Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-07-1976 City Council Minutes MINUTES SARATOGA CITy COUNCIL TIME: · Wednesday, July 7, 1976 - 7:30 PM PLACE: Saratoga Ci.ty 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 Councilwomen Corr commented that on Item III, Bids and Contracts, the fact that the Consultant Service Agreement'for the environmental impact report was at no. cost to the City and should be stated as such in the ~inutes for future reference. Councilwomen Corr also stated Item VII D (3) and (8) should read June 29th. Councilman Brigham moved and CouncilWomen Corr seconded approval of the'minutes as amended. The motion was carried. ~ II. CONSENT CALENDAR A. COMPOSITION OF CONSENT CALENDAR It was moved by Councilman Kraus and Seconded by Councilman Brigham approval of the composition of the Consent Calendar. The motion was carried. 1. Construction Acceptance a) SDR-1022, Peter West, Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road b) SDR-1029, John W. or Christin~ Pace, La Paloma Avenue c) SDR-1205, Santos N. Aparicio,LElva Avenue ~ 2. Minute Resolution Accepting modification to Housing Assistance Plan 3. City Clerk's Financial Report 4. Payment of Claims It was moved by Councilman Brigham~hdi~s~-c~d~d~b~G~d~i'l'~an~s ~6~i~~ for the Consent Calendar, be approvedl The motion was carried. III. BIDS AND CONTRACTS IV. PETITIONS, ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS A. RESOLUTION NO. 779 Resolution Adopting a¥C6~]'~Jof Interest Code Applicable to the Members of the City Council Pursuant ~o~'~olitical Reform Act of 1974 The City Manager recommended that no action be taken.this evening and a public hearing be scheduled for August 4, 1976, for further consideration of this matter. This was approved by the Council and the public hearing scheduled for August 4th. B. RESOLUTION NO. 780 Resolution Altering and Establishing Fee Schedule Mr. Fred Hassett, Chairman of the Board of the Saratoga Drama Group suggested a joint meeting between the three drama groups and the Council to discuss the background for the revision of the fee schedule..' The Mayor scheduled such a meeting for July 13th at the Committee of the Whole meeting.to discuss this matter further. C. RESOLUTION NO. 85-9.25. A Resolution Amending ResolutiOn 85-9, 85-9.16 and 85-9.20, ReviSing Salary Ranges, Personnel Policy and Fringe Benefits for Non-Management Employees of the City of Saratoga. ~Mayor commended the Management Negotiating Team and the representatives from the Saratoga Employees' Association for their efforts in reaching an. agreement without the aid of a state medigtor. It Was moved by Councilman Brigham and seconded by Councilman Kraus to approve the resolution revising personnel policy for the City of Saratoga. The motion was carried. · D. ORDINANCE NO. 3,8.68 Ordinance of the City of Saratoga AmendinE Chapter 9 of the Saratoga City Code by Repealing Certain ProvisiOns Creating ommercial and Passenger Loading Zones on Big Basin Way. It was moved by CounCilman.Kraus ~nd seconded by Councilwomen Corr to introdUee Ordinance 38.68, waiving the reading. Th~ motion.was carriedl E. APPEAL OF UP-300, GERALD AND PATRICIA RENN, 20625 MARION R6AD, TO ALLOW CONTINUATION OF A NON-CONFORMING COMMERCIAL USE IN A RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT The Mayor indicated there were written communications received on this matter from the following people: Donald E. and Dorothy M. Stamper, 20562 Marion Way, calling attention to the amount of traffic created by the customers of the Renn Oil Co., and their concern for the safety of the children in the neighborhood. George Whalen, 14140 Victor Place, supporting the efforts of the Renns to continue their operation within the City. The City Manager stated the CoUncil was provided with the requested inventory of the Renn property and this could be added as an exhibit to the Terms and Conditions of the proposed use permit. He further stated a report was prepared clarifying the intent to grant the office portion of the business a businesslicense at the time the phase-put occurs if so desired.' -2- Councilwoman Corr questioned an item on the inventory ~gncer~i'~'g'~h~'~5~ of full-time employees. She inquired if this total inked ~e- t~u'~'~'~vers. Mrs. Renn later commented that this total does include all of the truck drivers. Councilman Kraus asked Mrs. Renn if the above-ground tanks listed on the inventory could be put underground. 