Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-08-1998 City Council packetAGENDA SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL TIME: Tuesday, September 8, 1998 5:30 p.m. PLACE: Adult Care Center, 19655 Allendale Avenue TYPE: Adjourned Regular Meeting /Joint Meeting with Planning Commission Closed session pursuant to Government Code Section 54957: PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION Title: City Attorney Mayor's Report on Closed Session. 1. Roll Call 7:00 p.m. 2. Report of City Clerk on Posting of Agenda Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on September 4. The notice of adjournment from the September 2 Council meeting was properly posted on September 3. 3. Oral Communications from the Public on Non Agendized Items 4. Joint Meeting with Planning Commission A. Items Suggested by Commission: Budgeting for a minutes clerk Discussion of Cellular Transmission Antennas B. Items Suggested by Community Development Director: Heritage Preservation Commission Ordinance Amendments Preview of pending applications (e.g., Sisters of Notre Dame Novitiate, Azule Crossing) Circulation Element Mountain Winery Update 5. Measure G Implementation Resolution 6. Self- Evaluation of Previous Meeting September 2 7. Agency Assignment Reports Assoc. of Bay Area Governments Moran Chamber of Commerce Board Wolfe County Cities Assn. Leg. Task Force Bogosian County HCD Policy Committee Jacobs Emergency Planning Council Moran Hakone Foundation Liaison Shaw Joint Venture Silicon Valley Wolfe KSAR Community Access TV Board Shaw Library Joint Powers Agency Bogosian N. Cent. Flood Cont. Zone Adv. Bd. Bogosian Penin. Div., League of Cal. Cities Wolfe City Council Agenda 2 September 8, 1998 Santa Clara Valley Water Commission Jacobs Santa Clara County Cities Assn./ Wolfe /Moran City Selection Committee SASCC Liaison Shaw Saratoga Business Dev. Council Wolfe School Liaison Jacobs Sister City Liaison Shaw Solid Waste JPA Moran Valley Transportation Authority Wolfe Valley Transportation Authority PAC Shaw West Valley Sanitation District Moran 8. Other 9. Adjournment In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact Peter Gonda at 408/868 -1221. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. [28 CFR 35.102 35.104 ADA Title II] SEP -03 -98 THU 09:49 MEYERS,NAVE,RIBACK &SILV, FAX NO. 510 351 4481 MICHAEL K. NAVb STD/EN R. MEYERS ELIZABETH H. SILVER MICHAEL S. RIBACK KENNETH A. WILSON DAVID W. SKINNER STEVEN T. MATTAS MICHAEL F. RODRIQUEZ CLIFFORD F. CAMPBELL KATHLEEN FAUBION, AICP RICK W. JARVIS DEBBIE F. LATHAM ARNE B. SANDBERG BENJAMIN P. FAY DANIEL A. MULLER LANE M. RANDOLPH PATFuCK WrUThELL KATHARINE G. WELLMAN JOHN W. TRUXAW GARY A. WATT JULIt L. MARUYMAN ADAM U. LINDGREN DIANE 8. ROLEN OF COUNSEL ANDREA J. SALTZMAN CERTIFIED APPELLATE SPECIALIST STEPANt8 Y. GANDOLPI TO: City Council City of Saratoga FROM: Michael S. Riback City Attorney MSRdsp Attachment- Attached is the same City Attorney evaluation form I have forwarded to the Council prior to past years' evaluations. 1 have found the responses received to be helpful and 1 have attempted to act on those responses. The form is once again forwarded to assist the Council in evaluating me and the other attorneys in our office with whom the Council has come into contact over the past year. I look forward to meeting with the Council at the personnel dosed session on September 8 and receiving your feedback, using these standards or any other standards the Council feels appropriate. -4- RE: City Attorney Annual Evaluation c: City Manager (w /attach.) MEYERS, NAVE, RIBACK, SILVER WILSON A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION GATEWAY PLAZA 777 DAVIS STREET, SUITE 300 SAN LEANDRO, CALIFORNIA 94577 TELEPHONE: (510) 351 -4300 FACSIMILE: 1510) 351-4481 MEMORANDUM Michael S. Riback City Attorney NORTH BAY OFFICE P. 02/05 555 FIFTH STREET, SUITE 230 SANTA ROSA, CA 95401 TCLCPHONE: (707) GAG -0009 ;ACSIMILE: 17071 646 6817 CENTPAL V ALLFY QFFIQF 5250 CLAREMONT AVENUE STOCKTON. CA 95207 TELEPHONE: )209) 551 -4090 FACSIMILE: (1091 961 -3009 DATE: September 3, 1998 EP -03 -98 THU 09 :49 MEYERS,NAVE,RIBACK &SILV. FAX NO. 510 351 4481 P.03/05 CITY ATTORNEY EVALUATION PURPOSE: To provide an effective and progressive legal program to accomplish the general objectives of the City, to insure their proper implementation, and to defend the City's actions if challenged. ADMINISTRATION AND APPROACH EVALUATION Does the City Attorney have a proactive approach to legal issues -that is does he guide the Council and staff with alternatives and innovative legal solutions rather than just raising problems? Does the City Attorney's advice reflect an understanding of practical governmental operations? Does the City Attorney cnjoy the confidence of the Council and staff in his analysis of the legal risks that proposed actions might generate? Does the City Attorney favor preventive rather than corrective legal services? COMMUNICATION AND RELATIONSHIP Does the City Attorney communicate well with a wide range of persons, including citizens, Council members, City staff and other attorneys? Does the City Attomey respond to the needs and requests of Council members and staff in a timely manner? 