Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-15-1981 City Council Minutes MINUTES SARATOGA CI.TY COUNCIL TIME: Wednesday, July 15, 1981 7,:'30 p.m. PLACE: City Council Chambers, 1377 Fruitvale Avenue TYPE: Regular Meeting AGENDA ACTI ON I. ORGANIZATION A. ROLL CALL , Councilmembers Clevenger, Jensen, Mallory, Watson, and Mayor Callon all present. B. MINUTES - 7/1;-7/7.. JENSEN/WATSON MOVED ADOPTION AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES WITH CHANGES NOTED · I BELOW: 7/1, p. 6, Delete the word not in the 7th paragraph. 7/7, p. 5, Add to '5th paragraph: It was the consensus of the Council that Section 4.d. remain as written. · II. COMMUNICATIONS' A. ORAL' Terry Cabrinha, 19220 Gunther Court requested that the Council do every- thing possible to obtain from proper ~authorities a reasonable notice of future Medfly aerial spraying. She expressed.concern over confusing and conflicting information. It was noted that the City has had extreme diffi- culty in obtaining accurate information. The Director of Community Services gave status report on spraying and current schedule. B. WRITTEN Referred to City Manager'for reply. , As to #2, it was the consensus that it is sufficient to have the packets that are now available fof'Fe'fe'FH1 at III. SUBDIVISIONS, BUILDING SITES, ZONINg REQUESTS A. REQUEST OE WILSON E. The City Manager reviewed the request. HOLBROOK EOR WAIVER OE The City Attorney summarized the two APPEAL DEADLINE (Continued alternatives compatible with the exist- from ?/1) ing ordinance, subject to the Council's interpretation. 2-7/15/81 AGENDA ACTION Mayor Callon and Councilmember Watson expressed-their feeling that Alter- native #2, which states that the City / .,~. .~, has waived. its right to demand com- ~ .,~.~:.~.~. ~, pliance from the applicant at this time, .,~._ ~j~ would be mere equitable because the applicants are the second owners in this situation~ ". ~/ ..... 2 The City Attorn~ey-e-xpl~.ined that the /~ .... ~ previous discussion wa~ the issue of whether'or not the--appeal could be held at this time since the time period has expired. He stated that there is no way that the appeal can be extended. The issue at this time is whether or not the facts justify a waiver of the need for the map at the present time. COuncilmember C.ievenger stated that she feels the pre~ent owner had benefitted from the expansion, and there has been .an over 50% expansion accomplished. She commented that it is the property that the City would like control over; not the owner. Therefore, the first interpretation should be adopted, which requires building site approval at this time. Councilmembers Mallory and Jensen agreed wi~h this interpretation. JENSEN/MALL'ORY MOVED TO APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO NOTIFY APPLICANT THAT THERE ARE NO PROVISIONS IN THE SUB- · ~ : DIVISION WHICH ALLOW THE WAIVING OF' THE 15-DAY APPEAL PERIOD. Passed 3-2 (Watson and Callon opposed), It was explained to Mrs. Holbrook that the City Attorney has listed the available options, and the Council must follow the ordinance in this situation. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS HELD NEXT BUT ~7._~EISTED 'IN AGENDA ORDER FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE MINUTES. B. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF The City Manager reviewed the issue, FINAL MAP, TRACT 6665 (PARNA~ explaining that the owner had requested CORPORATION, PIERCE RD.) AND Council' consideration of the final SDR--1426 map at this time; however, there are ~ conditions outstanding at this time. The Publid Works Director explained that,-because of the cancellation of the August 5th meeting, the matter was on thisagenda. 'He discussed the ! outstanding documentation and commented that the dates on the bonds will have to be changed accordingly. He also noted that the written approval of the City Geologist had not yet been ~ received. :' 3-7/15/81 AGENDA ACTION The Public Works Director also dis- cussed the recommendation,made by the geotechnica~ people concerning the /;"~"~ maintenance period for this subdivi- , sion, which was that there be annual ) ~ inspections for a 3~yearperiod after development is completed, and that "' ' provisions should also be made for the maintenance work that is needed. He __ explained that the--immediate impact to ,i. ~ the developer wo~ld be the cost of maintaining the bonds'~or an extra 2 years. He noted that the developer sees no reason why it should be extend- ed; Steve Bernard, representing Parnas Corporation, stated