Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/17/1997'` Minutes of a Regular Meeting September 17, 1997 Town of Los Altos Hills City Council Regular Meeting Wednesday, September 17, 1997, 6:00 P.M. Council Chambers 26379 Fremont Road CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Mayor Casey called the Regular Meeting of the City to order at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Town Hall. Present: Mayor Casey and Councilmembers Dauber, Hubbard, Johnson and Siegel Staff: City Manager/City Engineer Jeff Peterson, City Attorney Sandy Sloan, Planning Director Curtis Williams, Public Works Manager Jim Rasp and City Clerk Pat Dowd Press: Carol Tiegs, Los Altos Town Crier Council welcomed Carol Tiegs from the Los Altos Town Crier. 2, APPOINTMENTS AND PRESENTATIONS 3. PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT The Planning Director reported on the following items from the September 10, 1997 Planning Commission Meeting: 1) Lands of Shukov, 14440 DeBell Drive: request for site development permit for a new residence, pool and spa - approved; 2) Lands of Prime Home Development, 12129 Oak Park Court: request for a site development permit for a new residence, pool and spa and a variance to allow grading within ten feet of a property line - continued; 3) Lands of Liu, 25861 Estacada Way: request for a site development permit and conditional development permit for a minor addition, and variance to exceed the allowable development and floor area and to encroach into the rear and side yard setbacks - approved; 4) Lands of Lyman, 13770 Wildflower Court: request for a site development permit for a secondary dwelling unit with a basement - approved; and 5) Lands of Godinho, 12250 Menalto Drive: request for a site development permit for a new residence and pool - continued. The Planning Director further noted that at their September 16, 1997 meeting the Planning Commission had recommended approval of the Housing Element and this would be scheduled for a public hearing at a future City Council Meeting. It was agreed that this hearing could be scheduled for November and that the specific date could be included in the October Newsletter. The issue of amending the ordinances concerning secondary dwellings and basements was raised and it was suggested this matter be agendized for discussion at the joint meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission scheduled for October 30'". 4. CONSENT CALENDAR Item Removed: 4.1 (Dauber) MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Dauber, seconded by Johnson and passed `y unanimously to approve the balance of the Consent Calendar, specifically: September 17, 1997 Regular City Council Meeting �7 4.2 Approved Warrants: $256,730.09 (9/8/97) 4.3 Decided Not To Review the following Planning Commission Actions at its meeting on August 27,1997: 4.3a Lands of Urbach, 10705 Magdalena Road: request for a site development permit for a new residence, and a lot line adjustment 4.3b Lands of Orton, 26666 Snell Lane: request for a site development permit for a new residence 4.3c Lands of Lohr, 12113 Oak Park Court: request for a site development permit for a new residence, pool and spa 4.3d Lands of Lohr, 24052 Oak Knoll Circle: request for a site development permit for a new residence, pool and spa Siegel stated that he lived within 2,500 feet of the McCullough Subdivision (Lohr properties) but these properties had no financial affect on his property and there was no conflict of interest. 4.4 California, et al., vs. Rosendin Electric, Inc., et al. - granted authorization to sign settlement agreement and selection of charitable or non-profit organization for receipt of settlement funds. Item Removed: 4.1 Approval of Minutes: July 30, 1997 (Adjourned Regular Meeting) September 3, 1997 (Regular Meeting) MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Dauber, seconded by Johnson and passed unanimously to approve the minutes of the July 30, 1997 Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting with the following correction: page 11, add the following after the second paragraph: "PASSED BY CONSENSUS: Council agreed to allow the use of three foot wide concrete rolled curbs." MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Dauber, seconded by Johnson and passed unanimously to approve the minutes of the September 3, 1997 Regular City Council Meeting with the following corrections: page 3, Item 6.2, change number three in the motion to read as follows: "Retain the planned path from Natoma to Elena on the south side of 28014 and 28210 Natoma rather than moving it to the north side of those lots." and change the last sentence of the motion to number four reading as follows: "it was also noted that the connection parallelling Taaffe to the creekside path below was already there."; page 7, Item 9.8, delete the second sentence and add Item 9.10 as follows: "Eucalyptus Trees along Adobe Creek (Councilmember Dauber) - Dauber raised the issue of the eucalyptus trees along Adobe Creek Reach V. It was noted that since no easement had been received by the Santa Clara Valley Water