'Mrs. Renn commented tha~ they were not UnderwH'ter approved and as such could not go underground. Councilman Kraus inquired if it would be:a major expense to relocate the tanks elsewhere. She indicated it would be and that she did not know go in the yard underground without disturbing the orchard. Councilman Kraus further inquired if the=solvents in the tanks were "highsflash point" or "low flash point" materials.~. Mr. Renn replied that these materials were "high flash point" indicating they were not extremely~aT~ma~:. Councilman Matteoni stated in regards to, Item #6 he would like to ~a~e-some ad~t~'ona~ wording indluded that would limit the general sales volume, in gal~s~i~g a larger volume would bring in more customers. The Mayor then asked Mr. Renn if he would mind if the Council attached a gallonage figure that he could not exceed. Mr. Renn replied this would be ~i~'~if the amount was not cut anymore than his present figure. It was then moved by Councilman Kraus to grant the use permit, w.ith a lO-~ear phase out period and the addition u~de~ Item:#6 limiting the general sales volume to an average gallonage of 325 per day. The motion was seconded by Councilman Brigham. Councilman Matteoni moved to amend the previous motion ~o__Z7~ years, leaving the Planning Commission recommendations~i,nt~~~q~C~r~o~ded the motion. The motion was denied:yith Cou~il~n Bri~h~, Kra~d~M~ridges voting no. Councilman Kraus again motioned to approve the use permit, with a lO-year phase-out period and an addition under Item ~6 to limit the general sales volume to an average per day gallonage of 325, and deny the appeal. Councilman Brighman seconded the motion and it was carried~nanimously. V.: PUBLIC HEARINGS A. DE NOVO HEARING FOR CONSIDERATION OFTAPPEALS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION RE: USE PERMIT NO. 296 - LYNGSO GARDEN MATERIALS (Continued 6/2 and 6/16/76) 1. Appeal by John Lyngso, Leo Ott and Richard Gardellaon Conditions A, C, F and I, Imposed by the Planning Commission in Granting the Use Permit No. 296 to Lyngso Garden Materials. 2. Appeal by F. P. Tater and D. J. Sifferman of Planning Commission Deci~i6n to Grant Use Permit No~ 296 to Lyngso Garden Materials. The City Manager indicated there-was_a written communication from the following person: Richard E. Gardella; Attorney, 626 Winslow Street, Redwood City, responding to questions asked on June 16th pertaining to bin use and hours. -3- The Mayor opened the public hearing at 8:38 PM. Richard Gardella, 626 Winslow Street, Redwood City, addressed the Council with four main points. The first point ~'~h~{"th~'h~d-~i~s~:y'~'Qb~i~ted~a-~fti~on with a number of supporters, over 176'd~-~a~t6~a~~,~i~v6r~ Lyngso business~ He noted they had received another 100 or so names to be added to that petition. The second point Mr. Gardella spoke~F~'~Te~~~f'~i~',,J,, o~ ~he ~lanning Commission which woul~"~'quiF~'{hF of the diesel front-loader to propane.. He noted that this could not be done. They would have to purchase a gasolineL ~driven front-loader and then convert ~1~.~o propane to obtain this requirement. Mr. Gardella further stated that since the last meeting they had located a catalytic muffler which is designed for ~quipment of this type to permit operation in-doors..This muffler, he noted, was designed to eliminate virtually all ~and he felt it could do a better job than the conversion mentioned above. He then suggested that this be held as an alternative to satisfy the staff i~ meeting the terms of Conditon'"~". Mr. Gardella then noted that this information was just obtained a few week~ ago and would save Lyngso around $20,000 in equipment acquisition and. the~ felt it would do a better job. Mr. Gardella then ~bmitted a brochure on the referenced materialL The last point Mr. ardella mej~oD~d~was that they have moved most of the active material, the ones with the greater number.of customers thus~more activity, away from the rear up towards the front.