HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-08-1980 City Council Minutes MINUTES
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
TIME: Tuesday, July 8, 1980, 7:30 p.m.
PLACE: Saratoga City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avej, Saratoga, CA.
TYPE: Special Meeting
AGENDA -.ACTION
.I. ORGANIZATION
A. ROLL CALL Present - Callon, Clevenge~, Jensen,
Mallory, Watson
II COMMUNICATIONS " · -
A. ORAL '
B. WRITTEN '
BLACKWELL & NOONAN Mayor Callon' moved the meeting forHard to
the report on Section 8 of Measure A.
- . -. . City Attorney recommended that the motion-
· ., mad~l~pril 1~.,. 1~80, to suspend the~e~j~r-iI
""~"" .~ .v.. " permits he=ld' by'the Blackwell fi~m~and
tha~ held'By Mr. Noonan, be rescinded. If
.~ ~ ~ these applicants.make the prope~ showing
~ under Secti6~8 lthe building permits can
b& reinstatedl Clevenger/Mallory moved to
- - ~ a~op~ Special_COunsel's recommendation.
: -~ Passed~ una~im6~sly.
III. PUBLIC.·HEARINGS
A. CONSIDE~TION OF REQUESTS IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE
~ISIONS OF SECTION 7 OF
MEASURE A, INTERIM RESTRICTIO
AS RELATED TO HARDSHIP CASES.
. 1. BlaCkwell H6mes (Tract Mr. McKeehen'.asked for.hones~ .and fair
-' 6525) 5/21/80, 6/4/80 consideration efthe~Btackwell Homes
property. -Russ Crowther, Norada Court,
presented a·letter outlining concerns
related to-flooding,· impact on other
Saratoqans} and the City's open space
blan. 'Planning Director spoke concerning
· ' the density for the' lots, clari'fied.the
calCulations~and presented facts'with
" .. respect to the final m~p ~pplication.
Manager sta.ted that the street pattern is
~. ' consistent wi~h the current circulation
element for 6hat area.. Special Counsel
~poke to"the legal questions implicit in
· this application concerning zoning
initfatives.and zoning laws. Mallory/ .
Watson'move'd tQ.incorporate the Parker
· Ranch file into the ~eg0rd. Passed-
unanimously. Rhssell. Crowther asked that
~wo legal actions on file also be
included. Jen'sen/Clevan~er moved that
- the two legal ·actions be incorporated into
~h~ record;.as well as the reference made
, to the former initiative. M6tion failed
~/3, (Mallory, Watson~ICallon opposed)
'· public'Hearing closed.
~, }-7/s/so
,%~- ~-,
.
· AGENDA ACTION
2. McBAIN-& GIBBS, INC. 'Kenneth Bley, ~epresenting McBain & Gibbs
(Tract 6628) Hearings cautioned the Council about overregulatio,
5/21/80, 6/4~80 . of land and asked~that an e'xemptiOn be
granted. .$p~'~iatC6unsel commented that
· if'.the City'.does'~ndt:respond to all p6int~
raised, that does not mean there are no
: ' '"' ~dequate respons~s,..~ He hoped that'the
~ -. ~atter W~ufd~ no~'~r~qui~e court action.
-- Planning Director presente~ relevant data
~, .',"' qoncer~ing the. appli, cation. Councilmembe~
'~ 'Mallory-~Sked 'for staf£ opinion on the
possibility of a special assessmenE
district. Director of Public Works sta~e~
~' . such a district was impractical.because
there was nq. vehicle to create maintenanc~
assessment districts. City Attorney
recommended that Council re]ect request
that three letters be made part of the
record.~r,.Ma~'lory/C~e~bn~r~'mo~ed_~that ~he
~Mteeii~ette~S~!hot~'be,,,m~de~,t~of the
-.- record and that any reference to them be
stricken from ~he record. Passed.
