Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-18-1995 City Council Minutes MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL TIME: Wednesday, January 18, 1995- 7:00 p.m. PLACE: CiVic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Ave. TYPE: Regular Meeting Closed Session - 7:00 in Public Works Conference Room (adjacent to Civic Theater Lobby) CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 54956.9 in one case. Pledge of Allegiance - Led by Jeff Schwartz 1. ROLL CALL Councilmembers present: Jacobs, Wolfe, Moran, Mayor Burger Councilmembers absent: Tucker Staff Present: City Manager Peacock, City Attorney Riback, City Engineer Perlin, Community Development Director Curtis. 2. CEREMONIAL ITEMS A. Proclamation commending Donald O. Olson as recipient of the 1994 W. W. Worden Memorial Award Mr. 01son accepted his proclamation. B. Proclamation concerning 100th Anniversar~ of Odd Fellows C. Resolution commending Karin Dowdy for Service on Public Safety Commission WOLFE/JACOBS MOVED TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION COMMENDING KARIN DOWDY FOR SERVICE ON THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION. PASSED 4-0-1 (Tucker absent). Mrs. Dowdy accepted her resolution. D. Resolution commending Robert Hilton for Service on Finance Advisol7 Committee MORAN/JACOBS MOVED TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION COMMENDING ROBERT HILTON FOR SERVICE ON THE FINANCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE. PASSED 4-0-1. (Tucker absent). 3. Report of City Clerk on Posting of Agenda Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on January 13. 4. COMMUNICATION8 FROM COMMISSIONS AND THE PUBLIC A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS (limited to 15 minutes) Mr. Jeff Schwartz, San Marcos Rd., President,. Area G Homeowners Association, stated that approximately two months ago members complained to staff about a trailer park on the Odd Fellows site operating without a permit. He added he would like to make the Council aware of this and hopes action will be taken promptly. B. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS 1) Peter Raiswe11, Finance Advisor~ Committee Member, resigning from Committee. JACOBS/MORAN MOVED TO ACCEPT THE RESIGNATION WITH REGRET. PASSED 4- 0-1 (Tucker absent). 5. CONSENT CALENDAR City Council Minutes 2 Januaz-/18, 1995 A. Previously-Discussed Items 1) Resolution on Chad~'ick Appeal heard 1/4 WOLFE/JACOBS MOVED TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION GRANTING AN APPEAL FROM THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSIOI~ V-94-015~ BARKAa~ 13245 PADERO COURT. PASSED 4-0-1 (Tucker absent). 2) Resolution on Cornelius Appeal heard 1/4 WOLFE/MORAN MOVED TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION GRANTING AN APPEAL FROM THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION V-94-018~ CORNELIUS~ 14199 SHORT HILL COURT. PASSED 4-0-1 (Tucker absent). 3) Ordinance Relating to Possession or Consumption of Alcoholic Beverages in Wildwood Park (second reading and adoption) Staff recommends that the City Council adopt by title only, waiving further reading. WOLFE/JACOB8 MOVED TO ADOPT AN ORDII~ANCE ADDING SECTION 11-05,051 TO ARTICLE 11-05 AND AMENDING SECTION ~1-10.010 OF ARTICLE 11-10 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA RELATING TO POSSESSION OR CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE8 IN WILDWOOD PARK BY TITLE ONLY, WAIVING FURTHER READING. PASSED 4-0-1 (Tucker absent). B. New Items 1) Planning COmmiSSiOn Actions, 1/11'- Note and file. 2) Library Commission Minutes, 12/7 - Note and file. 3) City FinancialReports for November and December: a) Treasurer~s Report - Receive and file. b) Investment Report - Receive and file. c) Financial Report - Receive and file. 4) Quarterly Quarr~ Creek Trust Report 5) Report from City Manager on PUrchase of Emergency Generator pursuant to Section 2-45,070(a) of the City Code 6) Commission Attendance Reports JACOBS/MOI~NMOVED TO APPRO~rE CONSENT CALENDARB. PASSED 4-0-1 (Tucker absent). C. CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY 1} Claim of San Jose Water Co. for indemnity in connection with injur~ to Fireflghter Lesnewsky from hydrant MORAN/JACOBS MOVED TO DENY THE CLAIM. PASSED 4-0-1 (Tucker absent). Since the hour of 8:00 p.m. had not yet arrived, Mayor Burger proceeded to items following public hearings on the agenda. 