Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-15-1980 City Council Minutes .MI'NUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL TIME: W~dnesday,~0c~ob~ 15, 1980 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: Saratoga City Council Chambers, 1'3777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, Calif. TYPE: Regular Meeting AGENDA ACTION I. ORGANIZATION A. ROLL CALL Mayor Callon, Councilmembers Clevenger, Jensen, Mallory &Watson - all present B. MINUTES July 8, 16; ' = ' ' ' ~ September 3, 17 Jensen/Mallory moved approval of minutes ~i'th corrections below: Passed unanimously. 7/8, p. 6 '-vote changed to 4-1 7/16, p.. 1 . ite~'III. 'A~ changed to "Sewer District Annexation" 7/16., p. 5 - Mallory, spoke "for considering park and ride centers and in favor of alter- nate forms of transportation." 9/3, p. 3'- "a legal action" changed to "in- volvement in a lawsuit" ~. 9/3, p. 9 - item kyiI,D. "for" changed to "frcm" ~7 ~- 9/3, p. 9 - paragraphs restructured, "Sanita- tion District #4" changed to "Sanitation ~ · .i ~.' ' District #4 reserve sewer capacity remaining" 9/17, p. 4 '- item C changed to 29 units ' ~'~ ~ ' 'j .. '9/17, p. 5 - grounds for appeal corrected to inconsistency with General Plan ~'~ .......... ~=~'~'~'.?r~' I""~'~i~.c <1~'Y7!7~1 9/17, p. 8 item c action changed to "Consen- -~- .... sus to reaffirm Council's former decision on II. COMMUNICATIONS the matter." ~III. 'SUBDM SIONS,'BITTLDING SITES, ZCtNING i iV. PETITIONS, ~ORDINANCES ,.AND RESOLUTIONS ..... ,~ ! A. PETITION 'REIATIVE'TO'?INTERSECTION~OF~' Referred '~o. Staff~ ' -.' · MAUDE AVENUE WITH QUITO ROAD Mallo=y/Jensen moved to support eati n ....... .... , .... -., , in General Plan CREATION OF RERITAGE LANES' process' as 0uti'i~d by City Manager/ ~ Passed unanimously. JenSen/Clevenger moved to support Heritage Lanes in concept and direct staff to come up with standards as outlined by City Manager. Passed unanimou~ty~ Co .CONSIDERATION OF RESOIjUTION Watson/Ct~venger moved adoption. " AMENDING RESOLUTION 85-9.43 Passed 3-2 (Callon, Jensen' opposed). CONCERNING COMPENSATION FOR MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES "(ConE'] d' from October 1) 1. Reso-lution ~5-9.51 D. CONSIDERATION OF RESOISUTION TO Clevenger/Watson moved adoption of ~'~ ABAN.DON PORTION OF ALOHA AVENUE Resolution 976. Passed unanimously. 1. Resolution 976 E. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION Clevenger/Jensen moved adoption of ALTERING AND ESTABLISHING FEE Resolution 780-12. Passed unanimously. SCHEDULE 1. Resolution 780-12 ~=.~ '~ /15/80 AGENDA ACTION F. CONSiDERATIONOF RESOLUTION Watson/Mallory moved adoption of AMENDING RESOLUTION 972 APPROVING Resolution 972.1. Passed unanimously. BUDGET FOR THE CITY OF SARATOGA FOR FISCAL YEAR 1980-81. 1. Resolution 972.1 G. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION Mallory/Watson moved adoption of AMENDING RESOLUTIONS 85-9.49 AND Resolution 85-9.50. Passed 85-9, AS AMENDED, ADDING TO BASIC unanimously. SALARY CLASSES, EMPLOYMENT POSITIC CLASSIFICATIONS & COMPENSATION SCHEDULE FOR E~LOYEES OF THE CIT OF' SARATOGA 1. Resolution 85-9.50 V. PUBLIC H~ARINGS A. CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST IN The Pubiic Hearing was opened. No one ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF appearing to speak, the Public Hearing MEASURE "A", INTERIM RESTRICTION~ was closed. AS RELATED TO HARDSHIP CASES, MR. & MRS. WILLIAM LISAC (SDR 1365) Mayor Callon requested clarification in (Cont'd from 10/1) the case of undeveloped property which does not meet the density standards. City Attorney'responded that Measure A contains no grandfatheL clause a~d that Measure A could not be changed by Council action. Mayor Callon asked if the Council could deny an applicatlon without p.rejudice so that the applicant couid~return with an acceptable specific plan. City Attorney answered that the applicant would not need an exemption if the plan met the standards of the committee. City Attorney could prepare findings to · make the exemption, but did not see how it would fit within the constraints of Measure A. Councilmember Jensen stated that she was not prepared to make findings that the project conf6rmed with the rural character.of the area and Qished to wait until further study was completed. Councilmember Mal'lory expressed his belief that the project would have no impact on the.road in terms of rural characteristics; on the issue of density, however, the project does not meet the requirements. Councilmember Watson endorsed Council- member Mallory's statements. City Attorney recommended that the matter be referred to Special Counsel and himself before final action was taken so that the issue of granting an /80 ~'~", ~ _. ~I-., , ,~ -. AGENDA . .,-ACTION exemption where ~h~ den~it~ s~andards were not met could.be studied. Mayor Call6'n expressed [~e consensds of the Council ~o'd~rec~l,-~taff, prepare a reso~utidn; denyi-~g"Ehe' exemption.because the a~plication~does not.meet the density standards of Measure ~. ~- 'B.....