Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-17-1981 City Council Minutes SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL TIME: Wednesday, June 17, 1981 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: Saratoga City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue TYPE: N-=gular 5~eting AGENDA ACTION I. ORGANIZATION A. ROLL CAlL - Councilmembers Clevenger, ~11 present. Jensen, Mallory, Watson, Mayor Callon B. MIN~i'~:S - 6/2; 6/3 3ENSEN/CLEVtlNGER MDVED ADOPTION ~ APPROVAL OF MINLFfES ~ITH ADDITION NC~i'ED RRIOW: 6/3, p. 1, Iten IV motion expanded to include reference to sight distance as the problen being monitored. II. COMMUNICATIONS -- A. ORAL ~one. B. WRITTEN Referred to City rManager for reply. As to #2, ~SEN/CLEV~ER MOVSD TO TAKE ROSI- TION FAVOR~BLF. TO DRAFT LAFCO POLICY. Passed 5-0. As to #4, JENSEN/CLEVENGER MOVED TO SEND CC~-iMUN-" ICATION TO IGC AND THE STATE IN SUPPORT OF SB 1132. Passed 5-0. III. SUBDMSIONS, BUILDING SITES, ZONING NOne. REQUESTS IV. P~ITIONS, ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS A. ORDINANCE AMEMDING ARTICLE II OF CH. JENSEN/WATSON MOVED TO READ BY =TITLE ~DNLY. ANDS-" 9 OF THE SARATOGA CITY CODE, CREATING WAIVE FURTHER READING AND TO ADOPT ORDINANCE · C0~IME~IAL LOADING ZONE ON BIG BASIN 38.100. Passed 5-0. WAY (second reading) B. RESOU/fION ES~IABLISHING AN AD HOC · 4ALLORY/CLEVENGF~ MOVtD TO ADOPT RESOLUTION STJDY CO~ITI'~ TO REVLBW A DRAFT 1020. Passed 5-0. HERITAGE CONSERVATION ORDINANCE C. RESOLUTIC}N CllviMENDING Btsl'l'f PECK AS CLEVENGER/MAItDRY MOVtD TO ADOPT RESOLUTION ENVIPOB~4EN~IALIST OF THE YEAR 1021. Passed 5-0. V. PUBLIC HEkRIN~S - 8:00 p.m. A. DE NOVO HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF USE City." ,Ma~hagert-~eviewed..appe~l~,' an~' .P_.lanni~q i'7~-'! PERMIT TO ALLfXq CONSTRUCTION OF PARKING .'Director'!'s~ztrized!-the LOT AT 20390 PARK PLACE (Applicant, ,-i':r' '~ '--~.- vn'~q'- ~--.~'-,~ .---,,:.. ....... : ~-i ...... - ~..~ ~777~=7~;~.~ 7~7!--!-...! f~i;~::L~ l.. "7 '." ~.~".1~ ~'" 7. "' ':' 77~-'~.~':~"'_ · 2~6/i7~81~ ACTION Phil Svalya, 14277 Elva, s~oke as a represen- tative of the. church, saying that the issue was to balance the needs for low incc~ne housing and for parking. .He stated that the church ~Duld maintain two of the ~our .units proposed for d~nolition as rental 'units 'in another location but the re~aining two were too far below standard' to warrant the cost of improve- fire hazard, were not habitable, and could cause liability problems. More parking space close to the church was necessary, he said, because of the narrow streets and lack of sidewalks in the area. He-believed that the Post Office. parking lot was dqwn. too steep a hill, and any 'business taking over the building after partiaI vac~ti6h by the Post Office may not allow church parking. Perking problems existed, he said .~on severa~ d. ays of the week and often _resulted in conflidtS ~ith the nearby Foothill Club~. it, ~ , Richard Drake, 20509 Garden Court, s~ke as a member of the church. He ex~Dlained that the church had had inadequate parking since it was built in ~6 ;,' t that '~va~ance bad 1 2 bu a been granted ' ~ermitting ~ha~~ d~Dndition. Now he believed c~rcumstances had changed, and the_ parking spaces were needed. Jim·Day, P. O. Box 387, Evans Lane, also spoke as a member of the church. He ex- plained that the church presently had 108 spaces and would have over 150 with the added spaces, which would still be fewer than ordinance requirements. The church, he said had bought the proparty with the idea of developing parking rather than renting the housir~. Jane Campbell, 14482 Oak Place, spoke of. the probl~ns created by people parking in unsuitable or dangerous areas. She stated. that the City should allow the proparty to be used for the purpose for which it was intended. Betty Peck, 14275 Saratoga Avenue, spoke as a member of the church. She stated her belief that the houses and trees wore impor- tant and that the public n~/sE be educated to use car pools; she, therefore, opposed the appeal. Lois Svalya, 142~7 Elva, asserted that the issue was s.afety for children, which would be enhanced by the availability of nearby parking. Myrtle Gardner Cox..