7. A. Freeway Landscaping Review City' Engineer Perlin reported on his meeting with the Traffic Authority. He stated the Traffic Authority indicated that they do not want to have any more meetings with the community to discuss landscape changes. He stated any change requested by the City should be made in the form of a contract change order rather than changing the plans. He explained the method of requesting the change in the plans, noting this would lengthen the approval process of the landscaping plans. Mr. city Council Minutes 3 Januar~ 18, 1995 Perlin went on to explain the process once Cal-Trans and the Traffic Authority list this project on january 23, 1995. He added that the construction must be underway by June 30th in order to receive reimbursement of the landscaping costs from the state to Cal-Trans. He noted the landscaping in Saratoga is part of a much larger landscaping project which involves the cities of Cupertino and San Jose, therefore delays in the Saratoga landscaping would delay the other cities. He stated the Traffic Authority also indicated that it would not be feasible at this time to pull the Saratoga landscaping out of this package. Mr. Perlin briefly reviewed the landscaping plan presented at this meeting. He reiterated again that any changes should be done as a contract change order. Councilmember Wolfe asked if Cal-Trans considers the landscaping to provide sound barriers as well as aesthetics. Mr. Perlin stated the landscaping is primarily for aesthetic purposes. Me added that there is not enough room between the sound wall and the freeway to plant a forest of trees to help with the sound mitigation. Mr. Bob Browne, Aspesi Dr., stated that many Saratogans have addressed an interest in commenting on the landscaping. He noted he talked to a representative from the Traffic Authority and stated it was his feeling that substituting plant materials can be accomplished. Mr. Browne noted there may or may not be a cost factor involved and some plants could be substituted for others. He added he is not advocating landscaping as a solution to the noise problem, but believes it may contribute to the mitigation. Mr. Browne addressed the trees proposed and noted evergreen trees should be used which may help the noise problem. He also noted that some plants have the potential to control exhaust pollution and drought tolerant plants should be used. Ms. Joan Hershkowitz, 19364 Shubert Ct., stated people have urged that no deciduous trees be used on the freeway as foliage all year long may help the noise problem. She noted evergreen trees also help pollution control and are more aesthetically pleasing. She asked if an arborist could make recommendations regarding any changes. Mr. Perlin stated'the principal message of the Traffic Authority was to not make changes to the plans at this time, but if changes are requested the contractors should be instructed. He stated staff should know the changes before the bid is awarded. Regarding the cost, Mr~ Perlin stated there may be an increase in cost depending upon the changes requested. He noted the Traffic Authority may be able to absorb some or all of the cost. In response to Councilmember Wolfe's question regarding landscaping in other cities, Mr. Perlin stated the landscaping in Saratoga is consistent with what has been approved in other cities. Ms. Hershkowitz stated they have 'heard complaints from other cities. Councilmember Moran stated staff should work with the citizens on any changes and also involve an arborist. Mr. Perlin stated his role in this would be to assemble the specific changes and ensure they got to Cal-Trans so the contractor can look at the changes the day the bids are opened. Councilmember Jacobs stated the citizens group should contect staff with their suggestions regarding changes. Mr. Perlin stated he would like the preliminary changes by the end of February in order to give the Council time to review these. City Manager Peacock stated that the changes will have to be reviewed by an expert in the landscaping field. He expressed concern about getting into a debate regarding the specific species. He also expressed concern about the time table of this process. Councilmember Jacobs stated the citizens group will have to spend time to find out what appropriate changes need to be made. The Council briefly discussed the possibility of having an arborist review the changes and the cost. City Council Minutes 4 Januar~ 18, 1995 Mr. Perlin stated he will look into this and give a status report at the next meeting. 