HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-16-1986 City Council MinutesTIME: Wednesday, July 16, 1986 - 7:00 P.M.
PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue
1. ROLL CALL: Councilmembers Anderson, Clevenger, Moylea~ Peterson and
Mayor Hlava present at 7:05 p.m.
2. CEPai~NIAL i'i'~S
A. Resolution C~muend/ng Ms. Cathy Dunlap
Councilmember Peterson con~lented on Ms. Dunlap's outstanding contribution
to the City of Saratoga.
ANDERSON/FLTZF~SON MOVED TO ADOPT RESOUJI~ON 2354. Passed 5-0.
Mayor Hlava noted t_hat a new item was placed on the agenda under NEW
BUSINESS, 1985-86 Appropriation Transfer Resolution.
3. RDUi'INE MALL'I'~3F~S
A. Approval of Minutes
Councilmember Clevenger requested a correction on page 4, fifth paragraph
which should read, "She presented Councilmember Clevehger with a plaque
honoring her service as mayor. Councilmember Clevenger responded that it
W'dS an honor to have served, and she appreciated the opportunity to do so."
MOYT.~.q/FL'I'~I~SON MOVED TO ADOPT 6/26/86 MINUTES AS CORRECi'~U. Passed 5-0.
Councilmember Clevenger requested a correction under Item 2, the Minutes
should read, ~4ayor Hlava presented the resolution to Miss Willlares and
Miss Saucedo."
City Manager requested a correction on page 4, fourth paragraph to read
July 16th; Page 5 review the testimony for correcthess of the statement,
"He (Mr. Young) stated that the house covered only 1/2 of 1% of the lot,
..." (Clerk's note: Examination of the tare indicates that Mr. Young
said, 1/2 of 1% more of the lot would be covered than was previously
covered. )
CounciLmember Clevenger requested the correction on page 7, paragraph 6 to
read, "She said that that under a proposed design review revision the
maximum square footage should be 6,005 because of the steephess of the
slope." '
MOYT.~.q/FL'I'~2~SON MOVED TO ADOPT 7/2/86 MINUTES AS CORRECI'~]D. Passed 5-0.
B. Approval of W~t List
Councilmember Clevenger inquired regarding a reimbursement not listed on
the Warrant List. Finance Director Shriver stated that page 11 of the
Warrant List was missing in scme of the copies. She answered questions
regarding the Voids noted on pages 4 and 6.
CLEVE~IGER/i~T~FSON I~DVED TO APPROVE WARRANT LIST. Passed 5-0.
4. CONSENT CAT.k~UDAR
A. Planning Cu~uL.~ssion Actions - Note and File
B. Final Map Approval, SDR 1621, Grant Adoredor, Mendelsohn Lane
(1 lot)
C. Final Map Approval, SDR 1565, James Hopkins, Lc~ita Avenue (1 lot)
1
JULY 16, 1986 PAGF. 2
4. (Continued)
D. Final Map Approval, T~. 7763, Dividend Development Corp., Pr~.~ect
E. Resolution 2355 Confirming Council Appointments to Agencies
F. Resolution 2356 Confirming Denial of Saude Appeal heard 6/18/86
G. Resolution 2357 Confirming Denial of Zicovich (Rosa~ Appeal heard
7/2/86
H. Resolution 2358 Confikming Denial of Slermnons appeal of Hwang
Project: heard 7/2/86
I. Resolution 2359 Designation of Authorized Signatures of HCDA
J. Acceptance and Acknowledgment of Donation to Hakone Gardens- Coleman
K. Resolution 2347.1 Adjusting Budget for Hakone Foundation Ad~unce
and E1 Quito Park Restroom
L. Investment Report - May 1986
Councilmember Moyles requested that Item 4E be withdrawn frc~n Consent
Mayor Hlava m.~quested a correction in Parking District #3/Village Plan
Liaison listi~ both Mayor Hlava and Councilmember Peterson. It was also
requested that the listing for the Youth C~,,~,~ssion be removed as no
Cunm,~ssion has been created.
Mayor Hlava stated that the i Report fr~f, the Planning C~m~,~ttee on
Investments is [~stponed until t~e August 6, 1986, City Council Meeting.
MOY~/ANDERSON I~DVED FOR APPROVAL OF CONSENT CATA~IIAR WI'iH THE REMOVAL OF
1'1'~/~ 4E. l~assed 5-0.
