Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-06-1994 City Council Minutes MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL TIME: Wednesday, April 6, 1994 7:30 p.m. PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Ave. TYPE: Regular Meeting The meeting was called to order at 7:33 p.m. by Mayor Tucker. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 1. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Tucker, Councilmembers Burger, Kohler, and Anderson Absent: Councilmember Monia Staff Present: City Manager Peacock, City Attorney Riback, City Engineer Perlin, Community Development Director Curtis. Mayor Tucker thanked Pepsi Cola for supplying the drinks. 2. CEREMONIAL ITEMS A. Resolution appointing Edward Sessler to Library Commission BURGER/KONLER MOVED TOADOPT THE RESOLUTION APPOINTING EDWARD SESSLER TO THE LIBRARY COMMISSION. PASSED 5-0. B. Administration of Oath of Office to Mr. Sessler Mr. Sessler took the Oath of Office. C. Proclamation of Emergency Medical .Services Week MAYOR TUCKER PROCLAIMED THE WEEK OF MAY 15-21 A8 EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICE8 WEEK. 3. ROUTINE MATTERS A. Approval of Minutes - 3/16; 3/22; 3/8 (continued from 3/16) ANDERSON/KOHLER MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MARCH 16, 1994 AS WRITTEN. PASSED 4-0 ANDERSON/BURGER MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MARCH 22, 1994, AS WRITTEN. PASSED 4-0. ANDERSON/BURGER MOVEDTO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MARCH 8, 1994. PASSED 4-0. B. Approval of Warrant List Councilmember Anderson inquired as to where the NOVA play structure was located. Staff explained that the play structure was placed in Ravenwood Park. Councilmember Anderson also inquired as to what work the payment to Jeffery Heid was for. Public Works Director Perlin explained that this payment was for work/consulting done on parking district #4. ANDERSON/KOHLER MOVED TO APPROVE THE WARRANT LIST. PASSED 4-0. C. Report of City Clerk on Posting of Agenda Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on April 1. City Council Minutes 2 April 6, 1994 4. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Previously-Discussed Items 1) ordinance amending Sections 2-10,130 and 2-05,030 relating to Communications to the City Council at Meetings (second reading and adoption) 2) Ordinance amending Section 2-10,110 of the City code relating to Reconsideration of Council Actions(second reading and adoption) ANDERSON/BURGER MOVED TO ADOPT THE ORDINANCES BY TITLE ONLY, WAIVING FURTHER READING. PASSED 4-0. B. New Items 1) Planning Commission Actions, 3/23 -- Note and file. 2) Library Commission Minutes, 3/23 - Note and file. 3) Public Safety Commission Minutes, 3/14 - Note and file. 4) Bicycle Advisory Committee Minutes, 2/28 - Note and file. 5) Approval of Transfer of $5,095.73 in CDBG Funds to cover additional Costs from Handicapped Access Project for Warner Hutton House 7) Adoption of Resolution amending Resolution 92-14 designating the Congestion Management Agency as the Recipient of, and the Overall Program Manager for, AR 434 vehicle registration fee revenues S) Approval of Contract Amendment with Don and Mike,s Sweeping Services to begin quarterly Citywide street sweeping and Authorization to Execute Contract 9) Approval of Special Event 'Permit for Villa Montalvo Run on April 23, conditional on compliance with City Code Mayor Tucker requested that item #6 be pulled from the Consent Calendar. ANDERSON/KOHLER MOVED TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR WITH THE EXCEPTION OF ITEM 6. PASSED 4-0. 6) Authorizatian of attendance of Heritage Commissioners at Annual California Preservation .Conference, with reasonable and necessary expenses 'not to exceed $560 Mayor Tucker explained that the only reason she requested that this item be pulled was because she wanted to comment that it is her hope that the Heritage Commissioners carpool to this conference if at all possible. TUCKER/BURGER MOVE TO APPROVE ITEM #6 WITH THE RECOMMENDATION THAT THE COMMISSION CARPOOL IF POSSIBLE. PASSED 4-0. C. Claims Against the City - Campbell Claim concerning Damage to Car from Dumpster Door KOHLER/BURGER MOVED TO DENY THE CLAIM AND REFER THE ISSUE TO THE CITY MANAGER FOR SETTLEMENT. PASSED 4-0. 5. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS AND THE PUBLIC A. REPORT FROM STAFF~ FOLLOW UP ON PREVIOUS ORAL City Counoll Minutes 3 April 6, 1994 COMMUNICATIONS 1) Report from Euildlngs and Grounds Superintendent on Alcoholic Beverages in City Parks (Casey - 1/19/94) City Manager Peacock presented the Report dated March 23, 1994, discussing the issue of reviewing the policy of allowing alcoholic beverages in City parks. The City Manager recommended that the Council accept the Park and Recreation Commission's recommendation not to change City policy with regard to this issue at this time. Councilmember Anderson stated that she would like to have a report given to the Council after initial contact is made by the Sheriff's Department with the group of young adults that frequent the park. This suggestion was acceptable to the other Councilmembers. BURGER/ANDERSON MOVED TO ACCEPT THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION WITH DIRECTION THAT A REPORT BE GIVEN TO THE COUNCIL AFTER CONTACT WITH THE GROUP OF YOUNG ADULTS HAS BEEN MADE BY THE SHERIFF,S DEPARTMENT. PASSED 4-0. B. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Bert Martel, 14420 Fruitvale Ave., addressed the Commission and explained that he had concerns about Capitol Project 9109 (Agenda Item 5B) and submitted a Freedom of Information Request. C. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS 1) Independent Cities Association, 14156 Magnolia Blvd., Suite 103, Sherman Oaks CA 91423, requesting opposition to AB3156 and AB3721, which require approval of the Board of Supervisors for provision of emergency ambulance service. Staff recommends Council support the requested opposition to AB3156 and AB3721. BURGER/ANDERSON MOVED TO SUPPORT THE OPPOSITION TO AB3156 AND AN3721. PASSED 4-0. 2) Assemblyman Louis Caldera, requesting support for AB2706 glvlnglocal governments more power to requlate firearms and smmunltion. Councilmember Burger explained that at the recent League of California Cities Public Safety Committee meeting, a similar bill was discussed. She explained that the bill had to do with giving each individual community power to regulate firearms and ammunition in its community. She noted that the similar bill which was discussed was introduced by Senator Hayden. She reported that the Public Safety Committee unanimously opposed this type of legislation and that the concern raised at that time was that this would become a local control issue resulting in a "crazy quilt" of regulations varying from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Thus, an individual would be unable to know the laws as they cross the borders of various jurisdictions. There was brief discussion regarding the bill. City Manager Peacock, per Councilmember Kohler's request, elaborated on staff's recommendation with regard to this item. City Manager Peacock explained that staff feels that anytime the State offers latitude to the local communities as far as implementing their own local regulations, the local government should take that opportunity. He also explained that this, the matter of gun control, tends to vary from community to community and an overall/blanket law administered by the State may not work for all communities. Thus, the staff has recommended that the City Council support passage of AB2706 which gives local governments more power to regulate firearms and ammunition. City Council Minutes 4 April 6, 1994 KOHLER MOVED TO SUPPORT PASSAGE OF AB2706. THE MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. Councilmember Anderson questioned Councilmember Burger with regard to the discussion and concerns expressed at the League of California Cities Public Safety meeting. Councilmember Anderson stated that if there was no urgency to this item that she would be more comfortable with delaying the item to allow the Council time to review the proposed bill in its entirety. Mayor Tucker also expressed an interest to review the bill. City Manager Peacock pointed out that the League of California Cities has not taken a position on the issue, only the Public Safety Commission of the League of California Cities has taken the position explained by Councilmember Burger. There was consensus to continue the item to the next regular Council meeting to allow the Council time to review AB2706. Councilmember Anderson suggested that the Sheriff who is running for office provide the Council with some input with regard to the issue. 