Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-17-1986 City Council Minutes MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL TIME: December 17, 1986 PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga CA TYPE: Regular Meeting 1. ROLL CALL: Mayor Hlava, Councilmembers Clevenger, Anderson, Moyles, Peterson present at 7:03 P.M. 2. CEREMONIAL ITEMS: A. Resolution 2391 Reappointing Weiss and Douglas to Finance Committee ANDERSON/PETERSON MOVED TO REAPPOINT ROBERT WEISS AND GLEN DOUGLAS TO THE FINANCE COMMITFEE. Passed 5-0. 3. ROUTINE MATTERS A. Minutes of the Meeting of December 3, 1986; request made that the Minutes be resubmitted 'for approval pending additional transcription on Item 8.A., Discussion of Santa Clara County Traffic Authority Draft Strategic Plan. B. Approval of ~/arrant List as submitted. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR - OTHER ITEMS: A, Planning Commission Actions, December 10, 1986, - Noted and fried. B. Notice of Completion and Final Acceptance of Project - Congress Springs Park , Parking Lot. C, Resolution 36-B-221 Final Acceptance and Release of Bond, SDR 1348, Camino Barco, (S. McVay, Developer) D. Final Map Approval, SD 86-003, Pierce Road, two lots, Authorization to Execute Improvement Agreement and Deferred Improvement Agreement (R. Bostedt, developer) E. Resolution 2233.2 Amending Resolution. 2233 Staying Period of Time for Expiration of SDR 1290 (Applicant, L. Hulse) F, Resolution 2392 granting Appeal of approval of site and design review approvals and lot line adjustment to allow construction of a two-story single family home at 14458 Oak Place in the R~ I-10,000 zoning district (SDR 1629, DR 86-004, LL 86-001) (Appellant, H. Davies; Applicant, L. Protiva) (Appeal heard December 3, 1986) G. Acceptance and Acknowledgment of Donations to Hakone Gardens (Donors, Mr. and Mrs. H.M. Gladney; Ms. Margaret B. Teall; Mr. and Mrs. Walter Wagner; Ms. Charlene M. Henley; Mr. and Mrs. Richard Kroll.) H. . Investment Report, October 1986. I. Final Map Approval, Tract 7919, Saratoga Avenue, five lots (Brian Kelly, Developer) MEETING OF THE CITY 'COUNCIL Page 2 DECEMBER 17, 1986 CONSENT CALENDAR Continued J. Financial Reports, October/November 1986. MOYLES/PETERSON MOVED TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR. Passed 5-0. Councilmember Moyles commented that Investment Reports showed a very good rate of return on investments. 5. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS AND THE PUBLIC: A. Oral Commissions from the Public and Commissions - None. B. Written CommuniCations from the Public 1)H. Ray Benton, 14158 Arcadia Palms Dr., urging successful completion of Route 85, - Noted and filed. 2) Petition objecting to skateboard ramp at 12332 Viewoak. The City Manager presented a copy of the Letter sent to Mr. Stone, whose residence is the object of the complaint; he reviewed the contents of the letter and specific violations of City Code. If volunt~y compliance is not obtained by January 16, 1987, the City will seek legal action. 6. OLD BUSINESS ~ A. Resolution 2393 'finding and determining that a sale or lease of the City-owned property located at the southeast corner bf Cox Avenue and Saratoga/Sunnyvale Road is required for the public interest and convenience, declaring the intention of the Council to sell or lease said property, and fixing the time for hearing any protests thereto. The City Manager stated that he could add nothing to previous discussions with the Council in regard to the pwposed Resolution. In response to Councilmember Peterson's question, the City Attorney statext that the property has had a land use designation of "PDM" (Planned Development Mixed C6/nmereial Uses) since the last major revision of the General Plan; in the Zoning Ordinance, the designation would be CN (Neighborhood Commercial). He stated that the General Plan did no~ have the same set of initials as the Ordinance. MOYLES/HLAVA MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2393 F/NDING AND DETERMINING THAT A SALE OR LEASE OF THE CITY-OWNED PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF COX AVENUE AND SARATOGA- SUNNYVALE ROAD IS REQUIRED FOR THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND CONVENIENCE, DECLARING THE INTENTION OF THE COUNCIL TO SELL OR LEASE SAID PROPERTY, AND FIXING THE TIME FOR HEARING ANY PROTESTS THERETO. Passed 5-0. B. Revised Draft of Council Response to Draft Strategic Plan on Highways 85, 237, and 101. Page 1: No additions nor deletions. !~ :. Page 2: Councilxnember Anderson was c0ncemed that statement 2. was insufficient to clearly convey the fact that Saratoga did not want a trench to be dug without assurance that the · . project would be completed. Of particular concern is the activity mobilizing in the North County, and that Work on 237 will be moved up in time; in addition, projected revenues for the year are 69 million, with 900 million projected over a ten year period. A worst case -: scenario has not b~n projected. She favored a stronger statement that Saratoga does not want -5 the trench dug ff the project can not be completed; the draft statement does not convey such a . ~ statement. Consensus reached by the Council that page 3, number 3 does convey a clear '; statement. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 3 DECEMBER 17, 1986 OLD BUSINESS Continued Mayor H/ava questioned the statement 1. page 2, and suggesting the statement be changed, to read, "The strategjc plan contained a worst case revenue scenario with a discussion of the impact of that worse case in terms of...." Councilmember Clevenger asked that the first sentence of 2. be more clearly spelled out. Councilmember Moyles suggested the term "completed" or "concluded in usable segments" in place of "built"; he stated that construction phases on the corridor are determined by monetary considerations, cash flow requirements and seasonal considerations. He reiterated concern that once completed, there be a usable segment and nothing less than usable segments. However, he did not argue that construction phasing itself should be other than what logic and f'mancial considerations dictate. Mayor Hlava concurred and noted that removal of the dirt may make depression of Route 85 more likely since the din will be needed to build up other areas. Councilmember Anderson concurred with the provision that the project be finished. Mayor Hlava stated that statements 2. and 3. represent the position of the City on Route 85. Councilmember Anderson asked whether the Policy Guidelines reflect such a position and suggested that the City make such a position statement The City Manager stated that Policy Guidelines very clearly state that "usable segments" will be built. Page 3: As stated. Page 4: Councilmember Clevenger suggested deletion of the third sentence, first paragraph and deletion of the final sentence, first paragraph to read, "The 'Initial Plan' proposes an interchange at Saratoga Avenue for Route 85. This is inconsistent with the adopted policy of the City of Saratoga. We hold a sin~ar view relative to the proposed Prospect Avenue and Quito Avenue interchanges as well. In addition, the Authority should be aware that Saratoga has no intention of funding the Prospect or Quito Interchange ramps as suggested on page 7-18 (..these facilities -- would, 'most likely be funded from local sources')." Mayor Hlava concurred on deletion of the third sentence; however, she suggested the final sentence strengthens the position of the City. Councilmember Anderson concurred with the suggestion that the word, "perhaps" be deleted. Consensus reached on the farst paragraph; wording as suggested above;. however the final sentence will be retained with deletion of the word, "perhaps." Councilmember Clevenger asked whether sufficient emphasis on depression of Route 85 was given. She suggested a statement be added in the final paragraph, to read, "Depression has been the number one concern of Saratoga and this concern has not been addressed adequately in the Strategic Plan." Councilmember Moyles suggested an alternative phrase, couching depression of Route 85 in terms of mitigation rather than depression for its own sake, to read, "Mitigation of adverse effects can only be addressed through residential areas, areas adjoining schools and churches, through depression of Route 85 ." Councilmembers Clevenger and Peterson concurred. · . Page 5: Councilmember Clevenger suggested the above sentence be placed on page 5, farst paragraph. Mayor Hlava concurred that depression of Route 85 was the most important concern to the City, and should be placed just prior to thanking the Traffic Authority for the opportunity to comment on the draft plan. She suggested a statement to read, "Our position is now, and has always been, that the City of Saratoga requires adequate mitigation through residential areas, areas that abut schools and churches; the element that is the most important part of mitigation, is depression of Route 85." Mayor Hlava stated that the initial sentence on page 5 was weak: Councilmembers agreed that the first phrase, farst paragraph be deleted, to read" Based upon the need of the City for a depressed profile, Callxans has indicated that the SPRR crossing at Saratoga Avenue would remain at grade,..." Mayor Hlava noted that the draft letter prepared by the City Manager was excellent and addressed the concerns of the Council. Consensus reached that the letter, as amended, be sent to the Traffic Authority. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 4 DECEMBER 17, 1986 OLD BUSINESS Continued C. Rescission of Resolution 2385, which designated the City as responsible for implementation and enforcement of hazardous materials storage regulations. The City Manager stated that curren~y them is uncertainity relative to the ability of any city to adopt resolutions naming themselves responsible agencies under new provisions of state law. City Managers and the County Executive have been developing an overall mgulatory scheme, addressing current hazardous materials storage Ordinances, new legislation and establishing a framework allowing cities and the county to implement future legislation in a consistent and comprehensive fashion. Because of emergency support services, cities are best equipped to administer and gr~mt permits for hazardous materials storage. The proposed Resolution returns cities to the status quo. FILAVA/CLEVENGER MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 2385.1 RESCINDING RESOLUTION 2385 DESIGNATING THE CiTY AS THE RESPONSIBLE AGENCY FOR ENFORCEMENT OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS STORAGE REGULATIONS. Passed 5-0. 7. NEW BUSINESS A. Consi&;mtion of Bids on the Senior Center Addition Mayor Hlava reviewed the bids received as presented in Report to Mayor and City Council, December 17, 1986. City Engineer Shook recommended that the Council reject the bids submitted and di~;ct Staff to readverdse the project. He had spoken with the architect, who will review the situation and make any necessary modifications. PETERSON/ANDERSON MOVED TO REJECT ALL BIDS AND DIRECT STAFF TO READVERTISE THIS PROJECT. Passed 5-0. B. Resolution in conformity with changes in the Brown Act, effective January 1, 1987, regarding mandatory posting of Council and Commission agendas. PETERSON/ANDERSON MOVED ADOPTION OF A MINUTE ORDER REGARDING MANDATORY POSTING OF COUNCIL AND COMMISSION AGENDAS. Passed 5-0. C. Proposed Fee Parking at West Valley College The Cky Manager reviewed the intension of West Valley College to initiate fee parking; reports were prepared by the City Engineer, on current parking restrictions off-campus, and the Planning Director, on the Use Permit and any agreements between the City and West Valley College. The City Manager made inquiries to the Post Office and Redwood School; responses varied considerably. The question is what impact, if any, there would be on the City, or the community; the City Manager presented background information, reviewed agreements in force and asked the City Council for direction regarding how to proceed. The proposed parking fee would be $20. Councilmember Peterson stated that he couldn't imagine anyone wouldn't pay the fee rather than walk to the campus. Mayor Hlava note'd the tradeoff of accepting a community college which allows the City to provide a range of services and facilities; however, she noted continuing parking problems at' West Valley College. The Mayor noted overflow parking on the local streets. Whatever parking system is adopted, the College should allow parking for community groups using the college. Councilmember Peterson concurred that parking concerns of the community should "'.~ be addressed; Councilmember Anderson noted practical problems of charging the fee. " Councilmember Clevenger commented on parking violations e x perleneed by Redwood School. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 5 DECEMBER 17, 1986 NEW BUSINESS Continued Councilmember Moyles noted initially there would be enforcement problems and suggested consideration of appointing a liaison between the College and the City. He noted the 1969 Use Permit and questioned current enrollment figures of the college. Mayor H]ava summarized the above discussion: Concem on the part of the Council regarding overflow parking Information on City parking codes be provided to students of West Valley College Coordination of Code Enforcement procedures between the City and the College Recognition by the College of their obligation to provide use of their facilities for the community and that parking needs be accommodated. D. Request for Waiver of Annexation Rights for Site located at 21350 Blue Hills Rd., APN 366-06-026, (Nelson) Planning Director Hsia presented the Report to Mayor and City Council, December 10, 1986; Staff recommended denial of the application. In response to questions, the City Engineer reviewed Site conditions and location of the Lange parcel and the Nelson parcel; the major concerns of the Council regarding annexation of these parcels in question were the geotechnical problems on one side of Prospect Rd. and a possible Code violation in that one of the sites appeared to have an illegal structure on it. Councilmember Anderson questioned whether the subject property might also have geotechnical problems. Councilmember Petersoh questioned the premise that if the property in question had problems the City would not wish to annex it; he noted his concern regarding the seuing of such a precedent. Councilmember Moyles concurred with the question raised by Councilmember Peterson regarding current City policy and requested information on decisions made in similar circumstances. He asked that the Applicant address the Council before continuing the Application for further review. Mayor Hlava noted a previous agreement not to annex any propmy across Prospect Rd. due to cost