1 SEP -03 -98 THU 09 :50 Does the City Attorney keep up -to -date in all areas of the municipal law including housing, land use, liability, fiscal matters, labor relations, etc.? Does the City Attorney keep the Council and staff advised of new legislation and judicial developments in municipal law as well as actions in other jurisdictions that may have an impact on the City's activities? Does the City Attorney encourage Council members, department heads to discuss their projects and their goals and problems with his office as early as possible in the planning phase, thus including in the decision- making process early on, the legal consequences of alternative courses of action? Does the City Attorney maintain effective communications with the Council? COUNCIL OBSERVATIONS Two things that the City Attorney does now that the Council would most like him to continue: 1. 2. MEYERS, NAVE, RIBAOK&SILV. FAX NO. 510 351 4481 P.04/05 Two things that the City Attorney does now that the Council would most like him to discontinue: 1. 2. 2 SEP -03 -98 THU 09 :50 MEYERS,NAVE,RIBACK &S1LV. FAX NO. 510 351 4481 P.05/05 Two things that the City Attorney does not do now that the Council would like him to do: 1. 2. marsw1273\memoJan9Skvalutn.frm 3 Printed on recycled paper. DESCRIPTION 4/1 011MF ©2 0 MEMORANDUM 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 868 -1200 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Stan Bogosian Paul E. Jacobs Gillian Moran Jim Shaw Donald L. Wolfe TO: City Council FROM: Heather Bradley, Associate Planner k ,,N, E5 DATE: September 8, 1998 SUBJECT: Analysis of expected costs to hire a minutes clerk for the Planning Commission meetings. The Planning Commission conducts 22 public hearing meetings a year (with the last meetings in August and December canceled). The average meeting lasts between two and three hours. The City's past contract with a minutes clerk was a set rate per meeting at $300 for full minutes. The City's current contract for City Council meetings is $200 per meeting for action minutes only. Under the current contract if the meeting continues beyond four hours the minutes clerk is paid an additional $40 per hour (prorated to the quarter hour). In general the Planning Commission meetings do not go longer than four hours. Therefore, the estimated cost to provide action minutes would be $4,400 annually, ($6,600 for full minutes). DISCUSSION The Community Development Department secretary, who currently takes minutes at the meeting, spends between four to six hours per week preparing the minutes after the meeting. As an exempt employee she is not paid any over time nor can she accrue comp time -off. However, she will occasionally take off two to three hours during the same week of the meeting, depending on the length of the meeting. Therefore, the estimated cost in secretarial time is between four to eight hours roughly every other week. This lost time does have an effect on the level of customer assistance the department can provide. If the secretary were available a full 40 hours every week to support the Community Development staff and assist people at the public counter it is expected that improvements would be made to our levels of customer service and office efficiency. City of Saratoga HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEMORANDUM DATE: August 20, 1998 TO: James Walgren, AICP FROM: Heather Bradley, Heritage Preservation Commission Secretary SUBJECT: Heritage Preservation Ordinance update. The Heritage Preservation Commission reviewed the attached Ordinance update on July 14, 1998. Approval was supported 6 -1 with Commissioner Peepari recommending denial. The Commission asked that staff proceed with processing the update and forward the Commission's recommendation of approval to the Planning Commission and City Council. 46 DATE: May 22, 1998 TO: James Walgren, Community Development Manager FROM: Heather Bradley, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Heritage Preservation ordinance update Article 13 -05 GENERAL PROVISIONS 13- 05.020 Definitions (g) Commission staff means the Planning Community Development Director and /or his authorized representatives. (h)Heritage resources means any public or private property designated by the City, pursuant to this Chapter, as a historic landmark, heritage lane, or historic district, and (i) Heritage Resource Inventory means the City's official inventory of heritage resources, as adopted and amended from time to time by resolution of the Heritage Commission. A property may also be listed on the Heritage Resource Inventory without being designated pursuant to section 13- 10.050 (a) of this Chapter without being designated as a historic landmark, heritage lane or historic district. Article 13 -10 HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION No change to this Article Article 13 -15 DESIGNATION OF A HERITAGE RESOURCE No change to this Article Article 13 -20 PERMITS 13- 20.010 Permit required It is unlawful for any person to alter, demolish, remove, relocate or otherwise change any exterior architectural feature or natural feature of a designated historic landmark, or heritage resource inventory property or to construct, alter, demolish, remove or relocate any building, improvement or other structure upon any property located within a designated heritage lane or historic district, or to place erect, alter or relocate any sign upon or within a designated historic landmark, heritage resource inventory property, heritage lane or historic district, without first obtaining a written permit to do so in the manner provided in this Article. 