Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-03-1976 City Council Minutes MINUTES SARATO(A'.CITY COUNCIL TIME: Wednesday, March 3, 1976 - 7:30 P.M. PLACE: Saratoga City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California TYPE: Regular Meeting I. ORGANIZATION A. ROLL CALL Present:' Councilmen Brigham, Corr, Kraus, Matteoni, Bridges Absent: None B. MINUTES Councilman Kraus requested that his comments relative to his vote on the matter of the Fremont Union School. District property be added to the minutes of February 18th. He further suggeste_d i~n_ the~t~_u~t_ure wh~re there are comments against a particular issue, ~n~d~'l~h.'~'~5~,'~i~!~_c.t~'~.~d~!'.k~vise, these comments be included in the minutes. It was then moved by Councilman Brigham and' seconded by Councilwoman Corr the minutes of February 18 be approved, as 'amended, and the reading be waived. The motion was carried. II. CONSENT CALENDAR A. COMPOSITION OF CONSENT CALENDAR It was moved bv Councilman Brigham and seconded bv Councilman Kraus the Consent Calend~r.~i)~p~'it~'66~e~pproved. The mo'tion was carried. B. ITEMS FOR CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Final Map Approval and Execution of Building Site Approval Agreement (SDR-1187, Boyd Ingle, ~n Aches Road) · 2. Agreement Contract for Engineering Geologic Services 3. Agreement for Plan of.Community Recreation Between Los Gatos~Saratoga District Recreation Department and City of Saratoga 4. Resolution 764, Requesting Permission for Temporary Closure of State Highways on May 2, 1976 It was moved by Councilwoman Corr 'and seconded by Councilman Brigham the Consent Calendar be approved. The motion was carried. III. BIDS AND CONTRACTS None. IV. PETITIONS, ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTI(1NS . A. RESOLUTION NV-110 Resolution E~tablishin~ Left-Turn Lane on Prospect Road I~ was moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded by Councilwoman Corr Resolution MV-110 be adopted. The motion was carried. Councilwoman Corr commented with respect to a traffic problem involving cars turning off of Prospect Road and approaching the intersection of~Covina Court and Nerida Drive, and asked if this could be looked at again. 'Resolution No. MV-11:O (Cont'd.) The Public Works staff was directed to look at this intersection,. and report back to the Council in 30 days. B. RESOLUTION NO. 765 Resolution Reversing Planning Commission Decision and Granting of Variance to Virgil H. Voss, '14982 Sob~ Road. ~The~Cit.v- Man~ger2explained that this resolution is in follow up to the Council's action at the previ'ous City Council Meeting relative to the Voss appeal. Councilman Kraus indicated he would like to make another p'lea!~at~ C~uH~il not pass this resolution in that he felt since this "r~°'Wi~h-t~e land", the Council would continually' be faced with this problem. It was then moved by Councilman B~igham and seconded by Councilwoman Corr Resolution 765 be adopted. Councilman Matteoni indicated he would like'to propose an amendment, that being if the corral and stable is not used for 6 consecutive months for the purpose of.maintaining a horse, 'that the variance would automatically become void and of no further force and effect. Councilwoman Corr seconded this amendment, and it.was'approved, 4 to l, with Councilman Kraus voting in opposition. The motion to adopt Resolution 765 as adopted was then approved on a 4 to 1 vote, with Councilman Kraus in opposition. C. INITIATIVE MEASURE TO AMEND SARATOGA GENERAL PLAN Mr. Beyer discussed the City Clerk's report and certification concerning the Initiative Petition which was filed by his offi'ce on February 9, 19~6. He reported that there were 2,839 signatures checked~, with 2,221 bein~ found valid, and there were 2,194' va~lid signatures necessary to meet the 15% requirement of registered voters submitted to the Secretary of State. He indicated if the Council determined this initiative to be legal. and subject to the initiative process, there wou~d be two alternati've actions to consider this evening: 1) introduce the'ordinance without'alteration, and adopt the ordinance withinlO days after'it is presented; or 2) immediately order a special election to be held not less than 74, nor more than 89 days after the date of the order, at which time the ordinance, without alteration, would be submitted to the voters of the City. The Mayor acknowledged the City Attorney's written legal opinion, dated February 18, 1976. The City Attorney clarified that his recommendation is that in view of the state of the law, it would be an i~position on the voters to put this matter on the ballot since it is the type of thing which cannot legally be adopted by the initiative process. Jeff Otterman, Attorney from San