HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-18-1996 City Council Minutes MINUTES
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
TIME: Wednesday, September 18, 1996 - 7:30 p.m.
PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Ave.
TYPE: Regular Meeting
7:30 - Pledge of Allegiance
1. ROLL CALL
Councilmembers Present: Burger, Tucker, Moran, Wolfe and Mayor Jacobs
Staff Present: City Manager Peacock, City Attorney Riback, Public ~
Director Perlin, Community Development Director Curtis.
2. CEREMONIAL ITEMS
A. Resolution commending John Clark, Barbara Dutra, and Donna
Miller for Service on Parks and Recreation Commission
TUCKER/BURGER TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 96-50. PASSED 5-0.
B. Resolution appointing Rick Blomquist, Elaine Clabeaux,
Marianne Swan, and Kay Whitney to the Parks and Recreation
Commission
MORAN/BURGER TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 96-50. PASSED 5-0.
C. Administration of Oath of Office to the above
Mayor Jacobs administered the Oath of Office to Marianne Swan, Rick
Blomquist and Elaine Clabeaux. Kay Whitney was not present.
D. Proclamation requested by Citizens against Lawsuit Abuse
Mayor Jacobs reported that the item was withdrawn.
3. REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA
City Manager Peacock reported that pursuant to Government Code 54954.2,
the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on September 13.
4. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS AND THE PUBLIC
A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
David Mount, 14720 Farwell Avenue, and Sarah Adolphson, 19975 Herriman
Avenue, representing the Youth Commission, addressed the Council
regarding the.reopening of Warner Hutton House and said that in.
response to the Council's challenge to raise $8,450 to match the
Council's contribution of $8,450, the Youth Commission had successfully
raised $4,274 to date. They announced that a golf tournament would be
held on October 25 to help raise additional funds, and they extended an
invitation to the councilmembers to participate in the tournament.
Information and registration forms are available in the community
center.
Marilyn Buelteman, 20007 Merribrook Drive, questioned whether the
Council had considered the effects of the passing of Proposition 218,
and requested that the Council study the effects on. Saratoga.
Lou Thorpe, 19950 Farwell Avenue, said that at the last Council meeting
he requested an explanation why the Council worded the Measure L ballot
statement in such a way as to prevent the voters from voting on
termination of the tax in November. He read the response he received
from City Attorney Riback on behalf of the City Council:
'I cannot speak for the motivation of individual councilmembers in
placing Measure L on the ballot. However, I can tell you that from the
best of my recollection there was general concern caused by the
Guardino decision and other cases throughout the state that any ballot
measure involving the existing utility users tax be prospective only
and that the measure have no impact or bearing on past validity of the
City Council Minutes 2 September 18, 1996
existing tax .... "
Mr. Thorpe presented three questions relative to the response:
(1) He asked if the response from Mr. Riback directly stated the
Council' s individual and/or collective position on this matter. (2)
Did the Council intend to deliberately circumvent the voting process
and subvert the voters' rights to vote on terminating this tax in
November? (3) If Measure L fails in November, does the Council plan to
continue c011ecting this tax until June of the year 2000 regardless of
the vote, or plan to terminate it? Mr. Thorpe requested that the
matter be agendized for the next Council meeting for a meaningful
discussion.
Jeff Schwartz, San Marcos Dr., requested a status report on the issue
reported in the Saratoga News approximately one year ago regarding the
survey on the City salaries done by the City Finance Conunittee. He
said it concluded that in most cases the salaries were 25% to 40% above
comparable industry salaries, and there was discussion on having a
consultant review the issue. Mr. Schwartz questioned the action taken
and the status of the issue raised by the Finance Committee.
B. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS - None.
C. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
1) Request by Saratoga Market Days Committee to extend the
Provisions of Resolution 96-19 regarding Saratoga Market
Days
Kristin Davis, owner of The Front Window, explained that the resolution
allowed the committee to hold promotional events and said that the
measurement of success was a long term process. She said' that the
Farmers' Market would not be extended through the winter months.
Councilmember Tucker suggested that a report be presented at the end of
the year to indicate whether or not there was an increase in business
for Saratoga merchants.
