would receive an Homes has entered into contracts with inequitable windfall. third parties and obligated themselves to spend money and'have in fact spent 7. Blackwell Homes has also money pursuant to those third party, entered into a Maintenance Agreement contracts. For example, Blackwell with the City of Saratoga regarding Homes has entered into a contract with the landscaping, wherein Blackwell the Sanitary District and has done HOmes ~as agreed to maintain land- approximately $85,000 of work which. scaping in the project for a.period Blackwell Homes was bonded to perform. of two years and then for the home- Additionally, Blackwell Homes had paid -owners association to maintain the .~o-.San ~_~ Works $57,'000, which was landscaping. Blackwell Homes has to be refunded as people connected to spent approximately $62,000 on land- the system and haveobligafed.them-i scaping to date, 'and unless the' selves to spend another $35',000 for~ main'tenance is done, the landscaping .. materials which San Jose Water Works will be lost. Specifically, if the " purchased for the construction of t~e~ existing landscapingis not adequately construction of the storage' tank for watered in khe summer months,.it Unit 2. Additi0nall~, Blackwell ~ will Certainly be destrqyed. If. .has contracted With.'Pacific Gas'and. the City of Saratoga is to stop all Electric Company and ha~ deposited Z ,~construction of.the Parker Ranch, - '$~6,000 which is to be reimbursed asr then it is asSumed'.that Blackwell home p~rchaserS conneCt. to. their , Homes will not be permitted to system. To prevent the construction~ maintain the landscaping. On the' of ParkerRanch woul~ mean that wor~ other hand,'if the City permits for the Sanitary Distritt.wouldbe- Bl'ac~ell Homes'to maintain the land- fo~ naught. All the-.money deposited scaping, then it should also permit to San Jose Water Works andlPacific Blackwell Homes to.construct out the Gas and Electric Co..might well be balance. of its units because the same . lostin its entirety. It is to be logic that permits the maintaining of remembered that on the one hand, the: the landscaping would also permit City of Saratoga required Blackwell' Blackwell Homes to construct out its Homes to do these things and Blackw~l project so that it will not lose the Homes,'based on thos'e requirements and behefit of the money and improve-. in good fai~h~ did' them. .To'now ~ ments i~has installed tO date. change direction in midstream would Theoretically, saving the land-' work an'extreme financial hardship On "' scaping would~be done because th~ · Blackwell. Homes, as well as discredit ~'.~it~w~d~di~nSt ~a~t to.see the money th'e integrity o~ the City. ~ '-. for the landscaping lost. Onthe other hand, Blac~qell Homes has 6. In connection with the develop-' spent'considerablq more money on ment of the Parker Ranch. and at the. ~' the imp~gveTnents and'development of request of the City, Blackwell Ho~eS' t~'Par~er 'Ranch,'and' if the main- has submitted improvement Plans and tenance .of the landscaping is to be bonded those plans.. There. iS a one-. permitted so that a $62,000 invest- year time limitation for the con- ment is not lost, then ~ertainly struction of those improvements, and' the completion of the Parker Ranch with the proposed moratorijm, it'WiI1 ~ should b~ permitted so that a $481,000 be impos'sible to construct the investment tis not lost. impro~ements,'although Blackwell Homes is bonded for them. This could place 8. Blackwell Homes has deposited · ., Blackwell Homes in the position.of ~. with the City a cash bond of $5,000 losing its entire bonded ~mount;'no~ to assure that the grading is com- ~' pletedon Prospect Road. If there ~ AGENDA ACTION (Mr. MeKeehan - Cont!d.) lis to be a moratorium, then is the slopes, potential landsliding and. ,'.~ity 'to return the cash bond or is other geotechnical hazards, develop- grading to-be~ompleted? If the ~ ment at the maximum densi,~y allowed grading is not to be.completed,. then 'under the present zoning requires it is possible that the work that is excessive grading, unacceptable to be done to ProSpect Road'will be erosion, destruction of natural lost and if the City would eveS want topography and degradation of' the benefit of that work in the " natural drainage systems,- all 'con- future,.it will have to do the work: trary to the objectives of the itself. General Plan. (3) Maintenance of streets and storm drains of new 9. At the present time, Blackwell! hillside development pose~ financial Homes holds 4 building permits and ~as risk for the City. begun pouring.foundations on those lots. Assuming the City is to per- 'It would appear to Blackwell Homes mit further constructiDnon those 4. that if the problems that are noted lots, then the question arises as to above have been dealt with in a what off-site improvements the City proposed development, then an is going to require Blackwell!Homes exception based on extreme hardship to complete in order to build out and of that deve.lopment would be con- sell the 4 lots. Certainly, the City sistent with the provisions of the is not going to require that Blackwell initiative. Homes make all the improvements 6hat were set forth on the TentAtive Map With regard~to the Pierce Road prob- for'those improvements were based on lem that was noted, the City Council's 95 homes being constructed. It Would attention is dra~,~n to the fact that be economically unfeasible to spread the access between Pierce Road and the cost of improvements over 4 the 26 lots of the Parker Ranch houses, and therefore, the City must subdivision that connect to Pierce address the issue of what improvement~ Road is such that the point of · -are required i£ the 4 lots are per- connection is to a portionof Pierce mitted to be built out. : Road which ~s a relatively straight line road'and is not part of the Based on the factual situations that: 'portion of Pierce Road which is are set forth above, Blackwell Homes. referred to in the Initiative as respectfully submits that a showing of being hazardous. Additionally, in extreme hardship has been made. T~iS 'connection with the Parker Ranch, being the fact, the next question is it would be relatively simple to whether or not an exception to the 7 tie together the Parker Ranch and Parker Ranch would be in agreement Star Ridge Court Streets, thereby with the provisions of the Initiative providing secondary access for Toward that end, it is important to those 26 lots. This alternative review the purposes of the Initiative access would not involve undue cost Section 1 of the Initiative deals'witI or destruction of rural character findings. Subparagraph (d) states: asia.the concern expressed in the "Development experience since 1974 findingsset forth above. indicates that these problems are con- siderably more serious than contem-. With regardSto the slopes and geo- plated in 1974. Specifically, (1). The technical hazards which are discussed only access to the areais Pierce Road in the findings, those problems have which is hazardous even at the present been thoroughly examined and miti- rate of traffi.c. Moreover, the only gation measures have been incorpor- solution to improving access is to ated in the Tentative Map for the make ~_~xpe~ve improvements to Pierce Parker Ranch project. The Parker Road or to~ons truct an alternative Ranch project has had geotech~ical access road, both of which would in- studies, geological studies, soils' vo!ve undue cost and destruction of: studiesland erosion and landscaping rural character. (2) Because of steep - 10 ~ AGENDA ACTION (Mr. McKeehan - Cont'd.) studies. These studies have been con- area, as common area, as well as dueted-by experts.,_-revfewed--by--o.the~ ~a n~o~c%n~gtX{sgmgRtg recommendations of all those' parties of the project area.. Additionally have been incorporated in the finhi. ridge route home ~i~eS"ha~d been design aspects of the Parker Ranch. eliminated'to preserve the scenic The positioning of the s'treets and ~he beauty of the ridges. design of fie home sites have taken. into eohsideration all of the geoteeh- The above suimary establishes clearly nical findings. The houses have be~n that the development' meets all of designed to fit the terrain. Grading the concerns and purposes that are has been done by contouring and expressed in the findings of erosion control and landscaping has. Measure A. Therefore, Blackwell been incorporated in the entire pro-2 Homes requests that the City jeer. Each lot has its own foundstier Council instruCt. the City .Staf~ to review and appr0val<ih'd.when appro- process the Final ~ap for Subdivision priate~retainfng' walli have been 6528; process building--permits for interpolated to alleviate excessive· both ~aps 6526 and 6528; and grant grading. Natural drainage has b~in' all other,?permits ordinarily improved, over-grazing will be elimin- necessary to construct the residen- inated and previously uncontrolled tial subdivision. run-off will be halted. Blackwell· Homes suggests respectfully and In the beginning of this statement, it was noted that the second ground anticipates that the City and County will agree that the slope and land-' for not applying MeasUre A to the - Parker Ranch was based on the theory slide problems and other geetechnical hazards that could have been created that Section 8 specifically excludes as a result of developing the Parke~ Parker Ranch from the scope of the Ranch have been studied,'resthdied Initiative. Section 8 provides that and provided for in the designnor'the the ordinance shall apply to those projects. An example is the fact that developments to which it can coneli-. the ancient landslide area has been. tutionally be applied. This means dedicated to open space. Additionally, that if the ordinance cannot be the development does not provide fo~ eons~itutionally applied to a project, the maximum density which wou!d be then it should not be. In-that permissible under HC-RD zoning as ease, there would be no necessity maximum density would permit 105 lots for the City Council to grant an and the Parker Ranch has 95 lots. exemption. All that is necessary Hith regard to maintenance of streets is that the City Council find that and storm drains, Blackwell Homes the ordinance cannot constitutionally would like to call to the attention' be applied to the project and there- of the City Council that the streets:.