Item 8 Staff Report Accept Recommended West Valley Hillsides Joint Planning Review Preservation StrategiesMEETING DATE: 11/4/96
ITEM NO.
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
DATE: October 23, 1996
TO: MAYOR AND TO OUNCIL
FROM: TOWN MANAGE
SUBJECT: ACCEPT RECOMMENDED WEST VALLEY HILLSIDES JOINT PLANNING REVIEW -
PRESERVATION STRATEGIES.
RECOMMENDATION:
Accept recommended WestValley Hillsides Joint Planning Review Preservation Strategies.
BACKGROUND:
The Town has been working for several months on a cooperative planning project with Cupertino, Saratoga, Monte
Sereno, and Santa Clara County for the purpose of developing a joint "Hillside Preservation Strategy" to protect the
natural character of the hillside and ridgeline areas of the Santa Cruz Mountains most visible from the valley floor and
located outside town/city urban service areas.
DISCUSSION:
1. Origins of Study
This proposal to establish a West Valley Hillsides Joint Planning Project arose both from the efforts of the Four
West Valley Cities -- Cupertino, Saratoga, Monte Sereno, and Los Gatos -- and from th(County's General Plan
Review Program.
In 1994, the cities submitted a grant application to the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) for
funds to undertake a cooperative, multi jurisdictional planning program to protect the natural values of the
hillsides that provide the scenic backdrop to their communities. At about that same time, the County was
completing the public review process leading to adoption of the revised County General Plan. Included in the
revised Plan are policies stating that the County should work cooperatively with cities on planning programs
to resolve issues of mutual concern.
Although the grant proposal was not funded by ABAG, the cities and the County decided to proceed with the
project anyway, using existing staff resources.
(Continued on Page 2)
PREPARED BY: LEE E. BOWMAN
PLANNING DIRECTOR
Reviewed by: Attorney V Finance
Revised: 10/23/96 3:45 pm
Reformatted: 10/23/95
1
\
PAGE 2
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: WEST VALLEY HILLSIDES JOINT PLANNING REVEIW PRESERVATION STRATEGIES
October 23, 1996
2. Development of a Joint "Hillsides Preservation Strategy"
The general plans of all five jurisdictions express the basic goal of maintaining the predominantly natural
character of the non -urban hillside areas that are an important scenic resource contributing to the overall quality
of life in the West Valley area. This proposed planning project is intended to develop a joint strategy to
facilitate implementation of these existing policies.
3. An Implicit Quid pro Quo
Underlying the Joint Planning Review is an implicit quid pro quo understanding between the cities and the
County. The cities are being asked to delineate long term growth boundaries that will serve to minimize further
urban encroachment into the West Valley hillsides.
In exchange, the participating cites are asking for assurances from the County that the development the County
allows outside the cities' long term growth boundaries will be appropriate for rural, hillside areas and will have
minimal visual impacts when viewed from the valley floor.
4. An Issue for the County: Minimizing the Visual Impacts of Hillside Development
One of the major responsibilities of the County in this Joint Planning Review has been to review current
policies, ordinances, procedures, and design guidelines governing development in unincorporated areas of the
West Valley hillsides to determine whether they are adequate to achieve the goal of preserving the
predominantly natural appearance of this important scenic resource.
The County Planning Commission has conducted this review during several workshop sessions that have
included participation by staff of the West Valley cities. Proposed changes in County ordinances and
guidelines are scheduled to be considered at the Planning Commission's November 7th meeting.
5. The Challenge of a Multi jurisdictional Review and Acceptance Process
One of the basic challenges of conducting a multi jurisdictional review and acceptance process for the
"Hillsides Preservation Strategies" report is that of assuring that the report is acceptable to all five jurisdictions,
while at the same time completing the review process in a timely manner.
Proposals for substantial changes in the report by any of the jurisdictions will require a second round of
reviews in which the report, along with proposed changes, is referred back to all other participating
jurisdictions for concurrence (a process that could itself stimulate further suggested changes and the necessity
to go through additional rounds of referrals).
