Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-21-1976 City Council Minutes .-MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL TIME: Wednesday, July 21, i976 - 7:30 P.M. PLACE: Saratoga City Council Chambers, 13777 FrUitvale Ave., Saratoga, Calif. TYPE: .Regular Meeting I o ORGANIZATION A. ROLL CALL Present: Councilmen Brigham,.Corr, Matteoni, Bridges Absent: Councilman Kraus ~ B. MINUTES It was moved by Councilsnan Brigham and secondedby E~ou_n~ci~woman Corr the minutes-of June 29, 1976, be approved=DC_~'[ moti6'~'~'s~ II. CONSENT CALENDAR A. COMPOSITION OF CONSENT CALENDAR ~ The. City Manager ~eqUested holding Item 7 ,~ Payment of Claims, off the Consent Calendar, to be considered separately. This was accep- table to the Counc.il. It was then moved by CouncilmEn B~igham and seconded by Councilwoman Corr approval of the Consent C~tendar composition, with the exception of Item 7. The motion was carried. B. ITEMS FOR CONSENT CALENDAR 1. CQnstruc'tion Acceptance Tract 5288, John Markulin, Montalvo Rd. 2. Notice of Comple'tion and Final Contract Payment for Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road Median Development 3. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan Rate Increase and SerVice Agreement 4. Resolution No. 781, Confi'rming Canvass by the R~gis~rar of Voters Re: June 8th Referendum Election (Measure "I") 5. Resolution No. 782, Confirming Canvass by the Registrar of Voters Re: June 8th MuniCipal 'Bond'Election (Measure "J") 6. Resolution No. 783, Confirming Canvass by the Registrar of Voters Re: June 8thTax Override Electioh (Measure "K") 7. Payment of Claims : 8. City Clerk's Financial Report 9. City Treasuren's Report It was moved by CounCilman Brigham and ~seconded by Councilwoman C0rr approval of the Consent Calendar, with the exception of Item. 7. The motion was carried. C. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS The City Manager pointed out that warrant numbers 23694, 23695 and 23696 related t8 costs. for condemnation proceedings relevant t8 the. Quito-Pollard project,1 totaling $35,082-.00. ' He explained that $1,605o00 is ehe responsibility of'the TOwn of Los Gatos, and $1,230.00 is the responsibility of Santa Clara Valley Water District. It was then moved by Councilman Brigham and seconded by Councilwoman Corr the list of disbursements, 23620 thru 23~96, be approvedo The motion was carried~. ~ . ~',- · III. BIDS AND CONTRACTS None. Ordinance of the City of Saratoga Amending Chapter 9 of the Saratoga ~ity Code by Repealing Certain Provisions Creating Commercial and. Passenger Loading Zones onBig Basin Way - It was moved by Councilman Brigham and seconded by Councilwoman Corr Ordinance No. 38.68 be adopted, and the reading waived. The motion was carried. B. RESOLUTION NO. MV-114 Resolution Prohibiting Parking on Portions of Canyon View Drive It was moved by Councilman Matteoni and seconded by Councilman Brigham Resolution No. MV-114 be adopted. The motion was carried. C, RESOLUTION NO. 780 Resolution Altering and Establishing Fee Schedule (Cont'd. 7/7/76) It was moved by Councilman Brigham and seconded by Councilwoman Corr Resolution No. 780 be adopted. The motion was carried. D. RESOLUTION NO. 780.1 Resolution Altering Fee Schedule for Civic Theater Rentals The City Manager explained this resolution would implement the proposed rate increase for use of the Civic Theater by various theater groups-ov~r'a 2-year~a~io~v,~wiCh't~'°fir~t portion of the increase to become effective ]~nua~)'l'~ 1977, and the seeon~ portion to become effective January 1, 1978. ~."~ ..... " " It was moved by Councilman Brigham and seconded by Cou~l~B'~ Corr Resolution 780.1 be adopted. The motion was eartied. E. MINUTE RESOLUTION lIE: HAKONE USE POLICY The City Manager explained that the Parks and Recommendation Commission has recommended a 6-month trial period to allow certain uses at Hakone Gardens which have not been allowed in the past, particularly for weddings and use by groups and private parties. He indicated it is proposed that reservations for these functions be open during the months Bf May through September, on Saturdays and Sundays from 9:00 to 11:00 A.M. and 5:00 to 8:00, and weekdays from 5:00 to 8:00 P.M., and provision for regulations concerning food and beverages and fee structure for use of the facility. Following some discussion by the Council of this proposed use policy, it was moved by Councilman Brigham and seconded by Council- woman Corr approval of