* fore, the limiting provisions of the ordinance would have~no application have been designed to the highest engineering standards and the storm to the project. In this case, it is the position of Blackwell drains have been over-de~igned to 'that cohstitutionally ~easurefdB~'s~N .eliminate problems previously exper-! fenced in older developments. The not apply to any portion of the streets that are being constructed ! Parker Ranch project. In light of and the storm drains that have been. the money that has been spent and constructed will be cheaper to main- the progress which has been made by Blackwell Homes in development of lain than other streets and storm drains in the City that have not been the Parker Ranch, all based on the in accordance with the latest speei- Tentative Hap approvals and other · approvals given by the City of fitaliens. Saratoga, to halt the project at Concerning open space, the project has the present time, clearly yiolates dedicated 67 acres or 30% of the entix ~he principles laid.doxrnby the Supreme Court in Youngblood vs. - 11 - / AGENDA ACTION (Mr. McKeehan - Cont'd. Board of Supervisors.. T~ stop de- .~ounci~p~qp.~e are not judges or veloDmentof the four lots in which =.~aW~er~% ~HOw~r~, having assumed Councilmen,~~ Blac~¢ell Homes already has building the pO'Sition~of'City also assum~ perknits and has done substantial wS~k the City Council must in good faith.would vi6late the p~inci the burdens of the office. As part pals laid down in Transoceanic O~1 of{the bu~d~n's ~f 'C~e office is the Corp. vs. Santa Barbaral -.. fact-that if thel City.Council vio- lates the consitional rights of a Furthermore, to say that-Measure A personS' they are personally subject applies to Tentative MaDs Which to a sUi~ in federal court for have p'~eviously been approved by.the damages caused by the violation of City of Saratoga would violate that right.~ This principle has been Blackwell Homes' right to equal pro= recently expressed by the United tection under the law as the City of States Supreme Court in the case of Saratoga has for some time had within Owen vs. City of Independence, its own ordinances a provision statin Missouri, which decision was issued that the cutoffdate for determining by the Uni'ted States Supreme Court whether a site meets the legal area, on April 15, 1980. In that case, frontage, width and depth r~quireme~t the Supreme Cou.~t held that the of-the respective zoning.regulations. city and individual city council . of-the City of.Saratoga was to be people of the City of Independence, determined at the time tha Tentativ~ Missouri were liable for suit brought Map was approved. Furthermore, pursuant to Section 42 USC Section 'Section 8.5, Appendix A of the CitY l 1983 wherein the plaintiff claims of Saratoga Zoning Drdinance/p~ovideZs that the defendent city and its that Final Maps mus.t comply with law's officers violated his constitutional applicable at the time the Tentative' right to due'process. It must. be Map is approved. To apply different~ noted that the case specifically held criteria to the application ~f that there was no immunity based on Measure A seems to. be not only incon- good faith and that whether or not s{stent zoning butan unequal appli-. the City Council or the City acted -cation of the law in violation of the in good faith was not a defense to Equal Protection provisions of the the action. If the action of this United States Constitution. City'Council results. in the violation Additionally, as the Initiative hasI pl of a constitutional right and subse- provision for compensating landowners quent damages, this City and its whose property is to be tied up in a: City Council people are liable for moratorium, the Act constitutes a ~ those damages. I remindsyou at the .' taking of property and the use of that present time Blackwell Homes is proDerty without compensation, andis suffering damages of not less than in violation of the Fifth Amendment $10,000 per week. of the United States Cons·titution and Article I, Section 14 of the Californ~ Let me. say, Blackwell Homes has no COnstitution.. desire to bring a lawsuit against the City or any of its governing For the reasons expressed above, -members to recover damages for Blackwell Homes would respectfully r~- violation of its constitutional quest that its project be determined: rights. However, .BlackWell Homes not to be subject to MeaSure A and 'L~- is not in the position to have in- that a'finding be made by the City vested $3.7 million and to permit t~e -' 'Council t~at constitutionally the ~ City to.-unilaterally withdraw its project 'is not subject to~th~.pro- approval of that project and signi- visiohs of the.Initiative. ficantly alter the nature of the · ~ project, which alterations could At thi~ point, Blackwell Homes would well result in the project becoming like to express that it'is .aware'of a'financial disaster 'to Blackwell the fact that the City ~ouncil is no~ Ho~es. Needless to say, if such is a ~ourt of .law and that the' Cit~. t ~th'e ca~land s~oUtd .those facts - 12 ~. ,,, AGENDA ACTION (Mr. McKeehan - Cont'd.) ~ evolve, Blackwell Homes will have no Mr. Crowther, 20788 Norada Court, alternative but t6 look to the City commented that he believes it is and its-governing body for compen- ' ridiculous in any way for Blackwell sation. However, I want to'reiter.ate Homes to hold the City Council re- that Blackwell Homes considers such sponsible, as all it is doing is an approach to be unnecessarX and ' enforcing a measure which the public th~ '~f @~I-i'~:i~ ~h~' 'F~'s~'=fh~Fe~'~ ,i passed. Section of' Measure A 'speci- of all' ~r%~i~ '{6~ YtF~'~{~'~{1'~ fically indicates that "upon showing to properly review'this request ahd~ of extreme hardship and in agree- grant what we consider to be a valid ment with the provisions of this claim for'either a hardship exemption initiative that the Council may or in the alternative, a finding tha't grant exceptions." Therefore, he cqnstitutionally the Initiative does believes any exception the Council not apply to the Parker Ranch project. grants has to be in agreement with .... the provisions of the Initiative. Mr. Crowther made specific reference Councilwoman Jensen inquired of Mr. to the density issue and the straight Tichinin if therewere details'on line slope density versus density the Independence, Missouri case. ~ formula, p'ointing out that the present Saratoga ordinances use a Mr. Tichinin commented that he com- straight-line slope density equation. Dietely disagrees with Mr. McKeehan's conclusion in this casethatcoUncil Mr. Crowther commen~ed he belie~e~ members arein any way liable when it is inappropriate to include cost they are acting in good faith. The, considerations that date back to the case held that the City could be held first application on.this project, liable if it had violated the consti- in that there was previous approval tutional rights of the complaining of this project and a referendum party, butso long as the public of the Council's decision, which was official as .an individual conducted put to ballot and the public Voted .himself in good faith, he was immune. it down. CoUncilwoman Jensen requested Mr. With respect to off-site improvements, McKeehan submit names of people who ~ Mr. Crowther commented that the EIR have interest in the corporation that for this project indicates Prospect he represents. Creek flow rates would be increased by 30%. He indicated he believes the Mr. McKeehan indicated Blackwell Home: improvements that were made would be consists of.3 separate corpo{ations:. a'questionable adequacy if the Jack Blacl~ell, Inc., Ken Blackwell, development went ahead as planned, Inc., and Northern California Savings and there is litigation with re- and Loan. spect to this. He indicated there are 2 law suits involved -- one is COuncilman Mallory requested Mr. related to the Circulation Element. McKeehan provide more specifics con- There is a law suit specifically cerning number of lots and financialr related to the project; part of the impact. basis for this is that the open space element of the Saratoga General Mr. McKeehan indicated he i~laware ! Plan is inadquate and Saratoga has not': .there are different interpretations ~' passed a valid open space z0ningr~ of Measure A, as far as density. The o~dinance to implement its open one which they have adopted is the ~ space action programs. He further one prepared by the Cit~ Staff.~ The~ expressed concerns relevant to have taken the improvement costs for' geologic and hydrology studies, the lots, spread this. over 95 units,; indicating these studies are not and then spread this over the number7 complete and the impacts of flooding of units in the City Staff's memorandu of Calabazas are-still unknown. 'thatthey would have under Measure'A,: which is 33. 13 - ~ AGENDA · ACTION IV. PETITIONS, ORDI~]ANCES, RESOLUTION: (Mr. Swartz~.Cont~'d.) (Cont'd.) asslignme~tsb and a number of 0the~ A. ~ASURE "A" AND RELATED ISSUES personal hardships whf.ch h~ye~n~' ~'.' P~ii~"~'e~{~'~ ~on-' "'~ direct ~elations.hip to econom!c~ · .--,- Also, he believes the Council should ' ~iderat{oh' df~e~e~ ~n look very seriously, if they ~o Accordance with the Pro- get near economic interest, at the visions of Section 7 of.: question of land'values and house Measure "A", Interim · values. Restrictions as Related tO Hardshi~ Cases Vince Garrod, Mt. Eden Road, commented thatlit ~hOuld~e-re~ a) Blackwell Homes, ~ membered that'this ~ubdivis~on (Tract 6526) - lst) has been well planned and well thought.:out and engineered. Also, (Mr...Crowther - Cont'd.) it has :to be fe~ognize~ ~ha~ ~.. Saratoga needs hOUsing.of ~om~. ~;!'.. Mr~ Crowther stated he believes kind, although it doesn't necessarily there would be adequate basis for need increasingly more expensive stopping everything, including the housing. Also, it is.important to 4 building permits that have alread~ remember tha.t a city is a place to 'been issued'i If they'are permitted' live in,-not'a place 'f0~' somebody. to go ahead with the 4 building ~' to drive through and look 'at.' He sites.that have been approved, this urged that the City Council in should be done so that it will not: using its discretion, to be con- interfere with the Circulation Plan siderate and fair, and recogpize Also, he believes they should meet the obligations that other people the criteria of Measure A -- : have put up, aS there is no other particularly the density criteria'.