District, the work could not begin on the trees." UNFINISHED BUSINESS 5.1 Appeal of false alarm charges - William McKee, 13888 Fremont Pines Lane September 17, 1997 Regular City Council Meeting Mr. McKee, 13888 Fremont Pines Lane, commented that they had had their alarm system for 'rr thirteen years with no problems. However, they had recently gone on vacation and while they were gone there was unsettling weather which apparently caused a problem with the alarm system. Obviously, with five false alarms in such a short time period the alarm was faulty. He asked that the Council consider reducing the $850 charge for faulty alarms. Council noted that these appeals of false alarm charges were becoming more frequent and it appeared that the policy in place was not equitable. Dauber recommended that residents only be charged what it actually cost the Town to handle the false alarms but with no penalties incurred. Hubbard suggested keeping the penalty policy in place for those who were lax regarding the proper functioning of their alarm systems. Casey believed that residents should not be charged separately for the deputies responding to false alarm charges as this was part of the sheriff's contract. The City Manager noted that if a deputy was called from another city the cost could be higher but in general he estimated the sheriff's cost to respond to a false alarm to be about $40. In addition to this there was the cost of staff time to deal with the false alarms. Council discussed charging $80 per false alarm with no penalties. Casey however thought that $50 per call was more than adequate. MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Hubbard, seconded by Johnson and passed unanimously to adopt the policy that $80 would be charged per false alarm with no penalities and staff was directed to prepare the modification to the fee structure and the Town Code to reflect this new policy and bring them back for Council approval. 5.2 Discussion of paths on Byrd and Via Feliz -- this item has been continued to a future Council Meeting. `, 6. NEW BUSINESS 7. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES, SUB -COMMITTEES, AND COUNCILMEMBERS ON OUTSIDE AGENCIES 8. STAFF REPORTS 8.1 City Manager 8. 1.1 Capital Improvements Budget The City Manager reported that the Finance Committee had reviewed the proposed capital improvements budget and it would be scheduled for public hearing at the October 15" Council Meeting. In addition the Finance Committee had reviewed the reserve policy and a recommendation would be brought to the Council in a couple of months. 8.1.2 Capital Improvement Projects The City Manager reported that the three major capital improvement projects (Robleda Drainage, Page Mill Retaining Wall and Pavement Management) were all on schedule and should be completed the end of October. 8.1.3 Magdalena Path The City Manager commented that the path along Magdalena would be repaired. September 17, 1997 Regular City Council Meeting ftr 8.1.4 Arastradero Path In response to an inquiry from Dauber, the City Manager noted that the Town was responsible for the project along Arastradero and would fix the adjustment of the road surface to the path. 8.2 City Attorney 8.3 City Clerk 8.3.1 Report on Council Correspondence 9. COUNCIL -INITIATED ITEMS 9.1 Request for clarification of denial and fees for site development projects, Lands of WytheNim, Moon Lane (Mayor Casey) Casey noted that this matter had been resolved at the staff level. 9.2 Santa Clara County Cities Association (Mayor Pro Tem Johnson) Johnson reported that the Cities Association had endorsed the City of Santa Clara's position on medical services and would present this endorsement at the League of California Cities Annual Conference in October. He wanted the Town's voting delegate to be aware of this decision and further recommended the Council decide on the Town's position on this matter. The City Manager noted that this issue had been discussed at the September 10 City Managers' Meeting and a task force had been established to review the matter. PASSED BY CONSENSUS: It was agreed to agendize the complete set of resolutions to be addressed at the League of California Cities for the September 30, 1997 City Council Meeting. 9.3 League of California Cities (Councilmember Dauber) Dauber asked if the Council wished to participate in the flag ceremony at the Annual Conference. Council responded that they left this choice to her as the Town's voting delegate to the conference. 9.4 Morgan Manor (Mayor Casey) Noting that an application had been received by the Town from the One World Montessori School for the Morgan Manor property, Casey inquired if Hubbard and Siegel would be voting on this issue. Siegel stated that since he lived within 2,500 feet of the project, he would not be voting on it. Hubbard who did not live as close stated that he had not decided yet if he would vote on this application. 10. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR Mrs. McKee, 13888 Fremont Pines Road, recommended that reflectors be placed on the island at Arastradero Road and 280. She believed this was a real safety issue as you could not see the islands at night. September 17, 1997 Regular City Council Meeting Alex Cheng, 12854 La Barranca Road, referred to the speeding issue in Town and inquired how 4r the deputies determined which locations they would patrol. The City Manager reported that in part this was done by complaints filed with the Town as well as the history of certain locations. Dauber also commented that she reviewed the traffic reports filed each month with the Town and speeding in Town was carefully monitored. 11. PUBLIC HEARINGS 11.1 Recommendation for the Extension of Franchise Agreement with Los Altos Garbage Company, the implementation of a Backyard Yardwaste Program, and the Adoption of Solid Waste and Recyclables Rates. The City Manager began his presentation with an outline of the proposed changes in solid waste services. These included the following: implementation of bi-weekly backyard collection of mixed paper, #2 plastics, cardboard and yardwaste (up to 180 gallons); expansion of types of materials accepted on clean up days (to be reduced from four to three); option of construction debris recycling; regular delivery of compost; yearly compensation to the Los Altos Garbage Company would be limited to 80% of the prior year CPI (consumer price index); discontinuation of Magdalena Avenue clean up day location; and closure of Purissima Yardwaste Center. The City Manager listed the following reasons for the proposed closure of the yardwaste center: insufficient sight distance for southbound Purissima Road traffic; illegal night time dumping at the center; and illegal dumping by professional landscapers of yardwaste originating outside the Town. The City Manager also noted that there was not another suitable location owned by the Town for the yardwaste center and the present location was needed for the Town's corporation yard activities. The City Manager commented that options for the yardwaste center, in addition to backyard pickup and clean up days, included bin by the day rentals of a four or seven foot yard %W container, debris box rentals of 20, 30 and 40 cubic yard containers for large cleanup jobs or tree removals; and the implementation of nine clean up days to be funded by the Los Altos Hills County Fire Protection District. These clean up days would be operated in one location, preferably at Foothill College. Concerning the contract with the Los Altos Garbage Company, he noted that there was a continuation clause in the present contract if the curbside (backyard) program was put in place. Also it was always the intention to have a curbside program and the yardwaste center was only to be a temporary facility. Bill Jones, General Manager - Los Altos Garbage Company, commented that he was available to answer any questions Council or the public might have. In response to inquiries, he noted that mixed paper included junk mail, magazines, chipboard (cereal boxes,etc.), egg cartons and office materials. He also noted that they were considering expanding the clean up days to include clean bulky goods which were then donated to appropriate organizations. The following residents addressed the Council in support of keeping the Purissima Yardwaste Center open: Stephanie Munoz, 13460 Robleda; Albert Moms, 26520 St. Francis Drive; Steve Kelem, 26323 Esperanza; Paul Reneau, 13149 Byrd Lane; William Downey, 14330 DeBell Drive; Rick McAulay, 27507 Elena; Charles Wright, 26570 Purissima Road; Steve Schmidt, 13061 Byrd Lane; John Miller, 27462 Sunrise Farm Road; Mildred Gallo, 25720 La Lanne Court; Jeffrey Mal, 13620 Golden Hill Court; Charles Garbett, 13906 Page Mill Road; Pete Foley, 13124 Byrd Lane; Bob DeGrasse, 26755 Robleda; Robert and Wendy MacRitchie, 26630 Purissima Road; Ruth Morrison, 27644 Purissima Road; Joe Cannon, 12879 Viscaino Road; Denise Del Carlo, 13117 La Barranca; Kay Barchas, 27142 Elena Road; Shell Karlsson, 12251 Menalto Drive; Martin Knutson, 27999 Via Ventana; Janet Johnson, 12911 Atherton Court; Jim September 17, 1997 Regular City Council Meeting Abraham, 12831 Viscaino Road; John Shea, 26400 Aric Lane; Charles Amey, 12111 Foothill +II Lane; Gerald Ferrari, 25860 Altamont Road; Beth Bakenhus, 26880 Elena Road; Mark Hoopes, 26765 St. Francis Drive; Don Harriman, 26987 Elena; Marcia McKee, 13888 Fremont Pines Lane; and Bill Eckert, 13671 Old Altos Road. Those in support of keeping the yardwaste center open stated that they did not think the backyard program would work in the Town because of the large lots and large amount of trees and landscaping. They further believed that to close the yardwaste center would have a serious negative effect on fire safety because residents would not be so inclined to keep their property clear. In addition it was noted that illegal dumping would probably increase. They commented that the clean up days were already quite crowded and if the yardwaste center was closed this would become an even worse situation. Residents present did not particularly support the proposed extra nine clean up days as an alternative stating the same problems of long lines, crowds, etc. Residents did