Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-18-1976 City Council Minutes MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL TIME: Wednesday, August 18, 1976 - 7:30 P.M. PLACE: Saratoga City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, California TYPE: Regular Meeting I. ORGANIZATION A. ROLL CALL Present: Councilmen.Brigham, Kraus, Corr, MatteOni Brid~ Absent: None B. MINUTES (july. 7, 1976) '(ouHc]iwom~6'Corr ~e_~'uested clarification be made on page lO Re: It&m L~/~-~.R~qQ~S~Tb~Cj~.~ff;~T1F~'~,~r~,~!~te that she voted in opp'oSition ~o the~motiOn'~ in that she f~l.t ~h~C~'~y should pledge monetary support to this project. It was moved by Councilman Brigha'm and seconded by Councilman Kraus the minutes of July 7th be approved as corrected. The motion was carried. IZ. CONSENT CALENDAR A. COMPOSITION OF CONSENT CALENDAR It was moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded by Councilman Brigham approval of the Consent Calendar .composition. The motion was carried. B. ITEMS FOR CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Renewal of Agreement Between the City of Saratoga and the Saratoga Community Garden Board of Directors 2. Payment of Claims City Clerk's Financial Report" 4. City Treasurer's Report It was moved by Councilman Brigham and seconded by Councilwoman Corr the the items for Consent Calendar be approved. The motion was carried. III. BIDS AND CONTRACTS A. ANARD OF CONTRACT FOR QUZTO/POLLARD ROAD IMPROVEMENTS AND BRIDGE RECON- STRUCTION The' City Manager advised that 4 bi'ds were~'~v'~d~nn~]~ nroject -~ ranging from the low bid of $307,371.50 ~ t~e' t~'gh"bid ~i~"~3~,7~7.35. He explained that the final engineer's estimate for this project is approxi- mately $27,000 higher than what is in the proposed Capital Improvement Program. He indicated there are various alternatives available to the Council con- cerning this contract. These alternatives are: 1) to modify the proposed budget by $27,000 to provide no cohtingency funds; 2) modify the budget by $47,000 to include the contingency fund;' 3) negotiate with the contractor ~~ for possible reductions, amounting to approximately $14,000. ~ Quito/Pollard Improvements (Cont'd. Following a discussion of this issue- by the staff and the Council, th~ matter was continued to an Adjour,,,ned Regular Meeting on August 24th. B.' AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SAR, ATOGA AND THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES AND RATES It was moved by Couhcilman Kraus ~and seconded by Councilman 'Brigham approv.al of the 1976-77 Law Enforcement Contract Rates. The motion was carried. IV. PETITIONS, ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS A. ORDINANCE NO.' 38.69 Ordinance of the Cit~ Of 'SaratogaI!Amending the Sar~toga City Code Pertaining to the Duties of Pound. Master It was moved by Counciima~ Brigham and seconded by Councilman Kraus Ordinance No. 38.'69 be adopted. The motion was carried. B. ORDINANCE NO. 38~70' ~"' Ordinance of the City of Saratoga: Amending Chapter 9 of the Saratoga City Code by Establishing a Bus Loading Zone on State Route 85' (Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road )_ It was moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded by Councilman Brigham Ordinance No. 38.70 be introduced, and the reading waived. The motion ~as carried. C. RESOLUTION NO. MV-11~ ,, Resolution Designating the Intersect'ion of '~Bucknall and Paseo Presada as a Stop Intersection It was moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded by Councilman Brigham Resolution No. MV-115"be adopted,., The motion was carried. D. RESOLUTION NO. MV-116 : Resolution Designating the Intersection of Beaumont Avenue and Glen Brae Drive as a Stop. Intersection It was moved by Council~v~Tnn Co~,and seconded by Councilman Kraus Resolution No. MV-116 be'a'dopted~, The motion was carried. E. APPROVAL OF-1976-77 THROUGH .1978-79 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM' It was the concensus of the CoGncil to Consider this item following the adoptio~ of the 1976:77 Fiscal Year Budget. V. SUBDIVISIONS, BUILDING SITES AND ZONING REQUESTS A. CONSIDERATION OF CHARLES REED'S R~QUEST TO DELETE CONDITION "A" UNDER SDR-1060 RE: STREET IMPROVEMENTS (Cont'd. 8/4, 8/1D) The City Manager advised that Mr. Reed has submitted a letter withdrawing his request that Condition "A" of SDR-1060 be waived.: Therefore, no further action is necessary on the Council"s part. VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS A.CONSIDERATION OF 1976-77 ,FISCAL YEAR BUDGET (Cont'd. 7/7, 7/21, 84) The public hearing'was opened at ~:04 P.M. - 2- '1976-77 Fiscal Year Budget (Cont'd.) Mr. Jeffery Kalb, representing the Saratoga Coalition for Tax Reform, addressed the Council,~_fan_~.