that they were prepared to accept that 3-year con- dition, provided that they were allowed to reduce the bond after the first year to a more reasonable level. Determina- tion of the amount of the bond after the first year was discussed. It was the consensus that the condition should be added that the 3-year main- tenance period would be reduced to the necessary requirement of a maintenance bond at the end of the first year; the value to be set by staff. It was noted that if the determined value at the end of the first year is signifi- cantly less than i0%, it will come back for Council review. Leonard Borello, of the Parnas Corporation, concurred with this condition. The outstanding conditions on each tract were clarified by the City Attorney. Councilmember Jensen stated that she would like to see the outstanding items completed!andf~oul~ike~tolcontiffuethe matter. MALLORY/CLEVENGER MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTIONS NO. 1373-02 AND 1426-02, CONTINGENT UPON THE OUTSTANDING ITEMS BEING RECEIVED BY THE END OF THE MONTH. Passed 4-:~ (Jensen opposed). IV. PETITIONS, ORDINANCES, AND RESOLUTIONS A. ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE The Deputy City Attorney explained the NS-S, THE ZONING ORDINANCE, revisions that had been made and WITH RESPECT TO CERTAIN SEC- approved by the City Council at their TIONS CONCERNING DESIGN REVIEW last meeting. He stated that there AS IT RELATES TO SINGLE-FAMILy: had been a consensus at that time, in DWELLINGS AND THE REQUIRED view of the tfme constraint, that the NEGATIVE DECLARATION (Second ordinance would be adopted. staff has reading). been instructed to~proceed,lhowever, with the preparation of an amendment to i n c o rp o r a t e ~'~?.~ ~ ~f~i~R_~z~-'7~l'. "' r ~ ':- Board. At that time any other areis 4-7/ AGENDA ACTION that may prove to be a problem as the'L 'ordinance is applied can. be addressed. Further discussion followed on the "~ changes, and the Deputy City Attorney ~ ~\. iclarified, at Councilmember Jensen's /', ~request, the sectio~s"of the ordi- ~.f,~,, nance dealing with public hearings · . and the variance procedure. He also iexplained Section 12, dealing with 'Exceptions. I~ '; ~Bo 193~9 C~isp Avenue ,~..~ ~ i ' b Cirell, , spoke !to the fact that he felt the public should be notified that the final ,- IDesign Review Ordinance is on public ~display and can be reviewed, in order ito have public input. It was pointed out to Mr. Cirelt that this item has been noticed at the Planning Commission level and the City Council level for quite some time. Mayor Callon stated that she would not be voting for the ordinance because she feels the standards are too restrictive. She commented that she feels the City has gone way overboard in asking people to come in and submit to public hearings and go through the expense of preparing documents, because the threshold is too low. Councilmember Mallory also stated that he would not be voting for the ordi- nance. He indicated that he thinks it is a professionally written document but opposes it because there are a number of standards in Section 5 that are too restrictive and provide an excessive burden on the right to develop your property. He added that he believes that it is going to reduce the creativity in housing and there will be an excessive number of appeals or requests for a variance. He believes that the residents who will be making changes will feel these restrictive and excessive rules in the future. Councilmember Watson stated that he woUid vote for the ordinance because ~el~;;feels this community has become one where a transition has clearly been indicated, and is a city of people who want to retain a character. He feels this ordinance goes a long way towards~ ~reserving this. ]ouncilmember Clevenger stated that she would vote for the ordinance. She explained that she was the Council representative on the original commit- tee set up to prepare this ordinance, and she feels it is in response to S-7/lS/S1 AGENDA ACTION · problems which have repeatedly come up before the Planning Commission and the Council. She stated that she --~- feels that changes can be made, but " '~ this is an adequate start. Councilme~ber Jensen stated'that she .... ? would vote for the ordinance. She feels the City has'needed this for a long time and feels it is an overall ,:"~',"':""-: good compromis~-'."Sh~'Fadded that she ~"~ -----'/ Considers it a C_o~_n_ci~:sponsored ordi- nance; even the Councilmembers who are going to vote against it had a lot of their