~ He then ~ated that they did contact a property owner near the rear of the LyngsQ property who had not been heard from before and he told Mr. Gardelta he neither supported nor objected to the Lyngso operation. Councilman Brigham a~ked Mr. Gardella th~ cost of the catalytic muffler. Mr. Gardella replied that he understood {he price to be around $1,000.plus installation costs. Councilman Brigha~ then inquired to the ~ffectiveness of the muffler. are extremely effective, i~TS ~6T6~(6~ ~ fo~i~' priory' Us~ He noted the muffler was designed for almost complete elimination of fumes for loaders, fork-lifts, ahd other equipment, use inside warehouses, etc. Councilwoman CQrr asked if this muffler Would have any affect on the noise level. Mr. Gardella replied that noise-wise, the muffler is not one of the best, noting it was designed mainly for fumes. Councilman Kraus questioned the type of gasoline used and if the wrong kind was used whether it would damage the muffler: Mr. Gardella replied that' he understood that this muffler is not d~pendent upon:a certain typ~ of gasoline. Clair Althouse, 20659 Mario~,/Road addressed the Council. He asked the City Council when would they start to understand, or use the ordinance as a non-conforming ordinance in residential areaS( Mr. Althouse mentioned he.was a new resident to the-;City and felt that nothing was actually being accomplished on this matter. He suggested that the Council really look into the ordinance and what it actually implies. He also noted that the Lyngso operation has defin~tly increased in the last 2 years from his observatiohs. Fred Tater, 20577 Manor Drive, Saratoga, addressed the Council noting he would like to summarize the facts previously mentioned. He stated that it was his contention that the zoning ordinance, by law, allows for only a 1-year phase-out and this is their key-point. He also stated the City cannot issue a permit to a nuisance and this is' felt to be-their sec6nd point. Mr. Tater further stated that the elimination of the ~yng~o use is no~ a deleterious action, but indeed has~p6sitive_over~ones. Mr. Tater · noted that Lyngso has had a long time to amortize its losses - since the 1960'so and that Lyngso could re-locate his business where it is legal, the costs of re-location would be minimal and the property could be developed residentially at a substantial~profit. The final point Mr. Tater made was that this action would b~ing the property within the zoning ordinance and eliminate the nusiance factors in residential zoning. M~. Tater commented that these were his four main points. In reply to some of Mr. Gardella'~.~nput, Mr. Tater stated that Mr. Gardella made mentionsthat he had confi-~med the. ~lo~ng time of 8:00. In going back to the records, Mr. Tater noted that they found in 1973 a memo was sent from him to the City, summarizing the minutes of a meeting for negotiation purposes. He further.stated that the 8:00 PM closing-was discussed but the fact of its confirmation was never finalized. He noted this would have never been accepted. Don Sifferman, 12400 Greenmeadow Lane, addressed the Council statinQ that 'the various homeowners involved in the matter were very interested-in the comments Mr. Johnst6n made relative to the legal situation and that they would like to receive copies of the same. Mr. Sifferman.further stated that the key to the whole matter is that laws are passed for a reason and they exist to be enforced. Mr. Sifferman was provided with copies of the City Attorney's comments. 'R~cess~..R~onvene· M~'sSiff~rman continued noting that there was one point made in the past that was not commented to by Mr. Johnston. This was, he stated, he regard to Section 16.6'of the Zoning Ordinance which requires the City made three specific f~dings before a Use Permit may be granted to a non-conforming use. Mr. Sifferman then stated these three findings: (1) the location of the use is in accordance with the general objectives of the Zoning Ordinance~ and the purpose of the district - in this case, R-l, (2) the location and the use not be detrimental to the public's health, safety and welfare or injurious to the near-by property, and'(3) the use will apply to every applicabl~ provision of the Zoning Ordinance. He then summarized Section 1.1 - General Provisions of the Zoning Ordinance into 7 specific items that he felt the Lyngso operation could not meet. In conjuction with these