~.AMEND~NT'TO;ZON~NG ORDINANCE OF~ Planning Director gave he 'histor~ of THE CITY OF SARATOG~ (SIGNS) BY the proposed amendment, which appeared PROViDING'OPEN HOUSE SIGNS. before the Planning Commission 8"months ago and was approved. i. Introduction of Ordinance NS 3.~ The. Public H~aring was opened. Mayor Callon specified that the applicant would have 10 minutes s~eaking time and ~he general public, 3 minutes each. Moni~a Butle~ Chairperson for the Local Governmental Relations Committee ' ' of the Los Gatos-Saratoga Board of Re&ltors, spokp as the applicant. She 'stated that the Committee was attempting to improve the appearance of real estate signs in the area and had had success in Los Gatos. The proposed system is self-policing through-'~the realtors themselves so that no funds need to be committed for enforcement by 'the City. Councilmember Mallory asked whether the City would.be liable for damages, and - - . C~ty Attorney'replied that the City would be exposed to liability if the signs were allowed to be placed in the rights-ofswa~ or on public property. Councilmember Watson shggested a 1-year sunset clause to allow a test period. Councilmember Mallory agreed and asked* whether placement of signs in bike paths were allowed in the propose~ ordinance. Ms. Butler replied thai placement of the signs would .dltimat~ly be ~matter of good sense on the part of the person placing them. , ; , Councilmember Watson recommended t~at' bike paths be specifically excluded from sign placement. Councilmember Mallory stated that certain roads,.such as ~he Los Gatos- Saratoga Road, should be excluded from sign placement. '¢ - z80 AGENDA ~CTION Mayor Callon suggested that the signs should not be.placed On any 'scenic · highways. Mr. Martin, 13981 Pike, spoke. in favor of maintaining the present situation. He feared that passing the ordinance would result in·the Cit~'s losing '. control over the' situation. Miles Rankin, a realtor of 14506 Big Basin Way, presented photographs he had taken of signs in Los-Gatos and-stated his opposition to allowing signs and to p.assing the proposed ordinance. J.D. Vanderl'a'an,a realtor in Saratoga, spoke in favor of signs, saying that enforcement problems would'be mitigated if Saratoaa and Los Gatos had similar ordinance~. Carl Bumpas, 15750 WincheSter, e~ore~sed his displeasure with real estate signs and suggested that the public could enforce a sign ordinance by removing ,. · . ~ offensive '. s~gns. Ernest T. Barco, Camino Barco, speaking as a realtor and former chairman of .the sign committee, said that the proposed ordinance was enforceable but that it was important to determine how many signs could be put in place. Woody Whatley', Sh~d.og.'.~..~ Way,' reco~__nd"~' . that the City allow .th~ ~6~s~d~e= ~.6~ ~ign. '' ' ........... Bill Murphy, 'Saraglen Drive, a realtor, said that the ordihance was working well,- in' Los~ Gatos and r~commende~ aa8~tkon. of~'eh~' 'ordinance. " ' Jack Ma~kle, .Wardell Court', a realtor, addressed himself to the needs and' I,L., ~. ~ t,wants,. of the ~uBfic], Who he felt, were - ' '~ · 'in f~vo~. o~aic ~s'onabf~ ordinance p~oviding for attractive signs. . The Publi~:;Hearing was closed.· - ~, Ci~tg?,Atto~ney s'tated that if the ori "- ~- ain~ae ~&r~it'~d'j~gns to. be pia~ed .- '. · on public prope[ty, the City would have . ... -. ad~it_i_onal liability exposure, but ~hether cbsts would be. greater would be ...