ideas incorporated in it. JENSEN/CLEV~NGER MOVED TO READ BY TITLE ONLY AND WAIVE FURTHER READING, Passed 5-0. JENSEN/CLEVENBER MOVED TO ADOPT ORDI- NANCE NS-3.47. Passed 3-.2 (Callon and Mallory opposed). B. ORDINANCE ADOPTING BY REFERENCE JENSEN/MALLORY MOVED TO WAIVE FULL THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY ANIMAL~ READING AND INTRODUCE THE ORDINANCE CONTROL REGULATIONS PERTAINING BY TITLE ONLY. Passed 5-0. TO QUARANTINES AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS OF COMMERCIAL ANIMAL HANDLING ESTABLISHMENTS,. C. RESOLUTION SUPPORTING SB 215 The City Manager reviewed the resolu- tion for consideration. Mayor Callon stated that she is not'in favor of any increase i~ gas tax. She feels the point that Saratoga should make is that due to the increase in tt~e~cost'Ofr'~as~tb~ ~ale~tax"o~g&s'isr,enormous and the State has greatly increased their revenue as a result. She stated that she feels the City should appeal to the State that they take the sales tax produced by gasoline and devote it to trans- portation needs. Councilmember Mallory stated that there is a definite need for help in the local area for maintenance of roads. He added that the City could send two messages: (1) We like a portion of the bill, and (2) we would like to see what you are talking about. Councilm~mber Watson stated that he wo~ld .l~k~.'t6 ~end.~wo messages': (1) local application for maintenance, and (2) reallocation. rather than addition-. . Mayor'Ca'lion suggested that there be an additLon }o the resolution, stating that the City does not support a 2¢ increaSe. in gas tax, and they should 6~7/15/81 AGENDA ACTION take the increased revenues they are currently receiving and devote them to transportatio~ needs. Councilmember Watson stated that he k felt the Council should reject SB 215, ~ -~' since in the ,final reading th~°. request is going to be-lost and' it will gO forward and do e~c~y what it was ......... .= intended to"do .i7hitiafly. The City Manager commented that the legislature has found that the State was not able to meet its current level of services with the amount of revenues available to it in the General Fund. As a result the State has taken away from the cities and counties some of the subventions and sharedrevenues. He stated that he sees no alternative for them to meet .th'e"LCi't~ ' ~ ~6~U'irements without some additi~Hi'I taxi" Councilmember Jensen stated that she is in favor of the sales tax applied as long as it doesn't build new free- ways. If it goes strictly for main- tenance and stays at the local level she is in favor of it, because the City needs it. Councilmember MallOry stated that he is in favor of it and feels it is a very modest feels the people are interested in the maintenance of roads and Saratoga has to look to ways to get money for this. Councilmember Watson stated that, in addition to not adding tax, he feels the City should redefine their priori- ties, which is to find alternative forms of transportation, CALLON/MALLORY MOVED TO SEND A RESOLU- TION AMENDED TO SHOW T~T THE CITY= DOES NOTZ'SUPPORT SB 215~E SUPPORT AN INCREASE IN THE GAS TAXj~ HOWEVER, THE CITY DOES SUPPORT THE OTHER THINGS THAT ARE POINTED OUT. Passed 3-2 (Jensen and MallOry opposed). Councilmember Jensen stated that she : would favor additional tax in order [to just keep up the ~r$~'t~ cap~t~'i"- ~ i~iF~fi~Zq~b~Ca~s ~'~fi~.~:~'6 l~L~sH~l e t ~'~a~iBra~e ~he~ ~e '~i~ aoUid Mtake action. 7-7/15/81 AGENDA ACTION V.PUBLIC HEARING 8:00 p.m. A. APPEAL OF PLANNING COmmISSION ~ The City Manager reviewed the appeal. DENIAL OF TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION The Planning Director briefed the -~ , APPROVAL FOR TEN LOTS ON TRICIA Council on the subdivision, stating / ~yAY (Applicant/appellant, David that the principal issues were (1) num- bs, S. Wilson) ~ bet of lots on a cul-de-sac, (2) length " of the cul-de-sac,'and (3) number of location of two-stories. It was noted __~,._~ that the Publi9 Work~ Department had ~' f. indicated that~the mos't, logical and .... safest way was:-to_b~ve _~ccess on Tricia Way; however, the neighbors were not in favor of'this access because of the increased traffic.. The Planning Direc- tor pointed out that the General Plan, as well as the Subdivision Ord%pance., indicates as a matter of police that "- there only be 15 lots on a cUl-de-sac unless there is an emergency access. He added that this project does have an emergency. access provided in the cul-de-sac.to Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road