Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-05-1995 City Council Minutes MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL TIME: Wednesday, July 5, 1995 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Ave. TYPE: Regular Meeting Pledge of Allegiance 1o PaLL C/~LL The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. Councilmembers Jacobs,,Moran, Tucker, Wolfe, and Mayor Burger were present. Staff Present: City Manager Peacock, Public Works Director Perlin, Planner Walgren, Attorney Riback. 2. CEREMONIAL ITEM - None 3. REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OFAGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on June 30. 4. CO~jNICATIONS FROM COP~4ISSIONSi~ND THE PUBLIC A. ORAL COPEMUNICATIONS (limited to 15 minutes) 1) Update on the status of the installation of the fiberoptic cable television system - Bill Haggarty, South Bay Cablevision Bill Haggarty, South Bay Cablevision, presented an update on the status of the installation of the fiberoptic cable television system in Saratoga. He stated that one of the most important aspects of the new system is the expanded channel capacity, capable of delivering in excess of eighty standard video channels with the ability to increase the capacity to hundreds of channels in the future. Mr. Haggarry announced that the Bravo channel has returned, along with the E-Entertainment, Court TV and the Cable Health Network. Councilmember Moran thanked Mr. Haggarty on behalf of the residents of Saratoga for the return of the Bravo channel. In response to Mayor Burger's inquiry about the possibility of getting the History Channel, Mr. Haggarty stated that they have received a number of requests for it and the possibility existed for the next round of updates. Jeff Schwartz, San Marcos Road, addressed the Council regarding the West Valley College football practice field. He stated that the City of Saratoga approached him about a year ago to get the neighbors together to discuss problems. The neighbors did get together and negotiated for several months in good faith. The College negotiated a detailed agreement which has been disallowed. A number of conditions were agreed to by the parties at the table in order to get everyone to confer; and it was decided that if the negotiations were unsuccessful the evidence for a criminal complaint would be carried out. The City Manager later said it wasn't agreed that there would be a criminal complaint; it was agreed that there would be formal action taken by the City. However, there wasn't any taken. Negotiations broke down and the City Manager then talked with the College board members. When asked what the outcome was the City Manager City Council Minutes 2 July 5, 1995 said he was waiting for a legal analysis by the City Attorney. Approximately four months have passed and nothing has been received from the City Attorney or the City Manager. Mr. Schwartz asked the Council to recognize that they did what the City asked a year ago rather than go to court, which would involve the city as well as the college. He stated his frustration with delays and being ignored. Mr. Schwartz stated that they will not go through another year with uninterrupted schedules of loud intrusive events'which are a violation of the law which the Co~mcil unanimously adopted. He urged the Council to cooperate in reaching a solution. Mayor BUrger thanked Mr. Schwartz~ and reported that the Council met in closed session and in open session reported that the City Manager was requested to attempt to get the parties together again at the table. She stated the City Manager attempted to get the parties back at the table and was unsuccessful for further productive discussion. She stated she was not aware of any further activity and suggested Mr. Schwartz get an update as of this date from the City Manager or the City Attorney. Councilmember Wolfe thanked Mr. Schwartz for his representation of the neighbors. He stated that the neighbors are entitled to quiet enjoyment and timely conununication. Mr. Wolfe suggested that he and Mayor Burger meet with the interim President of the college. Following a brief discussion, there was consensus that the Council should meet to discuss the issue. B. WR/TTEN CO~4UNICATION8 -. None 5. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Previously-Discussed Items - None B. New Items 1) Planning Commission Actions, 6/28 - Note and file. 2) Heritage Preservation Commission Minutes, 5/9; 6/13 - Note and file. 3) Commission Attendance Reports 4) ResolUtion 95-30.0~ transferring $600 from Heritage Preservation Trust Fund toAdvance Planning to provide for hosting of conference 5) Resolution 95-34 summarily vacating Trail Easement on Lot 6, Tract 7770 (Chadwick) 6) Notice of Completion, CIP 9503 (Quito-westmont- sousa Traffic Signal) 7) Award of Contract to set survey Monuments, Tr. 6781, CIP 8505 (Teerlink Ranch) 8) Resolution 95-33.1 amending Resolution 95.33 authorizing permanent positions as previously authorized City Council Minutes 3 July 5, 1995 Councilmen~Der Wolfe requested that Item 3 be removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion. Councilme~3er Tucker requested that Item 6 be removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion. TUCKER/MORANMOVED TO APPROVE ITEMS 