~'6~'~s gratitude for the Council's effort in meeting with members of the'~h~'S&~toga Coalition for Tax Reform and other interested citizens on August 12th. He indicated that at that time, they expressed ~oncern over the fact that as it now stands, the 1976-77 Fiscal Year Budget contains a 12.9% increase in the General Fund expenditures, and 100% increase in the total budget for that same period.- He stated that although a large portion, of these funds originate from state and federal agencies, these expenditures contribute to the growing overall tax burden. He continued that it is only through ~o_~n~i~gs~gc__h_as~a~r~a~og~ settin~ examples of reduced government waste~ ~e~_ca~ begin to turn ~ around the growing spiral of taxes. Mr. Kalb stated that they have reviewed with the Council many details'of the proposed 76-77 Budget, and have identified a number of areas where it had appeared cuts could be made. He indicated it is their sincere belief the 76-77 Budget has considerable margin, it can be_cut, and the property tax rate can be reduced back to where it was in prior years. He stated that while a thousand reasons can be advahced as to why the individual budget as presented cannot be cut, and that~they do not represent an increased level of funding, facts do not support this contention. He indicated that if the amount of money budgeted is spent, there will be an overall spending increase in the General Fund of 12.9%. Mr. Kalb co~ented that we had all the services and the government we needed in75-76, and then some, and few Saratogans felt a need to spend more on city government in 75-76, and our co~unity did not suffer from under-expenditure. He stated that the predictions of expenses for 76-77 have been construction of e~alation appliedsto the 75-76 Budget not to what was spent in 75-76,'~a~d they do not believe this is a realistic or fair method of budget prediction, and the Saratoga Coalition for Tax Re-. form urges the Council to hold the line and keep the budget challenge the sam~,..~ 76-77 as was achieved in 75-76.. Also, they would like to remind that the secured property tax dollars now budgeted for 76-77 are 75% greater than what was collected in 74-75,'and they would urge the Council to reduce the tax rate by 20% -- back to wh~t it had been prior to last year. He stated that the 21% increase in property tax dollars cannot be interpreted as "holding the line", and tax reduction, like tax spending, requires a decision. There being no further citizen cogent on this matter, it was moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded by Councilman Brigham the public hearing be closed. The motion was carried; the public hearing was closed at 8:09 P.M. Councilman Brigham indicated he would like to move the adoption of Resolution No. 787, Adopting the Budget for the Saratoga for Fiscal Year 1976-77, with the following changes: Additional revenues of $50,000 for construction per- mits, Motor Vehicle In-Lieu, Other Fees and increased assessments over the $50~000 estimated amount, be set ~s~de, and extra e~penditures which are pot in the budget, such as Liability Insurance, the November Election and the Law Enforcement Contra~t -- for a total of $22,000 -- be duducted from that amount, which leaves $28,000. Also, $207,472 General Fund balance be re- duced to $200,000, which is an additional cash flow savings of $7,472, and a 2~ property tax decrease be given. Also, one budget cut~C~y Attorney be reduced from $7,000 to $5,000, and the extra revenue from th~ Civic Center adjus~ents would amount to $1,000 -- giving a net balance after the 2~ decrease of $3,872. This woul~ be put into a'fuhd for litigation and tax offset next year. The Mayor indicated this motion would be ~~the following co~ents by the Council'. ~5'~ ~a~d~en f~ore~ i n~6 ?