which does meet that provision. DisCussion followed on the length of ~the cul-de=sac and the possibility of ifull access onto Saratoga-Sunnyvale !Road. The Public Works Director stated that it has been an effort of the City to minimize the number of streets intersecting thoroughfare streets, particularly streets such as Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road which has a heavy traffic volume. He explained that to access this would require U--turns at Blauer and Paramount. and creates an additional maneuver in a traffic stream of heavy volume, which adds to the hazards of the roadway. The Planning Director discussed the proposed soundwall, including land- scaping, sound-proofing and the appropriate setbacks. The public hearing was opened at 8:20 p.m. Bob Saxe, attorney representing the appellant, stated that the engineer wa's present tonight to explain how the design of the adjacent.Pinn Brothers subdivision, which he pre- pared, was done in such a way that Tricia Way was intended to be the extension to serve this property. Mr. Saxe quoted the Staff Report on this project, which states that the project complies with all objectives of the General Plan and requirements of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. He pointed out that this proposal speci- fically provides for emergency access " '8u7/15/81 ACTION and is consistent with the language in the General Plan. He noted fhat, regarding the length of the cul-de-sac, i the Planning Commission had agreed that it was not realistic to take access directly onto Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road; therefore, he felt the finding could be made that Tricia Way is the only feasible access. Mr. Saxe dis- cussed the traffic_.an~~_pointed 'out that 'the Public"'Works S,~aff had stated !that there wouid-=be--~o?traffic impact as-a resul~ of th.is project. :Dave Wilson, the ~ppellant, discussed the development of the project, stat- ing that~ after much ti.me and study, they had determined 'that the most intelligent' and well p~anned develop- ment would be an extension of Tricia Way. When questioned about alterna'-'. .... tives, he stated that if the City I makes the determination that Saratoga- ~SunnyVale Road is a better access to ~the property, they will investigate that access. Mr. Wilson discussed the proposed landscaping along Sara- toga-Sunnyvale Road. Mr. Richard Kier, engineer, described the soundwall, including its location and setbacks. Thomas O'Donnell, the attorney repre- senting the neighbors on Tricia Way, showed a chart indicating the loca- tion of the signators on the petition whfch 'had previously been submitted against the project. He explained that his clients are not against the development of the property, but are concerned about access and density: Mr. O'Donnell ~tated that they~x~Q_lTd: like to see the access be right turns onto Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, and if the Council does not feel that.to be a satisfactory solution, t, hen they wo'uld like the number of homes to be reduced to 6. He pointed out that a right turn onto Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road does not seem to be that dan- gerous, and they are concerned with the safety of the children. Pat Carroll, resident of Tricia Way, discussed the proposed access onto Tricia, stressing concern that there are 18 children in the 9 homes on Tricia Way. Ro'nald Pizaiali, 13123 Regan, stated that'he had not seen any other alternatives from the developer, eve~ 9-7/15/81 AGENDA ACTION though promised. He expressed con- cern over tree removai, specifically /_ ..... at the e~trance point into the expan- sion of the cul~de-.sac. He added ~ J,~ '\ that they were'only asking for an ex- .: tension of the current access to ~- '~' Saratoga-Sunnyvale that already exists. Mr. Touns, 13035 Regan Lane, expressed ~" -- concern over th~"t~ff,ic and the L..~_~,----~ height of the h0u~s~._The Planning Director explained that each home will be going through design review. Gil Troutman, 13070 Regan Lane, commented that two-story homes would completely block his view. He expresse a desire for a stop sign on the corner of Tricia W.ay and Regan and also on Argonaut and Regan, in order to slow down traffic. He indicated that he .. , felt a traffic light at Saratoga- Sunnyvale would slow down traffic sufficiently to make a safe access onto that road from the new development. ' "- Alan King, 14690 Fieldstone Drive, .: spoke to the fact that he believes that th~L~Planning Commission erred in this dec'ision, and he feels the project does mee't the intent of the General Plan and the local zoning. He added .. that he feels the Planning Commission · ,, should.'have co~ditioned the develop- ment for single-story homes, which -' - would be appropriate for the community. Bob:Granum, Tricia Way, referenced the petition wxth 72 s~gnatures that . had been submitted, opposxng this - - development. He stated that he has the rig.ht.