6. Suggested Basic Question for Council Consideration
In order to try to balance the two objectives of having an acceptable product and an efficient review process,
we are respectfully suggesting that the Council and the other city and county reviewing bodies resist the
temptation to "wordsmith" individual recommendations and instead focus on one basic question:
"Does the framework of general strategy directions suggested by the report provide a reasonable and
acceptable way for the cities and the County to work cooperatively toward achieving the basic
objectives of protecting the predominantly natural visual character of the West Valley hillsides?"
PAGE 3
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: WEST VALLEY HILLSIDES JOINT PLANNING REVEIW PRESERVATION STRATEGIES
October 23, 1996
7. Future Actions by the Town
Even though the recommendation doesn't change anything already in place due to the Jointly Adopted
Town/County Hillside Specific Plan, the Town will have to amend the General Plan to show our Urban Service
Area boundary as our long term growth boundary. The amendment could be tied to another future amendment.
CONCLUSION:
The Planning Commission considered this matter on October 9, 1996 and recommends that the Town Council accept
the draft Hillsides Preservation Strategies proposed by the West Valley Hillsides Joint Planning Review.
NOTE: "Accepting" the report is equivalent to giving conceptual approval to the general directions it suggests.
Since the Hillsides Preservation Strategies report is only a planning study, the action recommended above is exempt
from CEQA review under section 15262. When specific actions implementing the preservation strategies are
subsequently proposed, they will be assessed for their potential environmental impacts.
The fmal Hillsides Preservation Strategy was recommended to the Board of Supervisors by the County Planning
Commission on October 3, 1996. The planning commissions and city councils of the West Valley cities will review
and consider acceptance during October and November.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS:
Is not a project defined under CEQA, and no further action is required.
FISCAL IMPACT: None
Attachments:
1. Public Review Draft, dated September 1996
2. Planning Commission minutes for October 9, 1996
Distribution:
Don Weber, County Planning, 70 W. Hedding Street, San Jose, CA 95110
Vicki Moore, Greenbelt Alliance, 1922 The Alameda, STE 213, San Jose, CA 95126
LEB:sm:
N:\DE V\CNCLRPTS\STRATEGY. W V
j IN31NH 11Vi
141 o LLI
t'® C\2 Q w
c-
v zit Q. 46
WEST VALLEY HILLSIDES JOINT PLANNING REVIEW
Loa u L. I ... i L—I ._..1 0
Appendix B: Long Term Growth Boundary Policies
Appendix A: Joint Planning and Land Use Principles
s.O
Provide Mechanisms for Resolution of Hillside Land Use Issues
Minimize the Visual Impacts of Future Hillside Development
t1
x
w
CA
0'
0
d
Develop Joint Hillside Land Use Objectives
eaid ApryS jo duynI
Overview of Hillside Preservation Strategies
F
0
OO V CT, <J1 W N 1--`
SiN3INOJ
NoI.LVA?I3S32Id
Goals of Project
History of the Project
Purpose of This Report
et 0
a.m b >
o 2 .�
.rn
gen .0 ° a
O
5 2. -E • .fa.