incurred, substandard roads and geotechnical problems The City Engineer confamed the correctness of the statement and added that the property within the urban service area is essentially developed. Mayor Hlava noted the issue of "visible hillside" described in the Staff Report and stated that annexing the area across Prospect Rd. would include substandard development which occurred under the County. She believed that this is the issue. Councilmember Peterson was agreeable to a continuance of the Application; however, he stated he had a fundamental problem with City policy and questioned annexation of property on an individual basis. Planner Caidwell noted the Geology Report of Mr. Cotton which said nothing specifically different than what is seen throughout the City in hillside areas, namely, that geotechnical issues must be addressed. She stated that the benefits of annexation far outweigh cost to the City; costs will be bome by the developers. She reviewed the specifics of annexation, public utility improvements, required road improvements, costs, and service providers. The City Attorney stated that Ordinance 3-E-15, referred to in Mr. Cotton's letter, has since been codified in the new Code as Article 16-65. Councilmember Moyles noted the exchange of information between the Council and the Staff; he stated that it was not clear to him whether policy previously established was being changed. He commented that: Changes in policy should be specifically noted in Staff Reports There was no proposal for initiating a new policy Significantly more information was necessary; this Application should be continued. Planning Director Hsia stated that Staff was not recommending any new policy; any recommendations made were based on established City policy and the General Plan. Mayor Hlava noted the conflict between policy and practice. The practice of the former City Council was that property on the other side of Prospect would not be annexed due to potential costs to the city. Consensus reached to hear the Applicant speak and continue the Application.. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 6 DECEMBER 17, 1986 NEW BUSINESS Continued Mr. Jerome Nelson, Applicant, stated that property owners in the area would agree to annexation assuming that development of a 15 acre parcel would occur. At present he is the only property owner who wished to build an addition on his house. Annexation to the City., with the potential costs and required improvements, may not be to his best interest at this time. He asked that he be allowed to initiate the project on his house; annexation to the City would not be considered until development of the 15 acres occurred. Application to be continued to a Study Session on January 13, 1987. Councilmember Moyles asked that a history of annexation be prepared for review; information from the adoption of the General Plan in 1982, would be provided to the Council. E. Revision of Rental Fees for Community Center The City Manager reviewed the Memorandum from the Community Services Department. Mayor Hlava noted that the proposed schedule combined the facilities under one rental fee. HLAVA/MOYLES MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 780.28 REVISION OF RENTAL FEES FOR THE COMMUNITY CENTER. Passed 5-0. F. Authorization of Additional Improvements to Congress Springs Park Parking Ix~t Mr. George Rishell, 13710 Glen Brae Dr., Saratoga, noted three concerns: property values, noise and security. He stated that property values were not appropriate for this discussion and nothing could be done regarding noise; however, security was a two fold problem. The parking lot affords access to adjacent properties, allowing potential intruders reason to be in the area. He suggested two solutions: installation of a 6-8 ft high fence and proper lighting. Mr. Rishell suggested that the driveway to the Park be relocated further from his property to reduce noise. The Juniper Tree slated to be removed was on his property. Both Pine and Juniper trees were planted years ago to provide landscaping screening; however due to utrnming this screening has been lost. Councilmember Clevenger stated that this proposal should be considered with other Capital Improvement Projects. Councilmember Peterson concurred with Mr. Rishell on his request for a fence; however, he questioned relocation of the driveway as a way to mitigate noise. He asked the purpose in lighting the ]:ot~, which was not used at night. He suggested use of a barrier in front of the driveway. He was not favorable to an expenditure of $11,000 for lighting a parking lot which is not used at night Councilmember Moyles was not favorable to relocafion of the driveway; however, he was favorable to landscaping if it provided the needed screening. Mayor Hlava was not favorable to relocafion of the driveway due to length of time in obtaining approval and the consideration that it was an unwarranted expense. She noted valid concerns of property