MOYI.~-q/I~,T~FS~DIq ~DVED FOR AFFI~OVAL OF CONSENT CA~,~qDAR 4E AS AMENDP~D.
Passed 5-0.
5. COMMUNICAT/ONS FROM CEMMISSIONS AND THE F3BLIC
A. Oral Cc~nunications from ~e Public and Cu~m,Hssions
Mr. Ba~o, Ca~Lno Barco, stated that every two years the Council decides
what selection process will ke used for choosing a new Mayor and Vice
Mayor and who will fill thes~ positions. Mr. Barco recu~ule_nded that a
commission of five citizens be] formed to investigate the various methods
of selecting city officials; this c~,~ssion will select the method that
will best serve; the City of Saratoga. Consensus to discuss under Item
9.A.
Mrs. Fred Kohler, 12091 Country Sc~ve Lane, Saratoga, stated that the
pavement on the! street she lives on is in serious disrepair. The City
Manager will send[ a maintenance ~ to review the situation.
Mr. Arthur Sle~,mons, 19655 Redberry Drive addressed the action taken on
the Hw-~ng property and stated the !following:
- The Hwang property shows a 35% slope which is in violation of loc~hl
- Mr. Peterson 'voted as a Plating Cun~issioner and as a Councilmembea~;
this. is incorre-~t procedure according to Robert's Rules of Order.
- The Hw~ng Application is not a ~%~l~hip case.
- The City Council did not give full consideration to the definition of
perception of balk.
- The Applicants should be denied their request reqarding the specific
placement of the house on the probetty.
JULY 16, 1986 Pi~/~E 3
5 (Continued)
B. Written C~LULLUniCatiOnS frcm the Public
Letter fiULLL City Of MOnte Sereno urging Saratoga to participate in KCAT.
Mayor Hlava s~L~L~rized the rationale for rec~Lu,ending the use Of West
Valley C~mLLUnity College facilities in preference to MOnte Sereno Or Los
Gatos facilities. The Mayor also stated that because the City of Saratoga
has a franchise fee of 3% of ~uss revenues, the City does not have the
ongoing revenues to support quality local origination of television
programming envisioned with the separate KCAT station. ' The Council,
however, is interested in making available to the public this special
programmir~; because West Valley College offers full television
facilities, the Council wished to utilize this facility rather than
duplicate existing facilities. Councilmember Moyles will meet with Monte
Sereno representatives.
6. OLD BUSINESS
A. Discussion' of Policy Advisory Board Motion Made at 6/25/86 Meeting
concerning Route 85.
Mayor Hlava reported the information received from the 1985 and 1986
Design Profile and the discussions that occurred at the west valley
cities Managers and Mayors meeting. She stated that the legal issues
discussed included the request by Monte Sereno, Canpbell and Los Gatos for
a c~u~,~tment that the 46-foot median will not be used for additional lanes
and that consideration will be given for some form of public transit.
Monte Sereno and Los Gatos Concurred that one of the most important issues
is the Concept of interchanges; it is imperative to their traffic flow to
have an interchange at either Quito or Saratoga Avenue.
Finally, Cupertino requested that the interchange at Rainbow Drive be
elevated; elevation at this juncture seems unlikely since the freew~y will
be depressed in the Saratoga area.
City Manager clarified the distinctions between the base profile and the
proposed profile; namely that the base profile is the freeway
Configuration shown in the DEIS and the proposed profile includes the
changes in Configuration by adding the Saratoga alternative and the
depression through the Cambrian area of San Jose. Councilmember Anderson
stated that Counci~ Lu Rydan favors depression of the freeway in the
San Jose area; Cupertino also favors depression with the exception of the
elevation at the Rainbow Drive interchange. She proposed that the freeway
be depressed in all neighborhood areas. The Route 85 Policy Advisory
Board (PAB) rec~Lmendation was reviewed and conclusion reached as follows:
A. Consensus reached for six lanes~ two to be for c~nuLLuter Use.
B. Councilm~_r Clevenger stated that she does not support the 46-fCot
median; she may Concede this point in order to reach Consensus with
other cities. CounciLmember Anderson Concurred that Transportation
2000 does not appear to be dedicating the Corridor frc~ Hwy. 17 to
Hwy. 280 to mass treulsit; this Concession, if made, should be for
the benefit of reaching consensus with other cities. Figures from
San Jose Public Works were presented to show the affect of the
p=uposed interchanges on the various cities. Councilmember Peterson
stated that he is unwilling to tie the 46-foot median to other
conditions; the interchanges require further study. Councilmember
Moyles stated that the City of Saratoga needs to make clear that it
is conceding points in an effort to reach Consensus; this would be
one of them. Concessions would be made upon Consideration by other
cities of the needs and preferences of Saratoga. Mayor PLlava stated
that depression of the freeway is a priority for her.