^Q)) Q
bA ed NLL
0o.... . > tC O QCA Z CA O)
° U Q E
_°
a as
>i •b
2:5
en • ea
a
4 ea
.5
.5 R
O C
aE
a
cn
v
a
-a
a
.' MI, ,
.' o •p v, try ' . Q a
a
�wcnch
iQQc
•~aga a>t=•0.5
a' -Z cno
�aa°o.yQ.�o•°�' 'a
000, o5 w td , O� a N et �, a o
° a O 3 t. ^' a Q .x-J ea .b 'C b y
? > V �'aO >, �U.� 0vea a;.' 0. 0
��oo s03,27) a��Gaa) p o0
o 3 aoo,v a 5� a a�... i a�-0._..—
› rJ QU cum ev G U b00_.0 Ir a 7.1 p.u).8
, o a to it eu Q) 5 `11.. tv '0 r ° C7 z Ci 'bO ° �° izs
C7
> �4 aU'o7 �p 11 cn--aQ a
.c/., b0 y r'- O 8 •^ C Q1 as 5 3 5 'v w CO
v o cn o a�i N v ,, o i`.sz. . ev a
w 0) a
N O G.. .� o •a F 0 ea DO a;
E bA ° .0 '0 5
° ° a l 0 a) ° e� a �' .�
d. O O a.' cCA 2 0..aa a
0) A E
0 > •L3a t ° a. ,,� ot�liltil
Q _
CA `r. e`• `edd w i O}r ,2 vi tar ter d Q .U) 0, B.'
ts 3 >,a O to a) o'O' w v, •O O g a G
v b0 _a O ,6 G w td ... tai, ! mi �' O
.a ,C 'v, C tar G ° 0 o 4.' K 0. O y 0 b°
C. 'a' •FA ed aC ^� y a i O ▪ Q i f 'a
O a ,� O Q) e> bA eC C G
v g z o L Oa S' 0 Q. -5 Q to .— ° cd
Cu go QO) Q a..ECILei7. g▪ 4f 82 2
jN
hood hind Ihnel MIN ..,11 NM UN
{ f
!fk j
1�
Ili K
1 i
Y/
.i
1
i
w ., ��
ti
CA'
EL 1:g 'o
it 4k W N --- F' o 0
rt
'Cl
(p cr. rt "
p' < �. CD %.• fD n r<S
D corD U)
O K a 4, o f "• ... o m
En rD 'Cy X C «O a) .,,
O'05 ror'D P.
yo Kc
c' O n.g 5 -.,
m
"„
cr
y G r<D C. rt 0 rt < m
K 1. 'O C O O w v,
5 °'• o a4.
= 05 �� `° l
cn "+ as
rt co W rD n FIT y
CA(I .e O
a g y ¢ 'b 2' O 7C O ro .-3
0 ^ aq C �_ p rip 5 o v p, v' pm 03 "oy a.Ci
oc g<���c.Za. 05•`eR�rw 5ii)r. 5Q
5 :;cr rD�f°o5a• �roCw romro� coo
"" Co"O m Si O O. O. `e cD n w
C p F0 0u rD A O CI- ° W n n? c,. CL a
m Pi C rp03 m � .1 m p^ O rfp O O <_ vi a• `� Fr)F'
"7� r9 °' "r O O — a, CM a9.
ra
rrtD 0 ro `� to �* Q d V,CD O 'A cn
a�.Z l c F p).3o� rho a- cra 5 0< Q-o
co oc)
"0 ¢ v' rt W v' ro cn
fD "ter rip n o
r° $ •2„. f g E. c,......
CI'
rt n Q O
rt rt G.
rt O O
T
OVERVIEW OF HILLSIDE PRESERVATION STRATEGIES
NO11VAaI3 S3?1d
■A'
0)
r3
0
■
N
a)
•!�
YI
X
w�
W
AN
W
L
0
ca
L
a
Approx. Study Area Boundary
aelOP
•
•
•MI_
Areas Currently Subject to County Design Review
00<
00<
Cupertino City Limit
Cupertino Urban Service Area
Los Gatos Town Limits
Los Gatos Urban Service Area
Monte Sereno City Limit
•
Monte Sereno Urban Service Area
Saratoga City Limits
Saratoga Urban Service Area
Scenic Roads
Land Uses In County General Plan
■ Existing Regional Parks
Other Public Open Lands
■
tt_i t___s.__ z
�9t
-L4
PRESERVATION
DEVELOP JOINT HILLSIDE LAND USE OBJECTIVES
STRATEGY #1:
Action Recommendations
e
�0" ' O cu TA v t o �a t.