Jose, addressed the Council, indicating he is present to speak on behalf of the Friends of Painless Parker, and to recommend to the Council that the initiative measure be placed on the ballot. Mr. Otterman commented that the pe6ple he represents have demonstrated that the City AttOrney's characterization of the positions on the initiative have been nuite distorted. However, he stated he would prefer to address his comments to the law as to whether or not the City Council has the authority to place the measure on the ballot.. He stated that the law in California is that in a very rare case, a court will enjoi.n the placement of the initiative measure on the ballot if it decfdes that there is no question but that the initiative measure if enacted would be unconstitutional or illegal. He commented that in this case, there!are some fairly complicated issues~ He indicated that it is a fact that it hasn't'been decided by the Supreme Court whether or not the voters by theinitiative process can amend.the General Plan, and this is a matter ~e felt should be determined by the courts. -2- Initiative Measure (Cont'd.) Mr. Otterman indicated that it is possible this initiative measure is uncons.titutional, and if so, there would be no harm in holding the election or bring a taxpayers' suit into ~Z~O~'t ".of ]~wL to determine this before the election is heldl However, he felt the responsibility is on the part of the taxpayers toseek and enjoin the placement of that measure on the ballot. Russell Crowther, 20788 Norada Court, indicatedhe would like to touch on a few points in his l'etter submitted to the Council on this date. He referenced Table I, which summarized some of the restrictions of the petition which he felt were 'excluded in the City Attorney's letter. He pointed out the second item o n the petition which requires that no ~ot within 1,000 feet of the Slope Conservation Zone may be less than a 1-acre average. He stated that this is not exactly correct, as the lot size is"not specified, but the standards oflbuilding intensity. He's~eferenced Section 65302 of the GoVernment Code, which indicates that the land use element of the General Plan shall in- clude standards of building intensity. Mr. Crowther stated than another i.temin the CityAttorney's le~t~ states that it prohibits cut'and fill on slopes 15% or greater. He i'n~icated tha{ the petition states clearly that "cut and fill in excess of 3 feet in depth shall not be approved on slopes in' excess of 15% which are classified as having high lands].ide potential from available soils and geological infor- mati on". With regard to lot size, Mr. Crowther indicated that the City Attornev makes a statement that 'the petition is specifying minimum'lot size', and thi~ is not the case. He stated that the initiative measure modifies existing criteria in the General Plan, for example, the present General Plan states that Slope Conservation zoning would permit a maximum 1' unit per l'~a~f6rmula to apply, and this has been changed to 2½ acres in the petition. Mr. Crowther further referenced comments in the'City Attorney's letter regarding scenic beauty restrictions, etc., and felt these comments were not 'an accurate description of the intent or content of the petition. He indicated an example of a case where the Council has implemented some of the policies in the petition without modify. ing the existinq zoning laws was adoption of the interim resolution which ~i~s~ftu~e~'~he sa~e slope ~ensi ty equasion, and without modifying any zonin6 ~e~Gl~=~iOhs. Therefore, he would argue this point in the City Attorney's letter. Mr. Crowther stated he has heard comments that perhaps the neople who signed this petition did not fully understand what they were signihg. He agreed that this is probably true; however, he felt almost everyone who signed the petition knew that it was directed to greater restricting land use in the hillside areas -- better controlling 'and putting tighter constraints on it -- and everyone who signed it had tha~ intent in m~nd. He further advised'that he has bee~ informed by the Registrar of Voters Office- that this measure could be put on the June Ballot, and would not require a special election. Gary Brumbaugh, 20896 Maureen Way,'commented that he is disappointed about the fact that people have gotten out, and possibly have come to the point of being a majority opinion in Saratoga. 