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS - 8:00 pm. A. Review performance of the City,s Pavement Management Program for 1994-95, proposals for the future work programs and adequacy of funding to carry out the Program, including extension of the Utility Users Tan at a recommended rate. Staff recommends that the City Council continue this to February 1. MORAN/JACOBS MOVED TO CONTINUE THIS ITEM TO FEBRUARY 1, 1995. PASSED 4-0-1 (Tucker absent). B. Appeal of Denlal of Design Review approval to construct a new 4,390-sg. ft. two-story residence on a vacant hillside parcel with an average slope of 73%. Variance approval is necessary to allow the structure to be built on a slope of 85% and to allow the residence to encroach into required front and side yard setbacks. Lot Line Adjustment approval is also necessary to meet minimum City lot depth requirements. The subject property is 1.18 acres in size and is located at 20855 Kittridge Rd..wlthin a Hillside Residential zoning district. (Applicant/appellant, Constantin) (DR-94-031~ V94-012~ LL94-008) City Manager Peacock noted additional written. communication was received from Virginia Fanelli dated January 18, 1995. Planning Director Curtis stated in the executive summary of the staff report it is indicated that the appeal is for the lot line adjustment only, but the notice of publication was for the appeal of the lot line adjustment, the design review and the variance. He presented some background information on this lot noting that the parcel was purchased in the 1970~s and there has been an attempt through the years to "legalize" a lot of record. He stated in order to make lots, such as this one a legal lot, a Certificate of Compliance is recorded. With regards to this lot, Mr. Curtis stated a Conditional Certificate of Compliance was required because the lot did not meet the minimum lot depth requirement of 150 ft. He stated the applicant filed a lot line adjustment to meet the depth requirement. He noted, typically lot line adjustments are minor applications. Mr. Curtis addressed the variance appeal noting a variance is required to create a buildable parcel and he also briefly described the design review appeal. Mr. Curtis stated the Planning Comrmission, after a public hearing, directed staff to prepare resolutions for denial. On December 14, 1994, by a 5-0-1 vote, the Planning Commission denied the applicant~s three requests. At that meeting, there was extensive discussion regarding the "inter-relationship" of the three separate applications. The Planning Commission, by a 5-0-1 'vote, took the following actions: 1. Denied the variance because they could not make the findings necessary to approve the variance with specific concerns regarding health & safety issues, large building footprint, bulk and mass of the residence and the visual obtrusiveness being inappropriate for this site. 2. Denied the lot line adjustment because without the variance, the "new lot" does not meet the zoning ordinance. 3. Denied the design review since the project as proposed was not approved. Mr. Curtis stated that staff recommends that the City Council uphold the unanimous decision of the Planning Commission and deny the appeal. Councilmember Jacobs stated it is his understanding that there are two lots one with a slope of 73% and the other with a 43% slope and the parcels are contiguous. He asked if the applicant is requesting to take a portion of the lower lot and add it to the upper lot to make it a legal lot. Mr. Curtis said yes. Mayor Burger opened the public hearing at 8:40 p.m. City Council Minutes 5 Janual7 18, 1995 Ms. Virginia Fanelli, representing the applicant, stated they are appealing all three applications as addressed by staff earlier. She noted Mr. Saxe wrote a letter confirming that the appeal was for all three applications. Ms. Fanelli requested more time to give her presentation as this involves three applications and has been in the process for six years. She also suggested leaving the public hearing open so she could answer any questions the Council may have during their discussions. Ms. Fanelli gave some background history on this property starting with the first application in 1988. She reviewed the findings as listed in the resolution to deny the variance and compared these to the statements made in the geologist report as well as the arborist report noting these findings contradict both reports. She stated the only neighbor which would be affected by this proposed structure would be the neighbor below this property and believes this can be mitigated. She believes findings for a variance can be made. Ms. Fanelli noted in April 1991 a variance was granted for a site three doors away from this lot for building on a slope over 30%. Regarding the design review, Ms. Fanelli stated the house is no more than 20 feet wide and meets all size and height requirements. She stated she does not believe that the Planning Commission made their findings on expert testimony. Mr. Bob Saxe, Attorney, addressed his letter dated December 14, 1994 and noted this entire matter has become unnecessarily complicated. He noted in 1991 the Planning Commission were requested to act upon