3) Leonard C. Siemek, 12191 Mellowood Dr., requesting adoption of resolution opposing rental assistance initiative Leonard Siemek, 12191 Mellowood Drive, spoke in favor of the resolution opposing the rental assistance initiative. He stated that he felt that the rental assistance program is a'fraud and that it takes away things which seniors have fought the state government for over the past several years. He spoke to the issue of mobile home living and lot rental. He acknowledged the fact that Saratoga has no mobile home parks, but explained that the City Council's help is needed on the issue. He urged the Council to adopt a resolution opposing the-rental assistance initiative. Mr. Siemek submitted the initiative to the Council for review. ANDERSON/BURGER MOVED TO RECEIVE AND FILE. PASSED 4-0. 4) Candace Pratt, League of Women Voters, requesting fee waiver for use of civic Theater for candidate,s Forum on May 23. Councilmember Anderson asked the amount of the fee requested to be waived. City Manager Peacock noted that the fee is $75. ANDERSON/BURGER MOVED TO WAIVE THE FEE AS REQUESTED. PASSED 4-0. 6. OLD BUSINESS A. Report from City Manager in response to letter from Everett N. Souza, Mayor, City of Santa Clara, encouraging adoption of strong smoking ordinance (considered at 1/5 meeting) City Manager Peacock presented the Report dated April 6, 1994, and answered questions from the Council with regard to the issue. Councilmember Burger stated that she had no problem with upgrading the City's smoking regulation to meet the regulations of other nearby communities. However, she explained, she is not in favor of banning smoking in freestanding bars or in private clubs. She stated that she felt this would be too "Big Brotherish". Councilmember Anderson stated that she found the response of survey received back from the members of the Chamber of Commerce (outlined in the report) to be surprising. She stated that she could support upgrading the smoking ordinance at this time. Mayor Tucker asked what impact this ordinance would have on restaurants. .City Council Minutes 5 April 6, 1994 City Manager Peacock explained that this ordinance would prohibit smoking in all restaurants. Mayor Tucker stated that she had a problem with prohibiting smoking in all restaurants. Councilmember Anderson noted that many restaurants within Saratoga have already prohibited smoking. Mayor Tucker stated that if a restaurant had a separate room for smoking, it (smoking) should be allowed in that separate designated area. Councilmember Kohler stated that he would really like to receive input from the merchants with regard to this issue. He stated that he could support an upgrade to the smoking ordinance with the exception of that which was suggested by Councilmember Burger - freestanding bars/taverns and private clubs. ANDERSON MOVED TO DIRECT THE CITY M~_NAGER TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE TO UPGRADE THE CITY,S SMOKING ORDINANCE W~ICH WOULD CREATE A SET OF 'STANDARDS CONSISTENT WITH OTHER CITIES WHICH HAVE RECENTLY BEEN UPGRADED AND TO BRING THE ORDINANCE BACK BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL FOR REVIEW# PUBLIC HEARING AND FURTHER DISCUSSION. Councilmember Anderson stated that she did not agree with allowing smoking in private clubs because many private clubs havesemi-public functions. 7. NEW BUSINESS A. Memo Authorizing Publicity for Upcoming Hearings - Lawson Appeal BURGER/ANDERSON MOVED TO APPROVE PUBLICITY AS RECOMMENDED. PASSED 4- B. NotiCe of Filing of Petition for a Sphere of Influence Amendment to the City of Monte Sereno ANDERSON/BURGER MOVED TO DIRECT STAFF TO FORWARD A LETTER OF SUPPORT. PASSED 4-0. As it was not yet 8:30 p.m. and the public hearing could not yet commence, the Council went on to agenda item # 9B. B. Agency Assignment Reports 1. ABAG - Anderson reported that there will bean ABAG General Assembly meeting in two weeks 2. Cable TV Board -(Monia was absent and could not report) City Manager Peacock noted that there is a Cable TV meeting once a month. 3. HCD Policy Committee - Mayor Tucker noted that this committee meeting is scheduled for the following day, Thursday, April 7, 1994. 4. Transportation Commission - Anderson had nothing to report. 5.Hakone Foundation - Kohler had nothing to report. 6. Flood Control Advisory Board - Burger stated that there was no meeting on which to report. 7. League of Cities Peninsula Division - Tucker stated that there was no meeting on which to report. 8. Water District Commission - Anderson commented that a meeting has not yet been scheduled. 9. Santa Clara County Cities Association - Tucker explained that she and Councilmember Burger had attended the compensation meeting and that their typed notes of the meeting had been distributed. She stated that they, Tucker and Burger, found the meeting to be excellent. 10. Sister City Committee - Burger reported on the meeting held on Tuesday, April 5, 1994 and the continued City Council Minutes 6 April 6, 1994 planning of the upcoming sister city trip to Japan in November. 11. Traffic Authority Policy Advisory~ Board - Tucker reported on the activities of this Board. 12. Transit Assist Board - Burger reported that a meeting had recently been held, but there was nothing to report. She did, however, report that in conjunction with this board she visited the ParaTransit Coordination Council meeting. 13. Senior Coordinating Committee - Burger noted that there was a meeting, but nothing to report to the Council. 14. West Valley Sanitation District - Burger stated that there was nothing to report. 15. County Cities Assn. Legislative Task Force - Monia was not present to report on this meeting. City Manager Peacock stated that he had talked with Councilmember Monia who discussed with him the assembly bill introduced by Assemblyman Quackenbush regarding school safety. City Manager Peacock explained that this bill would establisha' fund through the State for school districts to set up school safety' programs. Mr Peacock noted that Councilmember Monia had forwarded a copy of the bill and it would be reviewed to determine whether it was geared more toward on campus safety or if it had some applications as an off-campus safety program as well. 16. Emergency Planning Council - Kohler reported that the next meeting was scheduled for the next day, Thursday, April 7. 