Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-02-1994 City Council Minutes MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL TIME: Wednesday, November 2, 1994 PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Ave. TYPE: Regular Meeting The meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m. Pledge of Allegiance - Led by Karen Anderson 1. ROLL CALL Councilmembers Present: Jacobs, Tucker, Moran, Wolfe, Mayor Burger Staff Present: City Manager Peacock, City Attorney Riback, City Engineer Perlin, Community Development Director Curtis 2. CEREMONIAL ITEMS - None 3. Report of City Clerk on Posting of Agenda Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on October 28. 4. COMMUNICATION8 FROM COMMISSIONS AND THE PUBLIC A. O~AL COMMUNICATIONS (limited to 15 minutes) Ms. Karen Anderson presented Mayor Burger with a gift to celebrate her 50th birthday. Dr. F.~L. Stutzman, 15195 Park Dr., addressed the Nelson Gardens issue and believes the Council did not communicate with a cross section of the community. He stated he has collected signatures urging the Council to overturn their decision. Dr. Stutzman addressed the value of this property. He noted the Council should accept the two acres and let volunteers maintain it. He addressed the Williamson Act and any changes in the General Plan, noting that public hearings must be noticed and held. He stated he is disappointed in the Community Foundation who is trying to take away from Saratoga one of the last links to the past and allow development. Ms. Mary Guth, 20785 Reid Ln., stated she opposes the memo of understanding presented to the City Council. She believes this is an unwise deal and if the developer wants to develop the property he should go through the legal steps. she stated any deal should be brought out into the open and the Council should do what is best for the City. · Ms. Ann Waltonsmith, 21060 Saratoga Hills Rd., Stated she is here to oppose any development on Nelson Gardens. She noted she has collected signatures opposing development and handed in petitions. Ms. Lillian Benson, 14521 Big Basin Way, addressed the Saratoga City flag. She stated she knows of a business who could reproduce the flag. She asked the Council if it is permissible to reproduce the flag and sell it? Mayor Burger stated that Ms. Benson should call the City Hall for an answer, as the City Manager will have to confer with the City Attorney. Ms. Ann Mehaffey, 14340 Paul Ave., addressed the issue of open space in Saratoga. She noted she has enjoyed the Nelson Gardens and spoke in support of preserving this open space. She noted she would be willing to volunteer time to take care of these gardens. She asked the Council to reconsider acquiring the two acres. Ms. Marjorie Ann Ottenberg, 12881 Foothill Ln., read her letter to the Council dated November 2, 1994. She believed that the Council had promised the Commuity Garden a place to relocate when the Odd Fellows expanded. The staff was,instructed to research this issue. City Council Minutes 2 November 2, 1994 Mr. Donald Macrae, 20679 Reid Ln., stated he concurs with previous speakers and believes the matter of the Nelson Gardens should be considered more thoroughly. He added that this issue should be addressed before the Planning Commis:~ion and the Parks and Recreation Commission. He stated he has been active in the Nelson Gardens issue and was out this past weekend collecting signatures. He urged the Council to go slow in this process. Ms. Betty Peck, 14275 Saratoga Ave., stated she talked to a person from the Community Foundation to see what they can do regarding this property. She requested more time to put together a program and financial budget for Council approval. Mr. Paul Griffith, 13878 Malcolm Ave., urged the Council to go slowly on this project. He addressed the overcrowding of schools, noting any more housing development will impact this. He stated the City needs to communicate with the school districts and the community. He added if the Council proceed with this issue, they should look into acquiring two acres. Mr. Ryan Marlinghaus, 1033 November Dr., stated he is an organic farmer and would be interested in setting up a garden on the Nelson property. The Mayor proceeded to Item 6 on the agenda. 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS n. Appeals of approvals of the following projects in an R-1- 20,000 zoning district (applicant, R and Z Development; appellants, Mr. and Mrs Woolsey). 