-to preserve the well being of ~s Yamil~landjroperty value, and when he purchased his home there was ., clearly a tempoyary curve at the end of the cul-de-sac. He noted that the i'n{tial~taff'Rep0rt had been changed '~ and it'now.says tha~ an option does ' exist. He stated that he had con- "" ' tact~d. CalT~ans, who said' that an accesS'. · ·- can Be provide.d on Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road if a r~asonable plan is presented. -' · ' H~ d~ged that',this proposal be .', referred back to the Staff or developer for alternative solutions. Mr. Saxe again addressed the Council, clarifying that construction traffic on Tricia Way could be avoided by constructing from Saratoga-Sunnyvale . Road up the existing'd'~'7~: He also. commented thdt they are 'agreeable to lO-7/lS/S1 I- .ACTION '- the condition of one-story homes. Mr. Kier explained that the sub- division map for Pinn Brothers very clearly shows the extension-of Tricia Way and also indicates a temporary turnaround easement that was granted to the City by the developer. WATSON/MALLORY MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING (5-0),.,_ -CLEVENGER/JENSE~ MOVEb'THAT THE APPEAL FOR SD-1489 BE DENIED. Councilmember Clevenger stated that she felt 15 homes should be allowed but no more. She added that she felt the overall cumulative traffic impact of a future development at Cunningham Court should also be considered. She stated that the access should be from Tricia Way and not Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, and the issue is the number of homes on the cul-de-sac. She would approve this cul-de-sac if there were only 6 homes on it and it would not exceed the 15 homes that the City advocates. Councilmember Jensen concurred. She expressed the desire for the access to be moved to preserve the cluster of fir~trees. She also indicated that she would like Staff to explore the possibility of a stop's~gn at Argonaut and Regan and Regan and Tricia Way. Mayor Callon indicated that she did not feel 10 homes would add much more traffic than j~?, but expressed concern about thelength and design of the cul~de-sac. She suggested the possi- bility of the developer either reducing the number of homes and shortening the cul-de-sac with access onto Tricia, or open the access onto Saratoga~Sunnyvale Road with the full number of homes. She added that she felt openings on Saratoga-Sunnyvale are dangerous, bu~ if ,there were just 10 homes, irma? be' po'~sible. The City Manager pointed put that this is not 'a d6 'nero hea~ing and the- issues to be considered at-~histime'~ are those that were presented to the Commission."He explain'ed that, while ~he Council may express preference or indicate its views with regard to the project, it woUl*d 6~'inappr0priate to condition the 'concluSiohs Or findings. It was clarified that the issue of access' is .appropriate, but it would .. ll-7/lS/81 AGENDA ACTION not be appropriate to amend the tentative map. Howe'ver, the Council ~ .......~ can give the developer an indication '.~, of the direction they feel he should ,-~ take. ~ ......~ Councilmember Watson.stated that he feels the significant issue is the number of cars that~would impact that ~ '~ area; however,-H~i~?sensitive to the %.. ,~, _3- fact that Mr. Wilsoh-_w6uld like to develop this i~-th~ most efficient and effective way. He concurred that there are alternatives that have not been explored that can minimize the ~ impact to adjacent people, and, for that reason, he would support a denial of the application. The Planning Director clarified the fact that the developer could come in with a new map with 10 homes that had access only off of Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road, provided that he meets all the necessary street standards and was able to meet the lot widths. Councilmember Mallory stated that he would vote against the motion, because he feels very strongly that there should not be a permanent access onto Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road with the increased ho~sFs in this area. He added that he t~i~s-that the emergency