Saratoga News

PLANNING COMMISSION DELAYS NELSON DECISION

By Clarence Cromwell

A temporary reprieve for Nelson Gardens development opponents was delivered Jan. 10 by Saratoga Planning Commissioner Alfred Abshire.

With three of seven commissioners absent and four votes needed to approve a general plan amendment for the development, Abshire cast a "no" vote that halted the approval process at least until the next meeting.

The commission voted 4-0 to continue the item to Jan. 24 and vote on it again. City Attorney Michael Riback said the commission can always re-vote if a majority of the members want to reconsider an item.

"Well, there are miracles," said Ann Waltonsmith, Friends of Nelson Gardens president and longtime opponent of the development. "Mr. Abshire was our miracle man tonight."

Abshire said he opposed the general plan amendment because of the no-build Williamson Act contract on the property. He doesn't think the City Council should release the land from the contract.

"I'm not questioning the city's ability to do this, but when they do it, they better have a good reason," Abshire said. "I'm not sure it's worth giving up the open-space land. Is Saratoga seriously behind the general plan decision to conserve open space? I don't think we are if we continue with this development."

Other commissioners disagreed.

"If somebody wanted this to be a park, they could have bought it years ago," Commissioner Dick Siegfried said. "And if it were owned by someone else, Joe Smith instead of the Community Foundation, would we say, 'Just because you put it under the Williamson Act, we're not going to let you take it out?' "

Marcia Kaplan questioned the usefulness of the contract, which would expire in the year 2000, if reinstated.

"Then what?" she asked. "They sit on it another few years and it comes forward again."

The Community Foundation of Santa Clara County wants to build nine houses on the Saratoga Hills Road land formerly owned by Frank Nelson. Upon his death, Nelson deeded part of his property to nonprofit interests, and it eventually fell into the hands of the Community Foundation.

Now the foundation's development plan is threatened by the contract, signed by Nelson and the city in 1971. The contract was rescinded by the City Council in November 1994. When the council reinstated the contract on Dec. 20, 1995, the Friends dropped a court case demanding both reinstatement of the Williamson Act and completion of an environmental impact report on the development. The case alleged that the city didn't appropriately research the environmental effects of canceling the Williamson Act.

The Friends got the environmental impact report in a concession from the developer. Last week, the Planning Commission voted 4-0 to recommend the report to the council.

Associate City Attorney Rick Jarvis said the City Council could cancel the contract again, this time using evidence from the newly completed EIR to make its case.

Friends of Nelson Gardens oppose any development on the land and instead suggest converting the unused orchard on the 5.1-acre property to an educational garden that would teach schoolchildren how farm goods are produced. Waltonsmith said if the Williamson Act ban on development is reinstated, funding may materialize before it expires.

But two of the planning commissioners who were absent last week--Henry Murakami and Sami Asfour--have indicated at previous public hearings that they consider the possibility of a park hopeless, unless the Friends can come forth with the cash themselves. Murakami and Asfour separately notified the planning staff before the meeting to say that they couldn't attend because of business commitments that evening.

Meg Caldwell, the other absent commissioner, supports the Friends, but has not attended a Planning Commission meeting since she told the City Council in December not to consider her for reappointment when her term expires at the end of this month.

The general plan amendment on which the commissioners will vote Jan. 24 would change the property from an "open-space outdoor recreational" designation to "residential very-low density" and "medium density" in the general plan.