~ - . · ' '. a question of .insurance. ~Overage,. no.t a legal questio, n .... ..... Councilmember Mallory pursued the' question of cost 'further, and City Manager stated that the City, would probably be sued, along' with th'e sign AGENDA ' ACTION company in case of damages, which would increase costs. Councilmember Watson asked whether the City's past practice and procedure had -not resulted in a policy which allowed signs to be placed on public property anyway. City Attorney noted that under the proposed ordinance the Council would be licensing placement ofsigns o~ public property. Councilmember Watson stated that the proposed ordinance would be an improve- ment if the problems of placement, Safety, numbers of signs and liability could.be ~r~oun~ed. Mayor Callon stated that she would like the proposed ordinance changed to minimize liability and to prohibit placbment of signs~on bike paths or sidewalks. She felt also that they should nbt ~e allowed on A-frame easels Councilmember Clevenger expressed her concern tha~ adopting the proposed ordinance would justify other groups placing similar signs in similar areas. In addition to incurring additional liability, the City would find it d~fficult to draw a line to prevent such signs from proliferating. Councilmember Mallory recommended that. the~ordinance be adopted with a sunset provision, prohibition of signs on bike paths or scenic highwayS, and a 50' setback from scenic highways. Councilmember Jensen stated that the proposed ordinance was not a solution l~~ to the problem of unattractive and poorly-placed signs-and that a private group should not enforce ordinances. Besides increasing the City's liability. the signs violate the citizens' right to a pleasant environment. Callon/Mallory moved that the staff draft an ordinance similar to the pro- posed ordinance with the following modifications: 1) A 1-year sunset clause is to be included; 2) The signs shall not be located on public rights- of-way, including but not limited to bike lanes, sidewalks, etc,; nor shall they be located on a scenic highway; nor.shall they be located within50-70 feet of an intersection with a scenic highway; 3) Nomore than two signs shall be permitted per intersection; 4) Signs $10%15/80 AGENDA ACTION ~hall not be affixed 50 A-frame easels. Passed 3-2 (Clevenger, Jensen opposed). C. DE NOVOHEARING~ UP 452, ABEL & City Manager reviewed history of the LELIA CARREIA (SARATOGA 'FOOTHILLS appeal to the City Council and the DEVELOPMENT CORP., 12299 SARATOGA- Planning Director reviewed the history SUNNYVALE ROAD) CONCERNING USE of the application since it.came before PERMIT AND SDR 1439 the Planning Commission. The tentative map and use permit had been approved. The appeal grounds were that the pro= ject was not in donformance with the 1974 General Plan. City Attorney, in a response to a 'question from Mayor Callon, explained that the de novo hearing was entirely Separate from the previous hearing on this appeal, but that the Council could officially take notice of public testimony at that hearing if they wished. The Public Hearing was opened. Jerry, Lohr, president of Saratoga Foothills Development CorporationF stated that he would like the previous hearing's public testimony included in the record. 'He~went on.to~ 'stat~ that he had received dver 500"inquzrles from Saratoga residents interested in investing in the. condominiumoprojec~. He stated that~therelwas a great demand for the pro~ec~-s~hce many people want smaller units of this type. The pro- ject would also result ;in the creation of an assessment district which would put. in curbs, gutters and pavlng to improve Sara~oga-Sunnyvale ROad. With respect to density, Mr. Lohr btated that it stood at ll'units per net acre. As for intensity, less than half of the site is covered by buil~ Qn..Ra~emeh.~'. .... Muriel Mahrer requested that the public testimony of the last meeting be entered into the record. She spoke in favor of the project as the best use of the iand~ Joe.Stiliman, 19228 Vineyard, spoke in favor of'the project and energy- efficient, low-maintenance multiple housing in general. Andrew Beverett, 19597 Via Monte, spoke .... in favor of the pro3ect and of including the public testimony from the last hearing in the record. Don Si'fferman, 12400 Greenmeadow Lane, spoke in favor of the project as being a good and needed development which is AGENDA ACTION consistent with ~he:'denerai Pla~; Joan Rouse, 12336 Arroyo de Arguello, spoke in favor of the.project and* against the "gangplank m. entaljity" which she perceived on ~he .part of those objecting to this and Similar projects. Terry Rose, 145~ Carnelian Glen, spoke in favor of the project~ The Council agreed by consensus to include the comments of the last public