13- 20.070 Criteria MEMORANDUM (a) The proposed work is consistent with the purposes and objectives of this Chapter; or (b) The proposed work does not adversely affect the character of the designated historic landmark, heritage lane, or historic district, or heritage resource inventory property; or (c) In the case of construction of a new building, structure or other improvement upon or within a designated historic landmark, heritage lane, OF historic district, or heritage resource inventory property, the exterior of such improvements will not adversely affect and will be compatible with the external appearance of the existing landmark, lane or district, or inventory property. 13- 20.080 Hardship Notwithstanding section 13- 20.070, the Planning Community Development Director, on recommendation of the Heritage Commission, or the Planning Commission or City Council on appeal, may approve an application for a permit to conduct any proposed work upon or within a historic landmark, heritage lane, or historic district or heritage resource inventory property, if the applicant presents clear and convincing evidence demonstrating that a disapproval of the application will work immediate and substantial hardship on the applicant because of conditions peculiar to the person seeking to carry out the proposed work of because of conditions peculiar to the particular improvement, building, structure, topography or other feature involved. If a hardship is found to exist under this Section, the heritage Commission or the Planning Commission or City Council shall make a written finding to that effect, and shall specify the facts and reasons relied upon in making such finding. Article 13 -25 MISCELLANEIOUS PROVISIONS 13- 25.020 Ordinary maintenance and repair Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prevent...nor does this Chapter prevent the construction, reconstruction, alteration, restoration, demolition or removal of any historic landmark, heritage lane, er historic district or heritage resource inventory property which has been certified by the city building inspector or fire chief... 13- 25.030 Duty to keep in good repair The owner, occupant, or the person in actual charge of a designated historic landmark, heritage lane, OF historic district or heritage resource inventory property shall keep and maintain in good condition and repair all exterior... 13- 25.040 Enforcement (b) The Planning Community Development Director shall have the duty and authority to enforce the provisions of this Chapter, and any other laws, rules or regulations of the City which govern or relate to the issuance of permits for work to be performed upon or within a designated historic landmark, heritage lane, or historic district or heritage resource inventory property, by any or all of the following means:... Printed on recycled paper. TO: FROM: James Walgr DATE: SUBJECT: Measure G Implementation Resolution DISCUSSION RECOMMENDATION Attachments: 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 868 -1200 Mayor and Me bers of the City Council I September 8, 1998 1. Resolution 96 -28 2. City Council minutes dated July 7, 1998 MEMORANDUM munity Development Director At the July 7, 1998 adjourned City Council meeting the Council discussed revising the current Measure G implementation policy as a result of the Barry Swenson proposal to build a senior care facility in Saratoga. Swenson's proposal was determined to be subject to the requirements of Measure G and they were requesting to have their project go directly to an election without having to go through the.regular Planning Commission and City Council public hearing and environmental review process. The current implementation policy permitted this. The Council moved to require that the project go through the customary review process first, and directed staff to present a revised implementation policy for later consideration. Staff had recommended that all Measure G projects be subject to the standard development review process prior to an election. Councilmembers were concerned that this policy might impose an unfair burden on minor projects that were subject to Measure G's broad language. As a result, staff was asked to prepare the attached revised implementation policy with an exception provision. Since it became difficult to draft language that would cover every possible situation that may be eligible for this exception, staff included language that any exception request would be subject to City Council approval. Review the attached revised implementation policy Resolution and direct staff to schedule the Resolution for formal adoption at the next available City Council meeting, either as presented or as modified by Council. This Resolution has been modified from the original text only as indicated by stnkattgough or highlight, with strikethrough being deleted language and highlight being new language. S_ COUNCIL MEMBERS: Stan Bogosian Paul E. Jacobs. Gillian Moran