items, Mr. Sifferman stated that Lyngso's operation could in no way preserve'~a~..re'si~ential, r~ral atmosphere a~d~achi6ve land use per the General Plan. He noted the General Plan land use specifically says that this will be zoned R-1-12,500. Mr. Sifferman then noted that the fact that they have been before the Council for three years indicates that the Lyngso operation cannot be in harmonious relationship with other land uses in the City. He further stated that as long as Lyngso is allowed to remain on the property that inharmonious relationships wil'l c6ntinue, independent of any and all provisions that the City may choose to place on the use. ~r. Sifferman quoted a~ statement from the General Plan, "to protect land uses conforming to the General Plan frominharmonious influences". He commented that the residential property does conform to the General Plan and Lyngso does not, noting the most appropriate use is residential and the City should move rapidly towards that use. -5- Mr. Sifferman then commented o~the traffic problem that has been s~oke~ to in the past and noted the Cha~6er of COmmerce has suggested iooki.n~.into~_.~ al ternati yes wjth Call forni aC_~P~Ft'~f~T~r~n~s'~_6F~t6~c_~o~[~. S[a_~f~i c ~i~t~T_cu~i~/this area. ~ · ~r. Sifferman also noted that the Lyngso operation had a negative influence on the-real property value of the adjacent property. ~e then commented on some of the goals of an ~-l district stating a main objective~was, "to protect residential proper~yfrom hazards, noise, congestion created by commercial and industrial traffic". On the subject of noise,~ ~r. Siffer~aninoted that two experts had been called in in 1973, each party having one on their behalf. The expert representing the HomeoWner's noted considerable vioiation of the noise or'dinance, while the one on behalf of Lyngso stated he did not feel there was a noise viblation. ~r. Sifferman stated that independent ~f these findings, noise was a prob)~m. Another goal~?_~ the ~:l~dist~ictzoning ~as to, "protect t'he residential property from noise, ~u~S~d~l~q~o~ dust, dirt' and othe~ objectional He noted the b~n~t~b~f~{~i~us~i~e~s~is such that it in no ~ay ca~ keep these objectives. ~r. Siffepman did mention the fact that Lyngso ~as oilin0 the grounds periodically to keep the dust down. ~r. Sifferm~D stated in summary that h~ sa~ no ~ay the City c~bld make the three findings listed above ~hich'he understood to be required by the Zoning Ordinance. ~e further stated that independent of Section 15 of the Zoning Ordinance, relative to the length of uses, he believed the~e ~as not basis for granting a use permit at ~ A~Y verified that these findings must be-made. >_ _ ~s._~..~ '(1) The proposed location of the~conditional use is in accord with the objective~ of the Zoning Ondinance.and the purposes of the district where the siteis located, (2) That the proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it would be operated and maintained will not be detrimental"to the public health~ safety and welfare'or be materially injuriouS.to properties or improvements in the vicinity. (3) That'the proposed conditiona] use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance,~and (4) Under all circumstances and Upon strict compliance by applicant with all conditions of Exhibit "A", the continuation of such use beyond the time limits of Section 15,9(c) ofOrdinance NS-3 for the additional time as specified in Exhibit "A" will not be contrary to the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance or the general provisions of Article 15. The City Attorney further stated these, conditions would have to be met.to grant the use permit, also noting these were factual items and'not his'opinion. Councilman Matteoni move~to close the .public hearing. The motion was seconded by Councilman Kraus~and carried by the~,Coencil to close the public hearing at 9:20 PM. Councilman Brigham questioned how this~proposal would be enforced. The Planning DireCtor, Marty Van Duyn, stated he did not know if~h~c~'c~nditions called ,-~a~Ja mandatory review. However, he noted, the Planning Commission can, at any time, open the matter for re-reyiew based on evidence of violation of the conditions or complaints either. by staff or citizenery, and could Councilman