Councilmember Burger said that she has closely followed the progress of
the program and there has not been any complaints. She said that
success could be measured on two levels; the first being dollar level
and the second being the enthusiasm expressed by the merchants and
business owners.
BURGER/MOR/~N TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 96-19.1 EXTENDING RESOLUTION 96-19.
PASSED 5-0.
5. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Previously-Discussed Items
1) Resolution confirming Decision on Saffarian Appeal of
Basu Project heard 9/4
2) Resolution confirming Decision on Malish Appeal of
Kennel Permit Denial
Councilmember Burger requested that Item 1 be removed from the Consent
Calendar for discussion.
MORAN/TUCKER TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 96-52t ITEM A2 OF THE CONSENT
CALENDAR. .PASSED 5-0.
Councilmember Burger discussed the September 13, 1996 letter from
Attorney, Norman Matteoni, stating that the questions in the letter
revolved around the fact that perhaps the Council's specific intent was
not properly reflected in the resolution before the Council. She said
she would like to see specific words about where the tree screening
should be planted. She said it was indicated along the property line
between the Basu and Gaspar property and it was done without proper
reference to the fact that it runs through the vineyards, and part of
the intent was to preserve the vineyards. She said that the language
City Council Minutes 3 September 18, 1996
set forth in Mr. Matteoni's letter regarding the positioning of the
trees along the property lines was appropriate.
Councilmember Burger discussed the placement and type of a security
fence during the construction process. She said it was the intent that
the security fence protect the existing vineyards and neighboring
properties. She pointed out that it was not for the purpose of changing
the resolution, but for clarifying the intentions of the Council.
Councilmember Tucker asked if there was anything in the conditions of
approval or sale of the property stating the vineyards will remain.
Councilmember Wolfe responded that during the process there was
reference made to the historic significance of the Chateau property and
he felt it was appropriate that fencing and tree linings respect the
vineyards. He said fencing during constructions was also important.
Mayor Jacobs said it raised a procedural question about moving ahead on
the issue at this meeting without noticing the other property owners
and providing them the opportunity to respond.
City Attorney Riback explained that it was appropriate to clarify the
issue of actions taken by the Council with regard to where certain
screening and tree screening would take place and be located. He said
the fence issue was a separate issue; and as it was not discussed at
the Council meeting and made part of a motion, it was not appropriate
at this time to raise the issue without the presence of the applicant
and his ability to respond.
Mayor Jacobs suggested that staff meet with the appropriate parties and
work out a possible solution. If a resolution cannot be reached, the
issue could be presented back to the City Council.
City Attorney Riback reported that staff would meet with the applicants
and property owners to discuss the location of the tree landscaping and
fencing.
Councilmember Burger suggested that the applicant and property owners
on either side of the applicant meet with staff to clarify items ·
discussed this evening.
City Attorney Riback said that he was aware of Councilmember Burger' s
concern raised previously about the condition that the trees be located
somewhere near the boundary line so as to create the screening between
the Gaspar property and the Basu property. He pointed out that with
the clarification placed on the record at this meeting, the resolution
could be adopted.
Councilmember Burger clarified that she did not want to tear out a
vineyard to accomplish it.
In response to Councilmember Tucker's request for clarification, Mr.
Riback said that the motion that was made had a condition placed upon
it by Councilmember Burger which read 'we would like to see a condition
that would require heavy planting of trees and landscaping along the
property line between the Basus and Ms. Gaspar; leaving it up to staff
as to location but there appears to be enough room to mitigate so that
Ms. Gaspar is not looking into the back of,_the Basu house, but is
looking at a grove of trees that will replace what she is currently
looking at.'
Community Development Coordinator Curtis said that staff would look at
it as a performance measure for performance standards; the objective is
to provide maximum screening once the house is built and he pointed out
that to try and pinpoint exactly where the trees will go tonight may be
wrong. He recommended signing off the plan and having staff meet with
the parties involved for resolution. He said that staffs decision can
be appealed and presented back to the Council if necessary.
TUCKER/WOLFE TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 96-51 CONFIRMING DECISION ON
SAFFARIAN APPEAL OF BASU PROJECT. PASSED 5-0
City Council Minutes 4 September 18, 1996
B. New Items
1) Planning Commission Actions, 9/11 - Note and file.