the design review and a variance and at that time someone raised the issue as to the legality of the lot. He noted the Commission indicated they could not act on the variance and design review applications until they established the legality of the lot. He stated in 1995 the applicant is being told that the Commission cannot act on the legality of the lot until they act on the variance application. He stated the Constantins hired Mr. Robert Shook, an engineer, and presented his research to staff and it was concluded that this was a legally created lot. He stated, based on this information the Constantin's requested the issuance of a Certificate of Compliance. He added in 1992 there was no disagreement that this was a legally created parcel entitled to a Certificate of Compliance, but one year later he learned that the City had recorded a Conditional Certificate of Compliance. He noted there is no disagreement between himself and the City Attorney or the City Engineer that on a Conditional Certificate of Compliance the public agency may only require that the applicant satisfy the conditions that could have been imposed at the time the property was purchased. He stated the only condition was the 150 foot depth. Mr. Saxe stated the lot line adjustment is independent of the variance and the design review and only establishes if the lot legally exists. He stated the only standards for a Conditional Certificate, which could be imposed, are those which existed back in 1970, but unfortunately when the lot line adjustment is requested in 1995 there are additional requirements. He noted the Subdivision Map Act states, in order to approve a tentative map, findings must be made which are in conformance with the General Plan. Mr. Saxe suggested that the City Council deal with the legality of the lot and then act on the variance and design review. Mr. Saxe's comments were written in his letter dated December 14, 1995. He noted the reason for the variance is for building on a slope over 30%. Councilmember Jacobs addressed the slope and noted the extent of the slope may justify a denial of the variance based on public safety and welfare. Mr. Saxe stated the variance is for a structure on a slope greater than 30% and for the purpose of the findings, the extent of the slope should not make any difference. In response to Councilmember Wolfe's question, Ms. Fanelli answered that the five geotechical studies were made on the design presented at this meeting. She also stated the design would stabilize the property and improve fire safety with the removal of some trees. Councilmember Jacobs asked whether, if the variance was denied, City Council Minutes 6 Januaz~/10, 1995 approval of the lot line adjustment would help. Mr. Saxe stated the lot line adjustment creates a legal lot. Mr. Murry Farrow, 20860 Kittridge Road, expressed concern about the integrity of Kittridge Road. He noted the City of Saratoga does not maintain Kittridge Road and if the variance is granted, the city incurs a responsibility to the current residents and responsibility for the care and maintenance of the road or force the property owners of this project to post a bond to guarantee that the integrity of the road will be maintained. Mr. Phipps, 15270 Norton Road, addressed the design review and the slope of the site noting that the natural vegetation will be impacted by the development of the proposed structure. He showed an overview of the house proposed and noted it appears as a three story house and will be visible from the valley floor'. He expressed concern about mass and bulk and also expressed concern about privacy impacts. He addressed the safetyissue and asked who would be responsible for accidents caused during the building of this structure. Mr. Phipps stated he is not convinced that this structure is comparable to the neighboring structures. He added that in the review Of the open space assessment, ~the citizens of Saratoga said that their feeling of a natural landscape was their most important priority. He noted it is in the interest of all citizens that this request be denied. Ms. Fanelli presented drawings of the proposed structure showing the elevations. She noted the house is situated to keep it close to the road to minimize grading. She also noted that the City requires bonding for contractors working on this project. Councilmember Moran addressed the letter regarding the General Plan and the Northwest Hillside Specific Plan, from the City Attorney, and asked him to briefly explain. City Attorney Riback stated a number of Councilmembers raised the question of whether or not this particular parcel does conform to the General Plan and the Northwest Hillside Specific Plan. He stated after