Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-20-1989 City Council Minutes MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL TIME: Wednesday, December 20, 1989 7:30 p.m. PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Ave. TYPE: Regular Meeting 1. ROLL CALL Councilmembers Anderson, Peterson, Moyles, Stutzman and Mayor Clevenger present at 7:30 p.m. 2. CEREMONIAL ITEMS A. Resolution Reappointing Members of the Public Safety Commission MOYLES/STUTZMAN MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2615 APPOINTING BRETT BORAH, DOUGLAS CRANE, EUGENE O'RORKE, AND ROLLIN SWANSON TO PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION. Passed 5-0. B. Administration of Oath of Office to above Mayor Clevenger welcomed and administered the Oath of Office to Commissioners Borah, Crane, and Swanson. Eugene O'Rorke was absent. Mayor Clevenger reported that Mr. O'Rorke will be sworn into office at a later date. 3. ROUTINE MATTERS A. Approval of Minutes - 12/6 Councilmember Anderson requested that on Page 5, the last paragraph include her comment that she stated "residents should be able to choose the kind of roofing material they want". ANDERSON/PETERSON MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF 12/6/89 AS AMENDED. Passed 5-0. B. Approval of Warrant List ANDERSON/PETERSON MOVED TO APPROVE WARRANT LIST. Passed 5-0. C. Report of city Clerk on Posting of Agenda Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on December 15. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR These items will be acted upon in one motion unless they are removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion by Councilmembers or any interested party. A. Planning Commission Actions~ 12/13 - Noted and filed. B. Youth Commission Minutes, 11/13 - Noted and filed. c. Saratoga Community Access cAWFoundation BO~Ed Minutes, 11/21 - Noted and filed. D. Library Commission Minutes, 12/13 - Noted and filed. E. Developmentof Draft "Party Ordinances,, for Saratoga F. Second reading and Adoption of Ordinance 71.72 repealing Section 16-55 of the City Code and adopting Uniform Codes as follows: 1) 1988 edition of the Administrative Code, Building Code, Plumbing code, Mechanical Code, Housing code, and Abatement of Dangerous Buildings Code, with local modifications (NOTE: Amendments to the Building Code which require class C fire retardant roofing for residences were deleted.) City Council Minutes 2 December 20, 1989 2) 1990 edition of the Electrical Code, with local modifications ANDERSON/PETERSON MOVED APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR. Passed 5-0. CONSENT CALENDAR - CLAIMS A. Claim of Cohn in connection with paint sprayed on oar ANDERSON/PETERSON MOVED DENIAL OF CLAIM. Passed 5-0. Bi Claim of Lanning in conneotion with fall from. curb. PETERSON/ANDERSON MOVED DENIAL OF CLAIM. Passed 4-0-1 (Moyles abstained). 5. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS AND THE PUBLIC A. Oral Communications from the Public and Commissions 1) Rita Mennessey, 20696 Wardell Road, requested that Council consider Waiving the $100 fee for filing an appeal against the approval by the Planning Commission of a subdivision map which possibly includes her property boundary lines.. She questioned the accuracy of the map · which was discussed and approved at the Planning Commission Meeting of December 13. In response- to a question from Mayor Clevenger, Mr. Toppel, City Attorney, reported that 1) 4/5 vote is required to place this item on the agenda for discussion and 2) thathe is not aware of a provision in the Code which would waive the appeal, and 3) that approval of the map by the Planning Commission would not influence changing of property lines because property lines would prevail. Any necessary changes would be the applicant's responsibility to conform the map to the property lines. Steve Emslie, Planning Director, reported that the staff is very confident of the accuracy of the map as verified through independent means through the office of the City Engineer. Mr. Peacock, City Manager, reported that if the Record of Survey is found to be incorrect, the discrepancy must be brought to the attention of the City Engineer to be changed accordingly before final approval. Mayor Clevenger requested that Mrs. Hennessey meet with Mr. Emslie for further clarification of her concerns. 