the July 2nd report from the Parks and Recreation Commission recommending establishment of a Use Policy for Hakone Japanese Gardens for a 6-month trial basis. The motion was carried. V. SUBDIVISIONS, BUILDING SITES, ZONING REQUESTS A. RESOLUTION NO, 785, APPROVING TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF UP-296, RE: LYNGSO GARDEN MATERIALS, INC. The City Manager indicated that he has received a letter from Mr. Gardella, attorney representing Lyngso Garden Materials, re~ questing if any additional items were added to this resolution that were not discussed at the last meeting, the public hearing be re- opened on this matter. Mayor Bridges acknowledged a letter received from Frederick Tatar, 20577 Manor Drive, requesting additional conditions to the use permit, and proceeded to outline these conditions per' Mr. Tatar's letter of July 15, 1976. 2 Resolution 785 - Lyngso Garden Materials Councilman Matteoni commented that ~i~h'it~'~'T~b~'~n Mr. Tat!ar's letter, which states: Any landscaping on the prloperty would be maintained without degradation as.should the total appearance of · the business (sUch as keeping the street swept of dirt, gravel and rock). He.c6mmented that this is something that has always been discussed and recognized through correspondence between the City and Lyngso's operation in the past year-and-a-half. Mayor Bridges commented that he believes item 4 is a matter of the conditions that are already in the Use Permit. Councilman Matteoni pointed o~t that items 4 and 7 of the Use Per- mit conditions speaks to item number 4 of Mr.'Tatar's letter, and he wouldn't be opposed to making the conditions more explicit 'in this regard. The City Manager pointed out 'the fact that this Use Permit is under the continuing jurisdiction of the Planning Commission,_~d f[~ed, ~'=t agai~'~'t thY~ra~'iS~'pe~ ~[ %~t 'wd~l~ '~e enough· Lto bring the issue back before the Planning Commission for further consideration. The City Attorney commented that he would have'a problem with the suggestion of adding more!specific language to condition 7 of the Use Permit conditions, in that at the last meeting, the objective was merely. to memorialize the resolution which the Council did adopt, and it was his feeling if anything were added, this would require another public ~eaying. There being no further questions or comments on this issue, it was moved by Councilman Brigham and seconded by Councilwoman Corr Resolution No. 785 be adopted'. The motion was carried, 3 to 1 favor, Mayor Bridges voting in opposition. VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS Ao CONSIDERATION OF i976-77 FISCAL YEAR BUDGET (CONT'D. 7/7/76) The City Manager indicated at the previous discussion on the Budget, Councilman Brigham had requested that certain modifi- cations be made in the Budget, and the staff has prepared a report outlining what the impact of these suggested reductions would be. He summarized these reductions and their impact, as follows: $10,000 for professional services in Planning Dept. With this reduction, the City would not be able to update its Zoning Ordinance, nor implement any major zoning amendments or ordinance amendments. $2,000'for City Attorney court costs. If the money budgeted does not anticipate other types of litigation as discussed in the past,' this would would have to be later added. $8,000 in the Public W6rks Maintenance, Supplies, Special Departmental and Projects This is money budgeted for fulfilling various types of requests concerning installation of stop signs and various traffic control devices, a portion of which is also taken from the ongoing annual maintenance and replacement account to replace signs. - 3 - 1976-77 F.Y. Budget RedUctionof tax rate 1 cent This would provide $17,300fewer revenues, and would have an impact on a him.'%~ifff~'%Yf~h"ii~$80701010'home of $1,87 per year. The City Manager indicated i~ has recently come to the City's attention there is $35,000of additional revenue not projected in the budget which is in the Geheral Fund. Also, he advised that the inCreaSe ~assessed value in the City was 21.4%, as compared to an estimated 15%, and this would bring in an additional $15,500 over what was budgeted. It has been~'cD'~e~de'~'E~i~r~mount be put into an Unallocated Reserve accoun~eii~II~"t~ handle any future potential litigation. Unde~ Expenditures, it is~reCommended 3~_a.