reviewing both plans, there were goals and policies that this property was not in conformance with, as outlined in his letter. Mayor Burger stated at this point, they are not dealing with a legal lot of record and if they approve the lot line adjustment they are in fact, creating a legal lot. She asked what jeopardy the City puts itself in if they create this legal lot. City Attorney Riback stated if a lot is legally created there is more expectation on the part of the property owner that they have a right to build on it. He noted the issuance. of the Certificate of Compliance does not mean the lot is buildable. In response to Councilmember Wolfe's question, Mr. Peacock stated the question of legality of the lot came up in 1991. He addressed the City Engineer's memo dated March 31, 1993 and noted the actual Conditional Certificate of Compliance was approved by the City Engineer on April 23, 1993, and has been recorded. City Attorney Riback stated the property owners were notified of the fact that the Conditional Certificate of Compliance was being recorded. City Engineer Perlin stated the certificate states that when the property was created it was not created in compliance with the subdivision ordinance which the City had on its books at the time that the parcel was created. What it now simply requires is that the property be brought into compliance with the applicable requirements of the Subdivision zoning ordinances which were on the books at the time the Constantin's purchased the property. Mr. Curtis gave another example of a lot recently created noting it is not a lot created by subdivision purposes. He stated because the lot is in existence, does not mean it is a legal lot of record. Mr. Saxe expressed concern about not being notified about the Conditional Certificate of Compliance being recorded. City council Minutes 7 January 18, 1995 Ms. Fanelli addressed a memo from Mr. Perlin which notified the Constantin's about the Conditional Certificate of Compliance. Mayor Burger closed the public hearing at 9:40 p.m. Mayor Burger stated they are not dealing with a legal lot of record and is concerned about the action the Council may take and the result. She stated she does not want to leave the impression that by creating a legal lot of record they will allow development on this lot. Councilmember Wolfe stated if they approve the lot line adjustment and create a legal lot it would be incumbent upon the Council to approve the variance and design review, otherwise they would be denying the exercise of private property rights. Mayor Burger stated this is her question. Councilmember Jacobs stated with regards to the design review criteria the most significant issues are mass and bulk, and the house as designed clearly has substantial mass and bulk. He noted although the square footage is not excessive, the house, because it is only one room wide, as flattened against the hillside appears to be quite enormous. He believes this was the finding of the Planning Commission. He added because of the location of the structure, on the front of the hill, it would be very visible to the rest of the City. With regards to the variance, Councilmember Jacobs stated there is a significant difference in granting a variance on a 46% slope than a 73% slope. He stated unless he was presented with evidence, that in recent years a number of properties in the area with a slope of 73% were granted a variance to build, he would take the position to deny the variance. He referred the applicant to Article 15-13.010 which discusses the Hillside Residential District on which this property is located. He added all three of the purposes addressed in this article are applicable to this application. With regards to the lot line adjustment, Councilmember Jacobs stated if they uphold the findings of the Planning Commission, including the finding which addresses public health, welfare and safety, that finding alone, by definition means that the lot line adjustment would not be consistent with the General Plan. He addressed the provisions of section 14-50-040 (b), and would contend that it is impossible, if a lot is created which is not in the interest of public health, welfare and safety, that property by definition, cannot be consistent with the General Plan. He noted significant arguments have been made about the second provision under this section with regards to the lot line adjustment being inconsistent, and the only violation. He does not believe that this is as applicable as the first provision. He referred the applicant to section 14-05-020 which talks about the purposes of the chapter on which lot line adjustments fall. He read this section. Councilmember Jacobs stated he does not