Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-16-1977 City Council Minutes MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL TIME: Wednesday, February 16, 1977 - 7:.30 P.M. ' PLACE: Saratoga City Council ChamberS, 13777 Fruitvale Ave,,- Saratoga, Calif. TYPE: Regular Meeting I. ORGANIZATION A. ROLL CALL ~_~Present: Councilmen Brigham, Corr,_K~aus, Ma~teonl,JBr~dges · B. MINUTES Correction to Page 4, first paragraph, last sentence: Sub- stitute word "minimizes" for '!eliminates". It was moved by Councilman'Matteoni and seconded by Councilwoman Corr the minutes of February 2, 1977, be approved as corrected. The motion was carried Unanimously. II. CONSENT CALENDAR A. COMPOSITION OF CONSENT CALENDAR Mr. Shook, Direct~q~,~of Public Works, commented with regard. that th~e~tr~is~'~i~l~i~tfoned~ hiv~ along the creek behind the subdivisions; however this construction was deferred until the Task Force had submitted their report. tte statethat acceDtance of the tracts at this time would in- ~6f~h~ ~i{~~f~ a :pathway behind these two subdivisions. It was then moved by Counc{lman Brigham~and seconded by Councilman Kraus the Consent Calendar composition be approved. The motion was carried unanimously. B, ITEMS FOR CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Final Acceptance and Release 0f Bond a) Tract 4892 - Cal West Co~unities, Saratoga Avenue b) T~act 5343 - Cal West Co~unitie~, Saratoga Avenue 2. Construction Acceptance a) Tract 5088 - Kosich Construction Co., Ted Court 31 Final Approvali~. a) Tract 5923 - James ~. Day Construction Co., Chester Ave. 4. Ordinance No. 38.73 An Ordinance ~ending Chapter 5 of the Saratoga City Code Relating to Civil Defense and Disaster Emergency Organization and Functions (Second Reading) Consent Calendar (Cont~d.) 5. Ordinance No. 38.74 An Ordinance of the City of Saratoga Amending the Saratoga City Code by Amending a Portion of Section 8-12, Relating to Hearing on Impoundment of Animals 'Second Reading) 6. Payment of Claims 7. City Treasurer's Report 8. City Clerk's Financial,Report It was moved by Councilman Rraus and seconded by Councilman Brigham the items for t~'e Consent Calendar b~e approved. The motion was carried unanimously. III. BIDS AND CONTRACTS A. LANDSCAPING AND BEAUTIFICATI~N IMPROVEMENTS FUNDEp. D UNDER~ HCDA PROGRAM Mr. Van Duyn, Planning Director, briefly reviewed these improve- ment plans for the following areas to be bid upon: Firehouse planters Saratoga A~enue and Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road frontage landscaping, within easement re-do{ng of sprinkler system with Blaney Plaza landscaped area at the corner of ,Saratoga-Los Gatos Road and Big Basin Way addition to ~he H{~storic Park area in the form of arbor and benches to be located in back of the McWilliams House He indicated .the totalsproject, including additional planting for Big Basin Way (not a bid item, but an item of the project) would come to approximately' $7,600, including labor and materials. It was moved by Councilman Matteoni and seconded by Councilman Kraus approval of the Negative Declaration for the improvements outlined. The motion was carried unanimously. It was moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded by Councilman Brigham approval of the final plans. The motion was carried unanimous ly. It was moved by Councilman Brigham and seconded by Councilwoman Corr the staff be authorized to call for bids. The motion was carried unanimously. B. AUTHORIZATION TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH MACKAY & SOMPS, CIVIL ENGINEERS FOR ENGINEERING AND DESIGN FOR BOX CULVERT IMPROVEMENT ON COX AVENUE AT RODEO CREEK It was moved by Councilman Brigham and seconded by Councilman Kraus the Council approve the agreement with MacKaM & Somps for engineering la~nd d~e. sign work on this project~ - 2 - IV. PETITIONS, ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS A. ORDINANCE NO. 38.75 (First.Reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING THE SARATOGA CITY CODE, AND SPECIFICALLY SECTION 8-51 THEREOF, SETTING AND ESTABLISHING PRIMA FACIA SPEED LIMITS FOR MOTOR VEHICLES ON CERTAIN STREETS OF THIS CITY, BASED ON AN ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY CONDUCTED WITHIN THE LAST FIVE YEARS The City Manager explained'that this ordinance was drafted in conformance with the intent