2) Library Commission Minutes, 6/11; 6/12~ 7/24 - Note and
file.
3) Parks and Recreation Commission Minutes, 8/5 - Note and
file.
4) City Financial Reports for August:
a) Treasurer,s Report - Receive and file.
b) Investment Report - Receive and file.
c) Financial Report - Receive and file.
5) Approval of Check Register
6) . Budget Amendment Resolutlon 96-42.4 for Pierce Road
Bridge
7) Award of Contract for Voice Mail System
s) Resolutlon 96-53 accepting Cable Restitution FUnd
Percentage and Establishing Use of Restitution Fund
Monies
10) Confllct of Interest Code Report
Councilmember Burger requested the removal of Item 9 from the Consent
Calendar.
WOLFE/TUCKER TO APPROVE ITEM8 B1 THROUGH BS, AND B10 OF THE CONSENT
CALENDAR. PASSED 5-0
9) Resolution renewing Disadvantaged Business Enterprise
Program
Councilmember Burger questioned if bids were awarded on the basis of
the most qualified company with the lowest cost. She expressed concern
about the possibility of awarding a contract based on the fact that the
company was a minority owned business or a female owned company and not
necessarily the most qualified. Public Works Director Perlin clarified
that the ability to perform is taken into account when awarding
contracts to the lowest bidder. He explained that the program is in
place for certain federal and state grant monies the city receives.
BURGER/MORAN TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 96-54. PASSED 5-0
C. CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY - None.
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS - 8:07pm.
A. Appeal of denial of Design Review approval to construct a new
4,002 sq. ft. single story residence on a vacant lot with a
net site area of 14,004 sq. ft. at 12528 Spring Blossom
Court in the R-1-12,500 Zoning district and a Variance
request to allow the structure to deviate from the lot depth
percentage-based rear yard setback. (DR-96-026, V-96-006 -
VIDANAGE, Applicant)(APN 366-13-0S0)
City Manager Peacock noted additional correspondence received from the
applicant.
Community Development Coordinator Curtis reviewed the background of the
application for variance request and design review request for 12528
Spring Blossom Court, as outlined in the attached staff report. He
explained that the lot was part of a subdivision approved in 1991 when
the setback requirements were standardized, and the rear yard setbacks
were 25 feet. He reviewed the history of the item, the Planning
City Council Minutes 5 September 18, 1996
Commission's decision to deny the variance request, and the associated
design review request.
Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing at 8:14 p.m.
William Seligmann, Attorney representing the applicant, complimented
the Planning Department staff for their cooperation in the process. He
reviewed the application for variance and design review, which was
outlined in the attached letter dated September 12, 1996.
David Britt, project architect, referred to drawings of the proposed
homesites, and discussed the proposed plan, stating that it was not
unusual. He said it was preferred to have the house sit more centered
on the property and the proposal was to try and locate it similarly to
the other homes.
In response to Councilmember Wolfe' s questions, Mr. Britt stated that
lot 2 has been approved and lot i is in the process of going to
Planning Commission. Mr. Britt noted that the setbacks on lots 1 and
2 were the actual standard setbacks adopted before 1992 and staff felt
they should be used because the homes backed up to Saratoga/Sunnyvale
Road. He said that an arborist had reviewed the site and recommended
that protective fences be placed in the distance far enough from the
trees on the south side of the property to protect them from any
grading or site work.
In response to Councilmember Wolfe' s comment about the letter from the
neighbors concerning the height of the house, Mr. Britt said there was
a condition in the resolution that the foundation be built and the
existing grade would not be raised.
Hui Hsiang, 12590 Wardell Court, said that her home was 2,700 square
feet, on an 18,000 square foot lot. She said she felt the proposed home
should be more in line with the present homes and not over 4,000 square
feet. She said she would prefer a 45 foot rear yard setback.
Paul Campbell, 12578 Wardell Court, said he had two concerns. First
concern was that at the hearing in 1992 the city came up with a bigger
rear setback, and this proposal was first for a 25 ft., then a 38 ft.
request instead of 45 feet; and an increase of 270 sq. ft. to the house
from the original plan. The planning commission denied the request. At
this point he can see no reason why the City Council should overrule.