~( ~6~get. The' Ci ~'M~[d~i~d~hat~ C~=~]~W~~s~"~f~6Y~'~"~he~f~i~ date for the adjustment, ~.a~tS~921y is not $1,000 in this area. Also, she questioned the $2,000 -3 - 1=1976-77 Fiscal Year Budget (Cont'd.) cut from the City Attorney, for the reason that if the City were to go into litigation, this would go to the attorney anyway. Councilman Brigham indicated he was attempting to set up a litigation tax offset fund for the following year. Councilman Kraus commented that last year, he voted against the proposed budget because he believed each department in the City could take a 5% reduction and still maintain essential services. Also, that all city services, permits, fe(s, agendas'and minutes, etc., be paid for by those requesting that service, and also, that we not hire two additional mainten- ance people. Mr. Kraus stated that some of these items came about, and some did not; before speaking tothe 76-77 Budget, however, he would like to express his appreciation to the City Manager, his staff and department heads for their efforts to control and reduce city expenses during 75-76. He indicated that through these efforts, the expenses wer"~m~=~'"e6"~6~%'l'~'~an b~u~ete~.'~'~ He stated that in 1976-77, the City faces~6(saTepro~l~~' 6ac~ of '~ faces at home -- thin~s cost more. He stated that assessed valuations have increased dramatically, but so have the services demanded of the City. Councilman Kraus stated that he feels it is unrealistic at this point, even though he voted against the tax increase, to go back to the 20¢ rate. In spite of this, however, he felt we should reduce the cost of government wherever possible. Mr. Kraus indicated that again, he would offer the challenge to the staff, the Council, and the residents of Saratoga to participate in a 2% reduction in the proposed budget, leading to a 2% reduction in the tax rate. He then proposed the following: l) Pay the State Compensation. Insurance from the Gas Tax Fund, thereby possibly reducing some major projects by $12,000, but having more money availabl~ in the General Fund. 2) Reduce the Government Buildings Supplies and Services account by $2,000. 3) Reduce the Planning Contractual~Services account by $3,000. 4) The Special Election has been eliminated, thereby saving another $4,000. 5) The difference to come from increased revenues not anticipated in the budget, less the expenditures not included in'the budget, and the remainder to be placed in the litigation account. 6) Beyond the above, the staff be allowed to revise the budget, providing for the 2¢ property tax decrease, and bring it back to the Council. Councilman Kraus then moved that the Council adopt the budget~f~'$1', 967~645 and instruct the staff to reduce the necessary accounts, to end'~'w~'~h property tax decrease. Councilman Brigham seconded the motion. (Councilman Kraus indicated he mentioned the above program cutS'Qnly as possibilitiesL) Councilman Matteoni indicated he was thinking possibly of a 1¢ cut, primarily ~o~ ~he _~as~n~b~q~r~erve accounts available for disaster or unusual expense. Therefore, he ~ugOested.deferring action on t~'6~i'6~'~6'~Tlow the staff to come back with examples where the budget could be cut byl¢ and by 2¢. It was therefore moved by?~Councilman Matteoni and seconded by Councilwoman Corr to table th~ previous action on the budget until an Adjourned Regular Meeting on Tuesday, August 24th, and the staff to present a report how the budget might be impacted with a 2¢ or $35,000 cut, as compared to a 1¢ or $17,000 cut. The motion was carried, 4 to 1, Councilman Brigham in opposition. Mayor Bridges brought to attentioh his memorandum asking the Council to approve the appointment of'a "Blue Ribbon .Committee" for review of governmental services. It was moved by Councilman Brigham and seconded by Councilman Kraus to allow the Mayor to form this committee. The motion was carried. - 4- B. ORDINANCE NO. 60.2, AN ORDINANCE'AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 60.2, THE SUBDIVISION 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 (Cont'd. 7/21, 8/4) The City Manager advised that the City Attorney has drafted some wording to express the Council's intent at the previous meeting. This would be Section 30.3, sub-paragraph (b), to fit ~:n on page 3 of O~dinance 60.2, before Section 30.4. He indicated the intent.here is to allow for those instances where there had been an application on file for approval prior to the effective date of Ordinance 61, the Emergency Ordinance placing a moratorium on con= dominium conversions these may continue to be processed and permitted in the event that 2/3 of all adult tenants consent to the conversation of such pro- ject to community housing, and if appropriate