hearing in the record. Mr. Lohr, in response to a question from Councilmember Jensen, stated that the units would sell for $120,000 to $135,000. Councilmember Watson acknowledged the need for housing for seniors and smaller families but noted that Mr. Lohr had two projects under way and has completed several multiple dwelling projects in the past. Mr.. Lohr responded that he had completed 9 projects in 15 years and reviewed the history of his work in Saratoga. Councilmember Watson noted that if this project were the only one, the land Should' be developed in this way, but that it was part of a pocket of high- density area whose buildings are vis.ually very similar, particularly in the Prospect/Highway 9 area. Mr. Lohr responde~ that the current project was wood rather than Stucco and incorporated more elevation changes than a previous project. The Public Hearing was closed. Mayor Callon stated that she supported the Planning Commission and believed that the project does not violate the General Plan and will improve the City. Mallo~y/Jensen moved that the appeal be upheld and the following findings be made: the project as presented is not in conformance with%the General Plan; the ~ite is not lph!;~'icaliy suitable for this type Of development; the site is not physically suitable for th~ proposed density of deve. lopment; and. the Council could ~ot maEe the findings set out in Sec'tions 16. ~ (~); '(b) , and (c) of the ZOning Ordinance. Passed 3-2 (Callon, Watson opposed) ? ; . ._ -' 180 AGENDA' ' AdTTON ~Councilmember Clevenger stated that Saratoga needs smaller homes but' she · was'troubled by the fact that the entrance of the project was adjacent to commercial structures. She felt that the noise and night illumination of the lumberyard would cause problems and that this was an illogical site for such a proDect. Councilmember Jensen stated her conceri with the rubble she feared would be used as an unsuitable base for con- struction. She also felt that there would be flood problems and that the project woul'd be contrary to current. zoning and the General Plan. She believed that the project was also too dense, an~ that the site should be used for low density commercial development. Councilmember Watson stated that in spite of density problems, he favored the project as being a good one for the site. Councilmember Mallory stated that he .did not support the project although he a~reed that seniors and families needed housing. However, Saratoga should not have to solve County problems. He noted that the cumuIat~c density problem in the area cahses the site to be a-poor one for housing. Mr. Lohr defended his project, mentioninc that there was landscaping on each sid: and that Hubbard and Johnson's abuse o~ their'use permit should have no bearin, on the current project. .Moreover, he believed that the additional pipes he proposed to put under the railroad track would reduce the danger of flooding to less than now exists. Councilmember Clevenger pointed out that ~h~'City had'no jurisdiction over Hubbard"and;Johnson because they were operating at the site before the City began to issue use permits. D. FINAL ~P APPROVAL, TRACT 6722, , City 'Manager ~plaine~ that consideratio~ CARNELIAN GLEN, UNIT #2 ('DIVIDenD of this project had been continued so INDUSTRIES) (Cont'd from 10-1) that th~ applicant could modify plans for the--street access onto Horseshoe Drive, but no modifications had been made. ~ City Attorney noted that there had bee~ no public hearing at the tentatiye map stage, so one was required for the final map. He also stated that the AGENDA ACTION Coun0il shall not deny final map ~pproval pursuant to Section 66474 of ' the municipal code if it has previousl} approved a tentative map and if the final map is in substantial compliance with the tentative map. Furthermore, he said that a recent case indicated that the approval of the Planning Commission at the tentative map stage w~s~'tantamou~e!