Councilmember Wolfe questioned if Mr. Campb~il had protested the 29
foot setback on lot 4, noting that it was closer to his home. Mr.
Campbell responded that he did not protest.
Mark Ryan, 20563 Wardell Road, said he resides directly behind the
fence from the home being considered for a variance. He said that he
wholeheartedly supported the recommendation of the Planning Commission
to deny the variance and design review application. He referred to his
correspondence dated July 2, 1996. He said that the current proposal
endangers the ordinance to protect the trees as shown on the exhibit.
He said he felt the proper place for the resolving the standard is at
the Planning Commission level and more importantly in a dialog with the
neighbors. Me said he did not wish to prevent the applicant from
building the residence on the property but that it be done according to
code and that tree protection be provided. He said that it might have
been more productive to have the neighbors meet with the applicant
before this point in time to discuss concerns they had.
Ann Ryan, 20563 Wardell Road, expressed concern about the visual impact
of a 4,000+ square foot home in such close proximity to her back yard
fence. She said that she concurred with the Planning Commission denial
of the two proposals. She encouraged a new design be taken into
account for the neighbors on all sides. She said she felt it was not
fair for home owners living in their homes for 25 years to be subjected
to such a large home in close proximity, invading their privacy.
Mr. Seligmann said it was difficult to follow homeowners who are so
passionate about their homes. Me said that prior to the meeting his
clients had sent out invitations to the neighboring property owners to
City Council Minutes 6 September 18, 1996
visit the property. He said that most of the comments could be dealt
with by some design modification. He asked that his clients be'treated
in the same fair, equitable same manner as someone else with a 14,000
square foot lot.
Councilmember Moran asked if the applicant would be amenable to
returning to the Planning Commission; we understand the neighbors next
to the property and the 38 foot setbacks is something that we feel we
would be able to live with provided the design is something that the
Planning Commission and staff can live with and we are not going to
take any action - and let you work on it.
Mr. Seligmann requested action approving the variance, with reasonable
conditions attached relating to the design. He said that sending it
back without that guidance would be difficult in not providing
parameters to work with. He said that the design application is
something they could work with the staff and return to the Planning
Commission with design details.
Mayor Jacobs closed the public hearing at 8:41 p.m.
Discussion ensued wherein staff answered councilmembers' questions.
Councilmember Burger commented that there were homes built on lots 3
and 4 without variances being granted. She said that this particular
infill development was very impactful on the neighbors.
Wolfe said it was a numbers game because of the shape of the lot.
Councilmember Moran said she was not in favor of granting a variance
and said she would like to see the application go back to the Planning
Commission.
Councilmember Tucker said that she would like to see the application
returned to the Planning Commission; they have been working on it. She
expressed concern about separating the variance from the design review,
stating that it should be tied together in a project.
Mayor Jacobs said that he would vote to deny the application and send
it back to the Planning Commission. He said it was clear from the 7-0
vote that the Planning Commission was not going to grant a variance. He
said it was regrettable that although the Planning Commission informed
the applicant at the meeting they would not grant a variance, and asked
if the applicant wanted to continue the item to work on the
application, the applicant opted not to have the item continued.
City Attorney Riback clarified that the denial would have to be without
prejudice and a new application filed.
Mr. Seligmann asked that if the application was denied without
prejudice, would the applicant would have to submit a new application
and pay the fee again. Community Development Coordinator Curtis said
that the application fee would have to be paid again, and explained
that the fees were justified because of staff time spent, public
hearings, etc. Mayor Jacobs pointed out that if an applicant is not
willing to accept the Planning Commission's decision, it files an
appeal and is faced with the consequences. He explained that there is
equal protection of the law; other people are denied and they have to
pay another fee; that is one of the consequences of filing an appeal.
MORAN/BURGER THAT THE COUNCIL DENY THE APPEAL AND UPHOLD THE DECISION
OF THE PLANNINO COMMISSION. PASSED
RECESS: 9:00 P.M. TO 9:10 P.M.
B. Use of Citizens Option for Public Safety Funding Program
City Manager Peacock reviewed the staff report on the Use of COPS
(Citizens Option for Public Safety Funding Program). Me explained that
AB 3229 provides supplemental funding through the state budget for
front line law enforcement services.