unanimously. WatsQn/Clevenger moved'that
the file of McBain & Gibbs be' included in
the records. Passed Unanimously. Public
Hearing was. clos~d~
3. PARNAS CORPORATION Tract-'_ City Manager noted that the ~pplicant had
6665 - 2nd hearing 'e'ft~ desired that these tracts be heard
hea~in~!:.6%;4'/802.~T~act~,~ together. ~teveBernard, ~epresenting
59'28~l~'~2nd ,hearing - fir~i khe applicant, spoke in favor Of'gr~nting
hearing 7/.2/80 the hardship. exemption. He-noted that he
had not heard ~f any public opposition to
the applicationl. Planning Director gave
relevant data On the application, j,.L:/~'~
lincludihg density calculations of Measure
'A. Ed GomerSall, 1~817 Ver0nica Drive,
'spoke in favor of granting the hardship
,exemption. Special Counsel pointed out
that Measure A ~s a moratoriUm~fbr one
year. Watson/Mallory moved to include'~n
the record the files on the, subdivision
_. involyed. Public Hearing was closed on
.. both items.
~. 4. JOSEPH KRAJESKA"(SDR 1329) George Tobin, representing the applicant,
(Cont'd Publi'c Hehring; submitted a petition from th'e n~ighbors oz
· previous hearings 6/4/80 & ~'iVia Regina ~n favor of the hardship
6/18/80) exemption..H& reviewed the history of the
application and noted that he does not
-- · consider this a Measure A case, but rathe~
an application-for an exnension. He
,suggested that the matter be returned to
the Land Development Committee for action.
Mrs. K~ajeska read a. l~tter from her
husband supporting the hardship exemption.
· . _ Mayor Callon noted t~at the Council had a
letter from Dr. Hunziker concerning Ehe
application. Pt~nning Director reviewed
.,_ the history of the application and pre-
sented relevant data. Councilperson
'iClevenger asked.abOut compatibility of the
- . ~_ ~- ~ -~'. . .- . ~ ,.
~ AGENDA , ACTION'
' - 'lot.with other iot~ on'the'stree~ with
- . - · respect to'size; ~la~ning Di~ector-E~'~l:.~,
· ~ p~ed-~:~hat'~..~he~.~iZe'~of.'-t~ot~'Swa~=~Con~
._ ' sisten~ Wi~h the'Rrl-40',000.~6n!~g'
district, MayoriCall6n raised 'ques.t~ons
"~' ~concer~ing~the--r~latio~shi~ of Mea~u~ A
~ Eo. rezoningland ,~'ten~at~ map exten-
sfohs;'S~ci'~i~Co~ns~l',~esponded that
-Measure A-was.not a re.z~n~ng but
..... a'.moratorium.""Under,-the subdiViSion'
~ ' orfdinance~.~tenta[i~e'map eXt~h~lions are
/'-. handle~ under'Section 22.'~ by~h'~'Plannin,
-, " CommisSion. ".Mr,illTobin-stated tha'~ Fthe
~ .conrect provision ~f~h~"~zoning ordinance
would be ~4.1~whi:ch~elate~'t'o '40r'fewe~
" '-- · ..' :lotS'. City ~gnage~ n0ted'~h~t ~hen the
=~"" application Was'mad~,-the~' was'.no:distinc~
--: differentiation-Detweenthe~r~quest.for
.,- - an extensfon, an~'a request for f,inal-
-~. " ~.appro.val.~ ,The-request"for' ex.ten~on can
~ -' ~pp~pfia~el~ b~-Th&~d bE:[he Council ,
~:-" ,becaUse it is'a ~p in t'hep~obedure' ·
-. 'sho~t Of gra~t'ing"'fi'na'l~a~Drov'ai~'~
-.~I ' ."~special cou~se'l s~gg~sted'.l~at i~ w~s no't
,- ,- 'Mr. Fred Irany~13937-Pierce,.
-' :"r.~ " i 'spoke in favor of'~e hardship. exemption.
~Tom:~ B~nn~tt noted that t.he Counci~ hag a
'~ responsibiIity, t~-'~oth.sides, and expresse~
:- concern'abOut how the City sp~nds~its
: " "" '- "~ -~- money..--, Ed'Gomer~ll'~xpress~d',qbncern
-, ' "' about .referring a d~cision to 'the Plannfnc
' "~" '/- Commissi6n Wfthout,.granting an exemption.