2) Willem Kohler, 21842 Via Regina, addressed the Council to voice objection tO appeals and variances granted by the Planning COmmission that relate to recent hillside development. He requested the Council direct the Planning Commission not to fallow variances to'. the ChadWick/COcciardi Corp. developers until the current hillside matter is settled. .Mr. T6ppel Stated he would have serious concern about such a directive · for-which relief is specifically provided for in the City Code under . zoning regulations and under State law. · =.Councilmember Moyles expressed concern and stated he ~ls of the udderstanding a Stop Work Order was issued on any of the C~adwick/Cocciardi.development sites. Mr. Peacock explained that the Mt. Eden-' Estates is not affected by the order issued to ChadWick/Cocciardi. Mr. Toppel clarified that no permits will be issued-on any of those lots until the current situation is resolved. CounCilmember Stutzman agreed with Mr.. Kohler that because of the devastation created in the past in that area, that the Planning .Commission should be aware of'public concerns and development should be carefully scrutinized with less attention given to the granting of variances. Councilmember Moyles pointed out that the activity done by the Coccia~di developers is a code enforcement issue not related to variances, which are land.use function issues. He stated that the idea that the Planning Commission's granting of variances to the City Council Minutes 3 December 20, 1989 Cocciardi developers is the root of the current problems is a disservice to the Planning Commission. Mayor Clevenger moved the agenda to the Public Hearings, since the hour of 8:00 p.m. had passed. 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Appeal of denial of variance to allow an 8 ft. front yard setback in lieu of 35 ft. required at 15839 Hidden Hill Rd. in the R-1-40,000 zoning district (V-89-043) (Appellant/Applicant, Velinsky) Mr. Emslie reported that the Appellants/Applicants are appealing the Planning Commission's denial of the variance on the basis that City Council conditions' of its design review approval requires variance approval. The request conforms with plans approved by the City Council. Mr. Emslie recommended the City Council consider this an exceptional circumstance because of the presence of unique topographic features and further recommended that the City Council direct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution reversing the Planning Commission decision based on the findings as reported in the Staff Report. Mayor Clevenger opened the Public Hearing at 8:15 p.m. Kurt Anderson, Architect for the Velinskys, requested that Council grant the variance based on the belief that the Velinsk~s have conformed with Council's directions. Dora Grens, 13451 Old Oak Way, spoke against granting the variance and reviewed past practices when few variances were granted. She encouraged more planning of hillside development. Arthur Slemmons, 19655 Redberry Drive, spoke against ridge line variances for front lot lines with the exception of hardship cases. He stated he does not believe this to be a hardship case because of alternatives available and he encouraged denial of the variance. Wanda Alexander, Ravine Road, representing the Coalition for Hillside Protection, stated that the Coalition convenes to address issues of the integrity, responsibility, and appropriate building in the hills without expense to the natural features. Referring to overhead projections she spoke of: discrepancies which she believes exists in the plans for the home; against the building of over-sized homes in the hillside; of the Coalition's concerns with granting of special privileges through variances. She stated the Coalition submits that the information upon which the Council has based its decision is erroneous. She distributed a letter from the Santa Clara Valley Water District which encourages a non-point source pollution control program for waterways draining into the Bay. She requested that Council deny the project and the variance and view it as an incomplete application marred by erroneous information which would require a full and complete survey by an obj.ective, well-credentialed, independent surveyor, in addition to a thorough geologic investigation including seismic and watershed erosion hazards. She distributed letters and a geologic report on the nature of the waterways on the plan in question. Henry Haggland, 15835 Hidden Hill Road stated~he is the only property owner directly affected by the variance and that he gives unqualified support for approval of the variance. He stated the home is smaller than the average of all the other 16 homes in the subdivision. Jeffrey Leigh, licensed land surveyor and registered civil engineer of Hayward reported that he was retained by a group of neighborhood owners to address two issues regarding the Velinsky application; the overall slope and the actual contour location at the site. He stated his belief that there are discrepancies or incompatibilities between the Velinsky and Wang survey property maps relative to the west end of the property contours. Referring to an overhead projection he pointed out the swale running north and south along the west end of the slope which he believes affects the overall slope calculations of the property and stated that in his professional opinion the contours of the west end of the property are not accurately shown on the survey map. In response to a question from Councilmember Moyles, Mr. Leigh stated that if the inconsistency is proven, the difference would not signify City Council Minutes 4 December 20, 1989 anything of great import to the Council, but that it is, nevertheless, a point relating to the actual use of property. He stated that the most important issue for Council to consider is relative to elevations. Councilmember