~ spoke for the addition of parking spaces to relieve an inconvenient and dangerous situation. Mrs. James Marino, 20553 Montalvo, spoke as President.,of the Saratoga Foothill Club. She sa~d the club pai,d for the use of the church parking lot, but she supparted low-inccme hous ihg. /81 AGENDA ACTION Chu~k Hovey, 1 Park Place, spoke as a resident of one of the houses in question. ' He expressed the opinion that people should be willing to undergo scmle inconvenience to preserve grass and trees. He felt the parking spaces gained would not solve the problem. Pat Smith, 18603 Ravenwood, stated that the added parking spaces would help the elderly and handicapped. Patty Brian, 1 Pa~.~. Place,'~ opposed paving the area for a parking-lot, ~ayihg that it would not solve the probl~ pernk3nently and that people should tolerate scme inconvenience or explore the possibility of using the post office parking lot and establishing reserved parking spaces. Julie Boyson, 1 Park Place, suggested car pools or a van as alternatives to parking spaces. She felt the rental houses were satisfactory as habitations. She also noted that there were sidewalks in the area. Lilyann Brannon, San Jose, opposed the parking spaces for the sake of saving trees. -' She favored car pooling. Hazel Willie, 11951 Brookridge Drive, spoke as a member of the church. ' She pointed out that the paving would not be visually overwhelming, and that no large trees would be lost. She believed the church was not financially able to keep the property with the rental mite. The Public Hearing was closed at 8:50 p.m. Councilmember Jensen contented that the Post Office was to keep an office in the Village open, which would permit their parking to be used by the church. Shelley Witliams, 11951 Brookridge Drive, responded that the Post Office will stay in only a portion of the space and will lease the rest. In response to Councilmember Jense~, Asst. Planner Flores stated that in order for the rental units to be used as a Sunday School, they would have to be brought up to cede standards end qualify for a use permit. CounCilmember Jensen asked how many people drive to church; Mr. Day stated that the church had 1300 members, and one might ass~ne 80% attendance on a given Sunday, with 3 people per car. He also pointed out that the church does not plan to remove any healthy trees and shrubs; he believed the two Chestnut trees to he dying. Councilmember Watson, a member of the church, stated that a more permanent means of solving the proble]n was necessary. 4-6/17/81 AGENDA ACTION City Attorney explained that each member of the Council must decide if-he has any pre- judices in this case.' If not, it is proper to participate in the decision. Council- member Watson stated that he had no conflict of interest. Councilmember Jensen stated that car pooling was a good possibility and that the Post Office would be moving 'its vehicles presently parked in its lot. Moreover, she felt that one of the church's projects was to house people who-'could 'nqt otherwise be housed, and she f~vor~ed_~d_enyjlng the appeal. Councilmember Mallory felt, b~sed partly on his visit to the site, that the appeal should be granted, since the trees would be main- tained. Mayor Callon .expre~ssed doubt that carpooling would solve the problem;iin!a~y-case, the church would continue to grow, and she believed the appeal should be g~anted if .the church ,provided plan to tr.a~I~.sport m~em~er.s other, than by individual. cars. Councilmember Watson stated that he did'.not wish to impose City bureaucracy on the church by way of an action' p~an. Councilmember Ma_llory expressed doubt that the houses in question ~ould he desirable anywhere in Saratoga. Moreover, the parking problem was partly due to the Foothill Club, so he felt a mandated action plan for the church would be inappropriate. Councilmember Clevenger stated that since the low-incc~ne housing question was moot, the Planning O~m~s~ion's major basis for denial was eliminated. She did not favor excessively large areas of asphalt, however, and wished tO grant the appeal on condition that all the trees be looked after. Mallory/Watson moved to grant the appeal, whereupon the following amendment was offered: Callon/Clevenger ~oved that th~ church