JULY 16, 1986 PAGE 4
B (Continued],
Council~mnber Clevenger expressed her concern regard/rig the erosion
of Saratoga ' s negotiating power. Counci~ Peterson sugge~-ted
that the: Council agree upon the oonditions that would warrant
concessions of the 46-foot median. He cuam~nted upon the
differen(~s of opinion ~in the ~:~unity. Mayor Hlava c~n~ente] on
the larKi use issue and the possibility that Saratoga may be required
to acce[fc high density housing; the building of a light rail system
in Saratoga will result in increasing pressure on the ci~ to
provide high density housing. Councilmenber Anderson suggested 'that
neighbol~lood groups all ~lcng the corridor will denand dopression of
the fr~.~ray. Councilmenbet Peterson is agreeable to either the
46-foot or the 22-foot! median; he. is concerned that the 46-fcot
median wj_ll result in a demand for 8 freeway lanes in a few years.
Cons~; reached on the 46-foot median only in areas slated for
possible transit use.
C. Counciln~m~er Clevenger questioned whether the provisions of C. will
in fact ensure 8 lanes. Mayor Hlava stated that there is no purpose
in building a freeway that has interchanges and bridges that are too
small t~ aco~L~cdate existing needs. Councilmember Clevenger
o~Lented on the limited dollars available and the decisions 'that
will k~; made on priorities for this discretionary money.
Counciln~m~ber Peterson stated that if the city promotes a 22-fcot
median euld does not support light rail for this ares, then item C.
is a gj.ven. Coucilmember Anderson stated that she does not wish to
see an inferior freeway built due to lack of adequate funds. The
Mayor s~ted that the conclusion of this discussion is that the City
will ac~Bpt the 46-foot median in the San Jose portion of the
corridor where the light rail system will likely be installed; in
the CuE~,/tino, Los Gatos~and Saratoga portion of the corridor, tilere
is no justification for{ installation of the light ra~l system. The
Council acknowledges that this may involve extra cost; the Co~ncil
recognizes that depression of the freeway in the City of Saratoga
(as well as in other !neighborhoed areas) will also reqube extra
cost. [~,.pression of the freew~y in the saratoga area is of pr]/nary
importance.
consensus', reached on the design of all interchanges consistent with
modification of point "B." above.
D. consensus. reached on the design of freeway-to-freeway interchanges;
with the exception of i the possibility of added costs, these
interchanges will not affect Saratoga.
E. Mayor Hlava stated that the Council has questions regarding the
terms "appropriate" and~ "noise attenuation". She cited the City
Manager's analysis on noise attenuation.
Councilmember Anderson raised the issue that noise attenuation will
not be possible without ~totally depressing the freeway. The Policy
~avisory Board (PAB) wins suggested as the appropriate vehicle to
negotiate this issue. Councilmenher Anderson noted that noise
attenuation will be sought by residents all along the free~ay
corridor; this will be8 an issue that unifies the cities through
neighborhood interventionj
Mayor Hlava noted that~ one-half of the 11.6 miles of the free~ay
passes through residential areas. Councilmember Moyles favors the
_uSe of 'the word "appropriate" and feels that more specific
terminology 'negates the flexibility of Saratoga to negotiate
agreements, places unnecessary financial burdens on the project, and
raises the issue of extending the sales tax. He stated that
Saratoga's position of ]asking for depression of the freewmy was
rela~ea to noise attenuation; this wins asked for in January. As
long as depression is ~lated to DBA Staraavds, this request is on
solid 9=uund.
JULY 16, 1986 PAGE 5
E. (Continued)
City Manager stated that his concerns are whether a desirable sound
level .. can be achieved given the p~uix~ed methods of sound
mitigation. A 60 DBA might be achieved if trucks ere banned,' sound
walls are installed and the freeway is depressed. He stated that an
increase of ~ore than 5 DBA equals a change in the environment.