~_m~,~q_qt'previously included be added: Liability InsUrance -'additional $7,000 Special Election - additional $4,000 tO $8,000 Law Enforcement Contract additional $11,000 The Mayor opened the public hearing at 8:33 P.M. Jeff Catb, Chairman of the Saratoga Coalition for Tax Reform, and also, a member of the steering committee of H.A.L.T.,.addressed 'the Council. He stated that during the palst couple of years, the residents of Saratoga have been hit with very steep increases in the assessed valuation on their homes. In addition, he pointed out that last year, there was an increase in the tax rate for Saratoga of approximately 25%. However, he pointed out there seems to be in the last 2'years an .increase of approximatey 50% in the value of assessments, plus 25.% on the tax rate. He commented that surely, inflation hasn't increased the cost 6f government that much. Mr. Calb stated that he~would like to urge the Council not adopt a policy ofC~w ff6~pp%~d~h~~6~v~'~h~r, take the approach of "Ho~w c~'i'~'~ g~f't'~e ~er~e~[or the money and cut the tax rate to whatever extent is possible?" Mr~ Calb stated he would like to commend the Council on its attempt to make various services pay for themselves, such as in the case of the Civic Thea'ter and Hakone Gardens, and he would like to see this extended ~hi~'~h~' City are self-supporting. He further suggested that the Council appoint a committee of interested citizens to form a mini-Hoover Commission to investi- gate ways, with an open mind,, to cut the taxes in Saratoga. He felt that the key to this,' however, would be a resolution on the part of members on the Council that the City can hold the line on dollars, and make government more efficient, and make the services that are dem'~gnded pay for themselves. Sandi Cuenc~, Manager., Saratoga Chamber of Commerce, addressed the Council. She verified with the Council receipt of a letter.'f~ C~ACh~g~'r'in~l~'d~ Project Budget and asked if the C~cil h'~d~n~h'~i~flo~t'.~is ti~e. ' Mayor Bridges indicated he felt the Council would like to review thig proposal in more detail,! and consider it at their next meeting-. Russeli Crowther ada Court, '~{c~i~i'~±s his under- standing there i~ 2~7880N°r $ 5,0 0earmarked in~i~eY '~or a police protection study with the City of Cupertino, and was of the impression such a study had a.lready been completed. Mayor Bridges explaine.d.this ~tudy is broader than just police protection, and conerns the entire area of,.:emergency service. He further clarified that this study has no relationship to the one Mr. Crowther refers to. 1976-77 F.Y. Budget Mr. Crowther commented that he would like to strongly support everything Mr. Calb has mentioned this evening, and would urge the Council to ~i~'~e~&~.-~'-~g~{iOh~ It was then moved by Councilman Brigham and seconded by Council- woman Corr the public hearingbe closed. The motion was carried. The public hearing was closed at 8:44 P.M. I~ was then moved by Councilman Brigham and seconded by Council- woman Corr to continue the public hearing to the next regular meeting on August 4th. The motion was carried. B. ORDINANCE NO. 60:2, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 60, THE SUB- DIVISION ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA, BY ADDING ARTICLE FOUR THERETO RELATING TO SPECIAL SUBDIVISION SITUATIONS, AND SECTIONS SERIES 30 UNDER SAID ARTICLE FOUR GOVERNING COMMUNITY HOUSING (CONDOMINIUMS ET AL) CONVERSIONS Mr. Van Duyn, Planning Director, summarized the contents of the proposed ordinance. He ~lso~'.reviewed the history of this proposal, indicating that several months ago, upon submittal of an appli- cation for a conversion project, the Planning Commission expressed concern regarding future conversions of existing apartment units. The City Council had requested the staff prepare an ordinance to address future condominiumlconversions, and during an interim period, the CoUncil adopted an ordinance whidh provided forla moratorium for conversions from apartments to condomiums, which ordinance is soon to lapse. He explained that the propose~ ordinance before the Council at this time is one which would be placed into the City's Subdivision ordinance. He indicated that this ordinance has been unanimously approved by the Planning Commission, and would allow condominium conversions only under the following principle considerations: The total housing stock should consist at all times of a certain ratio of rental apartment units in the city porportioned to the total housing 'stock; Requirement based on the vacancy rate of apart- ments