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 8 OF THE CONSENT CALENDAR. Passed 5-0 DISCUSSION OF CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: (3 There was a brief discussion about attendance at commission meetings. Mr. Wolfe commended the volunteers for their participation on the committees. It was suggested that Mayor Burger contact the Chairperson of the comm'ittees that have members with an absentee rate of over 50%. WOLFE/MORANMOVED TO APPROVE ITEM 3 OF THE CONSENT C~T~NDAR. Passed 5-0 (6) Councilmember Tucker stated that a ceremony to celebrate the completion of the traffic signal would have been appropriate but noted that it was already in operation. Mr. Perlin stated that there was a lack of interest from San Jose. MORAN/TUCKERMOVED TO APPROVE ITEM 6 OF THE CONSENT C~x~NDAR. Passed 5-0 C. CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY - None. Mayor Burger moved the agenda to Item 7A. 7. OLD BUSINESS A. Request from Local Governments for Superfund Reform for City to participate in Superfund Reform Legislation (continued from 6/21) MORAN/TUCKERMOVED TO NOTE i~ND FILE THE CORRESPONDENCE AND NOT T/&KE PART. Passed 5-0 Mayor Burger moved the agenda to 8C. 8. NEW BUSINESS C. Ordinance HP-23 designating Almond Hill as Heritage Landmark TUCKER/JACOBS MOVED TO INTRODUCE ORDINANCE BY TITLE ONLY, WAIVING FURTHER READING '(FIRST READING). Passed 5-0 9. ROUTINE MATTERS A. Approvml Of Minutes - 6/13; 6/21; 6/27 There was consensus to approve the Minutes of the June 13, 1995 meeting. Corrections to the Minutes of the June 21, 1995 meeting were noted as follows: Page 6: 4th paragraph from bottom, third line: "proposed" should read "revised". Page 4: 2nd paragraph, second line: delete "Vice Chair of the Library Commission". There was consensus to approve of the Minutes of the meeting of June 21, 1995 as amended. City Council Minutes 4 July 5, 1995 There was consensus to approve the Minutes of the June 27, 1995 meeting. B. Approval of Warrant List TUCMER/JACOBSMOVED TO APPROVE THE WARRANT LIST. Passed 5-0 Mayor Burger moved the agenda bac~[ to Item 6A. 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS - 8:00 pm. A.' Appeal of denial of thz~e applications at 14300 Saratoga Ave.: Lot Line Adjustment approval to merge a 20 ft. wide property strip to the main parcel; variance approval to al].ow the proposed cumulative building square footage (including accessory structures) to exceed tt~e allowable for this property, to allow a 25 ft. tall t~o-story garage (one-story, 15 ft. in height maximumpermitted) and to allow the second story addition to exceed the 26 ft. main structure height limit kq 4 inches; and Design Review approval to add 2,204 sq.ft. of first and second floor area to an existing two-story residence listed on Saratoga's Heritage Inventory. The subject property is 29,770 sq. ft. in area and is located in an R-1-10,000 zoning district. (LL-93-008, V-93-020, DR-93- 032)(Appellant-applicant, Heath) ~: Planner Walgren presented the staff report on this item. Councilmember Moran asked for a history on the ordinance pertaining to the 15 feet on the garage or accessory unit. Mr. Walgren explained that the City first adopted the zoning ordinance in 1960 for W maximum of 12 feet; the height was further reviewed if the building was in a rear yard setback or other criteria that might apply. In the early 90s the ordinance was modified to allow accessory buildings to go up to a maximum of 15 feet height in certain circumstances and findings to approve that excess height are that the height is necessary to achieve architectural compatibility with the main residence. Councilmember Moran noted that the square footage allowed Mr. and Mrs. Heath was 4,400 square feet because of the large lot in a R- 1-10 zone. She questioned what square footage would be allowed to a neighbor or nearby property in the R-l-10 at the maximum. Mr. Watgren responded that a 10,000 square foot parcel is permitted 3,200 square foot total floor area, including garage and accessory buildings. Discussion continued regarding the square footage to be added to the Heath residence. Mr. Walgren pointed out that the Planning Commission was willing to approve a variance to allow up to 5,008 square feet, which is the 4,400 square foot cap plus the 608 square feet of historic structures that are not readily used. The Planning Commission was willing to give the applicant credit for the three buildings identified, which total 608 square feet. In response to Mayor Burger's corm~,.ent that the rendering on the wall was inaccurate compared to the plans in her possession, Mr. Walgren explained that the rendering shown is an older plan and City Council Minutes 5 July 5, 1995 is not the current plan before the City Council. He stated that the plans before the Council show the garage is connected by a breezeway but is not physically part of the main residence. Mayor Burger referred to the November 1994 minutes of the Heritage Preservation Commission wherein it was stated that the HPC supported the project design; "a two story garage addition is preferable to maintain architectural consistency with the existing house." Mr. Walgren responded that the input from the Heritage Preservation Commission was a major issue of discussion at the May 24 meeting. He