1) DR-94-024 14350 Douglass Ln. (Parcel 1), request for Design Review approval to demolish an existing single- family home and construct a new 5,63S Sq. ft. two-story residence in its place on a parcel 1.25 net acres in size. 2) DR-94-025 - 14360 Douglass Ln. (Parcel 2), request for Design Review approval to construct a new 5,434 sq. ft. two-story residence on a vacant 1.5 net acre parcel. Community Development Director Curtis presented the staff report dated November 2, 1994. Mayor Burger noted she spoke to Mr. Roberts and did visit the site. She also noted the Council received a letter from Celia Teter. Councilmember Tucker noted she talked to the applicant and other neighbors. Councilmember Jacobs noted he visited the site and spoke to the applicant and Mr. Tang.. Councilmembers Wolfe and Moran concurred. Mayor Burger opened the public hearing at 8:11 p.m. Mrs Woolsey, 19952 Durham Ct., stated they are not opposed to development of homes on this property, but are concerned about the mass and bulk. She stated the proposed homes should be compatible with the neighborhood. She stated she filed the appeal because of specific concerns. She added she is concerned about the severity of the second story elevation on parcel 1. With regards to this, she stated the developer has modified the rear elevation and removed the balcony to address privacy concerns. She stated the color of the houses should be earth tone. With regards to landscaping, Mrs Woolsey stated that the landscaping is not to provide complete screening for the houses and the project should stand on its own merits. She requested that the City require a landscaping maintenance bond, which should be held until development is well on its way. Mrs Woolsey addressed accessory structures noting there is no condition regarding this and she would be concerned about the impact of such structures. In closing she stated the proposed development is not compatible with the neighborhood and a smaller house design would be more appropriate. Mr. Woolsey, 19952 Durham Ct., stated he is not opposed to development on this site but is concerned about maintaining the integrity of the City Council Minutes 3 November 2, 1994 neighborhood. He stated the proposed project will impact the neighboring homes and does not fit in with the neighborhood. He stated the homes proposed are too massive and bulky. Mr. Woolsey added that the landscaping should not be utilized to hide the structures and would urge the Council to deny this project. Councilmember Tucker asked if the neighbors were informed about the subdivision hearing of these two lots? Mrs Woolsey stated they did not understand the process and were not involved at the time of the subdivision. Mr. MarkRoberts, Applicant, stated he has been sensitive to the land and the design of the homes are in keeping with the neighborhood. He stated there are homes in the area which are compatible with the proposed development. Mr. Roberts reviewed the setbacks from the surrounding neighbors and also the total impervious coverage of the lots. He noted that the total square footage proposed for these homes includes the garage. He stated he has made good use of the land and the neighboring homes are oriented away from these homes. Mr. Roberts stated the houses will be below the maximum height allowed in the Ordinance. He noted there are a lot of mature trees on the property and additional trees will be added. He stated he has agreed to change the color of the homes as addressed by Mrs Woolsey. He noted trellis etc. has been added to deal with the elevation. Mr. Roberts noted this is a diverse neighborhood and some people who will speak at this hearing will not even see the homes. He requested approval as granted by the Planning Commission. He stated he is willing to work with the neighbors regarding landscaping, but believes a bond is not necessary. Ms. Jeanne Johnston, 14210 Douglas Ln., stated she has no objection to development on this property. She noted Mr. Roberts submitted a letter to the Saratoga News dated October 19, 1994. She quoted from this letter. She expressed concern about the community not being informed about this project when it was first considered. Ms. Johnston addressed the public vs. private road to these homes. She noted a meeting was called by Mr. Roberts on October 25th. She added the design and size of homes proposed are out of line for the neighborhood and if the homes were smaller there would be no objection. She believes that no attention had been paid to the neighbors' letters and comments made at public hearings. Mr. Gary Pastre, 14230 Douglass Ln., asked that the documentation regarding the project, be such that, swimming pools and other plantings which require fertilizer be prohibited because of the possible run off into the creek. He noted any kind of pollution will be dangerous to the wildlife and also expressed concern about water from the swimming pool as a result of earthquake damage. He reviewed the setbacks required from creeks. Mr. Ming-Ching Tang, 14322 Douglass Ln., stated his property is approximately 50 to 60 ft. from lot one, and expressed concern about grading near his property line. He noted there are a total of seven chimneys proposed and expressed concern about air pollution. He spoke in support of reducing the house'size. In response to Councilmembers' questions Mr. Tang stated he did not raise the Chimney issue at the Planning Commission and his concern about grading was not discussed. Mr. John D. Teter, 19931 Durham Ct., addressed design review findings c and D in the resolution. He stated trees should not be used as a solution to hide the mass and bulk. He requested that findings C & D be overturned and would request that the Council recommend a reduction in size of the homes. He stated he was not notified about the