file a plan with the City within six months to ta~e care. of the.parking problem not addressed by the added parking spaces and tha~ the trees be preserved. as staff believes is appropriate. Passed 3-2 (Mallory, Watson opposed). The final motion thus was: MALLORY/~NATSON MOVED TO GRANT APPEAL, OVER- TURNING THE PLANNING ODMvLISSION DECISION AND PERMITTING THE R~DVAL OF THE FOUR RENTAL UNITS 6N T}t CONDITION THAT THE CHURCH FILE A PlAN WITH THE CITY WITHIN SIX MONTHS TO TAKE CARE OF THE PARKING PROBLEM NOT ADDRESSED BY THE ADDED PARKING SPACES AND 5-6/17/81 AGENDA ACTION THAT~THE,'TREES~, BE PRESERVED . /~g STAFF BELIEVES IS APPROPR/ATE. Passed 4-1 (Jensen opposed). B. APPEAL OF PLANNING DIRELTOR GRANT OF City Manager reviewed appeal, pointing out USE PERMIT FOR TWO-STORY ADDITION AT sections of Zoning Ordinance which applied, 14721 Live Oak Lane (applicant, Donald allowing Planning Director to approve C~F~1 Elam; appellant, Tcm & Julie Harris) second-story conversion permit. <~ Planning Director reviewed 'staff report, " noting that condition to raise windows on addition had been added at a public hearing but that it had later been found that the .~,~ condition was apparently-co~ntrary to the ~%-~.~l-i..,~i~: Uniform Building~C~d_~e_..~ ~ Mayor Callon inquired about setbacks, and Asst. Planner Flores explained that the house exceeded requiraments, since it was set back 56'; 20' was required for a normal lot, and .13½' for a non-conforming lot. The Public Hearing was opened at 9:35 p.m. Tcm Harris, 'the appellant, spoke against the addition, saying that it would have a severe impact on the value of his home, as well as his privacy. He stated also that the neigh- borhood was not one.of large hc~es, and there were no two-story homes on his street. When he bought the home, Mr. Harri~ said, he thought City ordinances would protect the environment, including privacy. He believed that the vegetation would nbt protect his privacy. He suggested that. the Elams build onto their, back yard rather .than. adding a second storyl ' ' ' Don Elam, ~4721 Live Oak Lane, .spok~ as the applicant. He presented docuraenta~ion of previous;corre~pondence.in cbnnection with the case to the Council, along with cha~ts ar~ photographs of the Site.- He asserted that his project took into consideration City ordinances, costs, energy conservation, and ecology: He'noted that.he'could not build in the back without' renmVing vegeta- tion. M:. Elam felt that privacy was not an issue because the 'seeend-story windows looking down on the Harrises would be bedroom windows. Mayor Callon asked whether there vfere windows on the seeend story south side so that the north windows could be blocked or treated in another manner. Mr. Elam said that could perhaps be done, since there were windows on the south side. She inquired about the size of 'the house, and he replied that there were 2,145 square feet inside the House, with an outside activity room of 404' square feet. Linda Elam, daughter of the appli. cant, spoke as an occupant of the proposed second story. She Stated that the Elams wished to preserve the privacy of the bedroom and felt that the Harrises' privacy was not being invaded. /81 ACTION Bob Thurston, 14324 Cordwood, spoke as a participant in the planning of the proposed project. He stated that of 24 lots in the area, seven are for two-story houses. Mr. Harris spoke again to say that frcm inside his home one can see the Elam roof, and that adding a second story would increase the visual impact unacceptably. He added that the foliage would not cover the windows, since the trees are tee far from the house. Moreover, he said, no two-story homes were visible from his house. Building an addition in the ~back~--he stated, would mean the removal of trees no mor~ than 10'-15' high. He also believed 'the Elams did not need eight bedrocks. Mr. Elam responded that there was a mature holly tree in back of the house. He felt his family's lifestyle justified a large house, but that in any event it was not necessary to justify what his family desired. Councilmember Watson asked whether one window in the master bedrocen could be raised. Mr. Elam expressed reluctance to answer '.lrm~diately, but stated that he could make one