covenants, conditions and restrictions are recorded permitting all adult tenants not so consenting to remain as tenants of their respective apartment units so long as they continue to pay reasonable re~ therefor and comply with reasonable terms covenants and conditions of the lease or rental~ agreement. Consent of said 2}3-shall be in writing by verified signatures on a form containing a statement that the project may be converted to community housing if not less than 2/3 of said adult tenants so desire, and each tenant by signing said statement irrevo- cably expressing his or her consent to the same. The City Manager further pointed out a memorandum from the Senior Citizen Housing Task Force urging the Council to adopt Ordinance 60.2, and further recommending thatC~T~bT~h'~'f"con~e'F~Tsi~ss'~_~'E~ u~f'~c~ t~m~'~s~an r~partmen~ surplus, together with a vacancy surplus to t~ City's housing stock is determined to exist. The Mayor then opened the publie hearing at 8:45 P.M. Jerry Lohr, representing Saratoga Foothills, addressed the Council, and requested clar.ification on the problem on Mr. DeGrange's property as earlier mentioned by Mrs. Corr. The City Manager explained that as part of M~. DeGrange!s program, he is receiving funds from the State for his project, which is proposed ~o be 50 low-income rentals as well as non-subsidized rentals, and because these were state funds, the court has ruled it is in violation of the constitutional section ~6i~Oeguires that if there isCl~'W~~ai~eed~~'a } iT'hrs ..... Mr. Lohr inquired if this would then stop the project. Councilwoman Corr replied it would appear to, unless DeGrange could find some private financing, and this would'eliminate much of the low income factor. Mr. Lohr indicated he would like to reiterate that the Council is again con- fusing housing that was not desigBed for retirement housing with retirement housing. He indicated there is a strong demand and there are pieces of property in the City that could have appropriately designed .retirement housing, and they stand read~ to develop this, given the zoning. Therefore, he cannot see why the conversion of this particular property needs to be held up because of this. Councilwoman Corr commented that she felt the Senior Citizens Housing Task Force was addressing itself to the entire housing stock -- and not just retirement housing -- when taking this stand. Mr. Lohr commented that retiremen( housing can still be built -- rental or sale -- and he is just saying if ~ project should be designed with that in mind, it would be perfectly alright. However, since this project was not, he does not think it should be confused as such. Ordinance No. 60.2 (Cont'd.) It was then moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded by Councilman Brigham the public hearing be closed. The motion was carried. The public hearing was closed at 8:50 P.M. The City Manager ~xpla~ned that in terms of the specific development in question, if the Council adopts the proposed ordinance to include Section 30.3, sub-paragraph (b), it would be recommended to adopt a minute resolution to clarify that this particular project is the one spoken to. He explained that an application was filed for this project; however~ the Planning Commission denied it without prejudice, after the Council adopted the Emergency Ordinance. Therefore, i.t is considered a closed matter until it is re-applied for. Councilman MatteOni felt it should be clarified within what period of time the 2/3 votes are to be gathered. It was then moved' by' adopt Ordinance 60.2, without the inclusion of the proposed amendment. Councilman Matteoni indicated he would like to-movetO amend the motion to - -~i,nc-lude-i.n--th~O~d~!nance~Sec.t~on-.3n.}.,~. ~u~the~._amended_to_i. nc!.ud~__~h~_ _ clause that , heT273 Wit iTi O days of the effective date of this ordinan~ '~o~i'l~=~h~m~'e-~n'ded the motion, and it was carried, 4 to 1, Councilwoman Corr in opposition. C. APPEAL BY ILSE MARIA NOEGGERATH, 12950 PIERCE ROAD (V-456), OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO DENY VARIANCE FROM ORDINANCE NS-3, SECTION 3.2(g) TO ALLOW KEEPING OF ANIMALS (GOAT AND DONKEY) NOT PERMITTED BY ORDINANCE IN THE R-1 ZONE Mr. Van Duyn, Planning Director, explained tha~ the app.licant is requesting the opportunity to retain an existing donkey that has been located on the site for the past several months. He indicated that the staff originally