Stutzman expressed great concern regarding the possibility of Council .having inaccurate data and stated that data should be provided through an accurate engineering study. Discussion ensued regarding the drainage swale area, the exact location of the discrepancies and how best to resolve the issue of accuracy or inaccuracy of the survey. In response to questions from Council, Mr. Leigh stated his estimate of the area in question is approximately 15%; that the swale is no more than'12 feet wide, 4 feet deep extending approximately 80% across the dimensions at the west end of the property. Councilmember Anderson indicated her concern that it is not known whether or not the discrepancy, if it exists, is a significant impact on the development. Mr. Peacock suggested both parties set aside monies to have the ground survey done and that the surveyor be paid from the appropriate party's monies when the survey is completed. Richard.Sogg, 19262 Hidden Hill Road, recalled to the Council that on 9/20/89 he distributed a handout which depicted the east side of the Velinsky property regarding a number of contours inquestion. Pointing out the area on an overhead projection, he stated that there were differences.in that,documentation regarding the slope, on two maps of survey done by the Heiss Organization, which were reviewed in August by the Council. Councilmember Moyles recalled to Mr. Sogg that he had, at that time, requested that the Coalition retain a civil engineer to rebut the record that staff presented as valid. Because no rebuttal information was forthcoming, he believed staff's work as being accurate. He ~uestioned why the Coalition did not call Mr. Leigh 3 months ago and said that he was troubled that it has taken this long to get all · conflict onethe record. Councilmember Stutzman recalled that the question regarding differences in the two sets of maps'was brought up in August. Mrs. Alexander stated that the Coalition believes it did present the conflicting information in August and apologized if the information was not given. C0uncilmember Stutzman requested a complete accurate survey be done by an independent surveyor. Robert Sturgess, Attorney for the Coalition for Hillside Protection, encouraged the Council to deny the variance because he believes the applicant has not made a hardship case. He spoke of the importance of accurate information and the need for strict enforcement in the granting.of variances. Kurt Anderson addressed the Council pointing out that the Velinskys have shown an incredible spirit of cooperation and willingness to abide by the Council and Commission directions. He questioned why now the question of'topography is being brought up. He pointed out that the people who have spoken against the project live in the County and that not one complaint against the project has been received from Saratoga residents and requested approval. Mayor Clevenger said she could make variance findings but is concerned that an expert has come forth regarding a ground survey which appears to be'inaccurate. She felt it would be appropriate to request a new and complete ground survey. Councilmember Petersonagreed that he could make the variance findings but needed clarification as to whether or not this discrepancy changes the floor area ratio. If it does, the applicant should be made to reduce the size of the house and if it doesn't, the project should be allowed to proceed. He stated he believes a new survey is not needed. Later he stated that Mr. Heiss should be requested to recheck the City Council Minutes 5 December 20, 1989 existing survey and all other calculations. Lengthy discussion ensued regarding the responsibility of payment for the survey. Mayor Clevenger read, verbatim, the 3 findings in the Staff Report. CLEVENGER/PETERSON MOVED THAT THE APPLICATION BE UPHELD, THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION BE OVERTURNED; THAT THE APPLICATION BE DEPENDENT UPON A FULL GROUND SURVEY TO BE PAID FOR BY THE APPLICANT AND PRESENTED TO THE COUNCIL UPHOLDING THE SQUARE FOOT FLOOR AREA RATIO ALLOWED FOR THE LOT; THAT STAFF BE DIRECTED TO PREPARE ARESOLUTION GRANTING AND MAKING FINDINGS FOR VARIANCE; THAT CITY 8TAFF WILL RETAIN A SURVEYOR AND IF THE SURVEY SHOWS NO CHANGE IN FLOOR AREA RATIOS, THE APPLICANT CAN PROCEED TO BUILD THE HOME. Councilmember Anderson recalled that because the Council had implied to Mr. Velinsky that a variance could be considered if the house conformed to the setbacks and if it were not in the ravine, she felt an obligation to allow the variance which would not impac~ the neighbors. Councilmember'Moyles stated he concurs with the Planning Commission disposition and cannot vote for the first finding and that he would vote to deny the appeal. He felt that the survey should be done and that the matter should be voted on tonight. Councilmember Stutzman stated he could not make findings and agreed with the Planning Commission~s decision as he feels the home is not in conformity with the neighborhood, is obtrusive to the area and that buildingin the area of the ravine would alter the ecology. Mayor