'< ~Mayor. Call6n.%~ated that th~ Land D~vel-
"~ ~ "' - -""~ ' :~ mn~itt'~ ld. make'a
.,. - ... -~- . I.,. pment.'Co '~u: ~ecision on
-- '?"' '. '." :th~ exten~i6n of-~tentative map, but the
- :' 'i "' *Me~ure'~Y'e~ptibh issue w~Uld~stiil be'
" -.' .~-" , :~re~olve~ :'Special C~unsel 'sai~ he felt
,.-" ..," '~ Ythat'the 0~1~ wa~ tol'pro~eed is f6r~,eh~
, 7-,.1 ~applicant '-t~'~g%'t an'extenSion, ~nd then
l'- " "~ " '~ 'to refer item' to'~he"Land D~vel~pment
.... · ~-. member Wa~'dn' sta~e~ '~o'ted 'nO"beC'~use,
': "'--, '~he felt the meaSures_shOuld be looked at
"" .- ~equa'~ly. Counci'lmem~ 'Jens~n s'aid sh~"
7if'the moratorium ~i6d'~'is not ove~/.
" '. -~ ' ' ithen.a[ that'D~int"theYwoUldhave no
· . i' ireturn fo t~'."cb~nc'il.-f0~:ah'~exemption:'l
-" 5. PETER NOONAN (SDR ~4~5) ~Speci~l Counsel'no~d that~ the ~atter ~d
- · . .'-' ~ ~(c6n~f~6~6~'~,~8~i~.L~) bee~ ~take~'car~ df by CouHci~'S'~e~ious
:'~".~7-/'2/80'~ ',~'/~ ~ "' ,/~ a~i0n.. Public H~aring closed. "-
-_- .."LI~
-, ~. ~.
'--I /80
AGENDA ACTION
6. PERRY WEST (SDR 1'413) Mr. West reviewed the .history of his
(Second Public Hearing; application and stated that it qualifies.
preyiously heard 7/2/80) for an exemp,tion. Wi~lem Kbh'ler.,_'21r842
Via Regina, President' of ~ia Regina H6me-
owners Corporation, spok'e in favor of the
hardship exemption. ' Planning .pirector
~presented relevant data and explained the
application's.standing in relation ro the
- Section 4 standards of Measure A. Mr.
'West pointed out-that several of the
~onditions had .bee'n" lifted by the council
:on October 17, '1979. Mayor ,Calloh asked
~Speci&l Counsel what'may be considered in
·-_: granting hardship.exemptions. Special
Counsel replied ~h&t Ewo'fac~ors are to
.... be eonsidered: wh~ther there is' extreme
.... hardship, and whether a proposa'l agrees
.. 'with the provisions of the ih'iti. ati~e.
.geological' ~eport and thus do~s 'not
Jensen noted that Ciey GeologiSt' s report
; on Mr. WesE'~s application. predates. the '
Levaluate the rep'6~t. birector'o~ In/.`
:spection ServiCes'stated that .council
- - 'had .directed that",st~ff 'n6~ p~ocess appli
Ications, so2the City Geologist had noE
reviewed the ~epo~.t. Mayor Callon ~sked
for clarification on procedures for
--' .approval of the ge'olo~ica. I-analysis on
!Measure A projecEsi' and the Director of
-' ~ ~ihspe~tfo~. serv, lces reviewed those
" ' -. - procedures. ~.d'Gomersall said.'it is un-
"~'~ "' " :' rea'listic<'~o b~ 'hard-line" .on Measure A.
' ' ' Public. Hearing on Perry" West' project was
,? .., F "'~ ~: ~. : Cio~ed. ' ,,"',%- l.. ' ' '
,-, . ,.;J.,;- -. ;_~.. .
: Council began deliber'ations on Blackwell
· '- ...... Hom~ ~ppl, ication
<:
'. Councilmembers and staff e~pressed ~heir
individual opinions on suc~ matters a~
whether there.'was.a hardship invdlved, "
- the duties of the laOdowne'rs with respe~
to making improvements ,. the developer ' s
past record of accommodation~ to: the'City
in making extensive offzsite and on-si~e
improvements, the fact 'that' .the project
' ' did no~ meet density.standards, and the
, findings necessary to gra.nt. an .exemption.