being offered for rental or lease, which states that when the number of vacancy rates being offered is equal to or less than 3% of the total number of such dwelling units.offered for rental or lease, rental housing therefore exists. Mr. Lohr in C~d~i~lr~k~t this evening, which mentions that at one time the Planning Commission was considering another condition which would have allowed a 2/3 override. Therefore, if existing tenants wilShed to become buyers of the apartments they are living in and have the project converted to condominiums, they could by a 2/3 petition by those existing residents override the 2 other conditions, and a ~condominiumtconversion project could be applied for. Mr. Van Duyn advised that this exception was eliminated by the Planning Commission, the principalreason being that they did not feel they would be able to maintain the integrity of the General Plan in providing a minimum level of apartment units. Also, there was no specified time limit under this provision: Mayor Bridges brought to the Council's attention another item of correspondence from Mr. and Mrs. Ludwig Kulinski, 14333 Saratoga Ave., strongly opposed to proposed Ordinance 60.2. The Mayor then opened the public hearing at 8:53 P.M. Jerry Lohr, Saratoga Foothills Development Corporation, addressed the Council.~?TLSh~ref~e~h"~ ~t~.tion signed by 14 residents of Saratoga Cr&eks~f~e~'Ap~[m~n'~ss~ whi~ copy this evening. He ~f~dlc?e~d event there is a converS"i~O'Y'.th~TS~r~tSg~ Creekside Apartments Ordinance 60.2 Re: Condominium Conversions to condominium unitS~ the undersigned are interested {n purchasing their'present units." Mr. Lohr explained that last year when he proposed this conversion, he was trying to soften the impact on the them the opportunitX to "go ab you wanted to buy"., with a ~'.~ision to renters allowing them to stay 3 years. In the meantime, Mr. Lohr stated he has been able to obtain 30-yea~ financing, so .any existing tenants could stay as renters, and Saratoga Foothills would be willing toput this into deed restrictions. Therefore, these tenants wouldmot be forced out in 3 years. Mr. Lohr further commented ~h~t he thinks it'is unfortunate that the retirement housing discussion has become tied up in this condominium conversion issue.~Mr Lohr stated that. he is a strong proponent of retirement housing in the city; however, feels that this conversion ordinance andStheir project which started this may have gotten caught in'a' crossfire of retirement housing. He indicated that ~some of the~major considerations here seem to be if Saratoga Foothills were to come into the 'City at this time with 2 acres of land, ~nd ask~7't'~'~l~d a 24-Unit project, he wouldn't think' the City woUld!~'~ir'E~it be built as rental. apart- ments, and the developer should have rights to choose whi. ch way they wanted to go. iAlso, he felt the petition previously mentioned~ would indicate a simple majority who are in favor of this conversion. Mr. Lohr stated that he would7 ask that the./p_r_ro~.i~si_'6~ allowing the residents to have some measure of self-determination be re-included' in the ordinance, ahd'that helis not asking for.anything'directly from Saratoga Foothills. Mayor Bridges pointed out that the concern is not with housing that might be developed at a later~date because whenit was decided whether or not the developer Was going to have that. particular project, it wouldbe known that it was going to be a condominium. He indicated that his concernswould be that approximately5 years ago, the City had available a considerable hSgher percentage of rental housing, which has gradually dried up, and iS now being proposed to go in another 40.' He stated that the'plans were laid down to accommodate people who wanted to rent,. and not apartment house Owners. Councilman Matteonilasked Mr. Lohrif he w~uld have any problem with the technical Objection that there be some time condition on the petition with the 2/3 signatures. Mr..Lohr replied that he would have no objection to"this, and also, he felt there should be some cut-off so there is not uncertainty on th~ part of the residents. Joanne Christensen, a resident of Saratoga Creekside, commented that she is curious how the C{ty is going to maintain~d~~=~ !~_l~_t'i~l~'~ss.