Brieham asked if the Planning Department would spot-check the 1 ocati on <fFo~]m~,~L~i~'e~t__[~Ut fut~ure notice. Mr. Van Duyn stated they~did intend rondo so, or at the request from the Council or Commission. The Mayor asked the City Attorney if they could specif~ a:time for such inspections. Mr. Johnston replied thatsthi's was allowable and in addition, any 'violation would be brought to the attention of the City Council, no matter who initiated it, and the appropriate action would be taken. ~Councilwomen C6rr asked if the review would be subaect to complaintsZ~ Mr. ~6~n~a~{h"~'~i~nTa~'~l~t~76ath-agre~a"~C~6G?d~6~Th~n~T6d~a~ any other complaint. Councilman Matteoni stated he felt some points of the findings, especially the first one, cannot be made. H~"~that th~s was inconsistent with the residential zoning of the proper~ ~e further be a compr6~ise of the Ordinance~h~'He~'felt there were ~e ~r6~lems With the Ordinance, an~-it~wa~o6 Councilman Brigham aqreed with Councilman Matteoni onethe length of the ~e~T~'~ being too l'ong.. He noted ~his issue? was having a ver~ high i~'the resident~ in the area add he would like to see the phase-out period set at 3 years. Councilwoman Corr also mentioned ~ome~concern with the ordinance itself. She realized the City needs to keep a residential atmosphere, but also felt some services should be available to the r~stdents. Counci~omjn Corr also felt the length of time for~the phase-out Was too long. Councilman Kraus stated he f~lt that kyngso has been ,aware that his, property was in a residential zone, when he acquired the property and throughoutS. the hearings held in 1973. He further stated the operation is one of heavy use and this cannot be change~ He ~o~ed the homeowher, also, knew at the time he purchased the lands'that a non-conforming use existed, and this should have been a basis for caution. Mr. Kraus stated that in antattempt to be fair to ~oth parties, he suggests a 5-year~phase odt of the use permit with two additional conditons to the staff report~ Th~ first being that the entrance to Lyngso's property be moved from the~Drive area to the'most northerly area of the property, after review by=the staff to see that this does not. create additional problems, and the second being that the Planning Co~ission exercise continued jurisdiction through the Code EnforcementLOfficer that the conditons of the use permit are enforced. He noted that if the conditions are not met, the use permit be considered for immediate termination. ~u~l~nTCorr suggested limiting the days the operation could be open for 6~(~'~ The Mayor did not believe this was possible. The Mayor commented that he hid no problem with the findings but did feel the phase-out time was too long. He further stated that whatever time period was decided upon, the homeowner's in the area would continue to be impositioned by this phase-out. It was moved by Councilman Kraus that the use permit be granted for a 5-year p~riod subject to the commission report of March 24th, plQs the conditi.on that the entrance be moved to the northerly portion of the site away from Manor Drive.. within 6 months providing no new traffic, problems are'created and approval by Cal Trans, that the Planning Commission exercise control through the Code Enforcement Officer that all of these conditions are met or the use permit be considered for immediate termination. The motion was seconded by Councilwoman Corr. The motion was carried.with Councilman Matteoni and'Mayor Bridget voting in opposition. It was~moved by Councilman Kraus to chanbethe date under Condition "I" to September 15, 1976. The motion was seconded by Councilman Brigham~ The motion' was carried. B. CONSIDERATION OF 1976-77 FISCAL YEAR BUDGET The City Manager stated that this year's budget provides for an 8.0% increase in General Fund Operating Budget and an overall increase of 12~5%,representing $247,785 over last year's revenues. He further stated that the expenditure portion has increased .6.8% over last year, amounting to $125,885. Jim Hendrickson, ~he Assistant to the City Manager, elaborated onsome ofthe elements which contribute to these totals. He noted the large increase in revenues was due to two new revenue sources. State Bond Act monies and Community Development Act