acknowledge that there were some organizational problems at the yardwaste center which should be addressed. Suggestions included requirement that residents only with identification to be allowed to deposit yardwaste (no professional landscapers); installation of a stop sign to help traffic; relocation to possibly Westwind Bam or Purissima/Arastradero; limitation to just yardwaste - no recycling; and relocation of corporation yard and reconfiguration of yardwaste center to have an in/out gate. Chris Smith, 25521 Altamont Road and Kathleen Kells, 27990 Via Ventana addressed the Council in support of the proposed backyard pick up program. Jack Weissman, 12119 Foothill Lane, strongly urged the Council to go out to bid for solid waste services. He did not agree with continuing at this time with Los Altos Garbage Company without going through the bid process. Mary Ginzton, 28012 Natoma Road, commented that she would like to see a chipper made available. Sandra Humphries, 26238 Fremont Road, supported home composting and recycling W4W and noted that she was concerned about any increased costs to the residents. Alex Cheng, 12854 LaBarranca Road, commented that he used the yardwaste center frequently but if it were closed he would continue to clear his property with whatever program was available. Johnson referred to a survey which in part asked who used the yardwaste center. The results indicated approximately 30% of the residents used the center and Johnson questioned whether all residents should subsidize the 30% who used the yardwaste center. He did however state that he liked the new plan but was concerned about closing the yardwaste center without knowing if the new plan would work. He suggested keeping the yardwaste center operating for six to nine months while the backyard program was put into place. Johnson also suggested that the yardwaste center be relocated. Hubbard supported the curbside program. He believed there were safety concerns at the present location and the yardwaste center had a negative impact on the Town's corporation yard. He also did not think there were any other locations in Town where it could be moved. Hubbard further commented that the curbside program would reduce the amount of yardwaste at the monthly clean ups thereby reducing the lines and crowds. Dauber recommended continuing the contract with the Los Altos Garbage Company and continuing to work on formulating a design for yardwaste which would work for the Town. Siegel noted that the Town had a unique solid waste disposal system. There were two distinct communities in the Town: those who did their own landscaping and those who had gardeners. The solid waste program could not address all issues and perhaps the removal of trees was actually the responsibility of the resident and should not necessarily be part of the solid waste services offered. From experience the Town knew that to allow residents only to use the yardwaste center did not work. Residents worked when it was open and wanted to send their gardeners or residents were physically unable to come to the center themselves. Also the clean up days could result in long lines and crowds if the yardwaste center was closed. On the subject of the present September 17, 1997 Regular City Council Meeting location, Siegel believed it would take about $100,000 to fix it. Or perhaps the corporation yard i should be moved. These were all questions which needed to he addressed in his opinion. Casey supported closing the yardwaste center. She did not believe the majority of residents used it; there were safety issues, illegal dumping was a problem and this misuse was very difficult to correct. Council agreed to send these issues back to the Council Subcommittee of Dauber and Hubbard for review and comment. In addition to the comments made by both Council and residents at this hearing, Council urged anyone with additional comments, specific recommended solutions to some of the problems, recommended options, etc. to send a letter with their information. PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To continue this item to the September 30, 1997 City Council Meeting for extension of the current contract with Los Altos Garbage Company for four months and to send the issue to the Council Subcommittee (Dauber and Hubbard) for review. 11.2 Request for a Site Development Permit for a new residence with attached garage and a secondary dwelling unit with detached garage and modification of an existing conservation easement, Lands of Kems, 11888 and 11885 Francemont Drive The Planning Director presented the following outline of the Kems application process to date: • Planning Director meeting with Bill Kerns on 12/3/96; discussed feasibility of building site on ridge; needs to be one story and driveway and geotechnical concerns must be addressed. • Planning Director, Suzanne Davis meeting with Bill Kems and architect on 1/17/97; 4,000 square foot house plus garage suggested; key issues identified as visibility from open space, one story height, driveway, and Fire Dept. requirements. • Plan submittal on 4/14/97. • Review memo from