~ hardship than economics, He:indicated that he believes . ~lm0s~ ~ey '~e~bpment that has Mr. McKeehen requested that the ~e~'~ppr~v~'~fi'the' hills probabl~ council provide direction with has very strong economic criteria, respect to landscaping on the and if you open it for one, the Parker Ranch at the present time. City would have to open'it for '- everybody and it would"defeat the~ .It was the concenshs of the Council purpose and function of what the to allow maintenance of landscaping. voters passed, (Mrs. Jensen in opposition.) Mayor Callon ordered that the .. -Willem Kohler, Via Regina, commente~ public hearing be continued to · regarding the subject of economics. June 4, 1980. He suggested the City Council look: atclustering in a wider perspective b) McBain & Gibbs,'Ind.' than in the past. He stated that (Tract 6628'; lst) he is convinced that a developer ; could come out economically better! The Mayor opened the publ{~ hea~ing · if he could condense their plans, · at 9:40 P.M. resulting in less homes, larger " homes, and a tremendously less cost Marvin Burns, Attorney-representing' in improvements and energy savings, McBain add Gibbs, Inc., addressed the Council. He pointed'out that- Jeffrey SwartZ, San Mardos Road, McBain and Gibbs are the owners of commented he believes there are Tract 6628, which was approved other considerations which are non- unanimously as a subdivision by' economiC, and he ~ould urge that f Resolution 1354-1, on November 7, the Council consider these kinds. 1979. The tract consiSt~ of'44 of hardship rather than economic acres and 19 lots. O~'of!=th&_7: hardship. Examples.ef these migh~~ ,t~rfnhip~'.'-~s~7:~a~i~T~o 'resides be: children!~ timing in Switching {n~sa~afisF~-~l-~he~ ... "schools, people switching job grading and building permits 'for '· - 14 - AGENDA' . ACTION MarVin Burns.- Cont'd.). the constrUction'of Subdivision im-! requires that a legislative body of provements, and then to build houses'. a city or County. shall deny approval on the 19 lots. of a final or tentaCive map if it · makes any of the following findings. I must emphasize that our.purpose, as Amonst them is that the site is not is the purpose-of Blackwell Homes., is physically suitable' for'the type of not to fight with anyone, not to ca~S~ development. That"finding waS~'ot law suits; not to threaten-anyone, bu~)~made. ~Th·e other-findings of .~he as a matter of procedure'and practice ,S~di~isiS~ M~p.'Act were not made. we must raise all the matters w~ in=. because the tract maps, both tenta- tend to .raise in a law suit so that: tive and final, were 'approved. you are advised of our p'osltion. ~ ~ ,.. Hence, ~ll,:of ,th~ items that are '. Also, it is fair tO you. to know wha.t[· addreSs~'d'by~Measure A have been our position is. .I think it would b!e addre~e~ by the City. Council, by the unfair .~6~'to'~6i~f~8~7'6~tT~' ~igh~ Ciqy ~. Saratoga, and they have been have in~i~dd'ai'Y~i~i~.!f~bi~l~fe'~i~ ' found {n' favor of the development of a law suit. the tract. To now say that they -- are in viOla~ionof the ordinance The tract is located.at.the end of iS Ito Ery:in'~he face of the pre- Tollhouse Road. It is.not off of or vious approval~ and I don't think connected to Pierce Road. This tra~t you legally havelthe power to do has had a final map approved, andin. that. connection with that approval, the City and the owner entered into a The ordinance further, being a contract, which is dated October ~9, moratorium,.has been enacted in 1979. In the'event that our'clien~ ~ violation of ~SV~D~h~d~:~eji~ibn is unable to proceed'with the develop- 65858, which prescribes the only' mentof this tract, it is our view me'thod in Califqrnia for the enactment that'the initiative impairs the of a moratorium. It is limited to obligation of the contract, which is. 4-month periods initially, and-then constitutionally forbidden; that the 8-month periods. Enactment of a actions of.the City Council interfere moratorium by initiative by a city, with their Drospect~ve'economic' as distringuished from ~e State (the advantage and their ability to reali~z~ Coastal Act is the most prominent that it is a breach of contract, for'. moratorium), is forbidden in effect, which the City'is liable. : because the State of California.has ' pre-empted or occupied the area -- With respect to the ordinance~ the the City is powerless to act. You development thatis about to take as representatives of the people place on this tract is consistent wi.t~ could not enact a moratorium, except the ordinance. First of alI, it does in compliance with the Government not have access to Pierce Road. Its Code 'section, and the people cannot access is via Tollgate Road, and a either. The ordinance itself has limited ~cceSs for emergency purposes. an exception for lots for which via Canyon View Drive. There is no final approval has been obtained geotechnical hazard on the property,. 2 years prior to its effective. which has not.been addressed or re-+ date. There is no apparent reason solved in the subdivision approval -why 2 y~ars is the marker. Why process by either yod or your prede-~ isn't it 1 year or 6 months or 1 cessors. The Council of this city month or whatever? That being so, has approved this subdivision. "In the ordinance violates the Equal that connection, it has made all the Protection clause of the Constitution findings that were.requiredby, and to which Mr. McKeehan referred, and has not found the things prohibited under which we all.live. Further, by, the Subdivision Map Act. The the exception apparently that is Subdivision Map Act covers each of the sought for owner-builders, is dis- recitals of the Initiative. So tha6, tinguished from builders of two for. example, the Subdivision Map Act or more lots, would likewise violate ~ the Equal Protecti. on clause. We 15 - " ~ ~ ° AGENDA ACTION S~/~ (Marvin Burns - Cont'd. do not believe there is'any difference stitutional rights, and that he between an owner-builder and a person was entitled to monetary damages. or corporation building 2 lots or 8 California Supreme Court held that he lots or 19 lots. Further, the initi- was not entitled to monetary damages ative is invalid because it performs -- that his sole remedy was fora an adjudicative, rather than legis- Writ of Mandate. The U. S. Supreme lative, function. We believe the law Court accepted the jurisdiction, is that determining for a specific which they don't ordinarily do in limited area, whether or not a mora-. cases of such character, and they torium should be granted -- whether or are about to decide it. If the not certain zoning regulations should result is, as I suspect that it be had -- whether or not it should will be, that a down-zoning which be treated in a special manner -- is reduces value appreciably results in an adjudicative matter, not a legis- a denial of constitutional 'rights, lative matter. Adjudicative matters then it follows that a moratorium are not the proper subject of an for a year or more which deprives initiative. There is a case in Suprem~ you of all economic use during that Court now awaiting hearing called period of time, likewise deprives Arnel vs. City of Costa Mesa, in you of constitutitional rights. which the lower courts held that a Our position is that this city, as similar ordinance of the City of Costa I indicated previously, has given Mesa was ruled to be invalid as an McBain & Gibbs final discretionary initiative measure because it applied approval of the development so that to a limited area, rather than to a the ordinance cannot constitutionally general area of the city, and to all be applied to them. You cannot, zones within the city. In that con- under due process of law, say to a nection, since it is an adjudicative person, "Go ahead, spend a lot of matter, McBain and Gibbs' consituti6nal money, do your thing with respect right to procedural due process -- to this land, and then while they're notice and hearing -- has been vio~ doing it ~- actively spent the lated because they have not had an money and obligated themselves -- say opportunity to be heard on the issue to them, you can't do that." If as to whether or not their land should you were in their position, you be subjected to the initiative< It would feel put upon, and I am sure is automatically subjected to. ~he they do. We believe that since initiative, and there is apparently McBain & Gibbs, in reliance upon only one out, and that is the finding the permission that you gave them, of hardship, which you are about have expended substantial sums of to define in a very limited way. money, which I will detail; they have Enforcement of the ordinance, as a vested constitutional right to pointed out by Mr. McKeehan, in terms proceed with their development, to of a moratorium, will take property. complete their subdivision and to without due process of law. That is build their houses. We also believe to say that our client will bepro- that the ordinance is unconstitu- ~ · hibited for a year or more from using tionally vague, wherein it defines its land, in any economic way. W~ "hardship." You apparently are submit that that is a violation of having trouble deciding what hardship constitutional right; that it is a means as, used in ~e ordinance. violation of elemental decency and The vagueness that is apparent to fairness; and that it is simply wrong you is a constitutional informity to say to someone for a year or more ,in the ordinance. I don't believe -- some indifinit.e period of time -- that you can defin~ it'. The people "Your land is not useable for any i who were up here p~iously seem economic purpose." Egans vs. the City' to have different views as to what of Tiburon is before the U. S. Supreme it meant -- one man thought it meant Court. We.expect thgt it will be economic hardship, thinking there decided within the next month or so~ was no~other kind; another man ~. That case involved down-zoning of land thought it was personal hardship, in the City of Tiburon in which there thinking there was no other kind. was some economic value left~ The I submit' that the word "hardship" result of that was the property owner is not sufficiently defined. Hard- claimed that he had been denied con~ ship is in the eye of the beholder. When rules of l~w are in the eye of - 1~ - AGENDA ACTION ~(Ma~vin BUrns - Cont'd.) the beholder, we become a government struction sub-contract outstanding of men and not a government of laws,' of $475,000. They have a contract and that is constitutionally forbidden with the San Jose Water District, We believe that the ordinance to the which they have paid for, and they extent that it prevents the building have a contract with County Sani- of houses, interferes with thecon~ tation District No. 4. If the stitutional right to travel, and that donstruction contract is not it is an apparent applicationof the implemented by the end of May, failure of the City of Saratoga to the prices that are quoted will supply its fair share of housing to, expire. Recent experience in the the regional district to which it building of subdivision improve- belongs. That requirement that ments indicates price increases Saratoga supply its fair share of of approximately 1%% per month. housing (fair share of affordable We know they can't really work housing) is a requirement that was after October 1st, so that be- imposed by the Supreme Court of Cal- tween now and October 1st, those ifornia in a recent case. It behooves construction improvements have to you to heed the views of your City be installed. If they aren't they Attorney in that regard. Your actions will lose a year. If they are not are driving the price of housing in granted a hardship exemption, or your region and in your city up beyond you decide that the ordinance does the reasonable expectation of any , not constitutionally apply to person today. We believe that thel them -- which is another possi- ordinance violates a variety of con- bility -- then they will suffer stitutional rights. ~en you violate from this loss. If they.!are per- a constitutionallright, you violate mitted ultimately by a court or a federal statute.