subdivision hearing and noted the largest home in the neighborhood is approximately 3800 sq. ft. Mr. Ross Lulu, 14190 Douglass Ln., stated he likes the rustic look of this neighborhood and is opposed to the homes proposed as they are too large. Ms. Shanta Loomer, 19974 Durham Ct., stated she has no objections to development on this property, but is concerned about the mass and bulk. She stated the homes should be in keeping with the neighborhood. City Council Minutes 4 November 2, 1994 Ms. Yoka Koch, 14170 Douglass Ln., stated this is a close knit neighborhood and they like the rustic look. She expressed concern about the mass and bulk. She addressed setbacks and noted if accessory structures are requested, a variance will be required. Dr. Robert Lohr, 14200 Douglass Ln., stated he bought his home in this area because of the rural and quiet character. He noted the houses on the other side of the creek are large. He has no objections to development, but the proposed homes are not compatible with the existing neighborhood. He noted he submitted cormments to the Saratoga News regarding this proposal, he read this. He stated his home is 3102 sq. ft. which includes the garage. Mr. Michael Miller, 14101 Douglass Ln., stated this is a strong neighborhood and he is concerned about the mass and bulk of the homes proposed. He also expressed concern about the impact on the creek and asked the Council to consider the appeal and scaling down the homes. He stated these homes will impact the neighborhood. Ms. Kathleen Amezcua, 14110 Shadow Oaks Way, expressed concern about the size of the proposed homes and people in the neighborhood would like to have a say in the development. She believes the proposed development will have a negative affect on the neighborhood and expressed concern about precedent setting. Ms. Amezcua also expressed concern about development along the creek. Mr. Gene Zambetti, 14510 Big Basin Way, stated he is representing Mr. Ozaki, 19897 Douglass Ln.., who wrote a letter at the time of the subdivision in which he discussed the riparian corridor. He stated Mr. Ozaki requests that the proposed development on lot 2 be set back as far as possible from his property. Mr. Zambetti showed photos of the lots and the existing trees. He stated if the two trees, (shown in the pictures) are lost, privacy will be a concern. He noted Mr. Ozaki is very concerned about drainage from lot 2. He requested than an arborist be hired to investigate the condition of the present trees and to figure out a way to preserve the ]Toot system. He stated there are man-made ways to preserve the root system. He noted Mr. Ozaki's particular concern is the drainage from lot 2 into the open space easement and noted drainage should be to the far south and south east. He requested that this be added to the condition regarding landscaping. He stated Mr. Ozaki also requested that four to eight additional trees be planted in the open space easement on lot #2 to preserve screening. In response to Councilmember Wolfe's question, Mr. Zambetti stated the trees he proposes will be in the riparian corridor. Mrs Woolsey addressed the neighborhood ties and the valuable characteristics of the neighborhood. She addressed the visibility of the house on lot 2. She believes there is still room for improvement regarding mass and bulk. She expressed concern about precedent setting and noted the creek is unique and should be considered. She stated the oak trees should be saved as addressed by Mr. Zambetti. She added the homes as currently designed are not compatible with the neighborhood. Mr. Roberts noted the road in front of the proposed homes is a private road and will remain a private road. Regarding Mr. Tang's concerns, Mr. Roberrs stated the proposed home will be 65 ft. from his property. He also noted that any grading will be 40 to 50 feet from Mr. Tang's home. He stated some homes on Durhan Court are over 4,000 sq. ft.- Mr. Roberrs stated this is the first time he has heard any comments as addressed by Mr. Zambetti. He noted an arborist did an extensive survey on the two properties and found that because of the 60 ft. setback from the riparian corridor t]here would be no impact and this has been addressed. He stated he will be more than happy to discuss the issue of the trees with Mr. Zambetti. Mayor Burger closed the public hearing at 9:26 p.m. In response to Councilmembers' questions regarding setbacks in the R1- 40 zone, Mr. Curtis stated the side yard setback is 20 feet and 15 feet for R1-20. He stated the setback provided from the Tang house is 33 feet from the property line to the proposed house. He stated the maximum house size on a 20,000 lot is 4440 sq. ft. and noted there City Council Minutes 5 November 2, 1994 could be a maximum of four lots on this property. Regarding the creek, Mr. Curtis stated the subdivision map requires a 60 ft. setback from the creek to provide percolation for the run off before it gets to the creek. Mr. Curtis pointed out that with two lots the maximum square footage proposed is approximately 11,000 sq. ft. and with four lots it would be approximately 17,000 sq. ft. He stated that the