Councilmember Moyles stated that the Policy Advisory Board will not
adopt DBA standards. He stated that his point of view is that
Saratoga will have to conform to the national standards for
freew~ys.
Consensus reached on the wording of Item E.
F. Consensus reached on Item F with the understanding t_hat there be
sufficient walkw~ys and bridges ever the freeway to accu~Lmcdate
pedestrians and cyclists.
G. Consensus reached on Item G.
2. Consensus reached on Item 2.
3. Councilmember Clevenger expressed concerns regarding this provision
stating that it may invite more c~amercial use with the resulting
traffic. Council/nember Mcyles concurred end stated that he feels that
it is inappropriate for the Policy Advisory Board to establish land
use policies; the Policy Advisory Board w~s established by CalTrans
to provide consultative services on the corridor. The low density of
Saratoga does not create a problem and he favors non-involvement on
the part of Saratoga regarding this item.
Conse reached on Item 3.
Mayor Hlava stated that the final issue W'dS acquirir~ the sources Of
funding and the purchasing of the land before construction begins.
Councilmember Moyles raised the issue of the sequencing of construction of
the freew~y; CounciLmember Peterson felt that construction between Stevems
Creek Boulevard and Hwy. 17 should be one link in the buildir~ process.
Councilmenbet Clevenger stated that the digging of the corridor and the
~ of soil almost ensures a depressed freew~y.
Councilmember Moyles stated that he remains uncertain regarding terms in
1.B. such as "guarantee", "inter~evernmental" and "appropriate." Mayor
Hlava stated that the difficulty is that there has not been an endorsement
of the 46-foot median and thus, other decisions that hir~e upon the median
are difficult to decide at this time.
Mayor Hlava proceeded to public hearings.
8. FJBLIC HEARING
A. Ordinance amera~ng the Zoning Ordinance to establish a Planned
Development Zoning Classification allowing multiple uses on a
single site having such designation pursuant to a PD permit (first
reading)
City Attorney reviewed the proposed Ordinance; the City Manager had also
submitted a memo on this subject. He stated that the fundamental issue of
this item is the mixture of uses in the district and sets forth guidelines
for these Uses.
The process of obtaining PD approval represents a combination of sits
approval, Use Permit application and design review. The City Attorney
outlined the procadure for hearing this item and stated that a Public
Hearing was required at the time of initial approval. Mayor Hlava stated
that a study session would be desirable; Councilmember Clevenger
concurred.
JULY 16, 1986 PAGE 6
8.A. (Continued)
The Public He~/ng ~as opened at 8:54 P.M.
Mr. John E." (]~ert) Tcevs, 13120 Via Madronas Drive, Saratoga, acknowledged
that both the- City Council ahd the Planning C~tu,.{ssion have been kind to
the senior citizens in the am. Mr. Toevs represents the Saratoga .Area
Senior Coordixmting Council. ~He presented a statement "A Continuir~ Care
Retirement 'C~mmmity for SaratccFa". Mr. Tcevs cited facilities in several
other cu~unities that are similar to the proposed project for the Cit.~ of
Saratoc/a and eulswered questions! ~uK~ CounciLmenhers.
Mr. Don Sk/nner, PMC Associates, stated that he has been ~loyed by the
Paul Masson Winery to work with the city .to develop a PD Ordinance. He
stated that in numerous planhing sessions city officials had worked very
~ to accon~01ish this goal.
Mr. R.E.' Kaufmann, Senior Coord/nating Council Building Cun~,~ttee, stated
that approximately 200 units were needed to make this project financietlly
viable; less units will not provide the level of care desil-able for
c~,u'l'lunity. This project has in mind quality living apartments for retja:ed
citizens of Saratoga. In response to Councilmember Peterson's question
Mr. Fa~ ;stated that th~ average size for the units is 1200 sq~re
feet, with 250 to 300 units; this amounts to a 40% coverage and will
req~e a 10 acre minimum.
Councilmember ].~terson clarified the 30% property guideline stating that
the Planning (iunu~,~ssion did not want to see more than 1/3 of the 26 acres
devoted to ser~Lor citizens. However, the Planning Cu~,~ssion did not know
at the time of their discussions how many units would be necessary to make
this project e~onomically viable; the Cua~,~ssion would review t~_se
figures in the light of the' information provided by Mr. Kaufm~nn.