u • v �. 00 3 5 O a. v�i ...
u .s a'p. v�i p
.� Lii w 0 Q' h O v- 0 -u 'CS y.
i° pp Ts a a -c a, - M ° a R :�
ar a O �.6 a61,' a a
'd v �C a,
5 oTic1 > >3 0> g
�O0.-ti 'O d=rCS ew O
° a.4aa,'Oa, a0 a 'ca fp C aaV
> te'v O . bD.ea a.) a, O
1-4
ij '� 'a V v-� a.. .4 O...fi re0.U), 6'6 d a C .°%
o -0
Q., 4... z-o as.a a,a a.
'filj
a2 a, .° ace, 4 • w cn oa▪ 74 .0a2 o
i40'°vv-2.. o a. .2 5 °I:,E800 °w u.° °8.5 oa g a.30>.5. E.9
1.4
3 >.5 LI
fijunoJ au :.coluauuatduij
w 5; ^d • ... Oni ao m 0 .�y: 0
r co '� fD fD fD ''''0 (DD `G G-
cr rt 5,1 5'n 5 �� o
co
� Li.), v- U �C: ' rl 0 w- . O
►r o w e m O q 2,
cbcrelai 5-
W co d n 0- D y rt� ° d
N rt 0 7 • n 7 O R. OQ C
F' `� CA � 2 co. 0 I
9- f9rim P. a�
g
= a
m
1!-�y W N
sa a
n t 1 o° a A
M co pq w coo a •.. I0lio
' A H A �O �, la. 0 ,�, cep•.' co Off„ O :: • w. CV "'' .•..
M�:
. ._
.y' . so A, A, A• O p cryryn S A. SY ^.•
.18
E. A A `can C cp C A p0 ..' '+ }• ,• rt
l IV
\ A, n �_ A te•• O p A 2
A. m O s A •. A 000 A. .n.
00 ;4. S cp 00 m
:suoiwvpuauiuuoaag uozpi
:Z# ADILVIIIS
Cr,
t
Q
z
a
a
cr)
W
STRATEGY #3:
Easier for staff to a
Action Recommendations:
o ¢i o,
Of O �j
m
pwo
?� m Up w A
w UUO .y0 p07 ��'
c.ii a d co
A_C •S••-• N r U 'CI '� . a d b0 y .i' CS it
7. 0O . Z y [r O
60
• Cs 4gv, yto o k is "N.
.cla i'0, 0
Cr-
y iyp N imU•gU
wt.J�p��vT01
1/1
r^i es' t'rj Nis
O O O O
Q Q
O
to O v _ > u TS
eo
�C� t >.r .5 v R boo ��C
v ��r CO N O m 1 1
i-fl
a Ijo a,
,>,60 -�T a3, E •r $ Ts b
�Ra,, 3mtob .4�j,•5E 0 0 j
4+ Oiel O a> o �' v a� v Y3 w CO
�-+14 w l .5 o w to ofou
- O c t
aq wu ro -0.g gay
>I . . IA
x 4.1
a v a,
E" , �� 2 a a 4, aoo
o
0
�--� W 0 to 3 l+ y a..Q .gb v
z 5 T14 "CI
O�'7 P.
'bX co 84 L 2 v v a5 00 bbp�
� ets v v � �o
-ocu 0) 0
W a �d , a. gv.cn .. wt11 a� .o ,,,
A 0 04 _, �'`" U y 4� G� `� 6 4O... 2,-grin �• 'g O
O v •i: G, .x� e G �' v Vi O 00 �b0
0 0 . m-0 oo :4 b)0 0. m u L', '5 2 G a
0'f.F,-0 y o v a �T. 0 >p ooa: .�
' °' aGi a3i v > > > •+ u t0 °i a 1A 9. •`� ca
a. p > at w Tb as .a U•0 U a=
r 1 ►_.�„1 L J L._,J i1...J
ii
h
I Ij
i
g$ g 5.$) .� 5'� o Y
0(D �06(1) CI,
5 o' :.1.o < o
4 �5. < 8 o .. afD (rtD f�
. o - t9 ... C O `C QT
o
o05cm
'0° f< CD
fD � ".