properties to the right of the creek are R1-40 and R1-20 to the left of the creek. He pointed out that house size is specific to the lot size and the Planning Commission felt that these homes were appropriate because they are at the end of the block. Regarding colors, Mr. Curtis stated the Planning Commission requested dark earth tones. Councilmember Tucker stated she can understand the concerns of the neighbors, and believes they should have been involved at the tentative map stage. She noted the process has moved forward and the applicant received approval for the two lots and she would feel uncomfortable rezoning these properties at this stage. She stated the architectural design should stand on its own. She added the applicant has come forward in good faith and has worked with the neighbors and will continue to do so. She stated she is willing to uphold the Planning Commission's decision and deny the appeal. Councilmember Wolfe stated he did see the article in the paper written by Mr. & Mrs Woolsey. He noted developers are restricted by certain design criteria and preserving the neighborhood does not mean staying with the same design as the existing homes. Regarding the riparian corridor, Councilmember Wolfe stated 150 ft. is not the standard used. He addressed Ms. Amezcua's comments regarding the right to preserve the neighborhood and noted all property owners have certain rights as written in the constitution. He stated he will vote to uphold the Planning Commission's decision. Councilmember Moran stated she appreciates the efforts of Mr. Roberts to meet with the neighbors and address their concerns. She stated as a Planning Commissioner she was assigned the task of identifying the character of this particular neighborhood and agrees that it is a closed end neighborhood. She stated the' houses are modest and some lots are substandard. She stated she concurs with the neighbors that the homes proposed are not compatible with the neighborhood. She noted landscaping should not be used to hide design problems. She expressed concern about the mass and bulk and noted the homes should be reduced. She stated the major issue for 'her is the compatibility and design. Councilmember Moran stated she would like to see the houses step down the hill. She noted she appreciates the comments made regarding setting a precedent in terms of style and size. Councilmember Jacobs stated he did visit the site and believes these two parcels are not part of the neighborhood. He stated the Ozaki house is large and does not look out of place.' He noted he is not convinced that the houses proposed will look out of place in this location. He addressed the possibility of four lots and the impacts of additional traffic. He stated the subdivision was allowed by the City and there were public hearings and a few neighbors did speak to this issue. He noted no-one objected to the two lot subdivision. He added when the lot subdivision was before the Planning Commission the proposed location of the homes were situated on the maps. He stated it seems unreasonable for the City to allow 1.5 acre lots and not allow the larger homes. He stated he hopes that what will be built will be compatible with the neighborhood. He added that he is reluctant to reverse the Planning Commission's decision unless he believes what they have done, clearly reputes the policies of the City and would support their decision at this time. Mayor Burger stated she was concerned about the preservation of the riparian corridor, but believes the setbacks are appropriate. She stated the neighborhood does change as it reaches the end of Douglass Ln. In response to Councilmember Wolfe's concerns regarding the deterioration of the creek, City Manager Peacock stated he will check with staff whether or not,the erosion problem exists on the lots. He noted once the determination is made the Council could require that the City Council Minutes 6 November 2, 1994 landscaping plan include a condition to address the problem, if one exists. City Manager Peacock stated the motion should include a performance standard regarding the erosion problem. Mr. Roberts stated this is the first time he has heard of the issues brought up by Mr. Zambetti. He stated he will look at the issues, but feels that Mr. Ozaki should pay for any 'improvements to the creek, if necessary. Mayor Burger.stated she would like staff to look into this issue. She stated if the development is outside the creek and setbacks are appropriate there should be no impact. Councilmember Jacobs stated there will be no impact from the construction, but the property owners have the responsibility to the riparian corridor and the City should take any opportunity to protect the creek. WOLFE/TUCKER MOVED TO DENY THE APPEAL (DR-94-024) AND UPHOLD THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, SUBJECT TO THE REVISED ELEVATION AS INDICATED IN EXHIBIT B WITH THE ELIMINATION OF THE BALCONY. PASSED 4-1 (Moran NO). WOLFE/TUCKER MOVED TO DENY THE APPEAL (DR-94-025) AND UPHOLD THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, SUBJECT TO STAFF ANDTHE APPLIC/~a~T TO REVIEW THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS ~[O PRESERVE THE CREEK. Mr. Curtis suggested as a condition, the preparation of a riparian corridor protection plan subject to approval of the Community Development Director, be included. The above motion, with the suggestion by Mr. Curtis, was passed 4-1 (Moran No). Councilmember Tucker believes that this approval will not set a precedent because of the lot sizes. She suggested when subdivision hearings are held they should include, in the notices, lot sizes and possible house sizes. The other ment~ers of the Council concurred this should be City policy for the future.. B. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS 1) Lillian Benson, 14251 Big Basin Way, requesting co- sponsorship of Annual Village Open House, November 25, 1994, 6200-9200 p.m. Staff recommends that the City Council approve the request to act as co-sponsor. TUCKER/JACOBS MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST TO ACT AS CO-SPONSOR. Ms. Lillian Benson, stated that 99 people in the village are participating in the Christmas Open House. She extended an invitation to any church or public group to participate. She also invited the Council to do some carolling. Councilmember Wolfe stated it will be a great Christmas in the village because of the hard work of Mrs Benson and Ms. Fitzsimmons. The above motion passed 5-0. 2) Public Safety Commission Reoommendatlons for Monitoring Route 85 Impacts. Staff recommends that the City Council receive a~d file recommendations; provide comments and direction as necessary. City Manager Peacock presented a brief staff report. Councilmember Moran stated she had a question from Mr. Fine regarding city Council Minutes 7 November 2, 1994 the traffic on Saratoga Ave., and when they can expec~ a report? Mayor Burger stated she also talked to Mr. Fine about this issue and told him that there will be no action on the recommendations until they receive the report from the Public Safety Commission. City Manager Peacock stated the freeway traffic will not stabilize for at least three months, noting staff will monitor for six months. He added the Council will receive an interim report. Mr. Peacock stated they have had some good input from the community which Public Works is working on. JACOBS/WOLFE MOVED TO RECEIVE AND FILE. PASSED 5-0. 5. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Previously-Discussed Items 2) Resolution on Greenbriar Appeal heard 10/19 Councilmember Moran requested the removal of item 1. MORAN/TUCKER MOVED TO APPROVE ITEM 20P CONSENT CALENDAR A. PASSED 5- 1) Revised Memorandum of Understanding on Nelson Gardens Property councilmember Moran stated there are members of the public present who would like to speak under oral communication regarding the Nelson Gardens, she requested that this be part of consent calendar B. Mayor Burger stated that anyone wishing to speak on this item should discuss the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) only. Councilmember Jacobs stated the issue at this point is for the Council to determine whether or not the MOU is consistent with the action the Council took. He stated he has no objections to public'input, but it should relate to the MOU. Mayor Burger stated that there will be public hearings regarding the cancellation of the Williamson Act, etc. She stated at this time they are considering whether or not the proposed MOU is consistent with the action taken by the Council on October 25, 1994. City Attorney Riback stated he submitted a revised copy of the Development Application Submittal at this meeting. He stated the change in the proposed parcel size was recommended by the Community Foundation. City Manager Peacock stated the reason for the change is for the zoning and this precludes an application for Ri-iO,000o Public Comment Mr. Paul Griffith, resident, stated he does not want to miss out on the hearings regarding this issue. He believes there were verbal assurances given to the developer at the last hearing. He passed out a newspaper article regarding property in Saratoga and the price of land. Ms. Ann Waltonsmith, 21060 Saratoga Hills Rd., stated she is concerned that there were assurances made that may not be reflected in the MOU. Mayor Burger stated all conversations regarding this issue will take place in a public forum. Councilmember Moran stated she believes it is the goal of the Council not to bypass the public process. She expressed concern about the MOU and believes they are offering services to the developer that they wouldn't be offering to other Saratoga residents. City Council Minutes s November 2, 1994 Councilmember Jacobs stated Section 10, as revised, does reflect what the Council agreed upon at the last meeting. Mr. Donald Macrae asked if the Couneil are directing, by this action, how the Planning Commission should act? City Attorney Riback stated the MOU is being proposed for the purposed of providing the City with an understanding that, in return for allowing the process of a development proposal,(which does not mean approval) assuming that at the end of the process there will be development, the City will receive a certain