Engineering on 4/16/97: `Both driveway designs require cuts and fills that are greater than the maximums allowed by the Town's grading guidelines. The maximum slopes proposed for both designs are greater than the Fire Department's allowed 15% and are greater than the Town's maximum average 15% over the entire length of the driveway." • Revised plans and review memo from Engineering on 7/2/97; conditions of approval, but with same comments as 4/16/97 memo regarding driveway; also, identifies lack of information regarding trees and response to geotechnical review of driveway retaining walls. • Meeting with Planning Director, Suzanne Davis, Sheryl Proft, Mr. and Mrs. Kerns, architect on 7/8/97; driveway design not acceptable; need additional information (sections, trees, geotechnical, etc.); can either defer Planning Commission review or staff will recommend continuance for further information; applicant chooses the latter. • Planning Commission meeting of 7/23/97; staff recommends continuance; Commission continues to 8/27 meeting; staff receives Alternate "C" alignment too late to review for report; comments to Commission at meeting regarding concerns. • Staff meeting of Planning Director, City Manager, Sheryl Proft, Suzanne Davis, and Fire Marshal on 7/31/97; determine that driveway design is unacceptable and should recommend denial; Planning Director contacts Mr. Kerns. September 17, 1997 Regular City Council Meeting • Meeting on 8/6/97 with all staff and Mr. and Mrs. Kerns, architect and engineer; qW inform applicants of determination that driveway safety, disturbance, visibility, etc. is not adequately mitigated and will recommend denial; applicants wish to move ahead. • Planning Commission meeting of 8/27/97; traffic and drainage analyses submitted too late for review in report; comments made at meeting; Commission denies application, based on driveway, house size and visibility, grading, and second unit. • Applicants appeal Planning Commission denial; public hearing scheduled for 9/17/97 City Council Meeting. The City Engineer addressed the issues of the slope and steepness of the driveway. The Town's standards included a 15% maximum slope but this driveway was well over this maximum (20%). The driveway was long, narrow, not practical and had a limited site distance. The City Engineer also stated that drainage was a problem. Concerning the pathway it was possible that horses would not be able to use it because of the steepness of the driveway. While the path could be signed stating this, it would be quite difficult to enforce. Staff did not recommend approval of the driveway as proposed. Bill Kerns, applicant, stated that they had redesigned their plans based on comments made by the Planning Commission and staff. They understood there were two approved building sites on this property and they wanted to build on the top lot They also understood the driveway was a key issue but three of the driveway options presented to them by their consultants Giulani & Kull had been approved by the Fire Department. He understood that if a proposed driveway was approved by the Fire Department it could then be approved by the Town. Mr. Kerns further commented that there were many other driveways in Town which were steeper and narrower than theirs. They did not agree with staff's recommendation not to build on the top lot. They planned to keep all the trees except for a very few and in fact planned to plant more. They had designed a low profile house, had minimized the impact of the house from off site, had surrounded the house with trees and had the support of the neighbors. Bill Maston, applicant's architect, addressed the siting of the house on the top lot. He explained how it was nestled in the side of the hill and how they had stepped the house down. On the lower lot they planned to put the guest house. Regarding the road, he noted that it was a private road which would be controlled by a gate. The road which was there was stable and had been for years. Their road would also provide fire access for use by the Fire Department. Susan Roberts, Giuliani and Kull, applicants' engineers, reviewed the road options which they had presented to the Kerns. Their goals were to preserve the oaks, meet the fire department's criteria and minimize retaining walls and amount of grading. Gordon Lum, TJKM Transportation Consultants, explained their review of the proposed driveway for their clients, the Kerns. He presented a technical review of the traffic concerns and their results noting that this was a private drive with a gated entry. He did not believe certain of the Town guidelines applied in this case. He further commented that two cars would not be coming at each other at the same time on this road and it was his professional opinion that this driveway was safe. Joe Crosby, applicant's geotechnical consultant, stated that based on the new surface bedrock conditions on the site, it was their opinion that the introduction of collected water in the planned area s of the slope would not pose a deep-seated stablilty problem. To minimize any chance of erosion, however, they