17. Congestion Management Agency Advisory Board - Burger reported that the next Advisory Board meeting was scheduled for next week. 18. Local Transportation Authority Policy Advisory Board - Kohler stated that there was nothing-to report. C. General Council Items 1) ngenda items for adjourned regular meeting Aprll 26 - joint meeting with Chamber of Commerce City Manager Peacock requested that the Council submit to him any suggested agenda items for this meeting. He explained that he would be meeting with the Chamber's Executive Director on Thursday, April 7, and attending a Board meeting next Wednesday, April 13, 1994. Councilmember Anderson suggested that if the draft smoking ordinance was ready, it should given to the Chamber for their review. Mayor Tucker announced to the audience the upcoming Party to be held on the freeway on October 15, 1994. Councilmember Anderson also suggested that the subject of the Sheriff's substation might be a good subject to discuss with the Chamber. Mayor Tucker agreed and the City Manager also added this item to the agenda item suggestion list. Mayor Tucker stated that if any Councilmember thinks of other items to be added, he or she should contact Mr. Peacock. At 8:30 p.m, Mayor Tucker announced that it was time for the public hearing portion of the meeting to begin. She briefly explained the public hearing procedure to the audience, noting that each Councilmember would state any ex parte communications they may have had with regard to the item. She asked for a show of hands from those people in the audience who were interested in speaking on the subject. With that show of hands, she concluded that there would be approximately 1 hour and 15 minutes of public testimony. City Manager Peacock noted that since the distribution of the meeting packets to the Councilmembers, a number of letters had been received, specifically from Pat Swint of Vineyard Lane, Carson & Company, City Council Minutes 7 April 6, 1994 Steven J. Coates, of Coates and Sowards Inc., Len and Betty Feldheym, Patrick Hanrahan, Rebecca and Martin Chaney, Richard Giomi, Michael Kennedy from DKS Associates and a petition signed by approximately 48 residents. A. Appeal of Denial of a Conceptual Plan Approval to construot 95 single family detaohed residences at the 24-acre former Paul Hasson Winery site at 13150 saratoga Avenue north of Route 85 in a Multiple Use-Planned Development (MU-PD) zone district (Developer, BA Properties, Inc./Greenbriar Homes)(PD 94-001) Community Development Director Curtis presented the Report dated April 6, 1994. He explained that this item is an appeal of the March 8, 1994, Planning Commission denial of a Conceptual development Plan for the former Paul Masson Winery Site located on Saratoga Road at Route 85. He explained that the project proposes a subdivision for single-family residential development consisting of 95 houses having an average floor area of 3600 square feet on lots having an average of 7700 square feet. Director Cutis noted that included in the Council packet were the DRAFT Planning Commission minutes which had been approved with corrections on April 5, 1994. He noted that the corrections were distributed to the Council earlier this evening and reviewed the corrections. Councilmember Anderson asked about the subdivision to which Commissioner Murakami referred on Page 5 of the minutes. She asked the name of the subdivision. A member from the Development team stated that the subdivision to which Commissioner Murakami referred was the Barrington Bridge Subdivision which is a small lot subdivision. Councilmember Anderson expressed disappointment with the fact that the Council did not have the opportunity for a site visit to this subdivision. She stated that she was unaware of the Barrington Bridge subdivision in Cupertino and, had she known1 about it, she would have visited it. Councilmember Anderson also asked if there was a response to Commissioner Kaplan's question (On p~ge 7, 3rd paragraph) which referred to liability of the City with regard to the State's affordable housing requirement. Community Development Director began to elaborate on the issues of affordable housing. Councilmember Anderson clarified her earlier question by explaining that she was wondering if staff had responded to Commissioner Kaplan's question posed at the March 8th Planning Commission meeting. Director Curtis stated that staff had not responded to Commissioner Kaplan's question and continued his report. Councilmember Burger noted that a resident of Saratoga expressed concern to her with regard to the "on-site storm water retention facility" reference on Page 18 of the Specific Plan. She asked if the recognition that this must be built was included in the Greenbriar plan. Community Development Director Curtis stated that at this point in the planning stage this facility is not noted on the plans. He explained that this application is a conceptual plan only and the storm water retention facility would need to be addressed in the final plans. Councilmember Burger inquired as to how the City of Saratoga defines common space versus open space. She asked if common space is all public or all private or if it can be a mixture. Director Curtis explained that common space can be either or both, but in this project the design review finding requires a certain amount of common open space - which is open space to be consolidated city. council Minutes s Aprll 6, 1994 and used by the residents of this project and is not required to be publicly dedicated or maintained. Councilmember Burger asked if the proposed linear park or the path is the required common open space. Curtis explained that the linear open space does not meet the requirements of a "park". He explained that the pathway and the linear open space along Route 85 sound wall is the design review requirement for common open space. Councilmember Anderson inquired as to what feature of the plan meets the Specific Plan requirement (Page 15 #5) for traffic noise mitigation/attenuation. Curtis explained that the project has not yet reached that point and that there are various options available to the developer with regard to meeting this requirement. He noted that this issue would be addressed further along in the planning process. Councilmember Anderson asked who had submitted the "Suggested Conditions of Approval" page stapled to the April 4, 1994, letter from DKS Associates. Councilmember Burger stated that she believed that these two documents were probably two different documents. The Suggested Conditions of Approval were submitted by the developer and the DKS Associates letter was probably a response to a question she (Burger) had asked in regard to trip generation while visiting the developer. She stated that these two documents were probably mistakenly stapled together. Councilmember Anderson stated that she would have to assume that the suggested conditions of approval was a movement from the position that the.developer held with the Planning Commission. She asked if this assumption was correct.. Staff explained that they had not yet had a chance to review the suggested conditions which were just submitted. Staff suggested that the Council defer the question to the developer. Councilmember Anderson asked about the concerns 'voiced by Planning Commission Kaplan with regard to the City's position on affordable housing issues and potential law suits. She asked City Attorney Riback how comfortable the City of Saratoga should be with making an approval in light of pressure being applied from the state with regard to affordable housing. She also asked what the State could do, who could the state sue over this issue and who would the liable party be if this project was approved and the State did sue. City Attorney Riback stated that he did not believe that the State would file a law. suit over any particular project approval. He stated that he believes that the State, if it does anything, would challenge the City's failure to have a properly adopted Housing Element. He noted that the State may challenge and attempt to have the City's zoning ordinance set aside or challenge the City's the ability to