amount of money, depending on the number of lots. He noted if development does not take place the City will not receive any money. He stated the purpose of the MOU iS to memorialize this. He noted any proposal by the Community Foundation will be subject to public hearings at both the Planning Commission and City Council level. JACOBS/WOLFE MOVED TO ACCEPT THE REVISEDMEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ON NELSON GARDENS PROPERTY. PASSED 4-1 (Moran No) B. New Items 1) Plannlng commission Actions, 10/26 - Note and file. 2) Parks and Recreation Commission Minutes, 9/12 Note and file 3) Public Safety Commission Minutes, 10/10 - Note and file. 4) Library Commission Minutes, 9/28 - Note and file. 5) Final Map Approval for Tract 8595 (6 lots) (OWner: Audrey Smith Trust) 6) Final Map approval for Tract 8671 (5 lots) (OWner: Estate of Melltta Oden) 7) Resolution declaring Weeds a Public Nuisance and setting Date for Weed Abatement Hearing TUCKER/MORAN MOVED TO APPROVE CONSEmi CALENDAR B. PASSED 5-0. OLD BUSINESS A. Resolutlon authorizing installation of 3-way stop sign at Aspesl Dr./Metler Ct. intersection (continued from July 20) Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the resolution. City Manager Peacock presented the staff report dated November 2, 1994. Councilmember Tucker asked if a speed study had been done? City Engineer Perlin stated there has been no speed study because Aspesi Dr. is a residential street and the speed is set at 25 mph. Councilmember Jacobs stated in the written Survey received, the majority of the people in the neighborhood did not want a stop sign. He asked Mr. Perlin's opinion? Mr. Perlin stated in this particular location, in his view, there is not a compelling reason for a stop sign. He noted the matter has been raised and the recommendation from the Public Safety Commission is to have the stop sign installed. He stated if the stop sign is installed it could be justified. He noted there are other ways in which the problem could be addressed such as a median or island, but this is more expensive. He noted the City has put several signs at this location over the years. Mr. Allen Amstutz, 18733 Metler Ct., stated that the Public Safety Commission supports the stop sign, noting he showed pictures to the Commission showing this problem. He stated there have been several accidents at this location. He added the public safety Commission have been through the process and looked at the problem. Councilmember Moran suggested puttin9 in a temporary barrier to see if this helps before putting in a permanent sign. Mr. Perlin stated if a median was installed it would be hit frequently and more damage would occur. City Council Minutes 9 November 2, 1994 Councilmember Tucker stated the Public Safety Commission went through this process and believes they made a decision on the facts presented. TUCKER/MORANMOVED TOADOPT THE RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING INSTALLATION OF A 3-WAY STOP SIGN AT ASPESI DR./METLER CT. INTERSECTION. PASSED 5-0. B. Revised Policy of Communications between Commissions and City Council concerning Quasi-Judicial matters City Manager Peacock stated the changes requested by the Council have been made by the City Attorney. WOLFE/BURGER MOVED TO APPROVE THE CHANGES. PASSED 5-0. 8. NEW BUSINESS A. Oral Communications (continued) and instructions to staff regarding actions on current oral communications B. Memo Authorizing Publicity for Upcoming Hearings - No hearings scheduled for November 16. 9. ROUTINE MATTERS A. Approval of Minutes - 10/19; 10/25 The minutes of 10/19 and 10/25 were approved as submitted. B. Approval of Warrant List TUCKER/WOLFE MOVED TO APPROVE THE WARRANT LIST. PASSED 5-0. 10. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS A. Agency Assignment Reports Councilmember Tucker noted she attended a Cities' Association meeting where Tim Gage, Assembly Ways and Means Committee Consultant, reported on State financing and the so-called "Trigger" mechanism. Mayor. Tucker stated the Legislative Task Force is planning to go to Sacramento to keep the lines of communication open. Councilmember Moran noted she attended a Joint Venture Silicon Valley breakfast and they discussed Smart Valley. B. General Council Items Mayor Burger stated there will be no direct contact this Saturday. City Manager Peacock stated they will have the Town Hall meeting on January 7, 1994. The Council agreed to cancel the meeting of December 21, 1994. Mayor Burger stated she will not have office hours on November 7, 1994. Councilmember Moran addressed getting together with other cities regarding how libraries and schools can interact. Councilmember Moran also stated the Council should discuss with the Planning Commission Tentative Maps and informing neighbors of such hearings, including the maximum allowed house size. City Manager Peacock stated he will have staff address this in future notices. 10. ADJOUILNMENT There being no other business the City Council adjourned at 11:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, City Council Minutes 10 November 2, 1994  C C~ Rob~i,i~ Catherine M. Minutes Clerk