p~rsued this matter on the basis of complaints filed to the City's Code Enforcement, thereby forcing the applicant to file the variance requested. He advised that the area is zoned R-1-40,O00, normally allowing 2 horses, donkeys or the like for the first 40,000 square feet in area, and 1 addition for each subsequent acre increment. He indicated that this matter wasLreviewed by the Planning Commission, and denied on a 3 to 3 split vote on a variance request. ~ayor Bridges indicated the Council must first determine whether it wishes to hold a hearing de novo on this'matter, or hear the matter this evening. It was the concensus of the Council to proceed with the hearing this evening. The Mayor then acknowledged written communications received on this issue~ as follows: 1) Orville Gaston, 13030~'~O'~t6h Cour~requesting this appeal be denied. 2) Roy Ewbank, 12970 Pierce Road, requesting the Council reject this application. The MaXor then declared the public hearing open at 9:07 P.M. Orville Gaston, 13030 Houston Court, addressed the Council. He pointed out on the viewgraph where his pool and patio area adjoins the fence of the Noeggerath's. He indicated that this area is virtually unusable many days at a time because of flies and the aroma from animals kept on the adjoining property. Mr. Gaston stated they have lived at this address for 6~ years, and the only period in which they were free'-of this nuisance was in the period between the time MrS. Noeggerath had removed a horse which was previously kept on this property and whenyshe obtained the donkey (approxi- mately 2 years. He pointed out that the stable area is in a state of very bad - 6- Noeg~erath Appeal, V-456 (Cont'd.) neglect, with high piles of rubbish, manure from the animals which is not disposed of, breeding of insects and rodents, as well as a problem of noise from the braying donkey. Mr. Gaston further indicated there is a depreciation.df property values.. He ~ointed out that these animals were brought onto this property prior to applying for the variance. Mr. Ray Ewbank, 12970 Pierce Road, addressed the Council, indicating that he would like to add one or two observances. Mr. Ewbank commented that it would seem to him it is proper for people to-get a permit first for having the animals. Mr. Ewbank commente~ that he could see where a variance might be in order for some of the City ordinances where it might be a hardship on someone, but where the hardship occurs the other direction . . . if it were a watchdog or seeing-eye dog . he could see that readily. Mr. Ewbank then played a recording of the braying donkey taken on a Sunday morning at 6:50 from his bedroom window. ~ Councilman Kraus asked Mr. Ewbank if there were any Other donkeys or horses on adjoining property. Mr..Ewbank replied there were none that he was aware of. Jim Isaak, 13685 Calle Tacuba, indicated he would have two questions: 1) What is the cost of getting a permit for this, and is it discouraging and prohibitive to the extent that people would not be encouraged to obtain. Mayor Bridges advised that the permit fees are based on the amount of staff time that is required to issue them. Mr: Van Duyn indicated that a permit is $10; however, a variance application is $75. Mr. Isaak then asked: "If this were an acre lot, would the position of stables that now exist be legitimate?" Mr. Van Duyn replied that it woul~ still be in violation of the setback distance from the structure on the east. Mrs. Noeggerath, owner of the donkey, addressed the Council. Mrs. Noeggerath advised that she lived in Saratoga before its incorporation, and at the time she moved here, she had a permit to keep three horses on her property. After the City was incorporated, she stated she came to the City immediately to find out if she could keep the horses. Mrs. Noeggerath indicated she no longer has the horses, but she now has on~ l~t_~tl~ ~R~ke~ about as tall as a Saint Bernard, which is a pet to the~c~h~l~ren in ~O~'(fl~t~f'~ked~YN(eggerath what the situation is regarding the goat. Mrs. Noeggerath replied that the goat is really just company for the donkey, and she doesn't feel this: goat is any nuisance to anybody. She asked that some of her young friends talk for the donkey. Robbie Appleby, 945 Cottenwood Dr~ve, San Jose, addressed the Council, stating he is speaking for the other children, and would like to see the donkey stay at Dottie's house so they can visit and ride