(Mr. Tichi~in a~d by another dity council or by Mr. McKeehan engaged in an exchange, whatever, to improve the property, which the M~yor quieted, concerning the cost will have increased by the possibility that the town might the number I indicated. If it is be liable, regardless of its good a one-year increase. If it is a faith.) That's the law-- you might!. one-year increase of 18%, the price be liable individually even though · would increase at $85,500. We you believe that you're dealing in have a market for housing that is good faith, if a jury of your peers now entering a favorably phase decides that you'weren't, and that because interest rates are de- hardly anyone can predict. Our feelin clining. A year from now we don't is that"in light of the advice that know what the situation will be -- you have been given, a serious questi~ they could be higher or they could arises as to whether or not you are. be lower. But for the moment, the dealing in good faith when you deny market is favorable. Absent the these developers the opportunity to' ability to proceed promptly, they complete their developments. I don!t will lose the favorable market. mean to insult you and I don't mean If theylre unable to build and to threaten you -- but I do feel that unable to go forward, they will be .it is fair that I tell you. It is not foreclosed upon, and they will a decision that I will make; it is not suffer an extreme economic hard- a decision that you will make; it is ship. Each of the individuals are not a decision Mr. Tichinin will make; guarantors of a loan; the United but it is a decision that a jury will California Bank has a choice of make, in the event these people are methods for foreclosure, and one continuously deprived of their con- of the methods could result in - stitutional rights. McBain & Gibbs personal liabilit~ -- at least one will suffer extreme hardship -- of the methods. They have expended economic hardship -- and eventually all but $200,000 of the following personal hardship -- if this moratoriu~ amount after approval of the ten- is kept in effect as it'applies to tative subdivision map is the key- them. They have a 'construction loan stone approval because under the that is due.in November 1980 in the Youngblood case, you have very sum of $900,000. %he interest on little to do with the final map as that loan is $15,500 per month at long as the conditions of the current rates. They have a con- tentative map are met. They 17 - ~:~ ~ ~, AGENDA ACTION ~ (Mar~in BUrns - Cont'd.) expended the following sums, with the 4. Consideration of Size and exception df $200,000: Composition of Citizens Cbramittee for Implementation Land Acquisition - $526,855.93 ~' of Measure A Interest to sellers as of approx April 15 - $37,755.31 It was the concensus of the Topographical Survey - $1,588.29 Counc~t to continue to accept Fees to the City of Saratoga (sums applications, and to appoint they paid this city for permission a committee from the applications to proceed) - $91,960.00 received. E.I.R. - $2,460.00 Soils $1,128.48 Cash Bond - $2,000 Improvement-Bonds $14,440.00' Terre Search Soils Engineers - $10,865.5~ Real Estate Taxes' $1,969.15 San Jose Water Co. Bond - $6,400.00 Contract paid for installation of water facilities $215,330 Landscape Architect - $3,368.50 Sanitation District Fees - $8,080.00 Subdivision Tax Bond - $3,815.72 Noack and Associates, Civil Engineers - $30,000 PrOperty 'Owners?Assoc. - $2,800.00 Miscellaneous Direct Expenses $850.17 Interest to United California Bank thru 3/31/80 $40,027.36 Interest to United California Bank thru 4/30/80 $15,1500.00 TOTAL (approximately) - $1,017,000.00 That, I submit, is hardship. We ur= gently request that you approval an exemption from the application of this ordinance tO McBain & Gibbs, either on the ground of hardship or upon the ground that the ordinance does not. constitutionally apply to our clients. Councilwoman Jensen commented that she has taken as complete notes as she can, and has questions with respect to 'every detail cited by Mr. Burns. Mayor Callon indicated that the CouHcil might want to look at the legal briefs that were filed in the initial suit against Measure A, and the judge's opinion that was issued at that time. There being no further public ~rti-I cipation, the hearing was continued to June 4, 1980. 18 - ~ ~ ,~ AGENDA ACTION IV. PETITIONS, ORDINANCES, P~SOLUTIONS "' (Cont'd.) B. RESOLUTIONS RE: LANbSCAPING The City Manager explained this is AND LIGHTING DISTRICT, LLA-1 a mechanism to continue the'effective- ~ ness of the three park maintenance '1. ReSolution 950-A, districts, and the lighting districts Resolution Appointing which currently are in operation in Attorneys the City of Sartoga, and have run into problems due to passage of 2. Resolution 950-B, Proposition 13, in that the levies Resolution of Preliminary from taxes on property have not been Approval of Engineer's sufficient to fund those districts. Report The dollars will be spread on the basis of benefit, rather than 3. Resolution 950jC,. ad valorem tax. This is a way.of Resolution of Intention me~t~ng theintentions of Propo- to Order the Formation of' ;.-sitio~ 13, But yet-, having enough An Assessment District and funds generated in those areas of Levy and Collection of park~aintenance or lighting to Assessment PurSuant to ~ have'those o,perations 'continue. Landscaping and Lighting. .." ~ ~' Act of 1972. Mrl Sho6M,'Direct0r of Public works, outlinEd.his staff report, dated 5/1/80, providing further explana~ tion conderning this proposal. M/S: Clev~g~/M~llory toadopt Resolutions 950-A, 950-B,. and 950-C. Carried unanimously. Recess and reconvene V. PUBLIC HEARINGS PUBLIC'HEARINGS A. CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENT'TO' Meg ~bnroe of Ironside and AssociateS. THE HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE ~ summarized the report which was 1974 GENERAL PLAN (Co~t'd. made to the Council the previous 4/16/80 week, relative to the Draft Housing Element. Mayor Callon then opened the public hearingat 10:45 P.M. Marge Bunyard,' 12625 Miller Ave., indicated there is a petition with signatures representing a broad section of people in.the community. Said petition reads as follows: "Under existing housing market con- ditions, there are relatively few opportunities for housing in Saratoga for those of moderate ... financial means, or for senior citizens who need to move away from large, single-family residences. The problem will be further aggra- vated if, as advocated by some, the City should adopt a policy which ; 19 ,, ~,. AGENDA ACTION V. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont'd.) (Mrs~ Bunyard - cont~d~ A. CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENT TO schools is that we see a dramatic THE HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE decline on tha WeSt side of the 1974 GENERAL PLAN (Cont'd. valley.- If we rule out less expensive '4/16/80) homes, we can't have a place to put people who are of fairly modest means. (Mrs. Bunyard - Cont'd.) If the City is 'contemplating doing away with all multiple~units On any prohibits future ~ons~ruction of of the building sites remaining in multiple-unit housing. Such a Saratoga, it will create this type policy would have undesirable re- of socio-economic type of group in suits. With relativery few excepti~ . this community. She would think future residents would be forced to there must be some sites that might live in single-family residences or be buildable for multiples close to not live in the city at all. shopping centers and public transpor- Important social groups need to giv~ tation~ the City balance, and they would be drastically under-represented Mayor Callon made reference to '4 because the people concerned cannot items of written communications afford single-family residences. relevant to this hearing . Some of the groups that would be Fran MillS; petit'ion from 2~ seriously under-represented are residents; League'of ~omen Vote~s~', senior c~tizens~ particularly those and Rudolph. Kanne. : ' on .fixed income, which have been eroded by inflation; yodng marrieds Paul Freeman, Verde Vista Lane, especially .those with children of presented petitions signed by 835 elementary school age;widows, and residents of Saratoga, in opposition single-parent families, especially to the Housing Element as proposed. those. headed by working.mothers. Mr~ Freeman stated he would like to We do not advocate any substantial remind the 3 new councilmembers change in the character of Saratoga of the promises which were made · We believe that future multiple- during their erection ,campaign. He unit housing in the city'should be would also ask that the other permitted only in carefully members of the Council reflect on measured quantities, on carefully l what he believes to Be the tide of selected sites, and only with care- sentiment and wish on the part of ful monitoring by the city, to t~e citizens of Saratoga. Many minimize adverse impacts. This can residents worked very hard in order be done pnder the City's present to move to Saratoga, and he would planning and approval processes. be very disappointed to see the As you know, these processes are largest single investment that many protective, prolonged, and provide of us will ever make in their lives generous opportunities for public in 'their home and in the community, input before projects are approved. yanked from under us. He would In short, we urge you to adopt the plead with. the members of the Council policy of moderation in 'this matter "~o either stay in step with the citizens of Saratoga or join them. ~r~ Bunyard c ~nented wh'en the~' chO~e 'this conmunity., t~ey. wanted a Councilman Mallory asked Mr. Freeman cornrm~n±ty. that had fdentit~f~_i'rT~e5 if there was anything in the -Ic~'a~e'~.