O
b o
w w pC zQ. fD O
2i1 n C ° •r• (D tth O. oCC =
c o a SDco o �'- 2�. y >v
8 0-
o. `< .-. 5
C• V. - co
00 co a. 'o
a. nr o rD
rgo
ne
m u: C,
O O pm�
C ( `C
a.
0
a' K fD
m
CD Ca atia o rD oro
' w_ a. to W' G OG O C
IPili
E§O d
nO st o o tn,is �O p
�CA a. r.. ,,/
0 Cr
�to . OOA tD fAOm
�< Ati3, o �to 1 I ti
ti STry.jh
a.
n a rrO
fa, rD td
Iij
D
n
i'i
CA
n opC
AA ^ a
ryC M:+ te ' t�
4z g . ,
, 6 M. rt`b lw
o(D8 cila. fD o t O
r.
t�i1 `-< n) M
s
cn
H
00
ICI O I 1 VA ?I 3 S 3 ?I d
or%
PRESERVATION
JOINT PLANNING AND LAND USE PRINCIPLES
APPENDIX A:
Interjurisdictional Cooperation
Allowable Land Uses
+-;
.� u u u u
t
k
11
I�
✓1
5
fD
.+
rD
5(n
rD
O �
►r
5 5
°Q
O �
c� a
5
rD
'C3
� w
fD 5fp
< °Q •
fD g-•
0 fp O
'C w
O
S
sv 5
rr)
Ii 1.
O0 RI
0 n
"
0
:oa diaq sataepunoq 1.pMol.S uuaa Suol
fp 0
tP W N !--' ' "d
eD O
O ►1 fn O cr z' fD O o 5.LI'R nr...
n 'nCDa0°ten 4..-
rt,
•
5.
per+ ► 'O� ° wN (�D 0• .+,
fp O O N „Ot n 0 Q' O `6' " fp
n G X O+ fD 5 cD t< vi ii O fp .•y. O
< (, affl 5- O g. a. o+ rD
fo Et a) O
ffl Q7
N n 't
0 0
Y► "'
a, 0 fp o' rt.fp b a: a. (o 4
fD o" a. 5. 2� g r g .O rt y W
8. ° 5 fp g. `F. , b o
ffD �. Q °Q 5 m ¢ ." A) pa`< A O
Uf rt 5 fD n ...
• co w fD CD O 5, m 5 r b
•-•g�a5• fp Q,rt a a.
SP f� . (o O o
Ft 9- a.
G. ° i m (gyp °
(D r. rD x
I 5 C fn 55
su o. (o
5. ¢• 2^ ��rr• K 1v ,a,fp 1f �' frtD
:g XIQNdddV
LONG TERM GROWTH BOUNDARY POLICIES
rn
'y
t r1
r
cn
0-1
NOLLVA2f S ?la
PRESERVATION
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
PROJECT STAFF
City of Cupertino
Michele Bjurman
Neelima Palacherla
Town of Los Gatos
0
City of Monte Sereno
Brian Loventhal
Eric Coumou
City of Saratoga
1 _ ! ._J k_,_.l 4.__1 .__l - .J LJ ....J L..1 L.) t.J
4
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - PAGE 16
October 9, 1996
AYES: Comms. Abkin, Decker, Jensen, Nachison and Peyton
NOES: None
ABSTENTIONS: None
ABSENT: Comm. Pacheco
Attorney Anderson stated that the decision was not subject to appeal as it would go
forward to the Council. He clarified that if there was an existing service station that
the Commission no longer deemed attractive, and they came into apply for an
expansion of the retail area, the Commission could impose additional architectural
standards on that station at that time.