Clevenger stated she believes the home should not be built in the ravine and that because the ravine encompasses 50% of the property there is a great hardship. Therefore she stated she could make the findings. No one further appearing to speak, the Public Hearing was closed at 9:50 p.m. HAYOR CLEVENGER CALLED FOR THE QUESTION ON THE ABOVE-STATED MOTION. Passed 3-2 (Moyles, Stutzman voted no). Mayor Clevenger declared a recess at 10:55 p.m. Upon reconvening at 10:00 p.m. the same Councilmembers and staff were present. B. Appeal of sign program approval at 12029 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd. (Appellant, K. Nader; applicant, Mr. Cashin) Mr. Emslie reviewed the Staff Report Summary stating that in approving the design review permit and the Master Sign Plan, the Planning Commission required removal of signs as conditions of approval to which the applicant agreed. No acceptable code conforming alternatives were ever presented for Planning Commission review. Mr. Emslie stated there are no permits of record for those items the Planning Commission requested removal of. He recommended that the Council deny the Appeal and uphold the decision of the Planning Commission. Mayor Clevenger opened the Public Hearing at 10:05 p.m. Ken Nader, the Appellant, stated the signs have been removed as requested and stated if Council has objection to the awnings he will go through the Planning Commission process to get permits. He pointed out the necessity of signs to maintain business and said that since the signs were removed the business has decreased by 2/3, almost to the point it is not profitable to operate. He distributed photographs of other businesses in the surrounding area with similar neon signs and objected to removal of his signs on his business. He also objected to removal of the sign on the roof which has been there for seven years. In response to a question from Councilmember Peterson, Mr. Nader stated his request is for Council to grant permission for all three items, the awnings, the neon signs and the sign on the roof. Mr. Emstie reported that the Planning staff dealt with the owner and his intention to improve the architecture and signs. Apparently there City Council Minutes 6 · December 20, 1989 is conflict between the owner and his tenant relative to the signs. Mr. Nader distributed photographs which showed the proposed awnings. No one further appearing to speak, the Public Hearing was closed at 10:10 p-m- Councilmember Peterson expressed regret that the specific proposal was not presented relative to the awning, its size, texture, signs, etc. He spoke in favor of awnings which advertise the businesses in the City and pointed out that there are a number of those signs in the City. He felt that if this neon sign is addressed they all should be addressed. Mr. Emslie clarified that the sign ordinance is being revised to address the neon sign issue. He pointed out the Planning Commission was ConCerned with the red illuminated neon signs on the outside of the business to. which Councilmember Peterson stated he would not be in favor of that type of outdoor signs. ' Councilmember Moyles agreed with staff recommendation to deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Planning Commission. Councilmember Anderson agreed the Appellant should address the Planning Commission With a specific plan and stated she is not opposed to inside neon signs to enable the owner to promote his business. She stated the roof Sign should not be allowed. Councilmember Stutzman said he felt a small neon sign in the window and an advertising awning would not detract from the area and that to allow this form of advertising is needed to assist the merchants' 'survival. 'ANDERSON/PETERSON MOVED TO SUPPORT STAFFt8 RECOMMENDATION THAT THE CITY COUNCIL DENY THE APPEAL AND UPHOLD THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION jAND THAT THIS DOES NOT PRECLUDE THE TEN/~NT AND THE OWNER FROM PREPARING ANACCEPTABLE SIGN PLAN FOR PRESENTATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. Passed 5-0.~ 5. "COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS AND THE PUBLIC (Conttd) B. communications from the Public 1) Brian O'Toole, county Traffic Authority, concerning support for SCA-1, Traffic Congestion Relief and Spending 'Limitation Act ANDERSON/PETERSON MOVED TO SEND A LETTER ENDORSING SCA-1 ON JUNE BALLOT. Passed 5-0.. 2) Brian O'Toole, County Traffic Authority, concerning donation of publicly owned property for Measure A Program. PETERSON/ANDERSON MOVED TO DIRECT CITY MANAGER TO WORK WITH TRAFFIC AUTHORITY TO IDENTIFY CANDIDATE PROPERTY AND REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL ON RECOMMENDED OPTIONS AND IMPACTS. Passed 5-0. 3) Mrs. L. Snyder, 20602 Ritanna Ct., objecting to L. Snyder, 20602 Ritanna ct., objecting to nearby construction PETERSON/ANDERSON MOVED TO DIRECT STAFF TO SEND DRAFT REPLY. Passed 5-0. 