support the zoning ordinance and/or building regulations. Basically, he explained, what the State can do is to attempt to prevent the City from approving (or denying) any projects in the future until the Housing Element is properly certified. Councilmember Anderson stated that she believed the developer's preference for the open space would be designation as a public piece of open space that is handled through a landscaping and lighting district as opposed to the piece of land being a private open space which is owned by the specific community and managed by the homeowner's association. She asked about the City Attorney's comfort level with regard to the City not being in the position at a later date as to having to take over the maintenance of the common ground. She stated that she would not like to see the City in that position and, if there was any doubt as to what the future situation could be, City Council Minutes 9 April 6, 1994 she would like to make sure that the land is designated as private open space to eliminate any chance of the City having to maintain the piece of property. She also inquired as to the future residents of the project challenging the general public's use of the open space. City Attorney Riback explained that there is currently a movement to eliminate the establishment of LLA's. He stated that he did not believe that if any action was taken to change the current LLA regulations that the change would be retroactive. He stated that he did not believe there is a high level of risk of this happening. He noted that with the establishment of any LLA there is a benefit to some extent to other residents. Councilmember Burger expressed concern with regard to the residents of this project trying to restrict access to the common open space. City Attorney Riback stated that such a restriction could not be implemented. The proposal for the open space is for it to be a public open space. Mayor Tucker asked if there was an economic analysis with this project. Community Development Director Curtis stated that an economic analysis was not yet prepared for this project. He explained that at the time the original development was proposed there was an economic analysis done which discussed the revenue generation of the various potential developments of this property. He noted that residential development was the second to the least revenue generator for the City. At this point the Councilmembers divulged their ex parte communications as follows: Councilmember Kohler met with the developer and requested a traffic study report from the developer. He also stated that he had many telephone calls from the neighbors who expressed some concerns, but were 100% in favor of the project. Councilmember Burger stated that she had met with the developer and received many phone calls from residents. Councilmember Anderson stated that she also met with the developer, received a number of phone calls and she also visited the Blairemore project. Mayor Tucker stated that she met with the developer,visited similar sites, received many phone calls with only one expressing opposition to the project. She also had a conversation with Councilmember Anderson regarding the project. At 9:00 p.m., Mayor Tucker opened the public hearing. Paul Lettieri, project landscape architect, gave a slide presentation outlining various features of the project such as the site in general, the linear park, the cul-de-sac, the streets and their various widths of 28 and 36 feet, street parking restrictions, the main entrance element, landscaping of the development, the pedestrian pathway, the fence delineation of the front yards, the proposed parks/open space at the south edges of the development, the pedestrian access to McFarland, the staggered setbacks of the proposed houses, the interior and exterior elevations of the houses and the various styles of the proposed homes. Mr. Lettieri spoke in favor of the proposal and urged the City Council to overturn the Planning Commission's denial and approve the project. Carol Meyer, representing Greenbriar, the developer, addressed some of the concerns raised by the Planning Commission and the City Council. She explained that the developer had originally looked at proposing 106 homes. She noted that the number of homes proposed is now 94. She announced that the proposal now is to dedicate the full 4.78 acres of open space as public open space and to pay the park City Council Minutes 10 April 6, 1994 fees plus maintain the park through an assessment district made up of the homeowners of the homes (in the project). Ms. Meyer stated that the proposed average house size exclusive of the garage is 3,066 square feet (100 feet less than origj. nally planned). She noted that the maximum height of the structures would be 25 feet opposed to the initial height of 28 to 30 feet. She reported that the developer is now proposing that the distance between the homes be 11 to 13 feet. She explained that this reduction was accomplished by reducing the width of the houses and removal of the lot. She noted that the front · yard setbacks would be between 18 and 22 feet to accomplish the goal of having great articulation between the homes. Ms Meyer explained that the reason for these changes was to attempt to address the concerns of the neighbors and the Planning Commission. She stated that during the Planning Commission meeting there was a movement to reduce the number of lots within the development to 75 which the developer felt would not work. She stated that the project meets all the aspects of the Specific Plan and the MU-PD zoning and that the project would provide for a logical transitional use between the townhouses, the highway 85 corridor, the office Uses and the single family neighborhoods. She asked the Council for their support and approval of the project. She briefly re-outlined the proposal and answered various questions from the Council with regard to the project. Councilmember Kohler inquired if the developer was willing to write a 'subdivision contract which would prohibit the project from being developed in phases thus allowing a potential for parts of the undeveloped area to be sold off for other uses. He stated that he was not in favor of phasing the development of the site. Ms Meyer stated that the developer would be agreeable to such a contract. Goodwin Stienberg, project architect, began to address the Council when Mayor Tucker explained that the applicant had used up the initial time allotted for project presentation. Mayor Tucker stated that if the Council had questions for him he would be called on and that he may want to participate in the final statements of the applicant at the end of the public hearing. Chris Favero, 19549 Vineyard Lane, explained that she was on the Homeowners Board for the homes across the street. She stated that the homeowners of that community support the project as presented by Greenbriar. She explained that the neighbors want a single-family development on the site, not a commercial or multi-family development. She stated that the neighbors are concerned with the traffic impacts, density and crime and therefore support this single- family development. She urged the Council to approve the plan and expressed concern that should the plan be denied the City may loose this developer and a more intensified use of the property could be proposed. She again urged approval of the project. Tom Slean, 18900 McFarland Avenue, explained that he was initially leery about the proposal, but after review of the plan he feels the proposal is good. He stated that Saratoga does not need another square park and noted that the linear park would help bring the new neighborhood together with the existing neighborhood. He stated that