Jim Shaw Donald L. Wolfe RESOLUTION NO. 96-28 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA ESTABLISHING POLICIES DETERMINING AND PROCESSING PROJECTS REQUIRING A VOTE OF THE PEOPLE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN (MEASURE G IMPLEMENTATION) WHEREAS, on March 26, 1996, the voters approved a measure (Measure G) to change the text of the Land Use Element of the General Plan to require that certain amendments to said Land Use Element may only be made by a vote of the people, and WHEREAS, on April 23, 1996, the City Council did certify the results of the March 26, 1996, election and adopted a resolution incorporating the Measure G amendments into the Land Use Element, and WHEREAS, as a result of the adoption of said resolution the amendments to the Land Use Element became effective on May 3, 1996, and WHEREAS, in order to establish policies to effectively implement the change to the Land Use Element, the City Council did at a regular adjourned meeting held on May 7, 1996, and at a regular meeting held May 15, 1996, consider various proposals and recommendations for the implementation of Measure G, and WHEREAS, at the conclusion of its deliberations the City Council did on May 15, 1996, and as further modified on ,.1998, by a series of votes adopt policies relating to the implementation of Measure G. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Saratoga, as follows: 1. Staff is to use a two part test to determine if a project is subject to Measure G. The first part of the test is to determine if the proposed project property is currently located in one of the General Plan Land Use Designations contained in that portion of the Land Use Element of the General Plan covered by Measure G. If the property is located in one of the affected General Plan Land Use Designations then the staff will apply the second part of the test to determine if the project proposes to 1) change a General Plan Land Use Designation so that it would be subject to Measure G or, 2) increase specified densities or intensities which exceed the limits set forth in the Land Use Element of the General Plan or, 3) in the case of the Outdoor Recreation General Plan Land Use Designation, involves no recreation facilities, or involves no structures which are necessary to support the parks, or involves no structures of particular historic value. If the project proposes to either 1) change a General Plan Land Use Designation of the property so that it would be subject to Measure G, or 2) increases development density or intensity limits, except in the Outdoor Recreation General Plan Land Use Designation, Measure G would apply. If the project is in the Outdoor Recreation General Plan Land Use Designation and proposes to create facilities which are not recreational in nature, or which do not support the purposes of the park, and involves no structures of particular historic value then the project would be subject to Measure G. 2. If the staff determines a project is subject to Measure G it is to prepare a report to the applicant, at the applicant's cost, outlining the submittals required to complete applications for project review, the applicant's right to have a project considered or to have a General Plan amendment placed before the voters for consideration, the costs for such requests, and the effect approval of the amendment would have on future development of the property. 3. Applications for development which are determined to be subject to the election requirements of the General Plan, as set forth in Measure G, shall ,at -tho option of th applica become subject to review by the Planning Commission and City Council under current procedures, and only upon approval: shall proceed to election. 4. Applications whichTare detei n edito be subject to the election: requirements of the General Plan, as set forth Measure G any .:which would not result in actual °increase in the number of dwelling m ;units Sallowed onOe affected land; and which would "not =result in land designated as Residential or lOutdoor Recreation being changed t a More 'intensive' land use designation, shall become subject` ato review by the Planning'Comnussion and City Council under current procedures ands only upon approval shallproceed to election`or at the request of:the applicant and at the option ofthe'City Council may proceed to;election without further review. 45. Administrative determinations as to a project's status under Measure G may be appealed as currently set forth in Article 15 -90 of the Municipal Code. .56. The timing of elections required by Measure G shall be determined by and the cost of the election paid for by the project applicant, such costs to be determined by the Finance Director and include all actual direct costs of the election and such indirect, general and overhead costs as may be determined appropriate by the Director of Finance in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. O. The provisions of Measure G allowing the City Council, under limited circumstances, to approve a redesignation of Measure G protected land use designations, (e.g., by exception) are to be considered only subsequent to the voters failing to approve an amendment to the General Plan which would remove the condition requiring