Councilmenher Clevengar suggested a 50% property guideline.
Councilmember Clevenger stated~har concern regarding the use of up to 50%
Of the property for senior housing. on the MenDE regarding the
Planned Development Ordinance,I Allowable Mixed Uses, Senior citizen
housing will be raised frcm 30% to 50%. Consensus reached.
CounciLmenbet Clevenger stated ~ that she did not wish to support Hotel or
Motel use. She also favored continuation of Office use since this
category represented such a small percentage of the project.
Items on the Planned Development !Ordinance were then taken in order.
- on Purposes of Article the Council wishes this section to be summarized.
- on Allowable Mixed Uses:
Consensus reached on "Senior Citizen Housing"; this figure will be
raised to 50%~
Councilmembers Clevenger, Anderson and Moyles favored deletion of Hotel
or Motel use ~tegory.
Mayor Hlav~ favors both Retail and Offices within the Manned
Development. Consensus reached on allowing 15% of Retail and 15% Office
Consensus reac~ed on adoption of the proposal submitted by the City
Manager in a ~mo to the Counci!.
- On Sits Densj.ty Guidelines: ~Councilmember Paterson explained that the
term "Guidelines" was used~ by the Planning C~mtdssion to give the
Ordinance fle~'ibility. The term "Standards" would not have accu~,~lished
this puri~se. The City Attorney clarified the difference in procedure
required for m ifying guidelin es to m ifying standards and
stated that the processes for each are different. The Plann~j
C~u~dssion wishas to avoid the Variance Procedure.
JULY 16, 1986 pAGE 7
8.A. (Continued)
Councilmember Peterson feels Office should be included as a Use,
possibly located n~ the railroad and/or the freeway, to function as a
buffer for the rest of the p~uperty; Retail can be utilized as a
corollary Use for other possible types of Uses c~lly.
- Consensus reached that the Floor Area Ratio for Office and Retail use be
set at .23
- On Site Coverage: conse reached that the project density equal 20
units per acre, inclua~ng the senior citizen bonus, and 60% coverage.
- On Setbacks: consensus reached on 30 foot setback frcm property line for
one story buildings, and 50 foot setback from property line for two
story buildings
- On the Concep~,~l Development Plan: City Manager questioned the
rec3,4~ement in (1) of the ConceUb,~l Site Plan for detailed scale
drawings of b,~ldings proposed. This entails significant labor and cost
for initial plans. He suggested that a more appropriate requirement
would be to ask for the proposed style to be submitted in the
application for consideration by the Plannir~ Commission; Mayor Hlava
concurred. Councilmember Peterson suggested that this approach may have
been the intent of the statement.
- Consensus reached that Item 11 in the Final Development Plan be moved to
the Conceptual Development Plan. Delete the phrase '~hen requested by
the Planning Director," and number this Item 13.
- On Final Development Plan, Items 12, 13 and 14 will be rewritten to
reflect that they are reports submitted by the Staff along with Other
environmental reports re~,~ed. The City Manager stated that these
items are part of the Environmental Review Process.
- On item 20, addition of a statement that anything approved in the
Concep~m] Development Plan must be submitted for final approval.
- On (c) Fee, add a section stat~ that the environmental studies will
be paid for by the applicant.
- The title of this Ordinance will be Multi-Use Planned Development.
The Public Hearing was closed at 10:05 P.M.
This item will be reviewed by the City Council on August 6, 1986. City
Attorney to rewrite the proposed Ordinance in final form for introduction
at that time.
Eo~AK: 10:15-10:27 P.M.
6. OLD FJSINESS (Continued)
B. Request for Deannexation or Razoning - Cypress Properties, northwest
Corner of Saratoga Ave. and Lawrence Expressway.
Planning D/rector Hsia stated that the main issue is that the Applicant
owns 1.8 acres of land of which 1.43 acres is located in the City of San
Jose and .41 acres is located in the City of Saratoga. Of four suggested
options, Staff rec~m~ellds option 2, "Amend Zoning Ordinance to allow
parking lot as conditional use in residential zone."
Planning Director Hsia requested a modification of the Staff Report to
allow Staff to accept an application for a zoning change f~L the
applicant; the applicant will bear the cost of this zoning change.