monies. These two sources, he stated, account for 11.0% of the 12.5% increase. The City Manager then outlined some of the major increases~i~ the proposed budget. The major increases, he noted,, were dueto personnel'and labor related costs, in~rease~insurance costs, the Sheriff's:contract~ and'~ther smaller items includ~~n~ a proposed public safety alternative program and increased recreation.district co~ts. The City Manager also commented en~.tw6~ a~dit)onal expenses not budgeted,for in the proposed budget - $7,000 increase in liability insurance and $8,000 for any special election the City might hold relative'to the initiative petition. He further stated the money al.l~oca~ed to !:the various community groups will remain "status quo". He notedr~he Saratoga-Los Gatos Symphony ~ill receive $800 and the Chamber of Commerce~,900. Mr. Beyer noted that the Chamber has requested an additional $5,000. Information and Referral will be afforded various in-kind assistance, ~6~i~g., mailing, etc. The Mayor then opened the public hearing at 10:20 PM. Ialeen Granlund, President of the Saratoga Chamber of Commerce~ addressed the Council. She read a letter that was presented to. the Council noting the history' of the Chamber of Commerce, its expanded'level of service and requesting a study- session with the Council to determine the mutual goals .of the Chamber and ~he Council. Ms. Granlund further stated she hoped the Council would consider her letter and the proposals and felt they do need the money to do what they want to do for the good of the community. A meeting was tentatively scheduled with~the Chamber at the Committee of the Whole Meeting on July 13, 1976. Councilman Matteoni was concerned over the,amount of money that goes into the 'Wildwood MuSic festivals and its popularity as well aS other events of the same nature. .i William Nickel, Director 6f the National Safety Council - Santa Clara County Chapter addressed the Council on their.b~dget request for $1,570.13 for the bicycle program in SaratOga. Mr. Nickel noted the success of the program in Saratoga, stating there was one fatality last year and 25 v~olations were also issue~,, He commented that this year we had no fatalities and about"a 20% reduction in inj.dry accidents with 202 violations issued. He noted ot~er avenues of exposure included the elementary schools, community groups, etc. Codncilman Kraus asked what most of violations were issued for. Mr. Nickel replied most of the vio]ation~ are issued for riding on the wrong side of the street and illegal left-hand!turns. The City Manager added that the request for the $1,600 was in the present proposed budget. There being ho further comments from the~audience, Councilman Kraus moved to continue the public hearing at the next regular meeting. Councilwoman Corr seconded the motion. The m6tion was carried.and the public hearing closed for the evening at 10:30 PM. Councilman Brigham proposed an $11,000 cut out of Revenue Sharing~(-~ddition of two solar energy demonstration units. He stated this cobld then possibl~'~'(6me an additional revenue source in the formof a Solar Municipal Utility. Councilman Matteoni requested more specifics from the Staff. co,,cilman Brigham also ,,allOcated reserve be used for a possible decr~'~i~ ~h~ ~Fty '{~T~rom $.25 to $.24. Mr. Brigham then proposed several cuts' from various department's budgets. These amount to $20,000 which would help in lowering the property tax rate. The City Manager noted that a $.01 reduction in the tax rate would reduce revenues by $17,325. VI. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS A. MAYOR B. COUNCIL AND COMMISSION REPORTS I. P~anning Commission R~coF~hendation Re: 1976-77 Capital Improvements Program The Planning Director informed the Council that Planning Commission did find that the 1976-77 3=Year Capital Improvement Program is consistent with the General Plan. -9- 2. Parks 'and Recreation Commission. Report Re: 1976'-77 Capital Improvement Program Council approved the. City Manager's recommendation to set this matter for the Committee of the Whole Meeting on July 27th. 3. Parks and Recreation Commission' Report Re: Hakone Use Policy Council approved the City Manager's recommendation to set this matter for the next regular meeting. C. DEPARTMENT