him. Kathleen McWeeney, 12940 Pierce Road, addressed the Council, stating that she lives directly east of Mrs. Noeggerath. She stated that on behalf of the McWeeney family, Kathy McMorn and Jerry Stillman, she would like to say the donkey "Jeremiah" and/or the goat'is no problem to them -- the aroma does not bother them, horse flies and fruit flies do not bother them. Furth~r!,~-they like the rural area of Saratoga, and one of the ma~n reasons her family moved to this area is because they enjoy the country life. She stated that Pierce Road is one of the few roads left in Saratoga that retains this rural atmos- phere, and they feel the donkey and goat adds to this country atmosphere, and would like for them tostay~ - 7- Noeggerath Appeal, V-456 (Cont'd.) It was then moved by Councilman Brigham and seconded by Councilman Kr'aus the public hearing be closed. The motion was carried. The public hearing was closed at 9:22 P.M. Councilwoman Corr inquired if MrS. Noeggerath had a permit for three horseS, and then she had to later remove them. ~M~.'v~h~D~h~:6~as"~h~t~.he b~lieved Mrs. Noeggerath still had horse privileges. when the lot was'still in the County before the City incorporated. Shortly thereafter, the City was'incorporated, and at that time they did go to the City and asked whatthei~'~situation was. 'She indicated she was told as long as she owned the property, she could own three horses. Finally, the one horse faded out~ and she wanted to replace it with the donkey;'therefore, there was a period in between where they did not have either a horse or a donkey. After she brought the donkey in, she was told she would not be able t6~keep it'on the property~ Mr. MatteoniCasked Mrs. Noeggerath if she woul~ have any problem in com- plying with the 5 conditions outlined in the Planning Department Staff Report, dated July 23, 1976. Mrs. Noeggerath replied she would have no problem with this. It was then moved by Councilman B~righam and seconded. by Councilwoman Corr this appeal. be granted. : Councilman Matteoni commented he doesn't have any problem in allowing Mrs. Noeggerath to keep the animals, as Saratoga was incorporated to main- tain the rural atmosphere. However, he wonders if to do t~is, we would have to liberally interpret the findings under the ordinance regarding the .... granting of .ordinances. ............. Councilman Kraus indicated he has a great deal· of difficulty in approving a. vani~nce on a 15,~00 square footlot when there are people complaining about it, and it is just like applying for a new use permit. · Mayor Bridges indicated he would ~hare this feeling, and when a variance is granted, it is the responsibility of those seeking the variance to minimize the nuisance portion of the var~iance 'request. He stated it would be his opinion the applicant has not done lwhat is necessary in order for him to approve such a variance. Councilwoman Corr indicated in 'granting t ~s a_~l ~e~ ~ h _ ~p ~cat~on, recommended 5 restrictions that would be placed u~6~'~he'~pplicah~t6'~ correct the problems, and she felt the Council should at least give her the opportunity to attempt to meet these conditions, and if they are not met, the permit would be lifted. A vote was then taken on the motion, and the application was approved 3 to 2, with Councilmen Kraus and Bridges in opposition~ VII. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS A. MAYOR None. B. 'COUNCI'L AND COMMISSION REPORTS 1.<CounEi'~h~m'distribut~b:the Council possible League of 'Ca-li?ornia resol'~ti~s'for-6ouncil's consideration at a'future Committee of the Whole Meeting. He indicated there is a deadline date of ,September 2rid to put resolutions forward to the League. -8- 2. Planning Commission Repor~ Re: Rezoning from "R-1-40,O00" to "HC-RD" of that Area Defined as the Slope Conservation Zone in the 1974 General Plan ~It-was~moved~by"C~u~i'lman~Brigham-and-seco~d~d~by~Counc-ilma~-K~-~-~-~ ,~to set this matter for public hearing' on September 15th~ also, to \i~ntroduce=Ordinance--NS~=3~ZC_~8~and-wa~ve-~he~eading.~The-motion..was carried. 