JULY 16, 1986 PAGE 8
6.B. (Continued)
CLEVEN'~M/ANDE.~cON MDVED TO DENY THE REQ~_ST OF DEANNEXATION FRCM THE ciTY
OF SARATOGA ~D TO DIRECT THE STAFF TO ACcEPt A REQO~ST ~ THE APPLICANT
AND TO PREPAE~ AN E TO ACCEFT A PROPOSED OC~MERCIAL PARKING LCT IN
A ~ESE ZONE WiTH A CONDI'I'IONAL USE P~{~IT AND UNDER
SPECIFIC COND. LTIONS, . WITH A NEGOT/~ SHARE OF ANY TAX REVENUES. Passed
4-1, Councilm~r Moyles opposed.
7. NEW ~3SINESS
A. Authorization - to Advertise Parks and Recreation C~l.~assion
Vacancies.
Mayor Hlava -~tated that thei terms of three members of this
expire in Auc. mst; these vacancies will be advertised in accordance with
existing City policy. Applicants will be interviewed and those not chose
will be put on a list to serve in other capacities.
. B. Report on fh~nge in Procedure for Collection of Delinquent Gal~Dage
Bills.
Mr. Dennis Varni, Green Valley Disposal Co., stated that Green Va/Lley
Disposal Co. was seeking Council approval to change the manner of
collecting payable accounts. He reviewed the current system of cellecting
accounts and stated that the mandatory service requirement is ~so
contributing to the difficulty in collecting accounts.
The new system is based upon a deposit being required on all new acc~mts
and any accounts with delinquency problems; one full quarter cost: of
service will be req~ed as a deposit. Upon cc~pletion of one yea/. of
p~u~t payment for services rendered, the deposit would be returned. The
Applicant feels this system will be much more effective, and recommends
approval the:[ by the Council.
The City Attorney asked the Council to consider extexiing the Staff Report
one step further, addressing ~the issue of current accounts that ere
overdue and a311ewing Green Villey the right to discontinue service to
these accounts.
ANUERSON/MOYTF-q MOVED TO APPROVE A CEANGE IN DEI,TNQUENT GARB~EE BiELL
COLLFCTION PI~X~a/3RES; STAFFi WRS DIREui'Eu TO REVISE ORDINANCES AND
IMPLEMENT NEW DEPOSIT SYSTE~ 8PROFOSED BY GREEN V~T.T,Ry DISPOSAL CC~4PANY.
Passed 5-0.
C. Year End 1985-86 Appropriation (Addition to the Agenda)
The City Manager stated that ~ the Finance Director has reviewed the
accounts of the preceding year and transferred money between accounts as
needed. The Council was asked to adopt a Resolution amending the budget
for the purpose of closing the bdoks.
MDYLK~/~.,i,~{SON MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUI~ONS 2241.23 AND 2241.24 AMENDING
THE 1985-86 BUDGET FOR THE I~JRPOSE OF CIDSING THE BOOKS. Pas~ed 5-0.
a list of suggested dates
The City Manager submitted for ~he Council to r~t
with various groups, which was amended .and approved.
JULY 16, 1986 PAGE 9
9. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS
A. DiScUssion of Oral CuL~unications not referred to staff
No interest was expressed in Mr. Barco's suggestion concerning a ccemission
to study a system for rotation of the mayor's position. -._
B. Reports from Individual Council Members
Councilmember Clevenger stated that there are complaints frcm visitors to
the HE(one Gardens. The wildlife is ruining the appearance of the
Gardens; this was not a problem when a dog ~as used to patrol the
Gazdens. Use of a trained ~d dog is expensive and would need about a
year's training to be used to keep wildlife away from the garden plants
and trees. Use of a fence around the gardens would allow the caretaker's
dog to patrol the area without danger to the public. Alternatives need to
be evaluated and the Council needs to consider these options.
Councilmember Moyles stated that cost will have to be evaluated carefully
and he volun~-ered to be involved in the evaluation of this situation.
10. AEIIOURNMENT at 11:15 P.M. TO CLOSED SESSION to discuss- meet and
confer issues with the Saratoga Employees Association and to discuss
litigation of the Quarry Road problem.
Meeting was reconvened at 12:14 A.M. with all members of the City
Council present. The City Manager w~s instructed to meet and confer
with SEA within the guidelines established by the City Council. The
City Attorney was instructed to proceed with settlements over the
~ry Road litigation as suggested by the City Attorney.
Respectfully suhnitted,