although the proposed homes are large, he does not feel they will adversely impact the streetscape. He urged the Council to approve the project and noted that the various members of the development team are renowned and award winning professionals in their various fields. He labeled the proposal as a terrific project. George Detre, 19818 Vineyard Lane, stated that he was disappointed with the Planning Commission's denial of the project and pointed out that several years ago a project with approximately 283 units was approved for this site with no mention of traffic and density concerns. He expressed his support for the project and urged the Council to approve the project. Rebecca Chaney, 18859 Afton Avenue, explained that she had been City Council Minutes 11 April 6, 1994 following the issue of the Paul Masson site for nine years'and had attended the various meetings, talked to the neighbors, and sent letters with regard to the development of the site. She stated that many residents are in support of this project. She stated that she is happy with the plans, the house sizes and is looking forward to the linear park. She pointed out that the traffic impacts of this project would be less than any other use of this site. She thanked Planning Commissioner Wolfe for his support of the project and the other Commissioners for their opposition toward commercial use of this site. Ms Chaney explained that she had spoken with Councilmember Monia who had expressed to her his support of the proposal and indicated that should this Council meeting result in a tie vote, he would vote in favor of the project and break the tie vote. Councilmember Anderson stated that she seriously objects to a Councilmember expressing support of a project and promising a vote prior to reviewing it at the public hearing. She stated that she feels that a decision should be made after reviewing the project and listening to the public comments. She stated that she thought to promise a vote before hearing the testimony of the public is completely inappropriate when that Councilmember has chosen to attend a concert instead being present for the Council meeting. E. L. Vincent, 13617 Westover Drive spoke in favor of the project in general, since it proposes no commercial. He did, however, express opposition to the plan as proposed because of the exceptions to the street widths and the lot sizes. He urged the Council to uphold the Planning Commission's decision. He stated that he did not want the City to prostitute its building codes and zoning codes with regard to the street widths and lots sizes. He stated that there are people within Saratoga who would like to see the codes upheld. Mr. Vincent, in response to Councilmember Anderson's question regarding Mr. Vincent's position on the project, explained that he would like the lots to be Ri-10 (10,000 square feet) with or without the open space. Mr Vincent stated that he objected to the 7,700 square foot lots - noting that he felt that the project had high density and narrow streets. There was brief discussion regarding the formula used to calculate the average lot sizes. Community Development Director Curtis noted that the project would adhere to all building codes and that the proposed widths of the streets had been accepted by the Fire and Public Works Departments. Martin Chaney, 18859 Afton Avenue, explained that he and his wife had fully participated in the various meetings and etc. with regard to the development plans for the Paul Masson site. He pointed out that 3 of the 5 examples in the Specific Plan for development of the site call for residential development. He noted that this proposal meets the lowest density called out in the Specific Plan and stated that the neighbors are in favor of a residential development - specifically the Greenbriar proposal. He stated that the development would be consistent with and would compliment the existing neighborhood. He stated that he felt the linear park and the price range of the proposed homes would enhance the quality of life in the neighborhood~ He felt that the plan mitigated noise concerns and the development would help to support the City parks and the village merchants. He asked that the Council approve the project so it may proceed. Gary Lang, 13172 Montrose Street, stated that he also had followed the development plans for the site. He noted that the Specific Plan conveys a desire for residential development of the site and that this plan meets all the "shoulds" and "shalls" in the Specific Plan. He explained that the developer worked with the neighbors and the City and has addressed the traffic concerns. Mr Lang urged the Council to accept the conceptual plan so the developer may move on with the project. Debra Lang, 13172 Montrose Street, spoke in favor of the proposal and City Council Minutes 12 Aprll 6, 1994 urged the Council to support the application. She stated that Single-Family Residential development was the most responsible approach to the traffic concerns. She stated that the Greenbriar plan was a good plan noting that the project was the creation of award winning professionals, that the house sizes would meet the needs of today's family, the linear park and landscaping was a smart choice for times of drought, and that the plan provides safety to Saratoga with regard to the traffic impacts from the new Rt. 85. Mrs. Lang urged the Council to approve the project. Nancy Anderson, 13561 Lomond Ct., stated that she had received a number of phone calls from residents who were concerned with a potential huge block of stucco and wood houses and the loss of the area's feeling of open space. She stated that she was afraid that the project may be another "Seven Springs". Tom de Regt, 9781 Blue Larkspur Lane, Monterey, representing BA properties offered a brief history of the site, previous owners and previous development plans. He explained that BA properties reviewed the Specific Plan, solicited proposals for site development and decided that residential development would be most appropriate. He explained that 6 proposals were received, but only one proposal used the low density option called out in the Specific Plan - the Greenbriar proposal. He noted the preference of the neighbors for lower density development of the site. He stated that based on the Specific Plan and the input from the neighbors at various meetings, the Greenbriar development proposal was designed to be sensitive to Saratoga and its residents. Mr de Regt urged the Council to approve the proposal. Jeff Schwartz, San Marcos Road, urged approval of the project as proposed. He pointed out that the proposal makes sense and meets the City and Specific Plan requirements. He stated that the project would be compatible with the area and urged the Council to give some weight to the conceptual plan so the project could move ahead. Judy Homen, 13159 Montrose Street, explained that she had followed the development proposal for this site. She stated that the Greenbriar proposal offers a unique plan to Saratoga with its utilization of an award winning architectural firm, the proposed landscaping, and its park/open space element. She stated that the project has really put a sense of community into Saratoga with the overwhelming support it has received from the residents. She noted that if the Council, as elected officials, truly represent the residents they will acknowledge the desire of the community to have this development and will approve the project. Art Bliss, 12430 Curry Ct., pointed out that no variances are being pursued for this project. He urged the Council to be responsive to their constituents and approve the project. He stated that the plan is not Ri-10 and that there is no need for it to be Ri-10 or meet the