'He commented that the proposed development is not what the people of Saratoga'want, and this is what the Ci'ty Council should find out; it it is a majority opinion, it will be taken care of in the ballot box, and if it is a minority opinion, that may very well be taken care of in the courts. John Weir, 12343 Arroyo de Arguello, commented on an opinion signed by Judge Hall in 1964-65, a decision which he felt in some regards has a common relationship to this iss'ue. He indicated that the Town Attorney in Los Gatos had advised the Council that the ordinance was not subject to r~ferendum, whereon the Council refused the petitioner's request. However, the Judge states in this document that there is no question:that the right of ~eferendum has been re- served to the people (in this case, Los Gatos) by California's ConstitOtion. Initiative Measune ( "It is the fundamental that the right of referendum is not a privilege granted to the citizens by their lawmakers, but rather, it is a right reserved by the citizens to themselves, when they in the formation of their government invested their legislature with governing power." It is' also stated: "Generally and historically, however, the courts have been liberal in constitutional and statutory instruction, and so have acted in favor of the reserved night of referendum on_,in!lti~tive." Councilman Matteoni commented he personally believes there is great diffi- culty with this Initiative Petition in that it is not easy to interpret, and it is not set up as an ordinance for a change in the General Plan. Also, he stated that it is inconsistent in the'formula it calls out, ~ith Monte Bello Ridge!Plan; rather, the~Initiative Petition speaks to that most strict formula which the County has applied when there iS n~ither water nor sewer available. He stated he is not in favor of putting an arbitrary formula for which he has not seen any factual datato su~po~t~it,' fd~'~he ' ~v6~o they can vote on the sentiment, which is for greater restr~int~ ~o~'i~lside development. He i~he would strongly not recommend adoption of this ordinance or the formula ~hich .it proposes. Councilman Kraus stated that it is the opinion of the City Attorney that in a General Law city any regulation, by whatever name we cal~l it, which imposes regulations and is subject. ~o Government Code as such may not be adopted by the initiativ~e~6cess~ '~ 'Also, ~he~e~ Attorney ~a~sit~d~T~eral Appelate Court rulings SG~S~n~i'a{'~'~s opinion.' ~uncil~n~ Kraus~stated ~ that the requirements for adopting amendments to zoning regulations or amendments to the General Plan are the same -~ that is. holding public hearings with public notice, both at the Planning Commission and the Council level. He.then partially quoted from one of the cases sited in Mr. Johnston's opinion: "Planning Commissions and legislative bodies are required by law to afford all interested persons a full and fair hearing on the merits of their respective claims. Moreover, the election offers the voters but a single choice to either accept or reject the proposal in its entirety. Alegislative body, however, is empowered to modify as well as reject or approve a recommendation of the Planning Commission, thereby enabling it to consider and take into accountSits actions, the legitimate claims and suggestions of those who wouldbeaffected by the proposal, even though they may represent a small segment of the electorate." It was his feeling this offers substantial evidence of the process that should be followed for amendments or changes to the General Plan or zoning regulations; therefore, he would vote against placi-ng the initiative on the ballot. Councilwoman Corr indicated her own pensonal feeling abou~ adopting an initiative as presented is the fact that itthen becomes a part of the City's Code, which the Council or Commission have no control over if changes are needed, and it would.have to go back to the voters. She felt perhaps in future years, this is something which may be passed over carelessly, if this interest is not maintained; therefore, she indicated'she would rather go through the process of public hearings before the Commission and the Council. Mayor Bridges indicated he feels government does have a responsibility to its constituants to effect the kind of development that' they want to have. He indicated that the Council has heard the concerns of the proponents on this issue, and in his case, he doesn'tT~e~ ~hat some~fL'~a~v~li~; rather, he believes the built-in controls andthe fact that the City let the land prove itself in the process is really the key thing. It was then moved by Councilman Matteoni and seconded by Councilman Kraus that the Council accept the City Attorney's opinion analyzing the Initiative Petition, and based on this opinion, determine that it is not a legal matter for petition and refuse to put it on the ballot. The motion was carried on a 4 to 0 vote, Councilman Brigham abstaining 6n the basis that he'did not wish to vote on the matter. V. SUBGI~V!SIONS,.