-~nless 'there is more rezoning. She ~eed'rf ~his~' 6~rd~n~'~'i'~o' effect, would there be rezoning for multiple; and if it is stated ~n the ordinance .there is to be a certain ratio, shouldn"t it!be maintained? Mayor Bridges replied that there is an already established ratio, and if all the multiple housing land were developed that is now in the plan, we would come very close to that ratio° Therefore, there would-beno need to ~ezoneadditional property ifthis ordinance were pu~ into-effect. Mrs. Christensen asked if thi~ would be counting units that are available at, for instance,~the Gatehouse. She stated that a good percentage of-these are rental units. Ordinance 60.2 Re: Condominium Conversions~ Mayor Bridges replied that hedidn't know if these-are'factored in because they aren't necessarily rental unitS. If further stated that if there are too many rentals available, this should be shown in t.he vacancy factor. There being no further comments from the audience on this matter, it was moved by Councilman Brigham and seconded by Councilwoman Corr the pulic hearing be closed. The motion was carried; the public hearing was closed at 9:05 P.M. Codicilman Matteoni commented~that he would like to hear Something further on the housing element, in terms of those concerns in maintaining this mix of rental units at 2%, etc. He stated he would still have'some reservations regarding the ordinance~b'ed~se ~f~&_~p~E~p'l-e~_~'iiv~'~-a~d want to make an investm~n~'~n ~e~r ~e=~ih~'o~] '~lr~,'iF{~"excluding some people from coming to the City because there isn't rental available. Mr. Van Duyn explained that the housing element centers around its ability to meet demands f6r Senior Citizens, and although it does have considerations for mixed housing type of comprehensive stock, it principally states that the City should be attempting to provide Senior Citizen housing unitsto maintain what units we do have that are hous. ing Senior Citizens at the present time so that we don't lose these.. It was felt this was the major point to be made in drafting the ordinance, and to set some sort of limits on assuring.that the City would have some ability to keep the rental units it does have. He commented that this may change if and~ When any additional development is perceived for Senior Citizen housing in the future. It was moved 5 Council · 5 woman Corr ~'o~introhhce Ordinance 60.2. The motion was carried. It was then moved by CounCilman Matteoni and seconded by Councilman BrighEm to reconsider the motion to close the public hearing, and continue to the next regular meeting. The motion was carried. C. RESOLUTION NO. 784, RESOLUTION CONFIRMING REPORT AND ASSESSMENTS RE: WEED ABATEMENTS The City Manager explained that this hearing has'been set to consider any comments by people who have been assessed, in accordancE~yi~th the City'~s~eed Ab~temen_~t O~rdin~nce~ H~e ind~d there~'~etwo in~ividuHls wh~'~a~_Daid their'~s~'ss~ent 7~ui~ are~ro- testing the a~iY[~a~i~'e c6~,~'i~ thYt the~'~chased ~he p~bpe~ty after the work was done, and the people from whom they bought the- property neglected to tell them they were responsible for the work. He stated there is a problem with _t~h~ State of California, iB that ~6'rk~themselves, and they do not have money for. this. ~A~so~,j ~e State claims that it did give the City notice that they would take care of this weed abatement; however, there is nothing in the file to speak to this. The Mayor then opened the public hearing at 9:i8 John Feenster, 20089 Pierce Road, addressed the Council. IMr. Feenster stated that he purchased a piece of property'in February, parcel number 503-26-46, and there is problem in that he arranged for a man to go over and disc the property, and was advised that this had already been done. He indicated that just last Friday he received a letter which was forwarded from the previous owner, Mr. Shannon Lightfoot. He asked if the Council would entertain a motion to relieve him of the administrative cos.t; he had already agreed to. pay $40, but. S50 was a little heavy. He stated his position is that he didn't have notice that the City was going to to this work, as he thought hE was on time. - 7 - Resolution 784 Re: Weed Abatements L. C. Hsu, 10264 Richwood Drive, Cupertino, addressed the Council. Mr. Hsu commented that he bought th&-property around the end of April, and on June 25th, he received a letter addressed to Mrs. Goodare, from whom he. purchased this prop.erty. Mr. Hsu indicated that he has never received a notice to abate, and this letter asks him to pay $35, plus an additional $50 for adminis- tration costs. He read in full the letter which he had sent to Mr. Dorsey of the City's Public Works