~toj:ap~r~val o~ the.'City~CoUncil~at~the~'tene~i-Ve ~ap stag~wher~the O~dinance~has ~¥~oweredthe Planning Conmission to approve tentative maps. The Public Hearing was opened. Jim Omsburg, Dividend Industries, rose to say that he might have some comment~ at the end of the hearing. Robert van der Toorren, Horseshoe Driv~ ~bjected to the time limitation placed on those wishing tO speak. He stated his opposition to the project and his intention to bring, suit against the City. Don Russell, 14610 Horseshoe, spoke against the project, saying that residents in his area would be asked to absorbiadditiOnal traffic and that the curve i~ dangerous. Naomi Hoffman, 14571 Horseshoe Drive, stated her belief that a plan accepttable to all barties could be worked out if there were time, but that legal issued entangled the process Mrs. Meyer, 14606 Horseshoe'Drive, sai, that the issue was not completely revealed and that the property across from HOrseshoeDrive was an eyesore. '~6[~ih f~o~ of'~the proje0t,~aYi~ and development would mitigate the drainage problem. Terry Rose, 14595 Carnelian Glen, spok~ in favor of the project with the under standing that traffic should be limited. Jim Om~burg, the applicant, spoke for approval of his project. He pointed out that all conditions of approval ha. been met and that only four new homes were planned. The Public Hearing was closed- '/80 AGENDA ACTION Councilmember Mallory inquired as to whether staff had investigated the traffic safety question, and Director of Public Works replied that staff was satisfied that visibility was not unduly impaired~ Councilmember Mallory then asked about f6ture problems as the area grows, and Director of Public Works noted that there was already one driveway on the area. He stated that maintenance of priva-t-e d-rivewaysw .to ensure visibility through trimming shrubs, etc., is the responsibility of the property owners. Councilmember Jensen stated that the proFos~ h~ous~es would have .prob~lems with underground water, such as the ongoin~ problem with the Denny house. She said that the. General Plan called for flood plain zoning in area H. There- !foley!the 'zoning~was not'~consistent with the Gener~Plan'br specific' ~ian; that the General ~l~h' ~p~Cifie's that er'eek~ are to be prot.ected :in their na,t.uF. al state, and that the project sh6uld be returned to the tentative map stage, where confo_r~.'ty with':the General Plan could be ju~,ged~ She belie~ved~,that Section 66474 did not apply because, the Council is ~he legisla~'' tive body in .this case in which the requi-re- ments for notice and hearing were not met at the ~g Con]ni~io~ 1,level. 6fty'~ttorn~ explained that a P~51i~ Hearing is not required By the sub- division Map Act, nor by local. Qrdihance, but by judicial d~ecision.. The Horn~ case, however did not a~plify the impaci of the failure to have a Public Hearing at the time Df tentatiye map-approva!.' Case law indicates that if proper procedures have been followed for tentative map approval, it is presumed valid. Section 66474.1 of the sub- division Map Act says that Council may not use provisions of Section' '66474 aS grounds for not approving. Councilmember Jensen stated that the authority was not vested with the Planning Coa~,H ssion in this case. The requirements for hearing did not ~ about at the time of the judicial decisi.oh-but were merely judged to be require- ments that had existed. Because the Council is the legislative body, the Council should rule bas,ed on..se.c~.ion 66474. Mayor Callon pointed out ~t, the City Attorney had previously told the Council that the Planning Con]nission was ~he legislative body acting in lieu of the Council. She suggested that the Council proceed to other consider- ations within that agenda. item. In response ~o a-question from Councilmenk~r Watson, l~Dbert van der Toorren . ,~ ~ ~=; = D/15/80 AGENDA ACTION sa'id that he had r~ceived a call from Dividend Industries and wishedto pursue alternative street development possibilities; the procedure, however, was preventing him from doing so. Terr~ RoSe expressed hi~ opinion that Mrs. Denny's house had water problems because a ~eighbor~emptied-~his ,S~imming pool there~' .. final map. Passed 4-1*'(Jensen opposed) E. 1980-81 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT City Manager briefly reviewed budget PROGRAM proposal for caplEaf improvements. noted that this budget could be adjusted, specifically with ;espect to street reCurfacing. With the rising cost of petroleum-based products, he stated that the Council might want to consider spending more this year on resurfacing in order to accomplish more work for the money. With respect to the traff±c signal at ~ighway 85 and Brandywine, the actual location zs to be decided at a later date.' He stated that the City would receive $292,000. per year fn gas tax allocations, and it was proposgd