stated that the HPC recommendation indicated that the two story design was appropriate for the older residence and they were happy to see the rehabilitation; it supported the two car garage as compatible with the main residence; but he said their recommendation was not meant to imply that a one story garage was not compatible. Councilmember Wolfe stated that the placement of the garage not being attached brings attention to the huge tree. He questioned if all the trees would remain intact. Mr. Walgren stated that the applicant has worked with the city arborist to ensure that the oak tree in the back is not damaged. The city arborist has recommended a minimum ten foot setback from the Douglas fir in the front. The original plan showed that tree being removed; the garage has subsequently been moved back but not the full ten feet the arborist recommended. As part of the recommendation to eliminate the second story garage and reduce the square footage, we further recommended a minimum 10 foot setback be maintained from the Douglas fir tree. In response to Councilmember Tucker's question, Mr. Walgren stated that the HPC was viewing plans for a two story garage, and did not view a plan with a one story garage. Mayor Burger and councilmembers reported that they visited the site and talked with the owners and neighbors. Mayor Burger opened the public hearing at 8:20 p.m. The applicant, Mark Heath, 14300 Saratoga Avenue, addressed the Council. Mr. Heath stated that he has lived in Saratoga for 35 years, and have lived in this house for six years. He stated that he and his wife plan to raise their children in the house, and they knew the home would need renovation and an addition to meet the needs of his growing family. He reported that as soon as they purchased the home they began improving the yard and the home, saving the trees and planting 21 more trees. Prior to applying to the City they went to the HPC for their input on the project. The HPC was in support of the project. He stated they submitted plans for the breezeway and the plans were returned, · stating that it wasn't an adequate connection. Mr. Heath stated plans were submitted with the full connection. They encountered problems when meeting with the HPC stating that it was fully connected but hit the tree; so the tree would have to be removed. A report was done on the tree because they weren't certain of the age and historical significance. It was decided to move the house because the tree was 100 years old and a rather significant tree, making the garage an accessory structure again. The plans were resubmitted with the breezeway and went to the Planning Commission. Mr. Heath reported that they have sent letters to the neighbors and talked with them about the plans and have almost unanimous approval With the plans. City Council Minutes 6 July 5, 1995 Mr. Heath stated that in looking back at his appearance at the Planning Commission meeting, he may have misstated his feelings by saying that he was not willing to give in. He clarified that the plans utilize all aspects of the home and lot and are aesthetically pleasing but he stated he is open to suggestions on the plans. In reviewing the current plans, most of the additions and remodelling are confined to the back to minimize the impact on the historical structure. Using overheads, Mr. Heath reviewed the square footag~ breakdown. He stated that the current total was 4,248 square feet, and is requesting a total of 5,364 square feet. He stated that the proposed variance findings are crucial to the project. He noted the two.story accessory structure_is an exceptional circumstance created by the fact that the existing home is a heritage resource and the heritage tree is located immediately adjacent to the dwelling. He said he submitted an earlier plan for the garage and the second story would be constructed as partof the main structure; however, the design would require the removal of the tree and impair the architectural integrity of the home. At the request of the HPC the entire addj. tion was moved away from the main structure, thereby creating a new accessory structure. This detachment was made solely to preserve the existing heritage resource. The HPC supports the alternative design which can only be made possible if variances are granted. He stated that unless' a variance is granted, the family will be deprived of their opportunity to construct an addition'to the home in the same manner as other property owners who are not under the constraints associated with heritage preservation. Mr. Heath stated that a variance would not be granting a privilege, rather an avoidance of a penalty for a heritage preservation. He noted that there were a lot of special circumstances involved that have not been addressed and if the factors are ignored and ruled strictly by the code, the lot and house are being treated unfairly and may even meet with demise. In response to Councilmembers' questions, Mr. Heath stated that his home was on the heritage resource list. The accessory structures A, B and C have been deemed by the HPC as historically relevant. Mr. Heath stated that the greenhouse is wooden and the potting shed is wooden with corrugated plastic. He noted that he was considering remodelling the workshop and making it