HEADS AND OFFICERS 1. Director of Public Works Re: Request for Fencin9 on Highway #85, Paramount to Verde Vista The Council approved the Mayor's recommendation to postpone action on this matter until receipt of finalized agreement between the City and County regarding bike route constructi~ and so-that the Council might review the proposal on-site. D. CITY MANAGER 1. Recommendation Re: Vacancies on Parks and Recreation Commission I~ was move~ by Councilman Mat~eoni to reappoint John Terry, Robert Flora, G. Carlson, and. Sue Buchan and,to advertise to fill the remaining two vacancies. Councilwoman Corr seconded the motion. The motion was carried. 2. Report Re: Request by City of Gilroy to Intervene in Case S.S.C.-SCL Co. #351854 (Jan Baron, et al. vs. Santa Clara Valley Water District) It was moved by Councilman Kraus to provide moral support to the City on this matter. Councilman Brigham seconded the motion. The motion was carried with Councilwoman Corr voting in op osition~ln that she felt the City should pledge some monetary suppor~ to .this ' project. 3. The City Manager noted that the warrant list had been inadvertently eliminated from the Consent Calendar. It was moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded by Councilman Brigham to authorize the Mayor to sign the warrant list. 4. The Planning Director reported on an item of concern to the Council regarding removal of plants and:shrubs from a residence on Montalvo Ro~d. Mr. Van Duyn n~ted there was no violation of the tree removal ordinance VI~ COMMUNICATIONS A.".~|RITTEN 1. Virginia B. Cooper, 18761 Devon Ave, commenting regarding complaint of breeding dogs - the.Mayor recommended this-item be continued .~til t~e Code Enforcement Officer has completed his report. 2. Dick Konrad, 20797 Norada Court, submitting resignation as member of the Saratoga Parks and Recreation C6mmission - It was moved by Councilman Brigham and seconded by Councilman Kraus to accept his resignation and thank him for his contributions to the Commission. The motion was carried. -lO- 3. Mildred Gordon, 20299 BtaUer Dri!ve, submitting resignation as a member · of the Saratoga Parks and Recreation Commission - It was moved by Councilwoman Corr and seconded by Councilman Kraus to accept her resignation and thank her for her contributions to the Commissi6n. The motion was carried. 4. Claude A. Look, Executive Vice President, Sempervirens Fund, expressing appreciation of the' Council's ~upport of the three-year land purchase campaign. Noted and filed 5. Margaret Reed, 13366 Ronnie Way, commending MrS. Jackie Welch on her involvement in Saratoga. Noted'and filed. 6. Bruce M. Stephen for the Bay Ar~a Coalition to Save our Coast, 12321 Saraglen Drive, requesting the Council's endorsement of SB-1277 Re: the California Costal Zone Conservation Act of 1972. Councilman Matteoni requested a copy of the subject.legislation prior to any action being taken on the matter. 7. Richard. JS Hunter, President R. 'J. Hunter & Associations, Inc., 1175 So. Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, San Jose, regarding a recent request for a name change of Comer D~ive to :Via Gonzales. The Council approved the City Manager's recon~nendation to set this item for the next regular me~ting. Jeffrey M Oderman, Attorney, lll West St. John Street, San Jose, requesting certain information regarding the "Save Our Hills" Initiative Measure. Noted and filed. B. ORAL 1. Russ Crowther, 20788 Norada Ct, expressing concern regarding the initiative petition and the scheduling of a special election. C. ADKNOWLEDGEMENT OF PUBLIC GROUP REPRESENTATIVES The Mayor acknowledged the presence of public group representatives as follows: Jim Isaak ~ Library Commissioner Don Sifferman, President, Manor D~]ve Homeownerts Association ~i~e "S'~',' ~d Gav~Fnm~'t'~6u~ ~s~:~e) G: Ca~i~6n, 'F~k's'~na ~clFea~¥~n ~6m~ission Lynn Belanger, Saratoga Planning Commission Ialeen Granlund, President, Saratoga Chamber of C6mmerce ~FE'u~e, Good MFs. ~O~n ,' G~' ~6~e~nm~t GrO'jp Robert Flora, Saratoga Parks and Recreation Co~ission VIII. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Councilman Brigham an~ seconded by Councilman Kraus the meeting ~and ~o an A~Sourned~RegularMeet~nq ~n .Tuesday; ~uly 13,,19~6'. The motion; ~'~ tful d,