access is proper on Saratoga-Sunnyvale and that Tricia Way should be used for the .full access. He explained that ~ f~Hb_ ~6~'se~/~F~e~6O~enfj~d~d~d~ai~~ ~ain' th~ b~Fc~ c~ar'~Ci~r o'f' ~i~i~. ' He basically feels there is no reason, because of the emergency access, to only have 15 homes in this area and feels this proposal is a moderate one. The f~ndings were discussed by the City Attorney. CLEVENGER/JENSEN AMENDED THE MOTION TO DENY THE APPEAL ON SD-1489 WITHOUT ~ PREJUDICE, MAKING THE FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION DOES NOT MEET THE TERMS OF THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE BECAUSE IT DOES REQUIRE A CUL-DE-SAC IN EXCESS OF 400 FEET WITHOUT SECON- DARY ACCESS, AND THEY CANNOT MAKE THE FINDING REQUIRED BY SECTION 13.34 WHICH PROVIDES AN EXCEPTION TO THAT. Passe~ 4=1 (Mai170ry opposed). lZ-7/iS/Sl AGENDA ACTION VI. BIDS AND CONTRACTS A. AUTHORIZE EXECUTION OF INSUR-I JENSEN/MALLORY MOVED TO APPROVE ._I ....~ ANCE AGREEMENT WITH INSURANCE INSURANCE AGREEMENT AND'AUTHORIZE Y '%COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA (INA); CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE ON BEHALF OF ~1 !FOR MULTI--PERIL, LIABILITY, AND CITY. Passed 5-0. ~ . ., iUMBRELLA COVERAGE WITH LIMITS 'OF $10,000,000 FOR FISCAL YEAR 1981-82. -:~ ' NOTICE TO. ?HE PUBLIC ........ - All matters listed under Item VII, Consent:Calendar, are considered to be routine by the City Council and wil.1 be enacted b¢ione motion in the form listed below. There will be' no separate discussion of these items. If discussion is required, that item will be remove~ from the Conseni{Calendar and will be considered separately. Vote may be by roll call. f~ VII. CONSENT CALENDAR The City Manager requested removal of Item C. CLEVENGER/MALLORY MOVED ADOPTION AND APPROVAL OF ITEMS A AND BON THE CONSENT CALENDAR. Passed 5-0. A. CITY TREASURER'S REPORT - JUNE. APPROVED. B. DENIAL OF CLAIM FOR DLMAGES: CLAIM DENIED. ROSE MARIE HORVATH C. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS The City Manager explained-that there was an error in th~ preparation of 'WarrantNo.'34380 on page 4 of thb Warrant Register. He stated that this amount should be $2,000 for the Medfly litigation suit, and the check will be reissued. JENSEN/MALLORY MOVE6'TO APPROVE ITEM C, WITH THE AMOUNT BEING CHANGED TO $2,000 ON WARRANT NO. 34380. Passed 4-1. (Watson opposed, stating that he feels the full amount.should be paid.) Discussion followed with the City Attorney on the expenses for the Medfly Suit. Councilmember Jensen commented that sh6 felt the Council was obligated to pay the bill as submitted. 'She explained that the Council had been given only an estimate of expenses. She felt that the issue was that the City has pulled out of a suit that may eventually protect some cities. ~ Mayor Callon stated that the Council agreed to start out the lawsuit on the basis of the estimate. She pointed out that Mouhtain View had also paid only $2,000.' Council~embe~ Watson stated that he felt that, although there was a communication diffic~lty,.the attor- .~_,, ne "s .- ,., y services were expended in ." .-. Saratoga's behalf,,~nd the City 'was '~ ~ ~ ~bligate~ to p'a~'.the'bill. ~"' Councilmember Mallory stated that he felt ther~ was a lack of communi- cation. .He'did not feel Saratoga was "~"~ ~bliged to cOve~ery~hing that the 't~--~---Y' .- aFtbrney did, ~.nce-.the~Council had ' authorized $2,000. Councilme~ber Cleveng~r stated that .. ithe Los Gato~ attorney gave Saratoga -' !an upperlimit.of $750 to $1,000. She noted that the City Attorney had discussed this with th~ Los Gatos attorney and has left it to the Court- · cil's good judgment to determine the City's obligation. It was th~ majorify feeling that $2,000 was adequate. VIII. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS A. MAYOR' B. COUNCIL AND COMMISSION REPORT 1. Parks & Rec'~eation Commis-~ sion a. AuthoriZation for the: The Director of Cqmmunity Services Japan B'amboo Society of reviewed th.e program. Saratoga to Use a Pot-! tionLof H~kO'n~'Garden. WATSON/MALLORY MOVED TO'AUTHORIZE PREPARATION OF AGREEMENT. Passed ~-0. C. DEPARTMENT HEADS'AND OFFICERS D. C'ITY MANAGER · 1. Street Closure for 16th MALLORY/JENSEN MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLU.- Annual Fall Festival TION NO. 1026 DECLARING THE 1981 FALL Parade and Race. (submitted FESTIVAL PARADE/RACE AND THE TEMPORARY at meeting) . CLOSURE OF BIG BASIN WAY. Passed 5-0. IX. ADJOURNMENT . Adjourned atll:47 p.m. Respec'tfully submitted, c