into a carport. He stated that the carriage house is currently being used as a guest house. Mr. Heath explained that the planned addition over the garage will be a bonus room for the fanlily. In response to Councilmember Wolfe's question, Mr. Heath stated that the bonusroom did not include kitchen facilities. MAYOR BURGER CLOSED THE PUBLIC HE~ING AT 8:35 P.M. Councilmember Moran thanked Mr. Heath for the detailed presentation and the updated documents. She stated that she felt the Heaths were making a concerted effort to preserve some of the heritage of Saratoga. She noted their home was a charming home and felt the community would benefit from any efforts to save its heritage, improve it and make it a better home for his family. She expressed her appreciation for' Mr. Heath's cooperation and openness to suggestion. Ms. Moran commended Mr. Heath's balancing family needs with the community needs. Councilmember Moran reviewed a prior offer made by a Planning Commissioner to reduce the size of the garage, make it the 15 foot limit to replicate the roofline on both structures, eliminate the second story square footage in that area of the remodelling to have a two bay garage attached to the house and City Council Minutes 7 July 5, 1995 would therefore be 10 feet away from the tree. She stated she was willingto agree to the idea of granting the variance for the small adjustment in the roof height, as it was reasonable and the Planning Comanission was willing to go along with, it also. She noted that she was not certain of the wording on a variance finding, but to grant this 608 square foot discrepancy so that the Heaths would have an opportunity to preserve the currently standing historic building on the property, though they are charming buildings and are not visible by the public or accessible by the public, it seems reasonable that if the Heaths are going to keep them the city should do everything it can to provide incentive to keep these historic structures. Councilmember Moran stated that she felt the massive bulk of the garage facing Saratoga Avenue would not enhance the house, and with the changes, the design review findings would be easier to make and the variance problems would be solved as well. She stated it was difficult for her to recommend a variance as large as the one Currently in question. Councilmember Jacobs stated that the purpose of a variance is to allow someone to do something with their property which they could do but for the fact that some other impediment exists preventing them from doing it. He stated that he felt the Planning Commission in exempting 600 square feet of historic structures took a leap in doing that, and stated that special circumstances might be claimed because they are historic structures, but could not justify regarding the main house and the living structure to get over 4,400 square feet because the addition of the garage does not constitute the preservation of the historic structure that already exists. Basically 300+ square feet of living space is being added, and while it is convenient to have it, you could justify having any number of additional square feet beyond the 386 that you are attaching already. He stated he dichn't see legally how findings can be made to support the addition of the garage. In that regard he stated he would have to agree with the Planning Commission who stretched things as far as they could. For that reason Councilmember Jacobs stated he couldn't support the addition over the garage, but would support a one story garage. Councilmember Tucker commended the Heaths for their efforts in preserving the unique and beautiful property. She discussed the issue of the need for a gate in the front of the property for safety and security reasons and suggested the Council look into the matter further. She stated that it was difficult for her to rule in favor of the extra square footage. She agreed to preserving the stone cottage, the house, and the office and allowing the extra to bring it up to 5,008. Councilmember Wolfe conunented that the three structures being removed would be improving the condition of the lot and decreasing the fire hazards. Their improvements would not present a deterrent to the neighborhood. He stated he felt the Heaths were not making an unreasonable request, and would be inclined to approve their request. Councilmember Moran stated that she was concerned with the massive size of the garage. ~ llm Tucker stated she supported the recommendation of Counc' ember tha Planning Commission, to deny the variance because there are no ~findings to allow the extra square footage; but to allow a one st6ry garage. City Council Minutes 8 July 5, 1995 Mayor Burger stated that she felt the proposed garage structure does echo the home; it not only enhances the integrity of the home but it preserves it and the home owners should be rewarded for their efforts in preservation. She stated that the Council should be focusing on the square footage. She expressed concern that a potential second unit would be above the garage and it is within the purview of the Council to either reduce the garage to a two car garage; allow the garage to be built to the height and square footage that'has been submitted except there will be no livable space above the parking