Ri-10 regulations.. He urged the Council to give the developer a fair shake. He recalled the density of the previously approved project and noted that this plan would be better for Saratoga. He also acknowledged the expertise of the development team and urged approval of the project. Faith ~chmidt, 1999 Merrit Ct., stated that the development is a beautiful and desirable development, but with regard.to the State regulations pertaining to affordable housing, the development does not meet the State's objective of smaller homes in order to maintain affordability for young families and senior citizens. She urged the Council in reviewing the project to consider young families and older individuals and to seek out opportunities for smaller homes. There was no one else from the audience wishing to speak. Mayor Tucker asked the audience to indicate by a show of hands who was in favor of the project and who was not in support of the project. Four individuals indicated that they were not in support of the project. The remainder of the audience (full auditorium) indicated support for the project. City Council Minutes 13 April 6, 1994 Mayor Tucker asked the applicant for their final comments. Carol Meyer, representing Greenbriar, responded to some of the issues raised by the public. With regard to Mr. Vincent's opposition to lots less than 10,000 square feet, Ms. Meyer noted that the lots are only 1.5% shy of 10,000 square feet. With regard to Ms Schmidt's concern with the size of the proposed homes, Ms Meyers pointed out that these homes are only 13.5% larger than the standard 3,200 square feet allowed in the Ri-10 zoning district. She noted that the project meets all the requirements set forth in the MU-PD zoning code and urged the Council to approve the project. Goodwin Stienberg, project architect, explained that the development was designed with the Saratoga community in mind. He noted that he and his firm have worked in Saratoga before and are aware of the concerns of the conununity. He stressed that the development is sensitive to the community and would be an exceptional development. Mr Stienberg explained that relative to affordable housing, many of the future residents of the new development would be current Saratoga residents moving from their smaller, more affordable homes to the Greenbriar development, thus opening up a number of affordable homes within Saratoga. He asked for the Council's approval of the project as presented. AT 10:20 P.M., MAYOR TUCKER CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING. Councilmember Burger thanked the Planning Commission for their efforts which, she stated, have prompted the developer to make some of the modifications presented at this meeting. She stated that she supports, in concept, an all residential development of the site which helps to address safety and traffic concerns. She stated that this plan is not an Ri-10 development, but is sensitive to the surrounding neighbors. She noted that she initially (at the beginning of the meeting) had some concerns with regard to the project, but those concerns have since been addressed. BURGER/KOHLER MOVE TO OVERTURN THE PLANNING COMMISSION,8 DENIAL OF THE CONCEPTUAL PLAN AND APPROVE THE CONCEPTUAL PLAN AND TO CONVERT THE PROPOSED PROJECT MODIFICATIONS INTO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. THOSE MODIFICATIONS/CONDITION8 OF APPROVAL ARE AS FOLLOWS: · THE FULL 4.78 ACRES OF COMMON OPEN SPACE BE PROVIDED THE SETBACKS (SIDE) SHALL BE INCREASED TO MEASURE BETWEEN 11-13 FEET. PAYMENT OF THE FULL PARK IN-LIEU FEES REDUCTION IN THE AVERAGE HOUSE - AVERAGE HOUSE SIZE NOT TO EXCEED 3,066 SQUARE FEET EXCLUSIVE OF THE GARAGE THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF THE HOMES SMALL BE 25 FEET (Note: See change below) THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF HOMES IN THE DEVELOPMENT SMALL BE 94. AN LLA DISTRICT SHALL BE ESTABLISHED · THE DEVELOPER SHALL PROVIDE A 20-40 FOOT WIDE PEDESTRIAN ACCESSWAY TO MCFARLANDAVENUE WALKWAY BETWEEN LOTS 12 AND 13 CONNECTION THE FRONT YARD SETBACKS SHALL VARY FORM 18 FEET TO 22 FEET. Councilmember Anderson inquired about the portion of Councilmember Burger's motion limiting the height of the proposed homes to 25 feet. She pointed out that most of Saratoga allows for a height of 26 feet. She explained that if the architect was given the additional foot to work with it may help to eliminate boxiness or bulkiness of the homes. She stated that she does not have a problem with a maximum height of 26 feet. There was brief discussion with regard to the point made by Councilmember Anderson and there was consensus of the Council that a maximum height of 26 feet would be acceptable. BURGER AMENDED HER MOTION TO CHANGE THE ALLOWABLE MAXIMUM HEIGHT TO 26 FEET. THIS AMENDMENT WAS ACCEPTABLE TO COUNCILMEMBER KOHLER, THE SECONDER OF THE MOTION. City Council Minutes 14 April 6, 1994 Councilmember Anderson expressed concern with regard to the 18 foot front yard setbacks with regard to on-site parking difficulties. Councilmember Burger explained that the varying front yard setbacks would allow the developer and the staff some latitude during the design review phase of the project. Mayor Tucker reminded the Council that their mission tonight was to review and vote on the conceptual plan and not to deliberate so much on the specifics of the development. City Manager Peacock explained that the proposal is very specific with regard to the front yard setbacks. He stated that the proposal specifies that the front yard setbacks be 20 feet as measured to the front property line, except that up to 25% of the lots may have front yard setbacks of 18 feet if an equal number of homes have front yard setbacks of at least 22 feet. He also noted that the setbacks could be increased if the City deems it necessary in order to provide for adequate on-site vehicular parking area. Councilmember Burger stated that her motion was intended to include this description of the front yard setbacks and she asked that staff include the appropriate wording in the resolution for approval. Community Development Director Curtis asked for clarification of the motion with regard to the open space requirement and whether it was the Council's intent to count the greenbelts along McFarland and Saratoga Avenue in with the required 4.78 acres of open space. The Director explained that the Specific Plan stated that the perimeter greenbelt on McFarland and Saratoga should not be included in the 4.78 acres of open space and since this aspect of the Specific Plan is a "should not" there is latitude for changes/modification by the Council with regard to this issue. Councilmember Burger stated that the 4.78 acres of open space is exclusive of the Saratoga and McFarland greenbel~ frontages. Discussion commenced with regard to whether the conceptual plan included the greenbelts along McFarland and Saratoga Avenues in with the calculation of the 4.78 acres of open space. The Council asked for clarification from the applicant. Paul Lettieri, representing the applicant, explained that only the area up to the property line had been included in the open space calculation. He further explained that the area between the sound wall and the property line had been included, but not any of the land outside the property line - between the property line and the curb/streets. Mr. Lettieri approached the dais to point out on the plans the location of the wall, the property line and the location of the curb in order to assist the Council in understanding what land had been included and what land had not been included in the open space calculation. In response to Councilmember Anderson's inquiry regarding the open space issue, Community Development Director explained