~6~u~i~Y~in"w~id~i~a~9~' Housing Element which he felt was c=f~r ~e~c~' [~"y~ ~ fe~' ~ acceptable. Because there is no further housing, we are a "temporary"' group~ The' Mr. Freeman responded that he feels problem with. the commUn±ty. ~s not. t~at the Housing Element as it was just older people'wh'o want to stay: outlined in the 1974 General Plan but the extreme ~omOgene~ty that we was acceptable. are 'planning into ou~ communit~ that ,s going to make us al communitF past Mr. Mallory asked Mr. Freeman if the 30's~ What happens~'to the' he saw anything.in the'proposed Housing Element which was desirable. - 20 - ~'7~ ~ ~-~ · - AGENDA ACTION V. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont'd.). (Mr. Hughes cont'd. A. CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENT TO He inquired if any members of the THE' HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE Council had been raised in low- 1974 GENERAL PLAN (Cont'd. cost housing. 4/16/80) Councilman Watson replied that he Mr. FreemAn commented that he.believes was raised in low-cost housing. there is a desirabilityto see thatz our senior citizens are taken care of Mr..Hughes stated that to this and that people who have moved t~ . point, hehasn't heard. any of the Saratogacan stay here. He jus~like. key issues regarding what comes the selection of the. sites and ~he wa' with low cost housing, and these in which they were selected. are problems that reflect on the families. He stated he was raised Mr. Mallory asked Mr. Freeman if he in a low income area, and he knows believes we need a Housing Element. the problems tha't come with these areas. To bring this element into Mr. Freeman replied he believes the Saratoga he believes is a severe housing portion should be part of the violation of his rights., General Plan and not a separate element. His opinion is that the Cit5 Lilly Badagliacca, 20813 Sarahills develop the Housing Element of 1974. Drive, commented.thatin.past meetings~ 31major p~ints have been Mr. Mallory inquired if Mr. F~eeman. made for the acceptance of this feels we should have any federally housing element: l) There is no funded programs in Saratoga. available housing stock for young families within the boundaries of Mr. Freeman replied that he is opposed Saratoga, or,'relative~y little for to.federal fundin~ of anything. ~ families considering the'.purchase of a new home; 2) this Housing Larry Hughes, 20768 Sevilla Lane, Element should be accepted because indicated he would like to read from a few well intenti0ned Saratoga California ballot pamphlet for the residents involved themselves in June 3rd Primary Election, which is. group meetings which produced this taken from the low rent housing propo- report and th~ City ~pent $6,000 sition, Proposition 4. of tax funds hiring an open con- suiting firm which was responsible '~The California Constitution prohibits for seeing that this element was the state or a local public body from properly prepared; and 3) that we developing, constructing, or acquiring must provide the citizens of this a low rent housing project, unless it cormnunity with cradle-to-grave is approved by the voters in an housing services . . . more speci- election held in the city or the count fically, that we have an obligation where the project is to be located. A to~provide retired Saratoga residents low rent housing project is defined as with housing which would not only be a government aided development com- affordable, but would also meet posed of dwellings, apartments and other needs of seniors, such as other living quarters for rental to accessibility to shopping, libraries, persons or families who do not have etc. enough income without financial assistance to live in decent, safe, Regarding her first point, Mrs. uncrowded and sanitary homes." Badagliacca commented that at no point in time does she expect the Mr. Hughes commented that it would citizens of any community to guarantee appear his constitutional rights hav~ her children the right to live any- been violated, with the 2 existing where. Regarding citizen involvement, projects that have been completed in it has been often mentioned that Saratoga, and he is opposed to a this Housing Element and the meetings violation-of his constitutional rights were very well publicized. However, to have a. voice in what is being done in her communications with other in this community. residents, it appeared that they were ignorant of this;and, therefore, 21 - . ~ ~GENDA : -ACTION V. PUBLIC HEARINGS - C0nt'd.) i (Mrs. Badagliacca - cont'd.) A. CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENt- ~0 'there is an ove~-abundan~e of THE HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE senior housing in the Santa Clara 1974 GENEP~L PEAN (Cont"d 4~. Valley.-So HUD is giving ~pecial 4/16/80) considerationto developers who . come forward with plans for families (Mrs. Badagliacca .- cont'd.}' who are on income assistance. If a plan is accepted by HUD, what it seems whatever was d6n~, t~e.job do.they Bet? .The representative -was not adequate. At no time,-Were explained,"If the plan is accepted, citizens.told this ~ssue was-u~der the government acts as an' insurance 'law and to be put.up tO,.a. Vote u~de~ company and .insures the private' the Calif0rqia State Constitution. ~ 'developer and his privately squght She indi'c~ted She had received a ~ ~dhn throuah'~a.fund called "Jennie notice Of a neighbor who Wanted t~-- ~,~M~t~ndum' ~nd~'i The benefit to ~0ye'-~ Earage wall 7 feet,'-b~t'nethi~ the' builder is a reduced.rate of about a .low income-high denserye.. ': .interest, because. the lender is not. housing development around the' ~rner /.~taking.a~chance./'.~,MrS. Badagliacca fro~ h~r home, 6r even be'.'cons~de~ed'. ha~d"'asked,,'-"Wh~'t~does the-builder' · She subSeated t~is issue 5e drop~e~!' '~bfo~"the~g6ve~m~n.t in return so the. developers don't.haVe to stand fo~ this ~nsideration?" She before the Council again in the. ~ut~:~, replfa~,/"He must set' aside 20% and make ~he .same suggestions or of the units to'be used by HUD threats .... '>a~Drov~d applicants." Mrs. Regarding th~ point' of providing. any money for'these 20. units?" cradle-to-grave services,'the housing She replied', "No, the government the seems to be Under dischs'sion is subsidizes the rental payments under federally subsidized housing.. She complicated fair rental housing took it uponlherself to try Eo tables." educate herself on this sub~ecE. She called the Department of HousinE and Mrs. Badagliacca 'staged she is -Urban Development ihSan Francisco, here to ask the COuncil to drop- and asked the question, "Wh~t does this housing element,'and retain federally subsidized housing mean?"' the' 1976 element.. She believes She explained that it means ~ builder what we are talkin8'about is an might come to HUD with a.prO~bsition, issue of how we wane Sarato8a to or that HUD might select an area ~n be developed, and she wants it which they wish to develop low income for low-density and for single= housing. In either case, if.it is families. HUD that wishes the' bids-go be pro- posed, they will .put an annouhcemenE Dora Grens, 14~5~ Old Oak Way, in the paper and ask the b~ilders or commented that much has been made developers to present the propgs~tid~ of the'minimal citizen participation. to t~e Department of Housing and She personally was aware of the Urban Development. ~e plan that i~ existance of the meeting only presented is'.a complete.pl'~,- and th~ because she belongs to an active, means he comes with a site that is."' organized homeowners association. properly zoned; with plans that are She commented that when she artended architecturally drawn; wit~ prices' the first Workshop, she resented the and committments. The federal'-govern -fact that they were told what items ment does nbt get-into zoning h~ssles .they were ~oin8 ~o discuss. They " ' ' had been advised that the'list Mrs. Badagliacca commented that bhe= given them was made up of mandatory h~d asked, "Is there'a'ratio'or senio guidelines, and these items must citizens to family h6using, and w~at be included in' the new housing is this ratio?" She e~pl~ined that] element. Mr. Ironside--sat in on as far as the representative-'s depart the group discussion.. The particular ment was concerned, there ~s no ratio -group size Rwindl~d rather rapidly. 22 - .. I? AGENDA 'ACTION V. PUBLIC HEARINGS - ~ont'~.) (Mrs. Flaherty - cont'd.) A. CONSIDERATION 'OF AMENDMENT TO.r She cgmmented that she wishes the THE HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE' t). people who have stood before the' 1974 GENERAL PLAN (Cont'd. Council this evening would take 4/16/80) the energy they have put into opposing this into taking a project (Dora Grens cont'd.) and making a beautiful example of it~ Mrs. Flaherty commented that The 21 sites were discussed, and she worked in a low-income housing 'federal funding was discussed in detail project which was lousy; she has She had the opinion the majority.of 'the been in others that are beautifdl. group was against federal assistance in She suggested that members of the Saratoga. ~faen she. read the concensuS Council go up to Palo Alto and report, her first thought was that her see Westerwood. This is a Section group must have viewed th4ngs differ-. 