~BUI[DI'NGS-ITES AND ZONI~NG REQUESTS None. -4- VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE NO. 61.1, AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR.A FOUR-MONTH EXTENSION OF ORDINANCE NO. 61, PLACING A MORATORIUM ON CONDOMINIUM AND OTHER COMMUNITY HOUSING'CONVERSIONS FROM RENTAL HOUSING IN SAID CITY, PENDING ADOPTION' OF PERMANENT..COMMUNITY HOUSING CONVERSION REGULATIONS The City Manager explained that this ordinance is before the Council to consider extending the.moratorium for another four months, due to the un- expected continuance of ~ number of Planning issues-addthe Planning Department's inability to comolete the work on the proposed regulations. The Mayor opened the public hearing at 8:42 P.M.' Jerry Lohr, 18755 Montewood D~ive, ~ddressed the Council, commented that they just received a draft of this froposed ordinance today. It was his feeling if the City goes ahead and puts many person hours into adopting this draft, it will become a'moot point as to whether there are'any conversations an~vay. He stated that one of the requirements is thatthe City have a rental housing inventory~of greater than 2% of the total housing, and the City has well less than this. 'He stated that in effect, tfiis ordinance would preclude any conversions unless 2/3 of the people in the parti'cular project wanted to convert~ Therefore,The felts. there was going'to be a lot of 3~9 spent in hearing'this, and all'to no avail in the end. ' .... Mayor Bridges commented that the C~unci'l's concern is that the city is fast running out of rental'housing because of conversions to condomi'nium. He indicated that'the General Plan calls for a mix, and. the Council may be put into a position of rezoning other'areas to accommodate this kind of a mix. Mr. Lohr stated that for the pas{ 3~ years, they have'been hoping for a retirement housing ordinance ~o they could build 'retirement housing in the city. Therefore, they would be interested'in'creating some of'this retirement housing inventory.'and'he would li'ke to seethe public hearing time spent in adopting an ordinance of that type so they can build proper housing while people can still.afford ilt and Whi.le we still have land available for it. Councilwoman Corr askedMr~ Lohr i.f when he speaks of retirement housing, he is talking about'rental units. Mr. Lohr replied that their proposal on the CampbellCage Company several years ago was to build part for-sale and part rental. Bernie Turgeon, 14355 Sarat~)Av6nue, con~nented that he would just like to remind Councilman Matteoni that he said "30 days" when this ordinance went in. It was then moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded by Councilman Brigham the public hearing be closed. The motion~Imas carried; the oublic hearing was closed at 8:45 P.M. It was moved bv Councilman Kraus'and seconded'by Councilman Brigham the Council ~,~d6~t~.O~dTna~6.'~61~l'~l'16~i~'f~r~-~6n~extension, to June 21, 1976. f~ 'm~ti ~n ~a~ ~ea~U,~i~o(s~-' ........ '" B. CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE NO. 38.:63-1, AN AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE NO. 38.63, RELATING TO WEED AND RUBBISH ABATEMENT The City Manager explained that several weeks ago, the Director of Public ' Works had reported 'a recommendation that certain amendments be made to the existing_Weed Abatement Ordi'nance, particularly,so that the City would recoup ~a'~ater-~rtion of the costs for operating 'the program each year. The City 'C6~'nCi-T'~ad"~ndicated its interest i.n recouping all 6f the costs for operating the program, and not just a minimum amount, and this ordinance would include those provisions. Ordinance No. 38.63-1 Re: Weed Abatement (Cont'd.) Councilman Kraus indicated he would like the wordage on page 2, Section 6-7, second paragraph, requiring that the owner be billed for all costs, including a minimum $50.00 toward the administration costs, be changed .to be consistent with the word i~ on page 3, Section 6-10, i.n~luding all costs of administration ($50.00 mfnim~. The City Attorney indicated there are other types of costs rather than administration costs, and this shouldn't be limited to a $50.00 minimum. The City Manager indicated 'he would think Councilm~n Kraus would want Page 3 to read the same as Page 2, as it is talking about all costs, and~ then clarifying that there is a minimUm, 6.f $50 O0:for administration.'costs. TheCity Attorney suggested-tha~ i't w6u~d not be necessa~y~'for'the-City to publish a complete re-statement. of the entire Weed Abatement Ordinance as it is adopted; rather, only those two sections being modified would need to be re-stated. The Mayor then opened the public hearing at 9:52 P.M. ~There--bei'ng.no--further ~omments o~ thi's matter, it was moved by Councilman 'K~aus~and:seconded~b,y-C6~ncilman Brigham the public hearing be closed. The motion was carried; the public hearing was closed at 9:53 P~M. It was then moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded by Councilman Brigham Ordinance No. 38.63-1 be introduced, and the reading waived. The motion was carried unanimously. · VII. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS ~ A. MAYOR 1.Extended congratulations to Peggy Corr and NormMatteoni for their success in the election. B. COUNCIL AND COMMISSION REPORTS 1. Parks and Recreation CommissionIRe: Approval of Grading. Plan for Foothill Park It was mov~ed by Councilman Krausand seconded by Councilman Brigham approval of the grading plan for Foothill Park development. The motion was carried unanimously. 2. Request from West Valley Youth Service Bureau Kdvi~ory Board t6 Appoint Three PersOns tO R~p~ace Those,Member~ Who Have Resigned It was-the ~ecommendation' of'the'Cit~iManager~the COuncil ~ppoint this evening one new member, Susan Paci~li, r6p~i~'RTd~d'S~h~l, and authorize his office to advertise for ~h~ remaining t~o 'poSitions. F I't was movedby ~ouncilman Kraus and seconded by CouncHman~Matteoni the · Ci~ Manager~s~ recommendation'beapproved .Ihe motion was carried. 3. Councilman Brigham - Reported that a~ the 'last meeting of P.P~C., there was a presentation on the Water Conservation Program, and it was indicated representatives would come before the City Council, if interested. 4. Councilman Brigham - Reported that the Transportation Sub-committee is meeting jointly with the Transportation Commission to come up with recon~endations on MPC-ABA~ Corridor Study. 5. Councilman Brigham - Reported P.P.C. pass bus transportation stations routing and service policies tothe cities. C. DEPARTMENT HEADS AND OFFICERS 1. Director of Public Works - Report Re: Thdrouqhfare Street Liqhtin~, Sample Installation at Horseshoe Drive - 6- Thoroughfare Street Lighting Cont'd.)~ Mr. Shook reported that the sample lights have been up for the 90 day trial period, and recommended that the Council proceed to make a decision in order that this program coul'd be implemented. The Mayor asked that this item be agendized for the next regular meeting on March 17th to allow everyone on the Council to view the lamps at this location. 2. Director of Public Works Report Re: Drainage Problems at Carniel Avenue and Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. Mr. Shook, Director of Public Works, reported that as a result of the petition presented sometime ag0 regarding the standing water on Carniel at its intersection with the h~ghway, the City has met with Cal-Trans and determined that the real solution to this problem is related to the development of the property across the highway; and the filtering of water into this orchard. He advised the City would again be meeting with the State i~n an attempt to improve this situation, and this is hoped to be accomplished within'a monthto 60 days. The Co~il Cg~_~nu~e~._~b~.~mat~er for 60 days, and asked that a c'p"~e~s report be forthcomi~g on that date. 3. Planning Director Report Re: Temporary Us~.Ordinance Mr. Van Duyn, Planning Director, reported that the Council would be receiving the Temporary Use Ordinance which has gone through a series of public hearings before the Planning Commission, and'this ordinance would cover such activities as~the Rota~v Art~Sh~T D. CITY MANAGER 1. Referendum Petition on Parker Ranch - Reported that he has received the Referendum Petition, and would soon be in the process of having these signatures verified. 2. Claim for Damages - Orville L.'and Josephi.ne Johns Re: Damages to Private Property Upon the recommendation of the. City Manager, it was moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded by Counci'lman Brigham the claim be denied and referred to the City's insurance carrier for handling. The motion was carried. VIII. COMMUNICATIONS A. WRITTEN 1. Bill Heiss, Jennings-McDermott-Heiss, Inc., 925 Regent Street, San Jose, Re: Proposed Hillside Conservation Ordinance. - It was agreed that this letter should be made a part of the considerations at the Cor~ittee of of the Whole Meeting on this ~bject Tuesday., March 9th. 2. Mr. and Mrs. Charles Hunter, 20846 Meadow Oak Drive, Re: Parker Ranch - The Mayor proceeded to answer each of the five questions posed in Mr. and Mrs. Hunter's letter, and asked that this be followed up in writing by the City Manager. 3. Dan McCorquodale, Chairperson,;Board of Supervisors, requesting the Council support suggestions to the Solid Waste Management Plan - The City Manage~ commented that this plan has been thrown into limbo because the City of San Jose has rejected it - 7- Written Communications (Cont'd.) 4. Taro Yamagami, A.I.L.A., P. O. Box 581, expressing appreciation for ' being able to present his case' Re: sale of fireworks in the City of Saratoga. It was moved by Counciman Matteoni and seconded by Councilman Brigham the Council reconsider its previous action regarding the fireworks ban, and this be agendized for the next regul'ar-Council Meeting on March l'7th. The motion was carried, 3 to 2, with Councilman Kraus and Councilwoman Corr in opposition. 