believe that the lot line adjustment would help implement the goals and policies of the Hillside Specific Plan, or promote the proper use of land. He does not think it promotes the proper regulation control of the division of land in the City. He stated for the reasons stated above he would recommend upholding the Planning Commission's decision. In more general terms, Councilmember Jacobs stated there are two pieces of property, one on a very steep slope and the other on a slope of approximately 43%. He noted a logical solution would be to join the two lots and pursue the possible development of the lower portion of the lot where the evidence indicates there are some flat areas. He stated he is not indicating that this would be developable. He added while the City is obligated to allow reasonable use of the property, to try to develop both lots goes beyond this. He stated with regards to past history, one can't help believe by looking at the record, the applicants had to know in 1970 when they purchased this property, by looking at it, that development of the upper portion of this property would be difficult. He noted his last comments would not be part of his decision to the Council, but maybe a solution to the problem. Councilmember Wolfe stated he did visit the site. He stated when he looked out from the site he seen other similar homes. He believes City Council Minutes S January 18, 1995 color, mass etc. can be mitigated. He noted during the campaign the intention of all Councilmembers was to maintain the rural residential character, but to do this to the maximum would mean to never allow any building. He noted the geologists ~o studied the site indicate that the site would be improved by the development process. Councilmember Moran stated that both the Planning Commission in 1991 and 1995 have no enthusiasm for this. project. She stated the Council is now faced with an additional concern by.being asked to create a lot which would need a variance to build on. She noted she is prepared to uphold the Planning Commission's recommendation. Mayor Burger stated pivotal for her is the legal lot ~f record. She noted if they were dealing with a legal lot of record she would have considered a structure on this lot. She stated she cannot extend a property right to the owner and then take it away. She believes this is a non-buildable lot and there is a greater possibility of building on the lower lot or combining both lots. She stated she would uphold the Planning Commission's decision at this time. City Attorney Riback stated if the action of the City Council is to uphold the Planning Commission's decision, they should direct the City Attorney to prepare resolutions for denial with findings. JACOBS/MORANMOVED TO REQDE8T THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE ARESOLUTION TO DENYAPPLICATION LL-98-008. PASSED 3-1-1 (Wolfe no, Tucker absent). JACOBS/MORANMOVED TOREQUEST THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE ARESOLUTION TO DENY APPLICATION V-94-012. PASSEl) 3-1-1 (Wolfe no, Tucker absent). JACOBS/MORANMOVED TOREQUEST THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE ARESOLUTION TO DENYAPPLICATION DR-94-031. PASSED 3-1-1 (Wolfe no, Tucker absent). 7. OLD BUSINESS B. Resolution setting management salary ranges for FY 1994- 95 Councilmember Wolfe stated they are in the midst of negotiations with the employees and this matter should be continued at this time. JACOBS/MORANMOVED TO TABLE THISMATTERUNTIL THE COUNCIL HAS COMPLETED THE EMPLOYEE SALARY NEGOTIATIONS PASSED 4-0-1 (Tucker absent). city Manager Peacock stated he will make a proposal regarding the management salary pool for the City Council to discuss at its next regular meeting. 8. NEW BUSINESS A. Oral COmmUnicationS (continued) and instructions to staff regarding actions on current oral communications Councilmember Moran asked for more information on the trailer park as addressed by Mr. Schwartz. Mr. Peacock stated Mr. Schwartz is referring to an RV park on the Odd Fellows site and staff is looking into this. Councilmember Wolfe asked if people are residing in these trailers. Planning Director Curtis stated staff has been researching the building files with regards to lighting and plumbing. He noted they received a letter from the Odd Fellows indicating that they have used this area for temporary parking for approximately 20 years. He stated in 1979 electrical and water hook-ups were put in. He said inspectors reviewed the site and everything is up to code and there appears to be a sanitary dumping station. He noted a year ago this area was regraded. Mr. Curtis stated that no plans specify the use for this area. He added the key issue is, is this done to code. He noted