8 project, and it is a fine place ently than the others. Upon comparing for people who work inthe those with participants in the other community of Palo Alto to live. -groups, however, she found that the ~ People can get a subsidy who earn conclusions reached didn't reflect a = $15,000 a year.' She would hope true picture of what the majority some of the citizens would form thought they had said. It appeared a steering committee and work ~ith to be a least worse situation, based on the.SaratogaPla~ning Department something o~er which they had no con- to develop a beautiful place with trolo' They now Iearn that 'if the~de- complete design control. lines presented were advisory only,., ,: they would have had more latitude in Mildre~ Gordon, Blauer Drive, their discussions. Mrs. Grens indi- ~. addressed the Couhcil, stating cated shewohld .like to re-emphasize that she is one of the people what she said at the first workshop appointe~ to the Senior Citizens and during subsequent session, that Housing Task Force. This group she does not feel Saratoga has title , .met twice monthly for two years. resources or the appropriate available The Task Force completed a city~ land for high density housing, nor do. wide assessment'of Saratoga's we have an obligationto accept "string senior needs related 'to housing; attached" federal funding to provide studied. data related to housing it. "We will take care of. our mothers for the elderly; Updated previous and be sure they'are happy and comfort- studies. Housing is not a new able. We would hope other children issue in Saratoga -- there have would consider it an honor to do so for been numerous times when it was their own parents." brought to the City Council and nothing happened. She indicated Georgianne Flaherty, 21285 Saratoga . she hopes all of the CounCil is Hills Road, commented that she believes familiar with the analysis which very deeply that a con~n. unity 'should the Task Force has developed, and provide a'variety of different housing this should be reviewed. Mrs. for people, and she feels Saratoga has Gordon further commented that she .an.opportunity to do this. When we believes approval of Measure A is discussed 21 sites, she gathers we not related to low density. The only have money for one site, and we - proper management of hillsides is are talking about 45 units that could one thing, but the proposal of provide housing for young families and housing on level ground is another. for seniors. There are all kinds. of ~ She sees no mandate for only single- subsidies, and the middle-clasS family homes in Saratoga. benefits from them all the time, but we don't call them subsidies. What else. Andrew Beverett, 19597 Via Monte is a Homeowners Exemption than a sub-z Drive, indicated he is appearing sidy. Most young people today cannot as a concerned citizen. Mr. buy a house. Beverett indicated he is going to offer some rebuttal arguments on this issue. - 23 ACTION i~l -~ ~ AGENDA V. PUBLIC HEARINGS - (Cont'd.) (Andrew Beverett - Cont'd.) A. CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENT TO He again received no uniformity of' THE HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE response. Some identif4ed it as 1974 GENERAL PLAN (Cont'd. high rise; some identified it as 4/16/80) . sub-standard housing; others identi- fied this housing as being anything (Andrew Beverett - Cont'd.) other than single-family housing. " He believes there is polarization -- A substantial number of senior the north pole are those who think citizens who were here at the start somebody is trying to push high- of the ~eeting are at 12:25 A.M. not density low-cost housing down the present. He would like the Council throats of people; the south pole to consider his request about puttin represents those people who feel items of this sort'earlier on the that no high density housing should agenda. be allowed in Saratoga anytime in the future. Mr. Beverett had Mr..Beverett indicated that he was indicated that he believes there raised in a.low-income area, and issome good moderate country in !~ that area generated quite a few ! between these two poles. There people who were honest and upstandin had been some-erroneous information He has talked with juvenile authori= making the rounds. To one signer ties in Santa Clara County about th& of the petition, Mr. Beverett had problems they are having with asked why she had .signed it.-' . juveniles coming from Saratoga, and~ She had replied~hat there is a we can't say that problems with ~hreat that we are going to have juveniles are solely caused by housin high density, low-cost housing and where you come from. Regarding pushed down our throats on the ' the point made about subsidy from Saratoga HOrtiCultural Foundation the federal governmentS' this 'reminds property. She had said some him of something he read. This is '. people had left some literature at about a man who made a speech against her front door and__tber~e_was a federal participation in our affairs mass meeting jb~.~pmp_peop~e~_~_h.~ ?~ He did that after returning from a ought to know. As .f~r'~s' Mr. visit to his son in college, and in Beverett could tell, thi~ c6n- getting to ~he college he went to a' sisted of a group of civic organi- bank that had federal guarantees on zations including the Senior Citizens deposits to withdraw the money; he Coordinating Council; the League drove on a road that was subsidized of Women Voters and others who have with federal subsidies; he went to taken an interest in housing in a. college that received federal subi . Saratoga. Mr. Beverett had sidies in lieu of the 'amount he paid indicated he had attended every for his son's tuition; he came back public meeting on this subject, and and went to work at one of the had indicated heknows of no member "silicone valley" companies that had of the City Council, past or present, cost plus federal contracts. Man~ or member of any commission or task of us are receiving federal subsidigs force or other organizations, who every day, and we can't put this off have ever mentioned or in any way on low-income people and say this is advocated any kind of public housing in ,their providence. on the Saratoga Horicultural Foundation property~ Therefore, Mr o Bevere~t indicated that he has ! it appeared this.was misinformation. talked with 60 to 70 people, and he Mr. Beverett 'indicated that he drew some conclusions from this. He believes after talking with these found some'strong views on this sub- people that many of these differences ject. He asked the signers of a are differences in schematics a~d petition what their impression of low not differences in substance. He cost housing was, and received no found there was a great deal of uniformity of response..He also aske, uniformity in. thinking on'certain what high density represented to them basic points. For example, we all 24 - ,I ~ ~.I AGENDA ACTION V. PUBLIC HEARINGS - Contend. (Andrew Beverett - Cont'd.) A. CONSIDEP~TION OF A~NDMENTTO selling from $400,000 to $800,000. THE HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE These homes share one character- 1974,GENERAL PLAN .(Cont'd.~'~ istic: They are just across the 4/16/80) road from a high density housing project -- the Odd Fellows Home. (Andrew Beverett - Cont'd.) That project has 3 areas which have been represented.as being so want to preserve the character of bad because they cause a deteriora- Saratoga. Nobody wants high density tion of property values among on all of the 21 sites. Somebody neighboring single-family home- seems to think there is a grave owners for the following reasons: threat hanging over these 21 sites.: 1) high density (150 units); 2) low He found among these people very income; and'3) federal subsidized. little objection to some already ! Here are people spending $400~,.000, targeted sites. There is a site on. to $800~000 f6r a chance to build Saratoga Avenue called the Campbell a home across the street. Cage property. The City has approv~d a 72-unit project there in Which Mr. Beverett stated that some exclusive use by seniors is guarantee have thought fron the onset that for 20 years. Some of the units will the draft element contains a lot be rented; some will be sold; there~i of bureaucratic.langUage anda no subsidy involved; they will all be lot of ambiguities.t H~ is sure at market price. Furthermore, thisl the senior Citizehs are much more is located on a thorOf~re with interested in the City Council's bus t~ansportation; surrounded on basic policy toward housing than one side by a church;~-on ~nother side they are i~7'~n existing ~Unoffi~ia~ by a park; on another side by a draft ofthe housing element.! If. gasoline st.ation; and on another side the City isn't going to approve it, by a school. Therefore, it has very what is it going to dol? One alter- little adverse impact on anybody's native is to refuse=to adopt any private single-family housing. There revision of the housing element. is another project beside it called He asked what the consequehdes of the Teresi project in which 60% of this would be. One ~ight'be' ~the occupancy is guaranteed for possible retribution at a higher seniors for a period of 20 years.' It governmental level; another might is on land that has been targeted be a bad reputation among sister for this use for a long time. cities who-are making a gesture of There is a proposed project in back. compliance. Another alternative of the Hubbard-Johnson Lumber Yard, might be to revise the present which is surrounded on one side by ~ draft. The job may not be as railroad tracks; on another side by difficult as some might think, a lumber yard; on another side by a because you can rip out the first to~home; and on the other side by a 15 pages and put them into a cover creek. They will be.very nice for ~ and call them "Supplementary widows; for a working mother with a Statistics and Background", and child; for a retired couple; or for leave 7 pages. ~lat are some of young marrieds. There is another the criteria for al new try? Mr. parcel between Prospect SchOol and Beverett stated he believes there Lawrence Expressway, and there is nq~ should be two-way dialogue between much single-family housing near. He the City Council and the people is not recommending this;.it just preparing the draft. .Mr. Beverett meets some of the criteria we are presented some policy questions: talking about, including minimum ad~ 1) Will .the City allow any more verse impacts. ~ non-subsi'dized multi-unit housing. If so, under what conditions?- Mr..Beverett made reference to the new single-family residences on the 2) Will the City allow any more ' subsidized multiple-unit housing, far end of Chester Avenue, which are as opposed to non-subsidized housing? (a) Will they allow it. for seniors? ~ (b) Will they allow it for,non- = 25 - seniors? ... ~ .