6. OLD BUSINESS A. Resolution modifying decision of Plannlng Commission concerning Nieman appeal of Dymand lot line adjustment, design review and variance heard 11/1 and 11/15 Virginia Fanelli, representative for the Dymands, requested that Council reconsider item #2 of the proposed resolution. Subsequent to the last hearing, contact was made with the County Weed Abatement Program and Ms. Melanie Chase indicated the Niemans can be added to the weed abatement program by simply requesting this in writing. She explained how the program functions and alternative solutions the County would use if it is not possible for a tractor to be utilized for City Council Minutes 7 December 20, 1989 that weed abatement. Councilmember Anderson stated that she is interested in the reconsideration of the item because since the last hearing she did some investigating and now believes that it has been determined there are alternatives which can be utilized which won't be burdensome to the Niemans. ANDERSON/PETERSON MOVED TO RECONSIDER ITEM #2 OF THE PROPOSED RESOLUTION. Passed 3-2 (Clevenger Stutzman voted no). ANDERSON/PETERSON MOVED TO UPHOLD THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION AND DENY THE APPEAL. Passed 3-2 (Clevenger, Stutzman voted no). Councilmember Stutzman questioned what would happen if the area for an easement on the Dymand property were landscaped, thus preventing fire equipment or disking equipment from entering. Councilmember Anderson pointed out that fire equipment would not be confined from entering for safety reasons and that if the findings cannot be made for safety reasons, then the owner should not be burdened with an'agreement. ANDERSON/PETERSON MOVED TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION' UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION AND TO DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO REFINE THE RESOLUTION ACCORDINGLY. Passed 3-2 (Clevenger, Stutzman voted no). (Clerk's Note: Revised resolution is to be presented at the 'January 3 Council meeting.) B. Status report - Code Violations on Tract 7770, Cocciardi/chadwick Mr. Peacock read verbatim, the cover memorandum of his Status Report to the City Council. The report was delivered to the Council this evening. Mr. Peacock stated that legal action which the City may be contemplating against one or more of the parties to this problem needs to be discussed in closed session. Discussion ensued regarding the provision of the Public Resource Code which indicates all mitigation measures required by the project EIR and subdivision approval be monitored by the City and certified as satisfied. Mr. Peacock stated that the monitoring may require a full time person but that he is not prepared to comment, at this time, on the exact need for personnel. Lengthy discussion ensued regarding who should receive calls from the public regarding the Cocciardi/Chadwick development. Mr. Peacock expressed concern with a suggestion made by Mayor Clevenger and stated it is not feasible to name one person to receive the calls from the concerned public. He expressed his distress that the impression is that City staff does not respond to the calls. He stated he has never failed to respond to public concerns, either personally or by assigning an inspector to investigate. CONSENSUS THAT CALLS FROM CONCERNED CITIZENS SHALL BE REFERRED TO MR. PEACOCK AND THEN TO MR. ONCAY AND THAT AFTER THE NEW CITY ENGINEER BEGINS HIS ASSIGNMENT HE WILL BE KEPT INFORMED OF ALL ~CTIVITY IN THE HILLSIDES AND WHEN HE BECOMES FAMILIAR WITH THE ISSUES WILL BE THE ONE' TO TAKE CALLS FROM THE CONCERNED PUBLIC. C. Floor Area Agreement with Oddfellows Mr. Toppel reviewed the proposed Floor Area Agreement with Oddfellows. The purpose of the agreement is to avoid confusion in the future by making an allocation now for the open space dedicated on this project. Discussion ensued regarding the technical computations for floor area. MOYLES/PETERSON MOVED APPROVAL OF THIS AGREEMENT. Passed 5-0. 7. NEW BUSINESS A. Policy Development/Master Calendar.f1990 City Council Minutes 8 December 20, 1989 MOYLES/PETERSON MOVED APPROVAL OF CALENDAR AS 8UBMITTED~ Passed 5-0. B. Consideration of Request to Transfer Cable TV Franchise In response to a question from Councilmember Moyles, Mr. Todd Argow, Community Services Director, reported that.the City Ordinance has been amended to reflect the obligation that the franchise fee dedicated to community access is increased from 3% to 5%. A representative from Brenmor Cable Partners addressed the Council and stated the process to be undertaken. He said there would be no opposition'to the inclusion of the franchise fee obligation into the agreement. MOYLES/ANDERSON MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2616 AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN THE ATTACHED ASSUMPTION AGREEMENT, WITH SAID INCLUSION OF THE FRANCHISE FEE, CONDITIONALLY TRANSFERRING THE SARATOGA CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE FROM HEARST CABLEVISION OF CALIFORNIA TO BRENMOR CABLE PARTNERS. Passed 5-0. C. Publicity for UpComing Hearings - Chew Nuisance Abatement MOYLES//~/~DERSON MOVED APPROVAL OF STAFF'S R~QUEST FOR PUBLICITY FOR UPCOMING HEARING SCHEDULED JANUARY 3, 1990 REGARDING THE CHEW NUISANCE ABATEMENT. Passed 5-0. Mayor Clevenger proceeded to items following Public Hearings' on the agen~a. 9. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS A. Enrollment Policy - Saratoga High School Councilmember Peterson stated that the thrust of the draft letter is that any city be allowed to keep at least one high school in their City. It is his hope to possibly get State legislation which would allow a city to have open enrollment. Mr. Peacock suggested paragraphs 4 and 5 of the draft letter be deleted. Following discussion there was CONSENSUS THAT THE PROPOSED LETTER BE SENT TO STATE LEGISLATORS, WITH SAID DELETIONS, AND THAT THE LETTER REGARDING SPECIAL ATTENDANCE AREA BOUNDANY FOR SARATOGA HIGH SCHOOL BE SENT OVER COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON'S 8IGNATUNE. Councilmember Moyles said he is pleased to see the positive response to this concern as he had received a negative response a year ago. B. Discussion of Finance Committee Vacancy Mayor Clevenger reported that Mr. Edward Yao-Wa Yang is the only applicant for the vacancy and said that after reviewing his application has determined it would be appropriate to appoint him. Mr. Peacock agreed that Mr. Yang's credentials are excellent. ANDERSON/PETERSON MOVED APPOINTMENT OF EDWARD YAO-WA YANG TO THE FINANCE COMMITTEE ANDTHAT A LETTER OF CONGRATULATION8 BE SENT. Passed 5-0. C. Oral Report on Retirement Complex - Oddfellows MayorClevenger reported on a meeting held with the principals wherein discussion was held regarding the most logical site for a senior retirement center. Councilmember Anderson reported on the conceptual plan discussed at that meeting and said that it was suggested that a study session be held in early January to have the representative ~resent who completed the senior survey. Also that the marketing research aspect of the project be reviewed. Mr. Emslie spoke of his concerns regarding the density issue of the project as two separate projects which he felt would be insufficient as efforts would be duplicated. Discussion ensued regarding how the Council should be involved in the project. Councilmember Moyles expressed his opinion that he is not comfortable with a procedure that would have the CounCil in on the design of the project. He suggested that Council follow the process in place for such projects. Councilwoman Anderson stated her reasons City Council Minutes 9 December 20, 1989 why she felt Council would want to be involved from the beginning of the project. Mr. Emslie suggested that the Planning Commission become involved with the project. Mrs. Peggy Corr, Senior Housing Committee, stated t~e Committee is particularly interested in having the person who conducted the survey come to discuss the process since that survey did not seem to meet the needs of the Committee and said she would be happy to include any questions that Council may have of this person. D. Reports from Individual councilmembers Mayor Clevenger reported on a recent meeting of the League of California Cities. She reported on an opportunity for Saratoga to join in on "Earth Day" activities. There was CONSENSUS TO JOIN IN ON THE NATIONAL "EARTH DAY" ACTIVITIES ON APRIL 22, AT A COST OF $500.00. Mayor Clevenger reported that it will cost $2,000 for Saratoga to join the IGC and $2,500 to join the Peninsula Cities. Mr. Peacock reported that those costs are not a budgeted item and would have to be agendized for approval along with a adoption of a resolution for same. Councilmember Stutzman reported on a recent meeting 'of the Environmental Committee which passed resolutions which were under consideration. Mayor Clevenger reported that she has copies of the resolutions passed at the League of California Cities meeting. Councilmember Moyles reported on the Traffic Authority meeting held last Friday wherein discussion was held on the impasse on North Bascom Avenue/Winchester at Highway 17. There is agreement, in concept, of a new design for the Highway 17/85.interchange. There is no agreement yet on North Bascom but he will keep Council posted. Councilmember Peterson reported on the recent meeting of SCAAA, the new Santa Clara County Cities agency. He reported he is Chairman of the Committee to hire a part-time Executive Director. The Committee will meet once a month. If agreeable, the Committee plans to hold a "Say Goodbye to the Champagne Cellers" day in March to raise enough money to do City-wide projects. Discussion ensued regarding the Congestion Management Agency process. Mr. Peacock stated that although the City of Saratoga will not be impacted by a congestion management problem he felt that the City should be part of the process and how that should be addressed. Councilmember Anderson requested consideration of a July 4th fireworks display in the City of Saratoga. 10. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:30 p.m. to closed session on potential litigation concerning Draft Environmental Impact Report for E1 Paseo Redevelopment prepared by City of San Jose and on illegal grading, clearing and tree removal on Cocciardi/Chadwick development, Tr. 7770. fu~.y submitted, Victoria R. Lind~man Minutes Clerk