CONDITION
TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR:
1. The maximum retail floor area used for sale of non -automotive items shall not exceed 316 square
feet.
NEW OTHER BUSINESS
ITEM 9. West Valley Hillside Joint Planning Review
Hillside Preservation Strategies
Chair Jensen opened the public hearing for input. There was no one present who
wished to speak.
Comm. Abkin noted that his previous concerns were not incorporated, and stated
that it emphasizes the visual aspects of it, and only then the visual aspects from the
valley floor, with no regard to development that might impact natural habitat and
other aspects of rural mountain environments. He questioned if it was discussed.
Mr. Bowman explained that the Commissioners' comments were forwarded to the
committee, were discussed, and the committee felt that it was because most of the
land affected was unincorporated and is not observed as carefully as land that is
within the incorporated areas.
Comm. Abkin stated that he would like his objection registered.
Mr. Bowman said that he would relay the objection. He explained that staff would
prefer not to amend the document as it was agreed not to amend it.
Referring to No. 4, on Page 2 of the staff report, Comm. Abkin questioned what
proposed changes were scheduled. Mr. Bowman responded that they were revising
their definition of height that more closely aligns with ours; they are lowering the
maximum height limit in the hillsides to be exactly like ours; they are also adopting
the color reflectivity standard and two of the four cities have a reflectivity standard;
we have one at 30, Cupertino was at 60. He said that the County was adopting 30
which was the more restrictive so they were more like ours. Generally, all the cases
we have had concerns about grading and height and the definition of slope, the
County is bringing their ordinance closer to ours; none of the five jurisdictions have
identical regulations but we are about as close as we will get.
ATTACHMENT
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - PAGE 17
October 9, 1996
MOTION
ITEM 10.
Referring to Page 9, Appendix A, No. 4, Comm. Abkin expressed concern
regarding the word "substantial". Mr. Bowman stated that the urban service areas
could only be expanded with LAFCO's approval and it was a substantial process,
and in that process the County Planning as well as the other cities are notified. He
explained that "further substantial expansion should be discouraged". He said that
if it was decided to expand the urban service area to cover all the Novitiate property,
that would be considered substantial.
Referring to Page 10, Appendix B, No. 4, Comm. Abkin questioned why the other
cities would not have a right to review the proposed revisions. Mr. Bowman stated
that the other cities did not want to review the other cities' requirements.
Relating to the long term growth boundary policies, Comm. Decker said that she
was not in favor of the timeframe and that she would prefer doing something short
term. Mr. Bowman stated that the definition of urban service area that was adopted
by LAFCO, and in Los Gatos' case and in most of the four west valley cities, the
urban service area actually represents the ultimate growth boundary and the five
years is a planning tool. Los Gatos had its urban service area boundary for almost
20 years and there has been no proposal and he said he would not recommend that
the line be moved; therefore they have in fact become long term boundaries.
Mr. Bowman explained that the title General Plan would have to be changed to
Urban Growth Boundary. With the exception of some issues relating to Kaiser
Permanente and Paul Masson Mountain Winery, the cities have set the maximum
line that they are interested in. By next spring all four cities will have done that. He
reported that Morgan Hill and Gilroy are in the fmal throws of adopting the similar
lines around their jurisdictions and San Jose has a proposal before LAFCO with
their line also, so when this is done all the cities that touch upon the rural area except
Palo Alto, Los Altos and Los Altos Hills will have made a determination.
Chair Jensen moved that the Town Council accept the draft hillside preservation
strategies as proposed by the West Valley Hillside Joint Planning Review and also
take into account by way of the record of our proceeding tonight the comments that
have been made on the draft proposal; seconded by Comm. Morgan; unanimously
passed.
AYES: Comms. Decker, Jensen, Morgan, Nachison and Peyton
NOES: None
ABSTENTION: None
ABSENT: Comm. Pacheco
Motion passed unanimously 5-0.