area of the garage, ~nd in order to accomplish that, a second unit could be prohibited or lower the roof line to some extent so there is not the full livable space above the garage. Mayor Burger commented that she did not want to,thank property owners on one hand for their efforts in preservation and then impose artificial limits to keep them from accomplishing their goals on the other. She remarked that it negates all that the Council is trying to accomplish. Councilmember Jacobs stated that Mr. Heath was not being penalized for preserving historical structure, but was being rewarded by getting 600 square feet of usable space that is not being counted. Hepointed out if Mr. Heath levelled the structures, he would only be allowed 4,400 square feet, not 5,008 square feet. Councilmember Jacobs stated he did not disagree with allowing adjustment for the garage roof, but expressed concern with allowing usable square footage be]~ond what would be legally allowed. Councilmember Jacobs explained that a variance does not allow you to go beyond the maxim~n that your neighbor would be allowed if there were no special circumstances for your neighbor. Mayor Burger emphasized that the other neighbors were not attempting to preserve a heritage resource home. She stated she felt a one story garage on the site does a disservice to the splendor of the existing home. Councilmember Jacobs pointed out that he would not disagree if altering the roofline would improve the architectural integrity of the structure. He stated that essentially adding a second story is not required to maintain the architectural integrity of the property. Councilmember Tucker stated that she felt the Planning Commission and City Council by granting the extra 608 square feet have been more than reasonable because the home is a heritage resource but not designated a heritage landmark, and someone could purchase the property, keep the square footage and change the entire facade. She stated that the Co~cil is confined by the law in the findings to be made. Councilmember Moran concurred with Councilmember Tucker's comment about the designation as a historical landmark which would require review by the HPC and woukd limit change on the outside. If the 608 square foot variance is gding to be granted it should be attached to the structures in ~estion because it would focus the efforts on trying to preserve the structures. She stated that one of the conditions that designation for historic landmark be sought on those structures. She said she understood Mayor Burger's concern and if the Council accepts the Planning Commission recommendation, she is hopeful it will pay off because the structures will be preserved. Councilmember Wolfe suggested re~lesting a copy of the request for the HPC to designate the home as a historic site so no future City Council Minutes 9 July 5, 1995 changes Can be made. MORAN/WOLFE MOVED TO APPP~)VE APPELLANT' S REQUEST FOR A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT. Passed 5-0 MORAN/TUCKER MOVED TO GRANT THE VARIANCE ON THE FOUR INCHES ADDITIONAL HEIGHT TO THE EXISTING HOUSE. Paesed 5-0 MORAN/JACOBS MOVED TO DENY THE VARXJ%NCE ON THE TWO $~ORY GARAGE. OPPOSED: WOLFE/BUI~c~.R Paseed 3-2-0 MORAN/JACOBS MOVED TO APPROVE THE GARAGE AT CME STORY NOT TO EXCEED 15 FEET, THAT THE STAIRWAY HE REMOVED, AND THAT THE GARAGE BE CONSTRI3CTED SO IT IS AT LEAST 10 FEET 'A~AY FROM THE DOUGLAS FIR TREE OPPOSED: WOLFE/BURGER Passed 3-2-0 MORAN/JACOBS MOVED THAT THE MAXIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE REMODEL BE A MAW/MUM OF 5,008 SQUARE FEET, WHICH INCLUDES THE 608 SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR THE HISTORICAL STRUCTURES ON SITE, WHICH E THE HISTORICAL PUMP HOUSE, THE HISTORICAL CARRIAGE HOUSE AND HISTORICAL OFFICE/HAYBA~N. OPPOSED: WOLFE/BURGER Passed 3-2-0 Mayor Burger clarified that the series of motions are not. to be construed as final action. Staff and City Attorney are directed to bring back resolutions. Councilmember Moran suggested that applicant work with staff to accomplish the changes rather than consulting with the Planning Commission and if there are major changes the applicant return to the Council. City Attorney Riback stated that the changes weren't substantial enough to warrant returning to the Planning Commission. City Manager Peacock stated that the key element is the revised exhibits to indicate how the plan has been changed to accommodate the decision of City Council. If staff has questions, they can be brought back to the City Council. A discussion ensued regarding fencing on the property, wherein it was recommended that the applicant look into the matter further. Mayor Burger thanked the applicants for appearing. She stated that staff has been directed to prepare the resolutions for final approval at the July 19, 1995 City Council meeting. Ma]For Burger returned the agenda back to Item 8B. 8. NEW BUSINESS B. E1 Paseo de Saratoga C~taaercial Center - Draft Negative Declaration City Manager Peacock stated that the detailed study and the background material was only made available from the City of San Jose for extensive study last Friday. Following Planner Walgren's presentation, the item can be reviewed in detail. Planner Walgren reviewed the status report regarding the