Department, indicating his enclosure of his checkin ther amount of $85, and requesting waiving the $50 administrativ~ fine. It was then moved by Councilman Brigham and seconded by Council- woman Corr to close the publit hearing. The motion was carr±ed; the public hearing was closed at 9:22 P.M. The City Manager brgUght t~ the Council's attention another letter which the Council has received from Mrs. George E. Claussen of Toll Gate and Bougainvillea, requesting a refund of $50 for the administrative costs. He indicated that they purchased their home from~G~orge Day Construction Company who was the owner of record on t~ assessment role, and this was forwarded to them after that date. Councilman Brigham commented that he would be willing to authorize these refunds if these 3indiViduals. can prove they did not re- ceive notice .on time~ Following a discussion by the Council regarding this procedure, it was moved by Councilman Matteoni~andseconded by Councilman Brigham~to adopt Resolution 784. ~The motio~ was carried. It was then moved by Councilman Matteoni and seconded by Council- man Brigham the CounCil approve refunding the administrative cost of $50 to Mr. Hsu and Mrs. Claussen, and in' the case of Mr..and Mrs. Feenster, the am6unt to be assessed be reduced bY $50. The motion was carried. - Recess and reconvene VII ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS A. ~IAYOR B. COUNCIL AND COMMISSION REPORTS 1. Request for Fencing on Highway 85, Paramount to Verde Vista (Cont'd. 7/7/76) The City Manager explained that this matter had been con- tinued to allow the Council to observe the area in question. He further indicated that this area was specifically looked at when the Task Force reviewed the Demonstration Bicycle Route System, and the Committee had made the comment that they felt the fencing in this area was unwarranted (August 1973). Mr. Shook, Director of Public Works, advised that he expects to receive in the near future the final cooperative agreement with the County which would create the County bike route at this location, and at that time, there might. be negotiations for the implementation of this fencing with County funds. It was moved by Councilman'Matteoni and seconded by Councilman Brigham to adopt the staff.report of July 1, 1976, reco~rmnding denial of this request. The motion was carried. - 8 - C. DEPARTMENT HEADS AND OFFICERS 1. Director Of Public Works Report Re: Bicycle Lanes. on Saratoga Avenue Mr. Shook indicated this matter originated from a request from/othe Moreland School District to extend the bike lanes on Saratoga Avenue from Cox Avenue to the city limits, as well as a letter from Mr. Hansen, a Saratoga resident, re- questing that same extension. He advised that the committee reviewing the Demonstration Bicycle Route System had indicated that it felt requests for such extension should be deferred until such time as the Demonstration System could be evaluated. G. Carlson addressed the C6uncil on behalf of the'BrookvieW Home and School Club. He indicated that 2 things have changed since the Demonstration Bike Route proposal was implemented, as far as this particular section is concerned: Moreland School DiStrict did eliminate bussing between Cox and Lawrence Expressway, and the creek and Saratoga Avenue. Subsequent to the original layout, the intersection at Lawrence Expressway and Saratoga Ave. has been changed and re-built, as has the expressway along the high school fence line, and there is a protected path- way along that area. He commented that he would'like the City Council to consider extending the present bike lane to include that area, primarily from a standpoint of safety and access..I The Council discussed the idea of a 2-way bike lane on either side of Saratoga Avenue, a~d felt this would be in conflict with the Task Force Con~nit~ee's recommendations and general ~standards. Also discussed was the extent of theCB~b~'ieW~' elimination ofparking al0~g this portion of Saratoga Avenue was discussed. The Council indicated its support of the "after-study" of the Demonstration Bicycle Route proposal, and that it would like furthe~ info~ation from the staff regarding some of the previously-mentioned conce~s. 2. Building Official Report Re: Removal of Structures at Quito ShOpping Center Don Harris, City Building Official~ reported that to date he has not received any plans for these strUctUres, and Mr. Stern's attorney has co~unicated With the City Attorney and it seems this is