recommended the placement of additional energy disipator systems where practical. September 17, 1997 Regular City Council Meeting Roger Spreen, 11970 Rhus Ridge Road, supported the Planning Commission and staff s 't► recommendations of denial for this complicated project. He was President of the Rhus Ridge Homeowners Association and was involved with the Open Space District. He believed there were several issues of concern about this project especially its negative impact on open space. Liz Dana, 25700 Bassett Lane, expressed her concerns about the visual impact of this project. She did not think the upper lot was the appropriate location for the house. Jean Struthers, 13690 Robleda Road, gave a brief history of this particular area of Town and emphasized the importance of open space in Los Altos Hills. Mrs. Struthers believed this project had a negative impact not only on the open space but also on the local plant life and further noted that it was the upper site which had the building restrictions, not the lower site. She referred to the Town's General Plan and she stated that houses should not be built on ridge lines Michael Marshall, Los Altos, supported building on the lower site but not the upper. He did not think the project was consistent with the Town's design guidelines and also believed that it was highly visible. Mr. Marshall thought this house would intrude on the natural corridor. Sandra Humphries, 26238 Fremont Road, did not support this project as proposed and reminded Council that not only staff and the Planning Commission but also the Pathways Committee and the Environmental Design and Protection Committee had recommended denial of this project. The City Attorney commented on the references to building sites and stated that having two areas available for building did not mean that the Town was required to allow development in a specific area. She noted that building envelopes were not shown on final maps and the Town's Site Development Ordinance was not preempted. She also referred to the history of this lot and V4W certain of the conditions of approval. In particular she noted conditions of the 1988 Parcel Map that indicated the necessary analysis of the appropriateness of building on the lot In reference to a question from Mrs. Kerns asking if the Council could state they could not build on the upper site, the City Attorney responded that yes that was the case. Siegel commented that he realized this was a difficult site and that a lot of work had been done on this application but he did not think it was a safe building site and could not support the project. Casey reminded Council that in 1988 she and Johnson and Siegel had been on the Council when this parcel map had been approved. She referred to one of the conditions of approval for this parcel map which stated that "The house on Lot #3 shall be a single story home as it is on a ridge line." and suggested that this clearly indicated a buildable upper lot. Casey further commented that this was a single house on twenty acres and it did not intrude on the ridge line. She further believed the driveway issue had been resolved and they had tried to meet the design guidelines. Johnson stated that he had visited the site and while he liked the project he could not support it. He respected the City Engineer's professional opinion on the driveway and he also believed the project had a negative visual impact on the surroundings. Hubbard commended the Kerns for their efforts but did not believe the siting of this house was in conformance with the Town's Code. In addition he commented that this was not the only site on the property. Dauber commented that she was sorry the applicants had put so much time and money into this application but she could not support it for the following reasons: 1) driveway; 2) gives appearance of a subdivided property; 3) unprecedented site; 4) fire issue - driveway too narrow for the number of fire trucks often needed to fight a fire; and 5) support of staff — belief in staff s judgement and recommendation which was a strong denial of this project for safety reasons. September 17, 1997 Regular City Council Meeting MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Dauber, seconded by Siegel and passed by r the following roll call vote to deny the request for a site development permit for a new residence with attached garage and a secondary dwelling unit with detached garage and a modification of an existing conservation easement based on the finding for denial dated September 17, 1997 with the additional finding that the project does not comply with Section 10-2.701 of the Site Development Ordinance. AYES: Mayor Pro Tem Johnson and Councilmembers Dauber, Hubbard and Siegel NOES: Mayor Casey 12. ADJOURNMENT There being no further new or old business to discuss, the City Council Meeting was adjourned at 12:15 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Patricia Dowd City Clerk The minutes of the September 17, 1997 City Council Meeting were approved at the September 30, 1997 City Council Meeting. September 17, 1997 Regular City Council Meeting 10