window stained glass. He felt that if he made.such a concession, the wire fence near the Harrises' driveway should be re- paired or continued as a wooden fence. Mayor Callon pointed out that the Council could not put conditions on another party, since it was Mr. Elam's project which was under appeal. The Public Hearing was closed at 10:20 p.m. City Attorney explained that Section 16.15 of the Zoning Ordinance set out the options. available to the Council, and pointed out that the hearing was a de novo_hearing under this section. Councilmember Jensan noted that, as a use permit, the Council was considering the grant of a Special privilege, not a right. She felt that, considering the issues mentioned in the Zoning Ordinance, the appeal should be granted. Cohncilmember Clevenger stated her opinion that Mr. Harris' privacy was being adversely impacted, and that the appeal should be granted on those grounds. Mayor Callon felt there was no violation of privacy because of the deep setback of the E~am ~house. A two story house was preferable to an addition which would cover more land, she believed. She favored denying the appeal. Councilmember Mallory asked if Mr. Elam were willing to make both windows on the far right, north of the proposed second story, AGENDA ACTION into permanent, stained glass. Mr. Etam replied that he was willing to do so. Councilmember Watson noted that a clerestory window might be a solution. He felt privacy was indeed a problen. I- !~. Director of Public Works stated that fixed ? ~'. % glass would probably be acceptable. -1 MALLORY/h~TSON MDVED TO DENY APPEAL, BASED ';~ '~ '~! · ON THE AGREEMEhT,~ OF. APPLICANT TO EITHER INSTALL FIXED, PERMANENT STAllNED GLASS f' _~-~ WINDOWS ~S THE TWD .WINDOWS O~F THE SECOND · . STORY ON THE FAR..RIGHT, NDRT. H~ISIDE, OR TO "' '' INSTALL T~DSE WI~IDWS SIX F~:~.T OR' MORE ABOVE THE FLOOR. Passed 3-2 (Jensen, Clevenger ~ opposed). C. APPEAL OF PLA~ING ODMMISSION DENIAL .Angelo Scampini, the applicant 's attorney, OF USE PERMIT AND DESIGN REVIEW ~ requested a de novo hearing after July 20. APPROVAL AT 20473 SARATOGA-LOS GATOS ROAD (Applicant/Appellant, Imperial CONSENSUS TO CONTINUE TO J~ff~Y 1, FOR PURPOSE Savings &Loan). OF S~iTING DATE OF DE NDV0 HEARING, AT REQUEST OF APPLICANT. D. APPEAL OF PLANNING ODMMISSION DENIAL ~ Harry Bremond, the applicant's attorney, OF USE PERMIT TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION'OF~ requested a de novo hearing. CABANA AT 19104 SPRINGEFDOK LANE (Applicant/Appellant, Norman Dion). CONSENSUS TO CONDUCT DE NDVO HEAR/NG ON JULY1. VI. BIDS AMD CONTRACTS A. AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR QUITO/ALLENDALE Councilmember Jensen inquired as to funding BIKEWAY IMPROVEMENTS. for Phase II Of work. Director of Public Works replied that no funds would be available frcm the source of Phase I funds, but that the staff would parsue TDA funds or perform the work with City crews. JENSEN/.CLEVEN~ MDVED AWARD OF CONTRACT TO CALHOUN BROTHERS IN THE AMOUNT OF $11,450. TO ODNSTRUCT PHASE I AND INCLUSION OF PHASES II AND III IN THE UPODMING FISCAL YEAR. Passed 5-0. ': ~." NOTICE TO THE. PUBLIC All matters listed under Item VII, Consent Calendar, are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted by one motion in the form listed below. There will be no separate discussion of these items. If discussion is required, that item Will be removed from the Consent Calendar and will be considered separately. Vote may be by roll call. VII. CONSEN~ CAI,ENDAR 'Mallory requested removal of Item B. JENSEN/MALLORY MOVED ADOPTION AND APPROVAL OF ITemS A AND C-F ON THE CONS~qT CAI,E~DAR. Passed 5-0. A. CITY TREASL~ER'S REPORT APPROVI'3D. B. AUTHORIZATION OF PAYMENT OF SARATOGA'S~ Councilmember Mallory inquired as to the SHARE OF ~EDFLY LITIGATION (FINAL reason for the Medfly litigation payment's PAYMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,255.83) being so high. City Attorney replied that the bill was for the City' s pro-rate share · - of the litigation, which had been divid~d~ 8-6/15/81 ACTION equally among the six cities participating in the suit. Mayor Callon asked whether th~ Council had limited participation. to $2,000. Council- member Clevenger stated that she