'The application was also discussed from
.-.. ~the points of v~ew 'of acceS's and circu-
lation, geological probl.ems, staging of
'growth, street and storm drain mainten~
~ance-i and .the ~'diffi~dtty of"fdtmin~:Slpeci&l::
.' assessment d,stricts: Russellf' Crowthe~
- ' : ' express. ed concern over ~pecific plan and
final plan procedu[es ~o meeE the density
standards. Councilmember' Jense~ rea. d
into the records, "Th~ ~lans-shall also.
'establish ~hat a'maximum density upon
.residential development in'.the area, shal
' no~ exceed that per-mitted under a straigh[
line slope density-formula where a minimux,
of-two acres per dwelling unit is require~
...... ' at ~ a e
to the standards inZSec~ion"4 except the
density.; andlthat staff be·dl~ected to
-prepare a ~esolution~makin~ those
· findings '=PasSed 4-1-=(Jensen opposed).-
"- - · Councilmembers and',sta'ff dis~ssed the
.... merits of-unit ~' ahd the r'e~ainder of.
Parker Ranch,' along with the legal
questions inv01~ed~'in'~n~.~ti~e and-final
-. map ~pprovalS. L~or~y Nelson· a~ked whethe~
~ continuing'te~tati~elma~p~ocessing to
~= final would'allow.'the Planning:CommiSsion
~"' ~' to'deliDerate o'n;t~e landscap~ngRl~ns.
and wal~s.exdeed'ing.'thre~·,feet in heidht'.
SpeciAl Counsel ~ec6m~ended-the 'Council
rescind two m6tions ~'a~e~'bn June4.:
= .-C~lllon/Mallo~y moved='th~t'the City g~a~
· . ,,- final maps as f~qufr~d by the ~oungblood
· decision' and Government Code Section "
66474~1, b~t dela~ m~king~a .decfsion on
, . . this processing until·more ~swers are
obtained; and Watson/Mallory moved to
amend the main motion,. to remo~e the maps
reference_~n paragraph 5 and. put them int~
a~other paragraph which states "no~fu~the~
~pproval shall be granted relevant to
nhese final maps.." Mallory/Watson mo~ed
Lo rescind the motions~as~',recommended?.by
1~ ~pecial CounSel. -.Passed uhanimously.
~ia~~s__o_~ .... moved ,'to continue
;entative mad processing' for ~Un~'t
"' ~i'h~,c,ap~o~l~vi~hout
~ppr~a~lI~i~sse~--unanimousty.
' ~.- Council and staf~'discussed,B~ackwell's
Unit Two further.
'~?' ~ ~ ' · ' ~-.~ ~ ~~ ' ~ ~.~i~QrZ ~.gYed~in~addi~o~c~t~-
deh~.th'e,~re~ues'~'~5~'~ex~mpti6n' f6'~nit
~, ' ~' ...., ~, -, '?,, .t~orwithout~p~ejddice'~nd='tO.zdi~e6t.~stafr
~. - ....'. ~. ,-· ,-tO~pr~arew~-;~s61U~idn~akingZ, th~ppro
"'< " - "~ ~ "~ pr~e~fi~ihgs. Pa~sed unanimously.
· McBAIN & GIBBS CounCil and staff discussed the merits,
' ' "' of the applicati6n, including ~ensity
~ =- standards, ~reservatlon of'rural ~,~.~
AGENDA :' ACTION
'character, geologi'cal hazards, access and
circulation and existence of an economic
' ,hardship. ~atson/~ensen mo~ed that the_
~"' -- - e~emoti~n ~e,-d~nied andjthat staff be'
:~ d'i'~ted to ~rep~r~'-a,'.reSolUtiqn~to that
'effect. Pass~d-4~L1 (MallOry,opposed).
PARNAS 'dou~ilm~mbe~s~nd'staff dis~ussed the
" ~arnas applica[ion'~i~h respect"to factors
.. ' 'such as the,~hardship criteria, density,
1~-~,. t~ geol~g~c~l're6ui~ents and access
and circulation. wili~
Via'Regina, brought"'u~:~ point.that
Measure A calls for certain calculations
on a sliding scale as well as,the straight,
slope density. Bill Heiss e~plained the
design of the sewer system an'd stated that
~he goal was a sewer which could tolerate
projected movement for the next 20 years.
Council continued Parnas until 7/22 for
more study~
PERRY WEST douncil adjourned m~etfng to 7/22/80.
Respectfu,lly submitre'd,.
Rob er,'-- ,