that the City shift a portion Of those funds to street maintenance. .Councilmember-Jensen asked abou~ a new law reducing the costs. of purchasing school sites-as 'it applied to. the Qufto Park ~chool Site. City Manager replied that that' law had been taken into consideration in the budget figures~ He further.explained that most of the projects listed ~ad not been-authorized The CdQncfl will rec~i.ve reports when the bids are submitted and make authorization at that time; the-purpose of the listi~ to allocate priorires. The Public Hearing was o~ened. There being no one present to speak from the public, the ~e~ring was closed. Mallory/Watson moved approval of the capital'.improvement budget. Pas~ed unanimously. VI. BIDS & CONTRACTS A. EXECUTION. OF JPA WITH TO~N OF ~OS Clevenger/Watson moved approval. GATOS FOR OPERATION OF TRANSIT Passed unanimously. ASSIST PROGRAM ( transit assistance -for the elderly and ~andicapped residents of Saratoga &Los Gatos) -'~ ,~, ', ~,,., '/ ~,~ '~ 10/15/80 AGENDA . .I- · I ACTION VII. CONSENT CALENDAR ~ Je n ailory.,~ved,.~doption of 54 Consent.~Calendar with exception of . Items D, E, and F. Passed unanimously · A. NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR RE-. Adopted. STORATION OF THE.LOWER HOUSE IN · HAKONE GARDENS B. LEASE AGREEMENT FOR RENTAL 6F Adopted HOUSE LOCATED IN HAKONE-GARDENS C. .REVISION OF HAKONE GARDENS Adopted RESERVATION &"USE POLICY & FEES D. 'REVIEW OF FINAL DESIGN OF SENIOR Watson/Mallory moved' to adopt staff CITIZENS ADDITION TO COMMUNITY recommendations. Passed 4-1 (Jensen CENTER & AUTHORIZATION'TO PROCEED opposed). WITH CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS ii Adopt staff recommendation E. TIME LIMIT PARKING IN VILLAGE Jensen/Mallory moved to adopt staff PARKING DISTRICT #1 recommendations. Passed unanimously. 1. Adopt' staff recOmmendatiOn F.' HERRIMAN AVENUE PARKING RESTP~ICTI~ Jensen/Mallory moved to adopt Res. MV-139. Passed unanimously. 1·. Resolution No. MV-139 G. APPROVAL OF CLOSING DEEPWELL Adopted COURT FOR NEIGHBORHOOD HALLOWEEN PARTY, OCT. 31, 6-10 P.M. H. CITY CLERK'S FINANCIAL REPORT~ Adopted I.~ CITY TREASURER'S REPORT Adopted J. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS Adopted VIII. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS A. MAYOR B. COUNCIL & COMMISSION REPORTS 1.City Council Role in Planning Process a. Structure of Plan~ing Mallory/Watson moved to ratify current Commission structure of Planning Commission and ~0 move ahead with process of adver- · ~t~Sin~ f6~p~lidAnts for ~erms!~ar~t- ~gL<ih"~an~a~y'1981. Passed unanimously. b. City Council R~view of' Tentative Maps L.'.- se' ~ . . A proval o erm~ s .. · · , ,-~ · lo/Zs/8o. AG~DA d. City Council Review/ Approval of Plan Development e. Time Period of Appeals from Planning Commission '. Dicisions . f.. Approval of Single & Minor Lot Splits by LDC Or PlanI~in.~?,eorkmi~s.ion 2. Appointment of Acting 'Positions · a. City Manager WatSon/Clevenger moved appointment of Pat Mullens as Acting City Manager. Passed unanimously. b: City Clerk Mallory/Watson moved appointment of BetsyTC6ry/.:as!~A~ti~gt..City Clerk. Passed unanimously. Commission Reports. a. Planning Commission ' 1. Transmittal from Continued to November 5, 1980 Planning Commission re: ModifiCation .of Recreation Court Ordinance C. DEPARTMENT HEADS & OFFICERS ; ' 1. Director of Public Works a. Conversion of street Co'ntinued t0 November ~, 1980 lights Mercury Vapor to High Pressure Sodium (Cont'd from 10/1) b. Study of Hydrology, Continued tO Novemb_er 5, 1980 Flood. ing and erosion in Upper Calabazas Creek Watershed (Cont'd frc~ 10/1) 2. Director of Community 'ServiCEs -a. Proposed Program for ~ ContinQed to November· 5, 1980 Expenditure of Rina ' Fantino Funds b. Report re: Letter from Continued eo-.November 5, 1980 Dr. Gordon Katske re: P~oblems at Kevin Moran Park 3. .Planning Director a. Report re: Modification Continued to NoVember 5, 1980 to Zoning Ordinance· · allowing winery operation (K. Kennedy) ~ ~' ~10/15/80 AGENDA ACTION b. Report re: Waiver of- Continued to November 5, 1980 Design Review fee for EL 0uito Park Subdivision entry sign (Cont'd from l0/1) c. Recommendations concerninc Continued to November 5, 1980 General Plan Citizens Advisory Committee and Methods for Public Par-' ticipation C. CITY MANAGER IX. ADJOURNMENT ADJOURNMENT " Respectfully submitted, Grace' E;': Cory Acting City Clerk