an application for exception. Requests for exception shall be submitted by separate application. The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the Saratoga City Council at a regular meeting held on the 5th day of June, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: Deputy City Clerk Mayor WINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL TIME: Tuesday, July 7, 1998 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Adult Care Center, 19655 Allendale Avenue TYPE: Adjourned Regular Meeting 1. Roll Call The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. Mayor Wolfe noted that this was the first time an adjourned regular meeting had been telecast live. Councilmembers Bogosian, Jacobs, Moran, Shaw and Mayor Wolfe were present. Staff members present were City Manager Perlin, City Attorney Riback, Community Development Director Walgren, and Deputy City Clerk Cory. 2. Report of City Clerk on Posting of Agenda Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on July 2. The notice of adjournment from the July 1 Council meeting was properly posted on July 2. 3. Oral Communications from the Public on Non Agendized Items None. 4. Measure G Implementation Policy City Manager Perlin introduced City Attorney Riback, who reviewed the staff report. He emphasized that the City Council can place a General Plan Amendment on the ballot without California Environmental Quality Act review. .Councilmembers discussed whether applicants should go through the City review process before a General Plan Amendment was placed on the ballot. Community Development Director Walgren stated that an applicant for a simple project might as well go through the City review process first because it is relatively easy, inexpensive, and quick. Mayor Wolfe opened up discussion to the public at 7:40 p.m. Barry Swenson spoke in favor of allowing an applicant to go to the ballot before going through the City review process. He said that a large project could cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to go through the review process and still might lose at the polls, while going through an election first could settle the issue at much lower cost. No one further appearing to speak, Mayor Wolfe closed discussion to the public at 7:46 p.m. Councilmembers expressed their preferences for the various alternatives the staff had suggested. Shaw /Bogosian moved to approve option 1 (city review process first) with a policy statement to be drafted to make it clear that this Council and future Councils reserve the right to allow the applicant to have an election first in certain situations. Councilmembers discussed how a policy statement could be worded to allow exceptions and decided that it would be best to reagendize the matter for a later date and give the staff time to write the statement. Councilmember Jacobs noted that it should be clear to Mr. Swenson that the Council agreed that he would have to go through the City review process first in any case. Councilmembers Shaw and Bogosian withdrew the motion and second. City Council Minutes 2 July 7, 1998 There was consensus to direct the staff to agendize this matter again on Tuesday, September 8, and to prepare a staff report with a policy requiring most applicants to go through the City review process before an election and suggesting possible wording for a policy statement allowing for exceptions. 5. Mayor's Proposal for Blue Ribbon Panel on City's Financial Future Mayor Wolfe distributed copies of the "Vision for Saratoga" and related it to his proposal. He believed the timing of the panel would allow for a ballot measure in June 1999. Councilmembers in general felt the proposal was premature, and long- term financial concerns were already being addressed by the 5 -year plan to be prepared by the Finance Commission. If a panel was needed, it would have more credibility if it was composed of groups that had not necessarily favored the Utility User Tax. Vic Monia, Granite Way, stated that the current Council lacked credibility because the City is surviving despite the Utility User Tax loss. He believed the Council needs to make a case that the City needs the money, and it should be an issue at the City Council election. City Manager Perlin commented that the Finance Commission needs more clear direction as to what should be included in the five -year plan. 6. Election Resolutions: A. Resolution calling Election on November 3, 1998 MORAN BOGOSIAN MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 98 -23. Passed 5 -0. B. Resolution confirming Decisions on Candidates Statements MORAN /BOGOSIAN MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 98 -23.1. Passed 5 -0. 7. Discussion of Possible Dates for City Attorney Evaluation After discussion of schedules of the parties involved, there was consensus to schedule the evaluation for 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, September 8. 8. Self Evaluation of Previous Meeting July 1 There was consensus that the meeting had proceeded quickly, which was desirable. 