3. Planning Commission Report Re:~Rezonin~ of Four Parcels Located West of ~arato~a Avenue and South of Cox Avenue from "A" to "PA" in Accordance with 1974 General Plan (Zone #20} It was moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded by Councilman Brigham to set this matter for public hearing on September 15,'1976. The motion' was carried. o C. DEPARTMENT HEADS AND OFFICEBS 1. Director of Public Works Report Re: Bicycle Lanes on Saratoga Avenue Mr. Shook presented 3 alternate means of implementing bicycle lanes on Saratoga Avenue between Cox and the city limits, as follows: ~lternate 1 - 8-foot bicycle lane with parking permitted; Alternate 2 - 8-foot lane with parking prohibited; Alternate 3 - Striping to provide for an 8-foot parking lane, and additional 4 feet outside that for the bike lane, requiring adjustment of the existing lane line. He advised that the County has indicated it would be willing to parti- Cipate in Alternate 2 or Alternate 3. Following additional consideration of this matter, it was the concensus of the Council to hold'this matter in abeyance until the staff can bring back a report on statistics onehow ma~y people would be crossing Saratoga Avenue. 2. Building Official Report Re: R~moval of Structures at Quito ShOppinq Center tt was moved by Councilman Brigham and seconded by Councilman Kraus to extend the initial 60-day period by 30 days, and the staff p~esent a status report at that time. The'motion was carried. 3. City Attorney - Stipulation Order Re: Initiative Measure Following considerable discussion on this matter, it was moved by Councilman Brigham and seconded. by Councilman Matteoni to authorize the Cit9 Attorney to sign the Stipulation Order as presented. The motion was carried. D. CITY MANAGER 1. Late Claim for Personal Injuries, Daniel L. Clifford -- It was moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded b~ Councilman Brigham to deny the request for late claim and refer thi~ to the City's insurance carrier for consideration. The motion was carried. VIII. COMMUNICATIONS A. WRITTEN 1. Mr. Vince Garrod, 22600 Mount Eden Road, expressing throughts concerning 1976-77 Budget. - Noted and filed, 2. Mr. Ray Ewbank, 129~0 Pierce Road, requesting the Council reject application of Mrs. Noeggerath to keep a goat and donkey at 12950 Pierce Road. - Noted and filed. 3. Mr. Rudolph Kanne, P~esident, Good Government Group, urging the Council to initiate the process of removing lands within the City from the Black Mountain Conservation District. - City Attorney to have resolution for consideration at the next regular meeting on September 1st. 4. Re~olution from the City of Morgan Hill, urging action be taken to facilitate the constructionof the 101 bypass for State Highway lO1 from Ford Road South to Cochran Road. - Noted and filed, 5. Charles Reed, 14755 Fruitvale AVe., withdrawing his request that Condition "A" of SDR-1060 be waived. - Noted and filed. 6. Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Cooper,:14036 Saratoga Hills Road, favoring withdrawal from the Black Mountain Resource Conservation District. Noted and filed.. 7. Russell Corwther, Treasurer, and CharlesHOnter, President,. Saratoga Citizens Group to SAVE OUR DOLLARS/SAVE OUR HILLS, confirming their withdrawal of the fourth condition 6fthe Stipulation to the Court to permit the "Save Our Hills" Election'to be combined with the November Election. ~ Note~ and filed. 8. Sandy Santoriello, 20802 No~ada Court, regarding the City's memo on "Save Our Hills" Initiative Measure. - Noted and fil:ed. 9. Myrna Shussett, President Elect, B'nai B'rith Women, 4494 Heppner Lane, San Jose, requesting the City Council to adopt an ordinance permitting Bingo games to be played within.the.confines of the City of Saratoga. - Agreed tolhold in abeyance Until. ordinance from the County re: licensing procedure is drafted. iO. Copy of a letter from ~he West Valley Taxpayers and EnVironment Association to the Governing Board of West Valley College, regarding a budget resolution submitted to that Board. - Noted and filed. B. ORAL None. C. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF PUBLIC GROUP REPRESENTATIVES The Mayor acknowledged the pregence of public group representatives, as follows: Lynn Belanger, Chairman, Saratoga Jeff Kalb, Chairman, Saratoga Planning Commission Coalition ~or Tax Reform Gene Zambetti, Saratoga Planning Comm. Jim Isaak, Saratoga Library Comm. 'April Barrett, League of Women Voters Vince Garrod, President, Greater Saratoga Property Owners Assn. IX. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Councilman Kraus ~nd seconded by Councilman Brigham the meeting be adjourned to an Adjourned Regular Meeting on Tuesday, August 24. The motion was carried. ~0 P ~ ~~t~ Adjourned at ll:O0 ~ d ec sub~ ~te , ' 10 -