City Council Minutes 7 September 18, 1996
Sheriff Charles Gillingham reviewed the seven program proposals for
funding under the COPS Program totaling $67,000.
1 Bicycle Safety Program
2 Light Detection and Ranging Device
3 Bicycle Patrol
4 Preliminary Alcohol Screening Device
5 Multimedia Computer System
6 Night Vision Scopes
7 Video Recording Program
A discussion ensued regarding the video recording program wherein
Sheriff Gillingham answered councilmembers' questions. There was
consensus that one video camera would be sufficient and that the extra
funds be utilized for bicycle patrol.
BURGER/MORAN TO APPROVE THE COP8 PROGRAM IN CONCEPT.
City Attorney Riback clarified that the public hearing had not been
opened to the public. Councilmember Burger withdrew the motion.
Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing at 9:34 p.m.
Ken Biester, Chairman of the Public Safety Commission, reported that
the Public Safety Commission met with Captain Wilson and City Manager
Peacock regarding the COPS Program. He said that the Public Safety
Commission is concerned about citizens' requests for traffic counts and
requested the addition of the data acquisition unit. Mr. Biester
reported that the Public Safety Commission unanimously voted to support
the proposal.
City Manager Peacock explained that a monthly report would be required
on the expenditure of funds and that the expenditure of funds needed to
be consistent with allocations approved.
BURGER/MORAN TO APPROVE THE RECOMMENDATION FOR THE ALLOCATION OF LAW
ENFORCEMENT FUNDS UNDER THE COPS PROGRAM TO MEET THE SPECIFIC FRONT
LIME LAW ENFORCEMENT MEEDS FOR SARATOGA AS CONTAIMED IN THE SHERIFF'8
DEPARTMENT REPORT DATED SEPTEMBER 6, 1996, AND THAT IT INCLUDE AN
ADJUSTMENT TO THE SPECIFIC PROPOSAL CHANGING THE PURCHASE OF TWO CAN
RECORDERS TO OME CAN RECORDER, AND THE SAVINGS FROM THE CAM RECORDER TO
BE USED TOWARD THE EXTRA HOURS FOR THE BICYCLE PATROL PROGRAM. PASSED
5-0
BURGER/MORAN TO INSTRUCT THE FINANCE DIRECTOR AND THE CITY TREASURER TO
ESTABLISH A SUPPLEMENTAL LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES FUND (SLESF) AS A
SEPARATE SPECIAL REVENUE FUND IN THE CITY'S CHART OF ACCOUNTS.
PASSED 5-0
BURGER/MORAN TO INSTRUCT THAT ALL MONIES RECEIVED FOR THE COPS PROGRAM
BE DEPOSITED DIRECTLY INTO THE SLESF TO BE EXPENDED EXCLUSIVELY AS
REQUIRED BY THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 6.7 OF DIVISION 3 OF TITLE 3 OF
THE GOVERNMENT CODE, BUT THAT NO EXPENDITURE BE AUTHORIZED UNLESS
MEASURE L IS PASSED BY THE VOTERS ON NOVEMBER 5TH. PASSED 5-0
7. OLD BUSIMESS
A. Resolution approving Memorandum of Understanding - Saratoga
Employees Association
BURGER/WOLFE TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 85-9. 102 APPROVING MEMORANDUM OF
UNDERSTANDING FOR SARATOGA EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION'. PASSED 5-0
B. Resolution approving Memorandum of Understanding - saratoga
Management Association
WOLFE/BURGER TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 85-9. 103 APPROVING MEMORANDUM OF
UNDERSTANDING FOR SARATOGA MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION.
Councilmember Tucker explained that a study conducted a year ago
concluded that Saratoga was generally 9% higher in compensation
salaries in comparison to the private sector considering the total
City Council Minutes 8 September 18, 1996
salary and benefit package. She said that she would not vote in favor
of adoption of the resolution because she felt it did not meet the long
term objectives of the City Council.
THE MOTION CARRIED 4-1-0, WITH COUNCILMEMBER TUCKER VOTING NO.