believed the Council had not set a limit because the estimated cost had been $750. to $1,000; she believed also that the amount was to be apportioned by population rather than equally divided. Councilmember Ma~llory stated...that he had moved that the City of SaratO~ withdraw from the Medfly case in]nediately and pay no fees beyond the $2,000. authorized by the majority of the Council. Mayor Callon suggested perhaps the Council should pay no more than the $2,000. if that was what had been voted upon, and that per- haps they ~hould object tO the bill's having been divided equally instead of on a pro- rata basis. City Manager noted that it was the Council' s prerogative not+ to authorize p~yment of the full claim, but only the $2,000. The Council could also deny the Claim altogether, he stated, and negoti. ate with th.e claimant: Councilmember Watson asked 'that the minutes of the meetings where the subject had been discussed be reviewed; he believed that no lim/thad been formally put on costs. The situation did show, he felt, the need for vigilance by the Council in monitoring costs. City Attorney explained that at the original n~eting to begin the Medfly litigation the question of sharing costs had not been re- solved. Later, he said, the decision was made to share costs e~3ally; he bad reported that decision at a litigation session after a bill was presented, but the bill did not have the final adjustment and was only about $2,200. Councilmember Mallory objected to the pro- cedures that had been followed in this case, which had resulted in no discussion before the public.' He felt there had been no need, strategically or otherwise, to cover the matter in p~ivate.' Mayor Callon noted that it had !come2before the Council as a litigation item before the litigation had been filed and therefore re- quired some degree of secrecy. The majority of the Council determined it to be an appropriate subject for litigation and acted in executive session; the funding w~s taken up in public sessions, she said. 9-6/17/81 AGENDA ACTION C. D~N~IAL OF CIA3~ FOR DAMAGES: DAN, CLAIM:DENIED.~ DIANA, AMD DVAID FORSTE~ D. FINAL ACCEPTANCE FOR TRACT 5995, Sperry APPROVED. Eane ~qayne Lepesavic) ~- -E. ~INAL ACCEPTANCE FOR SDR 1276, Vessing APPROV~D. - Rbad (Don McKenzie) ~.F~~ PAYMENT OF CLAIMS APPROVED. VIII. ADMINISTRATIVE MjKi'I'E~S_ ~_ A. MAYOR . I o, ..... B. COUNCIL & ODMMISSION REPOMPS Clevenger: Reported on appeal= to HUD for Paul St. improve- ments. Mallory: Reportedofi-,:far~=%increase~-,~-b!;.%Tra~Si~ Cor~i~sion Watson: Peported on requests to City Manager for reports on methods to streamline Council meetings and on developing Blue Ribbon' financial curedtree. C. 'DEPAR1T4E~f HEADS AND OFFICERS ' ~ ' 1. Planning Director a. Report on Proposed Two-Story CounciLmember Jensen stepped. down from-her Structure ,at 13687 Quito Road seat as a' Councilmember and took a seat in (A-759) the aedi~nce. .. City Manager reviewed history ~f the appeal and noted that if the Council approVed one of the options described i~ the staff report, it would beccme a condition of the structure. Asst. Planne~ Flores explained the two options. Councilmember Clevenger' inquired as to whether the area oV~er~the garaQe-oou~d'be ~ad~ i~to replied that ~ Co~l~ '~t 'd~t~e that from? the information. at hand. site approvat~had to be giv.en 'agamn~i.sLnce it had orig'.mnal~y been g~ven for a 'one-story rather than a .two-storyFhouSe.. City Attorney stated that the Subdi~ihion Ordinance did not require: a detailed sit~' plan, .~a~9 in this case the site~lan rode no 'reference as to number of stories. Councilmembers discussed Ho~ many-feet roof should be dropped and the appearance 6f both options. Mrs. Ray, wife of the appli6.ant, statedl~hat the area in question'had bee_n' intended to house the water beater and furnace. -She also pointed out that vegetation would be pla~ted. CALLON/WATSON MDVED TO ALLOW. MR. RAY TO · ' ' BUILD EiTHER OPTION 1 OR OPTION 2 DESCRIBIID IN STAFF REI~RT DA~'~jD 6/4Z8~1, WITH CONDITION 10-6/17/81 AGENDA ACTION THAT ROOF MUST BE LOWERED 4'. Passed 4-0' (Jensen not voting). Mrs. Jensen returned to her seat as a Councilmember .., < .