redevelopment of the E1Paseo Saratoga Commercial Shopping Center. City Council Minutes 10 July 5, 1995 In response to Councilmember Tucker's question, Mr. Walgren stated that level of service reports and supplemental reports concerning traffic have been received. Public Works Director Perlin has been communicating directly with the traffic consultants, with an additional study for Quito and Cox. Michelle Yesnee, David Powers and Associates, Environmental Consultant responsible for preparing the initial study for the City of San Jose, addressed the Council. She discussed the three issues associated with hazardous materials on the si~e: (1) possible leakage from the gas station; (2) the site was previously farmed prior to development of the shopping center, leaving a potential for pesticides and other agricultural chemical residue; (3) discolorat~)n of some soil near_Quito Road, and (4) asbestos in some of the existing structures. Ms. Yesnee clarified that the asbestos problem is related'to the buildings scheduled to be demolished. In response to Councilmeraber Tucker's question, Mr. Peacock explained that the two major issues in the previous proposal were building height, and traffic patterns. He stated that the height of buildings for the current shopping center proposal will not exceed 45 feet high and the traffic will be more evenly distributed throughout the day in the commercial center as opposed to an office/residential complex. Mike Decor, Helios Properties, owner of the E1 Paseo Shopping Center. He explained that the largest store in the center would be the Lucky grocery store, with most stores being 40,000 square foot maximum stores such as Sportmart, Marshalis, Ross, bookstores, office supplies, etc. Discussion continued regarding potential stores for the center, wherein Mr. Decor answered questions. A lengthy discussion ensued regarding the potential traffic impacts. Public Works Director Perlin briefly discussed the traffic impact report. He stated that the City of San Jose has been responsive to his concerns and the traffic study that has been completed meets the criteria for analyzing a project of this type. Mr. Perlin pointed out that Cal Trans can alter the ramp signals so that traffic flows more efficiently along Saratoga Avenue. Councilmember Jacobs expressed concern about the traffic impacts for Saratoga Avenue which is a residential street. He stated it poses problems between the center and the freeway in terms of volume and speed of traffic. Councilmember Tucker asked the consultant if any consideration was given to creating a more "neighborhood friendly" landscaping to make the area more inviting. Mr. Decor responded that the landscape setback will be increased from 10 to 25. Councilmember Tucker commented that the inside parking was more favorable. Councilmember Jacobs requested that the record reflect his concerns about traffic issues. He stated that a successful shopping center at the proposed location will undoubtedly have more traffic impact than 1%. Saratoga residents will have similar concerns for traffic safety, bike safety and volume of traffic. Highway 85 has already increased the traffic in the area, posing a problem. Discussion continued regarding traffic impacts. City Council Minutes 11 July 5, 1995 Mayor Burger suaunarized Council's concerns: Concerns that indication that traffic impacts represents only 1% * 25'Additional landscape setback * No "big box" retailers Evaluation on traffic on Quito and Cox * Hazardous materials concerns 10. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS A. Agenda it~ for adjourned regular meeting with Public Safety Commssion July 25 (1) Update on items being worked on currently by the Commission. (2) Emergency Preparedness Task Force on earthquake preparedness. (Moran) B. Other Councilmember Tucker presented information on Our Urban Forest. She stated she would be supportive of anyone who wanted to pursue it. Mayor Burger reported that Jack Lucas, who is the representative on the Traffic Authority, clarified that the median strip on Highway 85 is wide enough for light rail. He asked her to pass the information on to City Council and staff. Mr. Jacobs invited everyone to the Town Hall meeting on Saturday morning, from 10 a.m. to 12 noon, in the Community Center Multi Purpose Room, focusing on the city parks system. Mr. Perlin stated that he put together a packet of materials regarding the parks system which will be delivered Thursday morning. Mayor Burger reminded everyone to bring the Parks Master Plan to the meeting. Councilmember Wolfe asked to be excused from the Saturday meeting. Mayor Burger reminded everyone of the Farmers Market on Saturday from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. Mr. Peacock asked Councilmembers to bring budget documents to the Tuesday evening meeting. Councilmember Moran requested information on the legal costs for 1994-95 and anticipated budget for legal costs for 1995-96 be provided for the next budget meeting. 11. ADJCK/RNMENT to Town Hall Meeting at 10:00 a.m. on July 8 in Community Center Multi-Purpose Room, 19655 Allendale, then to 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, July 11, at Administration Meeting Room,.13777 Fruitvale Avenue. Res ectfully submitted, h 1 Recording Secretary