that at the Planning Commission meeting the open space proposal was for 4.32 acres including the peripheral area. He stated that the Planning Commission's goal was to increase the open space to 4.78 exclusive of the Saratoga/McFarland greenbelts. He stated that he needed clarification as to whether the Council wanted this open space calculation to include the Saratoga and McFarland greenbelts. It was the consensus of the Council that the 4.78 acres of open space be exclusive of the areas within the Saratoga/McFarland Avenue right- of-ways. Councilmember Anderson asked about the issue of requiring an economic analysis on the project. Councilmember Burger stated that if an economic analysis on the conceptual plan was a requirement of the zoning code then she would City Council Minutes 15 April 6, 1994 be willing to add this to her motion. Mayor Tucker stated that she had asked staff about whether an economic analysis should be done for the project. She explained that staff had reported that an economic analysis would be more appropriate if the project contained commercial uses. Mayor Tucker reminded the Council that staff had explained earlier in the evening the economical impacts this project would have on the City. She stated that if no one had any major concerns with staff explanation, she was happy with this approach, but felt that it should be in writing. Councilmember Burger again stated that she would to add to her motion a requirement for an economic analysis. Councilmember Anderson stated that if an economic analysis was going to be considered at all it should be considered before the Council makes a final vote on the project. She stated that this is why she had been concerned about this project from the beginning. She stated that while she agrees with the neighbors that the project is ideal, she is not sure that it would be ideal for the people who are going to eventually live there because of its close proximity to the freeway. She explained that she believed an economic analysis would clearly depict that this project would bring more money into the City if it were a mixed use project than a residential project. She stated that she felt the council had a responsibility to look into this issue. Mayor Tucker and City Manager Peacock explained that a economic analysis would look specifically at the proposed project with regard to how much money the new development and its residents would bring into the City, but also how much it would cost the City to provide services to the project. Councilmember Anderson discussed the issue Of the amount of money this project would generate in comparison to a project that included some commercial uses. She mentioned the library tax issue that will appear on the upcoming ballot and reiterated that the amount of money that will be generated by the project will be small and that the rest of the City would either have to accept additional taxes or possibly less services. Councilmember Burger noted that Saratoga is primarily a residential community and with a residential community their are certain constraints present because of the lack of a l~rge number of commercial areas. She noted that there are empty commercial buildings all over town and that Saratoga is primarily a residential community. She stated that she would be willing to amend her motion to include an economic analysis of the project. Councilmember Kohler explained his second of the motion by recalling the development of the Specific Plan for the site and the purposes of the Specific Plan. He noted that the project comes close to R1- 10,000 standards and that the project has received overwhelming support by the citizens of Saratoga and also provides cohesivehess to the neighborhood. He stated that he felt that if Saratoga looked toward a higher density, a senior housing project or an alternative housing project on the site it would be a lose/lose situation for Saratoga and its residents. COUNCILMEMBER BURGER AMENDED HER MOTION SO THAT LANGUAGE BE INCLUDED IN THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WHICH REQUIRES THE PROJECT TO BE DEVELOPED AS A WHOLE AND NOT IN PHASES. COUNCILMEMBER KOHLER (8ECONDER OF THE MOTION) ACCEPTED THIS AMENDMENT. Councilmember Anderson expressed a desire to resolve the issue of private versus public ownership of the common space. City Manager Peacock stated that he did not feel that this issue had to be decided tonight and explained that the issue would be resolved in the final plans of the development. He stated that an alternative City Council Minutes 16 April 6, 1994 that has not yet been considered, but which has been used previously, is that the City does not take a fee simple interest in the property, but instead (the City) has an easement for open space which allows it to be in an LLA-1, allows the City to spend the money, allows the City to maintain it etc., but also it (the easement)I can be abandoned and the City can quit claim deed the easement back to the Homeowners Association. Councilmember Anderson asked if this was the point at which to require a Homeowners' Association. She also noted that she did not how if the developer had intended for there to be a homeowners' association under the scenario where there would be a public park. City Manager Peacock responded that the Council could at this time require a homeowners' association. He explained a 95th lot would have to be created that would contain all the open space in it and would be held in common by the Greenbriar Homeowners' Association. Councilmember Anderson pointed out that a Greenbriar's Homeowners' Association already existed in Saratoga and she requested that this property's homeowners' association be given a different name. Councilmember Anderson suggested that the issue of the common open space be left open to be'decided upon at the final plan stage. Councilmember Anderson read aloud page 326 of the ordinance and pointed out that there is more to density than the number of units on a parcel. She wondered why the RI-10 regulation should be abandoned in the MU- PD project. She stated that she did not care for the Blairemore site which appeared to her to be boxy and close to tke street. She apologized to the members of the public who had called her with regard to the project and explained that she had literally been bombarded with telephone calls and had many hours on the phone. She suggested, in the future, that concerned residents form groups and have representative .talk to the Council opposed to all the individuals contacting the Councilmembers. She stated that she felt that the Planning Commission had a good point in trying to require the proposal to more closely maintain Ri-10 standards. She stated that she would not be voting in support of the project be cause she supports the Planning Commissions position and feels that the traffic impacts of the freeway will be so horrendous that it won't matter what is built there. City Attorney Riback announced that he had been informed by the applicant there may have been a slight misunderstanding that needs to be clarified regarding the applicant's proposal for 94 lots and the inclusion of the Saratoga/McFarland strip of open space. He suggested the Council ask for clarification from the applicant. Per the Council's request, Carol Meyer, representing the applicant, explained that at the time the project was before the Planning Commission it was the applicant's intention that just the buffer part in front of the wall along Saratoga Avenue was included in the 4.32 and now the 4.78 acres of open space because one can walk all the way around (the project) and it is a meandering walkway and is part of the site. she explained that none of the right of ways had been included in the open space