Jeff Schwartz presentedquestions/suggestions relative to the proposed
employee contracts: (1) Why are classified employees receiving 2-1/2%
salary increase, when the management employees are receiving a 2%
retroactive salary increase from 12 months ago? (2) Raises for
management employees will be 5% with exceptional/outstanding
evaluation, as well as a cash bonus determined from their base pay.
(3) Consideration of Performance Based Pay.
A discussion ensued wherein Councilmember Burger explained the
management bonus program, and City Manager Peacock discussed both
salary structures.
8. NEW BUSINESS
Oral Communications (continued) and instructions to staff
regarding actions on current oral communications.
Mayor Jacobs requested that staff report on the effects of the passing
of Proposition 218. City Manager Peacock said that a report would be
presented at the first October Council meeting, but that the report
would be highly speculative.
Councilmember Wolfe questioned if the League of California Cities would
be conducting a similar study. City Manager Peacock responded that the
City Managers discussed the issue at a recent meeting and most of the
cities are in the process of compiling such a report.
Mayor Jacobs said he would like a written copy of the response to Mr.
Thorpe's first question. City Manager Peacock said that Mr. Thorpe's
question was set out in the September 14 minutes.
Mayor Jacobs said he would also like to see a written copy of Mr.
Thorpe's questions. A discussion ensued wherein City Attorney Riback
suggested that councilmembers look at the questions and decide if they
want to respond. He clarified that there is a basic tenet that states
that public officials as individuals do not have to explain their
individual motivation behind taking a particular action. He said there
may be reasons why a councilmember wishes to explain he/she took the
action he/she did, but there is no obligation to do so.
During the discussion, Mr. Thorpe appeared with a written list of his
previous questions and presented them to Council.
Mr. Schwartz attempted to address the Council. Mayor Jacobs clarified
that the oral communications portion of the meeting had been closed,
and councilmembers were presenting directions to staff on various
matters.
B. Ordinance Prohibiting Alcohol in E1 Quito Park without
Special Permit (first reading and introduction)
City Manager Peacock reviewed the staff report relative to the draft
ordinance relating to alcohol in E1 Quito Park, and answered
councilmembers' questions. A discussion ensued, wherein there was
consensus to refer the questions listed in the staff report to staff
and the parks and recreation department.
MORAN/BURGER TO INTRODUCE ORDINANCE PROHIBITING ALCOHOL IN EL QUITO
PARK WITHOUT SPECIAL PERMIT. PASSED 5-0
C. Pacific Bell Lease Agreement -'Congress Springs Park
City Manager Peacock reviewed the attached staff report outlining the
lease agreement for wireless communication antenna site at Congress
Springs Park.
City Council Minutes 9 September 18, 1996
A discussion ensued regarding the appropriate fund to allocate the
revenue funds to. Mayor Jacobs said he felt the funds should be
allocated to a special fund. City Manager Peacock suggested further
discussion of the issue be agendized for October 22.
MORAN/BURGER TO AUTHORIZE CITY MANAGER TO SIGN PACIFIC HELL LEASE
AGREEMENT. PASSED 5-0
D. Designation of Voting Delegate for League of California
Cities Annual Conference
Following a brief discussion there was consensus that Councilmember
Burger serve as voting delegate and Councilmember Moran serve as
alternate for the conference.
9. ROUTINE MATTERS
A. Approval of Minutes - 9/4
MORAN/WOLFE TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 4t 1996 MEETING.
PASSED 4-0 WITH MAYOR JACOBE ABSTAINING.
10. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS
A. Agenda items for adjourned regular meeting
October 22 - Discussion of allocation of funds derived from lease
agreement with Pac Bell; Quarterly Review Session; Underground
Utility Districts; State Proposal to Relinquish Saratoga/Sunnyvale
Road to Saratoga.
B. Other
Councilmember Wolfe discussed the October 6 Saratoga Parade. He said
that the former mayors of Saratoga would collectively act as Grand
Marshals of the parade. Me suggested that photographs of the former
mayors be displayed in the lobby of the Civic Theater. A brief
discussion followed. The City Manager was requested to arrange for an
update of the photos of former mayors.
11. ADJOURNI{ENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Eliz~abeth~Ell~e~
Minutes Clerk ~