now a legal matter. The City Manager advised that Mr. Stern has indicated t~rough a letter from his attorney that he has received the appropriate court action toevict one of the tenants of those buildings. However, for the City to make a judgment whether or not any progress is being made, it isnecessary that they bring in plans for bringing the buildings up to Code. This matter will again be reviewed in 30 days. 3.'Planning' DireC~or~Rep'ort Re: Request ~or Name Change of. Comer DriVe The Mayor noted items of written correspondence receivedlon this matter from: Mr. and Mrs. FieldS, 10591 Stokes Ave., Cupertino, urging the Councilto turn down the. proposed name change. Arnold, and Mary Ellen Bruni, 20976 Comer Drive, expressing opposition to any name change. Mr. Van' Duy by Mr. Gonzales fo~ changi~g'i~& ~a~ 8f C6~r-D~{ve to "Via Gozales". The staff has recommended against this name change. Following discussion regarding this request,".it was moved by Councilman Matteoni and seconded by CounCilman Brigham t6 approve the staff's recommendation, and deny hhis request. The motion was carried. D. CITY MANAGER 1. Report Re: Impact of Initiative Measure onCity Of saratoga The City Manager explained that the staff has prepared, at the Council's request, an apalysis of the Initiative Petition submitted to the City approximately 2 months ago. He explained that the matter is presently in Court, and the judge would soon be issuing an order to placie the Initiative Measure on the election ballot. 7i=~ Mr. Van Duyn, Planning DireCtor, then'proceeded to give a summarization of this analysis, explaining that the'analysis was prepared in relation to the existing General Plan. The City Manager ~xplained that the Initiative as presented essentially changes 3 sections of the General Plan, and if adopted, the only way the particular pages of the total General Plan dealing.with land development/conservation, seismic 'safety, community planning policies'and community development,could be changed would be by a vote of the people A lengthy discussion followed concerning the interpretation of the Initiative Measure between Mr. Russell~Crowther and members of the City Council. 2. Report Re: SB-1277 (Environmental Quality - Coastal Initiative) The City Manager recommended this be continued to the next VIII. COMMUNICATIONS A. WRITTEN 1. Mr. and Mrs. Bert Martel, 14420 Fruitval~ Ave., informing 'the Council that they are still against any form of compromising regarding the West Valley C6~lege stadium being completed. - Noted and filed. 2. Mr. and-Mrs. William Smyth, 19642 Charters Ave., expressing objection to the proposed W~st Valley College Stadium and lighted ski hill project. -!Noted and filed. 3. Copy of letter tO the County Board of Supervisors from Russell J. Cooney, Town Manager, Los Gatos, regarding charges for servicing contract lawlenforcement cities. Scheduled for discussion at Committee of' the Whole Meetingl 4. Charles Reed, P. O. Box 585, requesting release from Condition "A" of Building Site Approval (SDR 1060). Referred to staff for a report back to the Council at the next regular meeting. 5. Richard H. Bryer, 20066 Glen Brae DriVe, enclosing a petition signed by 35 residents r~questing the intersection of Glen Brae Drive and Beaumont Ave. be made a 4-way stop inter- section. - Referred to the,staff for report back to the Council in 30 days. 6. Emmette T. Gatewood, Realtor',- suggesting the Council consider designating a new street in Saratoga as McCartysville Drive or McCartysville Road. - NOted; letter taken under advisement by Planning staff. 7. Rudolph Kanne, President, The Good Government Group of Saratoga, advising the status of Senate Bills 1634, 1664 and 1714, and urging the City Council to'express its support of these bills to the California LegislatUre. - Noted; action previously taken in this regard. B. ORAL None. C. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF PUBLIC GROUP REPRESENTATIVES The Mayor acknowledged the presence of public group representatives as follows: G. Carlson, Chairman, Parks and Recreation Commission Mary Moss, Good GoVernment Group Marjorie Fbote, A.A.U.W. Marlene Duffin, President, Wildwood Heights Homeowners Association Bob Flora, Parks and Recreation Commission IX. ADJOURNMENT "- It was moved by Councilwoman Corr~and seconded by Councilnan Matteoni the meeting be adjourned to an Executive Session. The motion was carried. The meeting was adjourned at 12:15 A.M. pec submitted, Rg 11