number (4.78 acres). She explained that the developer had intended this strip in front of the wall to be included in the open space number and to disallow this may squeeze the project with regard to the 4.78 open space requirement. She stated that the Planning Commission did not seem to object to this strip of land being included in the open space area. Councilmember Burger stated that her motion included only that portion outside the wall to the dark line (property line). Carol Meyer stated that this was fine. City Manager Peacock clarified that the 4.78 acres is exclusive of any public right of way improvements that may be made along McFarland and/or Saratoga. City Councll Minutes 17 April 6, 1994 Mayor Tucker stated that she would be voting in favor of the project. She stated that she had really agonized over it and that she hopes the applicants take into consideration the various house sizes and place the larger homes on the larger lots. City Manager Peacock recapped the motion as follows: THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION BE OVERTURNED AND THE CONCEPTUAL PLAN BE APPROVED CONDITIONALLY ON THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS THERE BE 4.78 ACRES OF COMMON OPEN SPACE PROVIDED EXCLUSiVE OF SARATOGA AND MCFARLAND AVENUE RIGHT OF WAY FRONTAGES · THE SIDE YARD SEPARATION BETwzEN THE HOUSE8 8HALL BE A MINIMUM OF 11 FEET. THREE-QUARTERS OF A MILLION DOLLAR8 BE SET ASIDE FOR PARK DEVELOPMENT REDUCTION IN THE AVERAGE HOUSE - AVERAGE HOUSE SIZE NOT TO EXCEED 3,066 SQUARE FEET EXCLUSIVE OF THE GARAGE · THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF THE HOMES 8HALL BE 26 FEET THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF HOMES IN THE DEVELOPHEHT 8HALL BE 94. THE DEVELOPER 8HALL PROVIDE A 20-40 FOOT WIDE PEDESTRIAR ACCESSWAY TO MCFARLAND AVENUE BE~wzEN LOTS 12 AND 13 THE FRONT YARD SETBACKS BE AS PROPOSED BY THE APPLICANT WITH A MINIMUM OF 18 FEET WITH AN EQUAL NUMBER OF HOUSES OFF-SET BY 22 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACKS. AN ECONOMIC ANALYSIS BE PROVIDED WHICH INDICATES THE COSTS AND REVENUES TO THE CITY A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT SHALL BE EXECUTED TO REQUIRE THIS PLAN (AND NO OTHER PLAN) BE IMPLEHEHTED IN ITS ENTIRETY. Mayor Tucker stated that the Council did not have to address the LLA because it would be part of the final plan consideration. City Manager confirmed Mayor Tucker's statement. WAYOR TUCKER CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. THE MOTION PASSED 3-1 (ANDERSON OPPOSED). City Manager clarified that this motion was to direct staff to prepare a resolution to approve the application. He noted that the final resolution would come back before the Council for a confirming vote under consent items in two weeks. At 11:02 p.m., the meeting was recessed and at 11:18 p.m. the meeting was reconvened. B. Animal Control Ordinance (second reading and adoption) providing for licensing of cats and dogs; animal-related field services such as capture of dangerous animals and pickup of sick or injured strays; shelter and veterinary/ services such as adoption of unowned animals. City Manager Peacock presented the Report dated April 6, 1994. AT 11:20 P.M. HAYOR TUCKER OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING. There was no one wishing to speak. BURGER/ANDERSON MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 11:20 P.M. PASSED 4-0. ANDERSON/BURGER MOVED TO ADOPT ORDINANCE BY TITLE ONLY, WAIVING FURTHER READING. C2) Change to cable television programming - loss of BRAVO and CNBC for The Learning Channel on May 15 - Kohler Councilmember Kohler explained that this item be placed on the agenda because he had received a number of complaints with regard to the cable service and the discontinuation of BRAVO and CNBC. He encouraged the City pursue a closer relationship with the cable company. City Council Minutes lS April 6, 1994 Mr. Haggarty, representing South Bay Cablevision, addressed the Council with regard totheir concerns and their desire for quality programs. He noted that the Learning channel offering several learning programs for children will.be offered instead and also announced that CNBC will be added back on a full time basis once the area's cable system rebuild is completed in early 1995. He answered questions from the Council with regard to cable program selection other various cable television issues relative to Saratoga. He also explained that prior to discontinuing a program the Viewing audience is surveyed with regard to their'viewing preference. The Council expressed their desire to have BRAVO and CNBC along with other quality programs available once the system rebuild is completed. 3) Committee Report on School Safety and Traffic Problems - Anderson and Monla City Manager Peacock reported that Councilmember Monia asked that discussion of this matter be continued to next Tuesday night (6/12/94) in order to bring the Council up to date and gain permission from the Council for him and Mrs. Anderson to meet with the School Board and staff to try to come to grips with the school traffic safety issue in order to work toward a solution. Councilmember Anderson reported that she would not be present on Tuesday night (4/12/94) and reported on the meeting that she and Councilmember Monia had with the school system. She explained that the committee working on this issue is looking for some suggestions with regard to the issue and that a full discussion at the next Council meeting might be appropriate. She also noted that there might be some funds from the Air Quality Board that would help pay for the plan. She noted that she was enthusiastic about the schools wanting to cooperate with this issue. There was discussion including speculation as to why no one has yet come forward with a plan to address this issue, potential solutions/plans for the matter and an explanation of Air Quality Board funds. Mayor Tucker stated that she wouldlike Go Continue discussion of the issue at a later time. Councilmember Kohler stated that he would like this discussion to take=place as soon as possible - next Tuesday (4-12-94). Mayor Tucker suggested that further discussion take place on Tuesday and the Council explore various potential solutions/plans and then bring the issue back to a regular City Council meeting. Councilmember Anderson urged the Council to continue the momentum on this issue. There was consensus to continue discussion of the issue to the Tuesday, April 12, 1994 meeting. 4) Other Mayor Tucker announced that she had a meeting regarding Hwy. 85 and the United Way and it has chosen not to go forward with the race on the Sunday before the freeway opens. Councilmember Anderson expressed concern with the upcoming party planned to be held on the freeway. She stated that she had heard a number of concerns from residents and expressed concern with the Chamber planning an event and it being boycotted by a large group of citizens. She stated that some people indicateda specific concern with regard to the noise. Councilmember Burger stated that she had also heard some concern. Mayor Tucker stated she would note this and mention it to the Chamber. City Manager Peacock announced that the City has received the appraisal on the Nelson property and urged the Council to come in and City Council Minutes 19 April 6, 1994 review it. He stated that it provided more information than just a figure. He noted that the issue will be coming up for City Council review and direction. 10. ADJOURNMENT At 11:50 p.m, Mayor Tucker adjourned the meeting to on Tuesday, April 12, at Administration Meeting Room, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, for joint meeting with Hakone Foundation. Respectfully submitted, Minutes Clerk