owners adjacent to the Park and suggested that the installation of a fence be approved; other considerations subject to the budgeting process. Ms. Lois McPherson, 19449 Via Real Dr., Saratoga, noted the difficulty of selling homes on Via Real Dr. due tothe proposed Route 85 and the existence of the parking lot She strongly favored landscapinl; and felt that both a fence and landscaping were necessary. Councilmember Clevenger favored use of a barrier at the parking lot entrance to determine whether a barrier mdfigated some problems. She objected to the expenditure of $20,000- $30,000 without re'flew of the Capital Improvements Budget; she favored a $10,000 expenditure to install the fence and barrier, submitting further proposals to the Capital Improvement Budget; Mayor Hlava and Councilmember Peterson concurred. Councilmember Clevenger suggested that Parks and Recreation Commission review any proposal beyond the immediate mitigation of problems in this area. HLAVA/PETERSON MOVED TO AUTHORIZF- $1'0,000 FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO CONGRESS SPRINGS PARK PARKING LOT THROUGH INSTALLATION OF A FENCE AND PLACEMENT OF A BARRIER AT THE DRIVEWAY ENTRANCE. FURTHER REVIEW TO BE DONE BY PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION. Passed 5-0. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 7 DECEMBER 17, 1986 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to allow commercial parking lots as a conditional use in the R-1 zoning districts under certain conditions. Planning Director Hsia presented Report to the Mayor and City Council, December 8, 1986. In response to Councilmember Clevenger's question, the City Attorney outlined unique characteristics of the situation. As stated by the Planning DirectOr, if the City changes the General Plan designation parking lots would be a permitted use in commercial zones; the City would have no control over the adjacent parcel in San Jose. Through a Use Permit, the City can condition approval of the parking lot on design approval of the structure built in San Jose; in addition, a Conditional Use Permit can require that neither design nor use be changed or modified without approval by Saratoga. Through the Use Permit, the City exerts direct control over the adjacent property. Councilmember Clevenger's concerns were similar to those stated by the Planning Commission. She noted other cities did not allow commercial parking in residential areas and questioned the proposed change in the Zoning Ordinance. The City Attorney reviewed comments of the Planning Commission as noted in the Minutes of the Meetings of October 22 and November 12, 1986. Councilmember Peterson noted that by unanimous vote, the City Council had previously directed that the Planning Commission review a Conditional Use Permit to allow the amendment. The Public Heating was opened at 8:57 P.M. Mr. John Gatto, Representative of Saratoga Associates, stated that the amendment to the Ordinance gave the City the ability to review any proposed pr6ject. The essence of the proposed Amendment is one of procedure making it possible for Applicant to present a project for review by the Council and the Commission. He asked that the Council approve this amendment to the Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Margaret Russell, Saratoga Glen Ct., Saratoga, stated that it was with great reluctance that she asked the Council to change the General Plan rather than amending the Ordinance because the latter might leave the City open to public parking lots in any residential area. This would be most undesirable. Protection of neighborhoods should be upper most in the minds of the Council and citizens. PETERSON/ANDERSON MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:02 P.M. Passed 5-0. Councilsmember Anderson noting Condition 3 of the Staff Report, expressed concern that the City may be left open to other residential areas being used for public parking lots. In response to questions asked, Mr. Gatto briefly reviewed Ordinance guidelines of San Jose; he reminded the Council that the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance allowed the City review of any project in its entirety. Councilmember Moyles stated that his pfimax,j consideration was protection of neighbors from commercial development in San Jose; in his view the best control would be through the adoption of an amendment to the Ordinance. He noted that obtaining greater control of the project through flexibility in amending an Ordinance would be a wise decision; the ultimate objective was protection of Saratoga residents. MOYLES/HLAVA MOVED TO GRANT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION. Passed 5-0. MOYLES/HLAVA MOVED TO INTRODUCE AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE ALLOWING COMMERCIAL PARKING LOTS AS A CONDITIONAL USE IN THE R-1 ZONING DISTRICTS UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS. Passed 5-0. Councilmember Clevenger stated that she would not have favored the amendment if there had been another way to accomplish the goal; Mayor Hlava concurred. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 8 DECEMBER 17, 1986 PUBLIC HEARId~IGS Continued B. Consideration of Any Objections to Proposed Weed Abatement to be Performed by County Building Office. The Public Hearing was opened at 9:08 P.M. There were no speakers. PETERSON/HLAVA MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:09 P.M. Passed 5-0. HLAVA/PETERSON MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2394 ORDERING ABATEMENT OF A PUBLIC NUISANCE BY REMOVAL OF HAZARDOUS WEEDS. Passed 5-0. C. Amen&nent to the Zoning Ordinance amending See. 15~ 12.160 pertaining to storage of personal property on residential sites, amending See. 15-30.100(c) to permit monument signs on commercial sites that have 5 or more uses; amending See. 15-50.020(c) concerning the definition of street trees; amending See. 15-50.090 concerning appeals from adminisu-ative decisions under tree regulations; amending Sec. 15--56.050 concerning property inspections on applications for second unit use permits; amending Sec. 15-060.010 concerning temporaxy uses; repealing Art. 15-75 concerning certificates of occupancy; amending See. 15-80.010 concerning exceptions to yard requirements; amending See. 15-80.020 concerning exceptions to height limitations; amending See. 15-80.030(e) concerning recreational courts (AZO 86-004) The City Attorney called attention to Memorandums describing the amendments. The Public Hearing was opened at 9:10 P.M. There were no speakers. PETERSON/MOYLES MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:11 P.M. Passed 5-0. PETERSON/HLAVA MOVED TO GRANT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION. Passed 5-0. PETERSON/HLAVA MOVED TO INTRODUCE AN ORDINANCE AMENDING OR REPEALING VAtHOUS PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 15 OF THE CITY CODE RELATING TO STORAGE OF PERSONAL PROPERTY, SIGNS IN COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS, TREES, SECOND UNITS, TEMPORARY USES, CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY, HRE ESCAPES, FENCE HEIGHT AND RECREATIONAL COURTS. Passed 5-0. · D. Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance adding See. 15-80. 110 pertaining to convenants for certain easements and amending See. 14-25.050 of the Subdivision Ordinance concerning easements and See. 14-03.060 of the Subdivision Ordinance concerning trees (AZO 86-005) The City Attorney briefly reviewed proposed Amendments to City Ordinances. The Public Hearinl; was opened at 9:12 P.M. There were no speakers. PETERSON/MOYLES MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:13 P.M. Passed 5-0. CLEVENGER/HLAVA MOVED TO GRANT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION. Passed 5-0. PETERSON/HLAVA MOVED TO INTRODUCE AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 14-25.0.50 AND ADDING SECTION 15-80.110 PERTAINING TO RECORDED COVENANTS FOR EASEMENTS AND AMENDING SECTION 14.30-060 PERTAINING TO TREES. Passed 5-0. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 9 DECEMBER 17, 1986 9. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS: A. Discussion of Oral Communications not referred to Staff - None. B. Reports from Individual Councilmembers 1. Impact of Bottle Bill on Local Zoning Mayor Hlava reviewed the impact of the new Bottle Bill on local zoning. She suggested that since bottle collection sites operated by city groups are within required convenience zones, that local grocery stores may wish to combine with collection sites already operated by city groups. This would eliminate parking lot recycling sites. She asked that the Staff review this issue. 2. Solid Waste Sub-Regional Plan Mayor Hlava reviewed the solid waste sub-regional plan and noted the two issues involved: Possibility that if the City of San Jose annexes the Guadupe site, the City of Saratoga will no longer be in conformance with the solid waste plan for the County, and Possibility that City of San Jose may place heavy importation fees on all city land fills She reviewed possible options and noted that the City may wish to review this issue in the future. Councilmember Moyles asked that the issue be referred to the City Manager and the City Attorney for monitoring any changes in current contractual agreements. 3. League of California Cities New Councilmembers Institute - Costa Mesa, January 14-16, 1987. Councilmember Anderson stated that she is considering attending the conference. No action was taken authorizing attendance as required by Ctiy Council Resolution 2327. Councilmember Clevenger reported on Sanitation District 4 and the upcoming Wo~d Conference of Histoxical Cities to be held in 1987. The City Manager reported on resources being used to improve landscape maintenance along Saratoga City streets. The meeting of the City Council was adjourned at 9:38 P.M. Respecifully submitted, Carol A. Probst-Caughey Recording Secretary