~. AGENDA ACTION V. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont'd.) (David Moyles Cont'd.) A.' CONSIDERATION OF ~MENDMENTS TO money, fix Up their homes and then THE HOUSING ELEME~ OF THE pay back those funds borrowed in 1974 GENERAL PLAN (Cont'd. very generous terms. Presently, he 4/16/80) understands there are about $150,000 " loaned throughout the city; in (Andrew Beverett - Cont'd.) Quito, there are presently 3 homes signed up, representing a $35,000 committment; and approximately 10 The first policy statement of the more homeowners who have expressed present draft is an example: "Strive the same. interest. This program to provide housing opportunity to benefits not only the homeowners meet the needs of the entire family who participate, but city-Wide. life cycle of Saratoga residents." The things these people are trying There are two options in stating a ~o do to their homes represent policy of this sort: the very ideals.that have been 1) We do not advocate any substantial discussed. It is his understanding change in the character of Saratags that continued participation in We believe futurerm~ltiple-unit housing this federal program requires in the City should be permitted in that Saratoga maintain a valid carefully measured quantities on housing element. Therefore, if the carefully selected sites and with Council decided. to abandon the careful monitors. housing element,..it would bea case of throwing the baby out of 2) We believe that all future housing the bathwater. He would urge the in Saratoga should be confined to Council exercise caution, and if single-family units; we believe at all possible, maintain Saratoga's Saratoga has no social or moral participation in this program. responsibility to provide any multi-unit housing in the future' Carol Mackel, Ronnie Way, commented above that already her~. in reference to Mr. Beverett's state- ment in saying that the senior ~@. Bever~tt stated arguments against citizens at no time considered any multi-~n~t_~9~g:~ .~._~!ready have other sites, nor wanted go look at it --:His answer~thisi~s% "That is other sites. She referred to the sheer ~k~hiSm.''!' T~e are less than Retirement Housing Study in which 1/10 of 1% apartments; there are.less the Senior Citizen Task Force than 5% multi-unit housing, as com- Report w~s published, and there pared with 35% to 40% in the County. are a list of sites. Therefore, the idea that the seniors had Mr. Beverett pointed out that in the never been interested in any last election, 9,094 voters voted, other sites than the 3 now con- and 40 to 43% voted for the 3 candi- sidered is contradicted in that dates now in office. 57 to 60% did ~ this shows their interests were not vote for these c~ndidates, and there. The site which Mr. Beverett it appears voters vot~d~on issues, referred to specifically, the n~p~~es~ ~ ~ - "'~ ' horticultural site, is listed as ...... ~' ' ' ' ": follows: "~e above-listed sites i~~; ilj~705 ~ft0_~n.65e. :i _:~ were arranged in order of antici- coh~n~ted t~at-ina~n6~ as 8ne 6~ ~h~ pated developing. The long-range ~lternatives. the Council faces this Beyond 1985 planning can foresee evening is to abandon the housingr~ feasibility in developing of the element entirely, he would like to following: Saratoga Horticultural alert the Council to one consequence~ Foundation - 5.72 acres, Verde. which could very likely flow from such Vista Lane. The Foundation has a decision: Saratoga presently parti- indicated future interest in moving cipates in a'federally sponsored from site." housing assistance rehabilitation pro- gram whereby city residents borrow : - 26 ~ ~ ~ .; AGENDA ACTION V. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont'd.) (Mrs. Mackel - cont'd.) A. CONSIDERATION OF AJ~END~NTS TO "It should be noted, however, that THE HOUSING ELEMENTOF THE theS~ are~suggested sites. Should 1974 GENERAL PLAN (Cont'.d. a developer or property owner 4/16/80) suggest a development which con- ,' forms to the zone uses but does not (carol Mackel -.cont'd.) ,~rop~se to be sUbsidized, he cannot -b~ p~nalized for having his Mr.-Beverett also mentioned that ~q- propert~ an this ~lfst.'' Mrs. Mackel there was some confusion as to what! stated .they were not represented low density housing Was. There is ' in this workshop, and if the people confusion because the typeOf low .who liv~ around these sites had density housing does vary from site. been no~ifi~dabout this meeting to site. We can get the impression~ and what i~ entailed, the. CounCil they look like t.enaments if we looki would not be here discussing this at the 20 units which exist. on cox. proposal. We can get the impression they lookZ like .towers when we look at the 150' William Kohler, Via Regina, units behind the Odd Fellows.Home~ ~ commented that this question of' changing of Saratoga has happened. Contrary to the sta.tement"'~here was Inthe'area of Highway 9, this no p~rticipation by the Ci.~y and the gives a Camino Real atmosphere, consultant in any of thisV,~a con- and he does not have confidence suitant wa~ hired, and b~sed on the~ that if more of these developments mandate of thejCity to do this, they come in, it will look more pre-. went' out and wrote up. a workshop · sentable. report, and the stress was to meet . state guidelines. This was complete( Kenneth Wilton, 2045'z. Cox Avenue, and last night they said, even with commented that when all discussion the way it is now, it would not be is forgotten about tonight, there certified. are still 800 signatures onthese petitions. MrS. Mackel stated that it is -' currently on the books that even Mr. CroWther, Norada Court,.dis- market rate senior citizen housing ~ tributed a letter and handout tO 'will allow 25% higher density if goes the Council. Mr. Crowther referred e~tirely for senior citizen housing. to the first attachment to the Directly after this workshop, they .r letter, which is an artist's con- published'a feedback report. Her cept as it came out of the Saratoga site was listed' On this for.long-. General Plan, of the area near range term planning. On the top of' Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and Prospect, this feedback report, it says, "An which was recently developed in identifying site suitable'for very high density condominiums. He low, low and moderate-income housing, ~sked that the Council compare this particularly by family types./'Some Z to what was. in the General Plan, workshop groups expressed the need to indicating that'the General Plan indicate more specifically~ the use. showed an entrance park and tree- The Teresi site is listed, the iined street. The General Plan Saratoga Foothills Development sit~, also specified that'thereshould etc. Directly under this statement, be acquisition ofthe grove. of it'says, "Because the~e sites are trees at the southeast corner of indicated as being most suitable, Saratoga-Sunnyvale and Prospect. local effort should be focused. on ~ His understanding'is that now a encouraging appropriately suited building is going to be'put up very low, low and moderate income where those trees are located.. elderly, family, and large family ,! housing. They should beplaced in.L The next attachment is the present p~iority for local landbanking and General Plan development and con-' other related housingsaction programs <seryation~policies, and thi~ refers ' ~- baC~to~tbe pr~9r General Plan, and it says density shOul'd even be lower. 27 - ,~ ~. ~. AGENDA . ACTION V. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont'd.) (Don Ferina - Cont'd.) A. CONSIDERATION OF ~END~ENTS.TO There are ~qo types of government THE HOUSING ELEF[ENT OF THE subsidy -- the federal subsidy 19Y4 GENERAL PLAN (Cont'd. and the local subsidy. Many of 4/16/80) us are afraid of the strings that are often attached to federal (Mr. Crowther - cont'd.) subsidies. With regard to local s~bsidies, he has seen this work The major point is he believes all~ very well in Sweden, and this of us have empathy for senior would be interesting for the Council but the basi~, fundamental question' to look at. If the citizens of is, "Are we really addressing that.. Saratoga can be convinced that issue or are we trying to pack high~ there is no self-serving land density housing into the:remaining developer action with regard to' open areas within the city?" this element, and instead, put it on the ballot for a subsidized, Mr. Crowther stated that he ~. carefully planned community, he the state laws regarding the Housing would be interested in seeing this. Element. Section 65302, Section C,~ it sfiates that:-"The Housing Elemen~ Fran Mills, Verde Court, commented shall consider all aspects of current that it should be clear the people housing technology to include pro- of Saratoga want very little visions for not only site-build growth, and they definitely do housing, but also, manufactured not want federally funded housing housing, including mobile homes."' in. Saratoga.--~ -It would seem appropriate that the' . General Plan address this, and say,l Martin Pierson, Calle Tacuba Drive, "~e have considered this, and it is indicated he is a senior citizen not an appropriate form of housing: and very happy in the home he lives in the City of Saratoga." On the in. They have looked at condo- final page, it 'talks about the re- miniums and cannot see where the quirements for.environmental review; cost' of a condominium is worth the and he would sugges~ the Council change.~ look into the background of this, ' .... ' ......... - ' as there are mandatory. requirements 'jim ~7.2'0624 s~{l la ~LaHe, for a finding of significant impact. ~a'khat the housing element There is also the statement in before the Council is not .a senior Section 6464 of the State Guidelines citizen housing element. The word that it is required there be internal "elderly" is mentioned ~ice in consistency among all the elements Of the housing element. There are the General Plan. If the City 6 or 7 major items that speak to adopted.the proposed housing elemen~ things such as development of ' it would be in violation of these multiple-family rental units through laws. He would strongly-recommend landbanking; the City will revise the Council reject the present pro- its Zoning Ordinance to extend the posal, but indicate that the housing planned .density concept; affordable element will be upgraded along With housing (low-income, high density the other required elements of the housing) should be integrated General Plan. throughout the community; assisted housing development should be large Don Ferina, 13622 Saraview Drive, enough toprovide economies of indicated when he signed this t construction;* and rental opportuni- he thought,"The land developers are ties should be maintaied and at it again. They have convinced the increased. He str6ngly, suggestes Council they can get some revenue the housing element is totally sharing funds in exchange for re- contradictory to the vast majority zoni-ng of land and open house for of people in Saratoga. we~'Speople to come into Saratoga 28 - V. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont'd.) (~ounc~lwoman Jensen ~ cont~d~)_ A. CONSIDERATION OF ~E~DMENTS TO Saratoga is part of THE HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE community -- it is part of the 1974 GENERAL PlAN (Cont'd; County and part of the Bay Area, 4/16/80) but it is not generating any jobs, and it is not creating any of the George Zimmerman, Seville Lane, extreme pressure that is causing ~ndicated that it is very apparent the demand.'~'~'i~E~i~g that the senior citizens are being the price of housing.'~Sh~"f&els taken care of -'- the Odd Fellows Home not the least bit guilty about the Campbell Cage site --' it is protecting the community. apparent our present housing element Therefore, it needs to be recog- will permit variances fro~ the nized there is a need for open ordinance to allow senior citizen '~ space and that we are practically residences to be built. He does nqt built out. see any reason why we have t~ shove a housing element like we have in Councilman Mallory stated he is not front of us to take care of a prob- one who stands for only single- lem that is already being addressed. family dwellings in Saratoga, and feels there is a need for senior Another point, if it were approved. citizen housing. He believes the that any variances from the ordinance housing element was brought about whence build on these sites, that not by Saratoga as much as the the people around that site.would state and federal government, and have to'be notified by law. he doesn't like this. Further, the' document is o~t of character Mr. Zimmerman stated he believes mo'st with the nature of the city and Deople here are tired of having ' desires of the residents. ~inority group~ and self serving, self-interest groups dictate what the Mayor Callon stated sheis in majority gets. ~greement with Councilman Mallory's statements. She inquired if it M/S~ Clevenger/Mallory to close the was the intent of the motion that public hearing. Carried unanimously the City Council continue the The public hearing was closed at housing element issue and change- 12:30 A.M. ! the new draft to, something~th~t conf6rms. Councilwoman Clevenger indicated she i~ convinced this draft housing Councilwoman Jensen indicated she element does not reflect the over- did not hear this in the motion.. riding feeling of most citizens in She would favor examining and up- the community, and therefore moved dating the General Plan as it re- ~ the Council reject the proposed lates to several different issues. housing element. This would prepare the Council to deal with this issue. Councilman Watson commented he agrees the right to live in saratoga should Councilwoman Clevenger indicated not be a God-given grant. Further, the intent of her motion was to he is concerned that there is no take-care of the proposed housing assurance that the seniors in element, and then the Council could Saratoga wou.ld be able to take advan- make its plans as to how it intends tage of the housing thatmight be to approach this subject in harmony made available. Therefore, he would with the other elements of the second the motion. General Plan. Councilwoman Jensen commented that Mayor Callon proposed an amendment it seems Saratoga does practically to the motion to add that the nothing else but housing -- we have' City Council will consider the done our fair share of housing over housing element when it takes up and over. the General Plan review. - 29 - , ., ~,, AGENDA ACTION V. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont'd.) A, CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE 1974 GENERAL PLAN (Cont'd. '4/16/80) Councilman Mallory ~econded the motion. The motion failed, 4 to 1. The Mayor then called for a vote on the original motion. The motion carried, 4 to 1, Mayor Callon in opposition. Reason stated for the vote agains't~the motion is the belief that the City would be shirking it's duty by not providing for a process to obtain a housing element. ': .;~TS'."~'~i~i%~/~ra~'~e~iew the 'Housing-Elem~ht ~t'the time the · ~.':'t . Council takes up the General Plan Review. The motion was carried unanimously. IV. PETITIONS, ORDINANCES & RESOLUTIONS PETITIONS, ORDINANCES & RESOLUTIONS (Cont'd.) C. MINUTE RESOLUTION P~:SITE The City Manager explained there ACQUISITION AND IMPROVEMENTS is a current committment for this FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING - CORneR, parcel for use as senior housing. OF COX AVENUE AND SARATOGA- The Federal Government is no SUNNYVALE ROAD longer providing funding for senior housing, and are now only funding family housing. Further, the County and HUD are requesting a s.tatus report on that project, and he would request Council direction. on this. ~d~d~iiw~j.~n~ed that ~ ~"~i'tyl d~scon~fnue the idea of using this site f6r housing, due :~taken ~l~F'n~ak'~"this°~an'~n~6itabi'e '~i:t~. ~'Motion failed L no second. M/S: Clevenger/Jensen to explain the City's position to the Depart- ment of Housing and Urban Development that the City can no longer parti- cipate in the program if they are going to allow senior citizen and family housing. Councilman Mallory indicated he' would support continued use of this site, well done, with high standards, for seniors. -'30 - · FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING - COP~ER up quickly, and it was picked OF COX AVENUE AND SARATOGA- ~ because the land next to it SUNNYVALE ROAD zoned "Nei-ghborh0od Commerdial". It is a very bad location for multi-family housing, and it is near the shopping center.and,bus stops; therefore, it would be good for senior housing. The Mayor Called for a vote on the motion. The motion was carried 3 to-2, Councilmembers Mallory and Callon in opposition. VI. BIDS A~ CONTRACTS BIDS AND CONTP~CTS - ~,~ A. AWARD .OF CONTRACT FOR The City Manager referenced the ARCHITECTURAL BARRIERS staff memorandum, dated 5/13/80, REMOVAL - PHASE I recommending, award'of the bid.~to ~MBO Concrete~Inc.~ .. M/S: Watson/Clevenge~ to approve award of this bid fo~,the' Architectural.Barriers Removal Broject, Phase. I, to ~BO Concrete, Inc., for the low bid of $15,830. The motfon was c~rried upanimously. VII'. CONSENT 'CALENDAR ~° - 'CONSENT CALENDAR A. FINAL ACCEPTANCE SDR~.1393, Sylvia Jean, Asp~si Drive ' B. CONSTRUCTION ACCEPTANCE 1.SDR-1276 - Vessing Road Donald McKenzie 2. .Tract 6199.- R~ga~-Lane, Hagen Construction C CITY TREASURER'S REPORT D. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS. VIII ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS A. I~JYOR - "Rec6nufiehded Appointment to the M/S: Mallory/Watson to nominate Council on Aging. Peggy Corr and_~ight Bissell.for. ~S~a~Sg~'' S'~res &h~a't~on. Ca~ied · , ~an im~fi~ ~'~ ..... ~ ..... "~ - B1 - ~:,~ · · '4 t, AGENDA ACTION VIII .' ADMINISTRATIVE IIATTERS A~{INISTP&TIVE MATTERS B. COUNCIL AND COMLMISSION REPORTS 1. Callon - West Valley Mayors Appointed Martha Clevenger as Meeting determined the Saratoga's'-representative. cities should consider a committee made up of a council person from each city and the county and any jurisdiction with. land in ~" " .the ROute 85 Corridor.' 2. Callon - Landscaping along' PlanningCDirector~ak'written the Dividend Industry land' lette~-to home6~,mers indicating along Saratoga-Sunnyvale -their responsibility, and also, is totally overgrown. contacfed the architect for the project..' The City Council re~ quested-to be kept apprised of this situation:" 3. Jensen - Report Re: Meetin Noted. District A Board is of Sanitation District No. arranging to'meet with Cupertino 4 Board and issue'of Distric.t to discuss th6"~matter capacity of the sewage , ~ ~pp~'6a&~i~g~S~n~' Cl~r~"~Li~. treatment plant.and propo~ i~>~S~n'Jose tS'a~k ~h_e~n to.~o~":' rate increase. ~o6kih~ ~p 'to this plant. C. DEPARr,~ENT HEADS AN~ OFFICERS 1. Director of Community Services a) Response to Request from M/S: Mallory/Callo~':to deny this Lawrence Roe to PUrchase request. Carried unanimously. a Portion of Undeveloped Kevin Moran Park (Ref, staff memorandum, dated 5/9/80'.) ' 2. Planning Director a) RespOnse to letter from Continued to the next regular Russell Crowther, 20788 meeting. Norada Court, concernim the Saratoga General Plan 3. Director of Public Works a) Report Re: Condition of Mr. Shook, Director of Public Works, Canyon View Drive reported that San Jose Water Works has made repairs to the trench, and they will resurface the roadgay with oil and screens for its entire length. (Ref. staff memorandum, dated 5/6/80'.) 32 -~-,. ~ ~ .~ I 'AGENDA ACTION VIII. ADMINISTRATIVE'}~TTERS (~ont'd.) D. CITY ~NAGER 1. Report on PrOposed Code'of ~e City Manage~ indicated he would Ethics need further d±~ection regarding drafting of a re~[olution or ordinance d~ling with Conflict Of Interes.t.- M/S: Mallory/Watson to table th~s issue for a per±od of 2 monks. Carried 3 to 2, Councilmembers JenSen and Clevepger Opposed. 2. SB-1960 'Re:'Mobile Homes ~e city Manager explained thLs'is proposed stat& housing legislation which would require that mobile' homes be allowed in .R-1 districts~ M/S: Mallory/Je~sen to direct the City Manager Eo communicate the City's strong opposition to ~±s proposed legislation. Carried unanimously. IX. ADJOU~MENTTO EXECUTIVE SESSION ADJOUR~NT TO EXECUTIVE SESSION M/S: CallonlClevenger to adjourn th~is meeting to an Executive Ses'sion. Carried unanimously. Themeeting was adjourned at 1:40 A.M. X. EXECUTIVE 'SESSION EXECUTIVE SESSION XI. ~ONVENE RECONVEME It was ~oved by Councilman'Watson, seconded by Councilman Mallory ~at- ~e agreement ~ith Bruce Tichinin for special legal services be terminated, and that no additional funds. Be allocated for that position. ~e motion ,carr±ed, 3-to.,2, -- Councilmembers gensen~and.Clevenger in oppos~tion. XII. ADJOURNMEI~ ADJOURNMENT:j M/S: Callon/Mallbry to adjourn the meeting. Carried ~nanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 2:15 A.M ~Re~ ectfullXJubmitted, R C / - 33