there have been no health and safety code violations and stated this is not a trailer park, but people may sleep in the trailers short term. B. 1994/95 Sheri~f,s Plan cf Service, Budget Appropriation, City council Minutes 9' January 18, 1995 and Booking Fee Proposal Staff recommends that the City Council approve the 1994/95 Plan of Service and authorize City Manager to execute; 2) approve proposed agreement for booking fees; 3) approve resolution appropriating additional $66,828 for law enforcement services. City Manager Peacock presented the staff report dated January 18, 1994. He reviewed a matrix titled "Proposed Appendix A Budget Comparison", as outlined in the staff report. Mayor Burger stated there is a concern, statewide, about booking fees. MORAN/WOLFE MOVED TO APPROVE THE 94/95 PLAN OF SERVICE AND AUTHORIZE CITY MANAGER TO SIGN. PASSED 4-0-1 (Tucker absent). MORAN/WOLFE MOVED TO APPROVE PROPOSED AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITIES AND SANTA CLARA COUNTY FOR BOOKING. FEES FOR FY94/95 THROUGH FY 96/97. PASSED 4-0-1 (Tucker absent). MORAN/WOLFE MOVED TO APPROVE A RESOLUTION APPROPRIATING AN ADDITIONAL $66,828 FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES. PASSED 4-0-1 (Tucker absent). C. Memo Authorizing Publicity for Upcoming Hearings - No hearings scheduled for February 1. 9. ROUTINE MATTERS A. Approval of Minutes - 12/13; 1/4; 1/7 - Approved as submitted. B. Approval of Warrant List MORAN/JACOBS MOVED TO APPROVE THE WARRANT LIST. PASSED 4-0-1 (Tucker absent). 10. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS A. Agency Assignment Reports Councilmember Wolfe reported on the Santa Clara County Cities Association meeting, noting they discussed emergency medical response services. He said the discussion involved the adequacy of the fire department taking over this service. He stated there was a report from the San Jose City Manager and this is an on-going study. Councilmember Moran reported that their Sister City in Japan survived the earthquake with no injuries. Mayor Burger stated she did prepare a letter which was faxed to Japan indicating thanks that they survived the earthquake. Councilmember Moran stated the major issue at Transit Assist is how Transit Assist can fit into the Countywide program. She noted it is an on-going issue. Councilmember Jacobs stated that KSAR indicated the Town Hall meeting went well and they are interested in doing another one. He stated they discussed doing the next meeting live. City Manager Peacock stated the technical aspects need to be worked out with the cable company. Mayor Burger thanked the Public Works Department for all their work during the recent storms. Councilmember Moran stated she is a member of the California League of Cities Tax Revenue Committee and they discussed the Orange County investment disaster. She stated they indicated that cities should look carefully at their investment policies and guard against restrictive investments. She stated the committee is also interested in getting funding for mandates. City council Minutes 10 January 18, 1995 Mayor Burger stated she attended the Public Safety Commission meeting and did prepare a report. B. Joint Venture Publlc Sector Roundtable - Tucker It was a consensus of the Council to continue this to the next meeting. C. Peninsula Division, League of Californla Cities - Burger Mayor Burger stated she will' be attending the Peninsula Division meeting and they will discuss dues increase. She asked for direction from the Council as to how she should vote. She noted her recommendation would be to approve tile dues increase. She stated this will be an advisory vote to the League of California Cites. It was a consensus of the Council to vote for the due increase. D. Appointment/Reappointment of Planning Commissioners Staff recommends that the City Council determine whether to conduct interviews as all applicants have been interviewed previously;'if not, then appoint two applicants to four-year terms to fill the two vacancies caused by expiration of terms. Mayor Burger stated it would be her recommendation to not interview the applicants. MORAN/WOLFE MOVED TO REAPPOINT MURAKAMI AND KAPLAN TO THE PLANNIN~ COMMISSION. PASSED 4-0-1 (Tucker absent). Councilmember Moran stated both of the above applicants have served well on the Planning Commission and believe they are working well as a body. E. General Council Items Mayor Burger stated she will have office hours next Monday from 2 p.m. to 5 p.m. 11. ADJOURNMENT The Council adjourned at 11 p.m. to Tuesday, January 24, at 7:30 p.m. in Administration Conference Room, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue. Respectfully submitted, Catherine M. Ro Minutes Clerk