-~ b. Report on LAFOD Referral of JENSEN/MALIORY MOVED TO DIRECt3 CITY MANAGER : ' Sanitation DistriCt No. 4 TO SEND L~ITER TO IAFCD STATING THAT THE (. ? Annexation Proposed in Saratoga. CITY OPI~DSES THE INCLUSION OF THE PPjK3KL ~'. / Sphere of Influence WHICH LYRS WITHIN SARATOGA'S SPHERE OF : INFLUSNCE IN THE SANITATION DISTRICT BOUNDARIES Passed 4-0 (Callon .t ~.~nppraVy' absent). 2. DirectO~kof ,Publi~ Works ': ~' a. Report on Seratoga-Sunnyvale Director of Public Works reviewed history of Road Bike Path (referred frcm bicycle path, noting that a conmittee of 5/6) citizens had been appointed to work with him to reach agreement on the design of the path. He sltted a report outlining two options. Nancy Arias, 20590 Canyon View Drive, a member of the cc~nuittee, stated that either option, as presented, would remove a large tree~-:.~ She' suggested a three-foot pedestrian path behir~ the Nealetree, with a retaining wall on the other side .w~ere children could walk their bicycles. Director of Public Works stated that Caltrens would not fund such a Councilmember Mallory brought up the questiOn 6f-~i~jSi'lit~ if-a'~sub=s~and~rd~:~ath'._wefrelbhilt. Councilmember Jensen stated that she did not think the area was a problen, and that a walling path was needed more than a bicycle louise Schaefer, 19874 Park Drive, Qho w~s also on the oonmittee, stated that there was no perfect solution, but that she favored a bike path on the side with the Neale tree, with one tree in the median strip being moved. Kurt Veester stated that he favored Option 2. He believed that a service club could donate financial aid for a path. Dora Grens, 13451 Old Oak Way, also spoke as a member of the cc~mnittee. She stated that school children should not be riding that road, but rather a bike lane on the other side of Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. She favored Option 2. Councilmember Clevenger stated that walkers should be accommodated; she favored a 3' path. Mayor Callon stated that she preferred an at- grade bike path, with removal of the Neale tree and the preservation of the media trees. 6/17/81 AGENDA ACTION Councilmember Watson asserted that children need a safe way to get to school. He also felt that the City should pursue state funding for a path all the way to the Village. Councilmember Mallory noted that the Council I~ .... ~_~ was addressing bike paths fram Prospect; he ~ -- believed the state should pay up to.Marion. i ,~. He favored stopping the bike path at Marion and using the path frcpa around the Neale tree as a walking path. f~" ' '~ WATSON/JENSEN ~D~VED TO. ADOPT OPTION 2, OF ~ .... ~ "' "! STAFF REPOF~, WHICH TERMilF~'ED THE BIKE PATH Passed 3-2 (Mallory, Callon opFosed). b. Report on Petition Requesting Robert Rouse,~rl'St60._Fr~itV~le AVen'ue,'=,~urg&d~7'- Alignment of Vertical Grade onl ~or~ection of the vertical grade. Froitvale CONSENSUS TO INCLUDE PROPOSAL FOR VERTICAL 'ALI~ OF FRUITVALE AVENUE NORTH OF AIONDRA WITH OTHER PROPOSED CAPITAL PROJECTS IN BUDGET REVIEW PROCESS AND TO INVESTIGATE A TEMPORARY SOLUTION SUCH AS A MIRROR. D. CITY MANAGER 1. Report on Use of Consultant for Councilmember Jensen stated that a planner Preparation of Ordinances should first prepare the ordinances, which Implementing the Northwest Hill- could then be reviewed by an attorney. side Area Specific Plan WATSON/CLEVENGER NOVED TO AUi~DRIZE THE CITY VIDE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES IN REVIEWING EXISTING ORDINANCES A~D PREPARING NEW NOF~HWEST HII.LqIDE SPECIFIC PLAN WITH A LIMIT OF $8,500. Passed 4-1 (JenSen opposed). 2. Relooation of Municipal Court City Manager recu~,~ended that Council oppose (added at meeting) proposed relocation of municipal court because it would result in lower quality of juStiCe for only small savings. Mayor Callon saw no ham in the relocation. Councilmember Jensen believed everything should be together to avoid confusion. MALlORY/WATSON MOVED TO VIGORDUSLY SUPPORT JUDGE TAYLOR IN OPPOSITION TO THE CIDSING OF THE BRANCH COURT. Failed 3-2. CONSENSUS TO DIRECT CITY MANAGER TO WRITE IEI'Ea< TO RICHARD SIEGFR~:i~ GIVING THE ACCURATE AMOUNT OF FUNDS EXPENDRD FOR MEASURE A LITIGATION. IX. ADJOURBIMENT - 12:00 or earlier The meeting adjourned at 12:15 a.m. RespeCtfhlly suhnitted, Grace E. Cory Deputy City Clerk