5. Richard Delong, .City: Manager, ~ity of Mountain View, enclosing Resolution Supporting Half~Cent Sales Tax! Proposal for Santa Clara County Transit OPerations - Noted and filed.. 6. Mrs. Iliene C. Simonsen, 13833 Yerba Santa Court, requesting relief from maintenance of the landscaped area on' the corner of'Allendale Avenue and Fruitvale AvenUe. ~-Continued to future Committee of'the 'Whole Meeting. 7. Marlene Q.. Duffin, West Valley Youth. Service Bureau Advisory Board Member, expressing concerns and suggestions regarding this organization. - Noted; yC-i!ty 'Manager- to-respOnd7 ~ 8. Copy of letter to the West Valley College G6verning_'~oard from John and Pat Hammett, 15185 Alondra Lane, supporting the installation of lights at the footba-llZstadium..- Noted and filed. 9. Carol La Marre, 19332 T~itus Court, regarding'the term of contract for services of City Attorney. -~Cguncil agreed to set this matter for di's- -cuss~ion~-at'~a~future 'E~eTCut~ve"S~oH. "~ 10. Ted C. Hinckley, P. O. Box 456; and Marc Catto, 14711 Bohlman Road, sub- mitting a petition concerning ~oadside-parking problems along and adjacent to Bohlman Road. - Continued to the next regular meeting on March 17th; Publ_i c-_ Works~to ,~epo~t.~ - , .........~.~~, ll. John Weir and Russell Crowther; Arguel'lo Homeowner's AssociatiOn, regarding City Atto~ney's interpretation'of the Initiat4ve Petition submitted at the February 4th City Council Meeting. - Noted and filed. B. O~L 1. John Weir, 12343 Arroyo de' Arguello, requested to read the shor~ letter which accompanied the Referendum Petition, and proceeded to do so. He asked that the City make reasonable haste in expediting this referendum. 2. RusSell Crowther, 20788 Norada Court, requested what the count was on the number of people who have written and requested their names be with- drawn from the Referendum Petition. - The City Manager replied that he had received 5 letters, and 5 to 6 telephone calls to date. ~..~ 3. Councilman Kraus co~ented that he had attended the Planning Co~ission Meeting last week, and the Commission expressed. some feeling with regard to the City Council's recent actions on a couple of cases the Commission had spent a great deal of time 'and effort in going through these issues. Councilman Kraus mehtioned the possibility of re-instituting the policy of having a member of the Planning Co~ission be available at the City Council Meeting in which an appeal is being considered, to present the Planning Co~ission's vi~ in reference to the appeal. He felt it might be appropriate for the Chairman of the Planning Commission to discuss some of these issues of concern. Oral Communications (Cont'd.) 4. Counci"lman Matteoni indicated .a similar remark, that being the. Council is not communicating with the Parks people as directly as they might. He suggested' some of the Parks issues be scheduled for future Committee of the Whole meetings. 5. Fred Lustig, 20304 Calle Montalvo,~(l~ated~bn+CounciI~an Kraus's comments with regard to Councfl acti~bh ~pe~ ~{~'~ng that the point that is frustrating to those on the Commission is ~hen the Council reo verses a Planning Commissionldecision without the Commission's side being heard, or the Council's'reasoning for the reversal. He suggested that when an appeal', such as the ~Voss Case, come~ before the CounCil,ct~e~Cd~i~i~on's ~e~fZ~h~:~at~F~fia~l~'B~'The~Fa.'~-"' ' ~'~?:'~'~T~~:''~'~ ' '~ ~Cou~c-il~n:KrausYstated that the.'PlanningDire~tor had given the CounCil a full report'on'this particular issue, as well as excerpts of the minutes; therefore, therb was a great deal of background and'reference on the Voss case. He asked that Mr. Lust~q discuss with 'the Commission the suggestion of establ'ishing'a policy whereGy a member of the Commission present any additional information it feels .is necessary at the time the matter is heard before the City Council. C. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF PUBbIC SERVICE REPRESENTATIVES Larry Tyler,-Good Government Group Marlene Duffin, Wi:ldwood Heights H.A. Sandi Cuenca, Chamber of Commerce John'Powers, qui~o Merchants Association John Weir, Arguello Homeowners. Assn. Fred,Lustig, Planning'Commission Marjorie Foote - A.A.U.W. Lynn 8elanger, Chairman, Pl'anning Comm. IX. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded by Councilman Matteoni the meeting be adjourned. The motion was carried; the meeting was.adjourned at lO:lO P.M. T___ResOectfu~bmitt~ - 9-