Sub -Committee Reports
Architectural Standards Committee recommendation re: Policies for Accessory
Dwelling units and Accessory Structures
Chair Jensen opened the hearing for public input. There was no one present who
wished to speak. Chair Jensen closed the public hearing.
November 4, 1996
Los Gatos, California
MINUTES OF OCTOBER 21, 1996 (06B.V)
Motion by Mrs. Benjamin, seconded by Mr. Blanton, that Council approve the Minutes of
October 21, 1996 as submitted. Carried by a vote of 4 ayes. Mr. O'Laughlin absent.
TREASURER'S REPORT (07.V)
Informational report submitted by the Treasurer to the Council as of August 31, 1996, was
received and filed.
HILLSIDE PRESERVATION STRATEGIES/WEST VALLEY HILLSIDES (08.47)
Motion by Mrs. Benjamin, seconded by Mr. Blanton, that Council accept recommended West
Valley Hillsides Joint Planning Review Preservation Strategies. Carried by a vote of 4 ayes.
Mr. O'Laughlin absent.
COST CLAIMING SERVICES/DAVID M. GRIFFITH/RESOLUTION 1996-133 (10.06)
Motion by Mrs. Benjamin, seconded by Mr. Blanton, that Council adopt Resolution 1996-133
entitled, RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS AUTHORIZING THE TOWN
MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH DAVID M. GRIFFITH & ASSOCIATES,
LTD. (DMG) TO PROVIDE STATE MANDATED COST CLAIMING SERVICES FOR THE
1996-97 FISCAL YEAR. Carried by a vote of 4 ayes. Mr. O'Laughlin absent.
EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS CONSORTIUM/TRAINING AND CONSULTING (11.14)
LEIBERT, CASSIDY & FRIERSON/RESOLUTION 1996-134
Motion by Mrs. Benjamin, seconded by Mr. Blanton, that Council adopt Resolution 1996-134
entitled, RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS AUTHORIZING TOWN MANAGER
TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT WITH LEIBERT. CASSIDY & FRIERSON. BAY AREA
EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS CONSORTIUM. FOR SPECIAL SERVICES RELATING TO
LEGAL TRAINING AND CONSULTING. Carried by a vote of 4 ayes. Mr. O'Laughlin absent.
9610 PROJECT/TREE PRUNING AND REMOVAL/RESOLUTION 1996-135 (12.35)
PROFESSIONAL TREE CARE COMPANY
Motion by Mrs. Benjamin, seconded by Mr. Blanton, that Council adopt Resolution 1996-135
entitled, RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS TO AUTHORIZE TOWN
MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH THE PROFESSIONAL TREE CARE
COMPANY TO COMPLETE 9610 TREE PRUNING AND REMOVAL. Carried by a vote of
4 ayes. Mr. O'Laughlin absent.
SHANNON RD 16070/HASTINGS DEV/COMPLETION NOTICE/RESOLUTION 1996-136 (13.09)
Motion by Mrs. Benjamin, seconded by Mr. Blanton, that Council adopt Resolution 1996-136
entitled, RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS ACCEPTING WORK OF
HASTINGS DEVELOPMENT INC.. 16070 SHANNON ROAD. AND AUTHORIZING THE
TOWN MANAGER TO EXECUTE CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE AND NOTICE OF
COMPLETION FOR RECORDING BY TOWN CLERK. Carried by a vote of 4 ayes. Mr.
O'Laughlin absent.
STREET MAINTENANCE/FUND TRANSFERS/RESOLUTION 1996-137 (14.28)
Motion by Mrs. Benjamin, seconded by Mr. Blanton, that Council adopt Resolution 1996-137
entitled, RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS TRANSFERRING $125,000 FROM
ROAD IMPACT FUND FOR STREET REPAIRS, Carried by a vote of 4 ayes. Mr. O'Laughlin
absent.
TC:D8:MM110496
2