9. Agency Assignment Reports Councilmember Moran reported on sewer rehabilitation. Councilmember Bogosian reported on his letter to Barbara Conant concerning the placement of the computer menu and filtering software on an agenda for the Library Joint Powers Authority. Councilmember Shaw felt he that he, as Council liaison to the Hakone Foundation, should be receiving copies of correspondence from the City and the Foundation so that he could be_ informed. He stated that KSAR had done a good job with cablecasting equipment. He also noted that Mary Richards has made a smooth shift to the Saratoga Area Senior Coordinating Council, with Ciky Garcia -Rose taking over the Adult Care Center. Mayor Wolfe reported that the Saratoga Business Development Council was not meeting in the summer. He also reported on speech for the Hometown Celebration on July 3. He noted that the Celebration would be held at West Valley College next year because Villa Montalvo was unavailable. Public hearings will start promptly at 8:00, when the Council will move from whatever item it is considering at that time to public hearings. Note: Devices to assist the hearing impaired are now available in the lobby. AGENDA SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL TIME: Wednesday, September 2, 1998 6:30 p.m. PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Ave. TYPE: Regular Meeting Special Meeting for the purpose of a Closed Session 6:30 p.m. in Administration Conference Room, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9: CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL EXISTING LITIGATION Name of case: San Francisco Baykeepers at al. v. Saratoga Pursuant to Government Code 54957.6: CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR Agency negotiator: Larry I. Perlin Employee organization: Saratoga Management Organization Mayor's Report on Closed Session. 7:30 Pledge of Allegiance 1. ROLL CALL 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 August 28. 4. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS AND THE PUBLIC A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS B. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS None. C. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None. 5. CONSENT CALENDAR These items will be acted upon in one motion for each section unless they are removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion by Councilmembers or any interested party. However, items in Section A have already been considered by the Council at a previous meeting where the public was invited to comment, after which the hearing was closed. Those items are not subject to public discussion at this meeting because the vote taken at the previous meeting was final. Resolutions concerning decisions made at previous meetings are for the purpose of memorializing the decision to assure the accuracy of the findings, the prior vote, and any conditions imposed. City Council Agenda 2 September 2, 1998 A. Previously- Discussed Items 1) Resolution on Argonaut Appeal heard 8/5 B. New Items 1) Planning Commission Actions, 8/12 Note and file. 2) Memo Authorizing Publicity for Upcoming Hearings Two Appeals 3) Resolutions amending Memorandum of Understanding with Saratoga Employees Association and setting Salary Ranges for Undesignated Positions 4) Approval of Check Register 5) Voting Delegate for League of California Cities Conference 6) Award of Contract for 1998 Pavement Management Program 7) Notice of Need to Amend Conflict of Interest Codes 8) Temporary Use of City Van for ALTRANS Shuttle Program C. CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY None. 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS 8:00 pm. A. Vessing Road Assessment District Protest Hearing (continued from July 15) Recommended Action: Open hearing, continue to October 7. B. Proposed Formation of Underground Utility District Number 8 (Saratoga Avenue between Fruitvale Avenue and Baroni Court) (continued from August 5) Recommended Action: Open hearing, continue to October 7. 4. A. Oral Communications (continued) and instructions to staff regarding actions on current oral communications 7. OLD BUSINESS None. 8. NEW BUSINESS None. 9. ROUTINE MATTERS (Note: City Attorney will be excused at this point if no longer needed.) A. Approval of Minutes 8/5; 8/11 10. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS A. Agenda items for next adjourned regular meeting (Note: The City Council Agenda 3 September 2, 1998 purpose of listing the items immediately following is not to discuss or take action on them, but simply to decide whether they are to be placed on the agenda for the meeting of September 8.) 1. Joint Meeting with Planning Commission Items Suggested by Commission: Budgeting for a minutes clerk Discussion of Cellular Transmission Antennas Items Suggested by Community Development Director: Heritage Preservation Commission Ordinance Amendments Preview of pending applications (e.g., Sisters of Notre Dame Novitiate, Azule Crossing) Circulation Element Mountain Winery Update 2. Measure G Implementation Resolution 3. City Attorney Evaluation B. Other 11. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT 12. ADJOURNMENT to next meeting at 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, September 8, at Adult Care Center, 19655 Allendale Avenue. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact Peter Gonda at 408/868 -1221. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. [28 CFR 35.102 35.104 ADA Title II]