stated by the Council at the Committee of the Whole Meeting on FeBruary 8, 1977, which was to not modify any speed limits. Included in the ordinance is the addition of Prospect Road between Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and Stelling Road. Don Beardsley, 14615 Quito.Road, addressed the Council and 'inquired if this proposed ordinance included setting of speed limits on Qpito Road. Mayor Bridges advised that!this area is .included on page 7 of the ordinance, and does not propose'any change in the speed limit. Mr. Beardsley urged that [he Council consider either enforcing the present 35 mile-per-hour speed limit on Quito Road near Vessing, or consider a reduction in the speed limit from 35 M.P.H. to 25 M.P.H., due to the number of bad curves in this area. Steve St~'~5'~0~ee~i~8~d',,_~.c.o~nte~ ~h~h~ ~lly- supports ~M~. B~'~F'd~l~'~f~0mme~d~t?on. ' Les Henz, 14521 Quito Road,. indicated that he_had been informed by the Public Works staff [ha~ ~e~pe~d~m{t"~a'd~D been enforced in this area because Fh~d ~'~'~'~C~_c. kTd~~d~ ~'~d'~'~'ted every 4 or 5 years. Mr. Henz ind'~c~ ~'6'~l'd=%ssistin the use Of his frontage &t"6~Ya~lli~'aY~~ Bill Blaney, 14633 Quito Road, commented that he feels the speed limit from the curve warning sign north on Quito~the curve warning sign south on Quito where it goes onto Highway 9 should be 25 M.P.H. and that this should be strictly enforced. It was moved by Councilman Brigham and seconded by Councilman Kraus Ordinance No. 38.75 be introduced and the reading waived. The Council directed staff to prepare a report prior to fhe time of the final reading of the ordinance, outlining those findings supporting the~'i~at~ons 'to the Traffic. ConSultant's reconwaen- dations. Some ~f~'F~'~uggested findings ~ere: ~ount of pedestrian traffic moving on the corridors. N~rro~ess of Allendale. Lack of adequate shoulders on Allendale. Lack of uniformity of' development on Cox. Cross traffic going in and out of the shopping center and the nursery school. The motion was carried unanimously. The Mayor advised that the Quito Road improvement plans and possible speed limit alteration would be discussed at the Co~ittee of the ~ole Meeting on Tuesday, February 22, 1977. B. ORDINANCE NO. 64 (First Reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENT TO7 THE CONTRACT 'BET~EN THE CITY OF SARATOGA AND THE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION OF THE~ CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM It was moved by Councilma~ Kraus and seconded by Councilman Brigham Ordinance No. 64 be ~ntroducedand the reading waived. The motion was carried unanimously. C. ORDINANCE NO, 38.77 (First Reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING CHAPTER 6 OF THE " SARATOGA CITY CODE, WHICtt CHAPTER IS CAPTIONED "FIRE PROTECTION", AND SPECIFICALLY ARTICLE II'THEREOF RELATING TO WEED AND RUBBISH ABATEMENT, BY DESIGNATING THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY.FIRE MARSHAL AS THE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER THEREOF It was moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded by Councilman. Brigham Ordinance'No; 38.77!be introduced and the reading waived. The motion was carried unanimously. V. SUBDIVISIONS, BUILDING SITES AND ZONING REQUESTS A. NETTESHEIM REQUEST FOR ABANDONMENT OF PEDESTRIAN PATH AT END OF SURREY LANE (Cont'd. 1/1~/76, 2/2/77) Councilman Matteoni raised hhe question of whether the Council was considering eliminating!the secondary access, in addition to eliminating the foot path. Following some discussion of this consideration, it was moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded by Councilman Brigham this matter be set for public hearing on March 16, 1977, in reference to abandonment of the pathway.only. Mayor Bridges ind~ca~ed he ~ould vote in opposition to this motion in that he did not think this would alter the fact that people'would be moving over the pathway, and if closed off, this would force the'foot t~affic up onto the access road. The motion was carried, 4 to 1. VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL OF CONDITIONS IMPOSED'ON USE PERMIT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 15 OF ORDINANCE NS~3, TO ALLOW FOR THE CONTINUATION OF A NON-CONFORMING COMMERCIAL USE IN A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, LOCATED AT .14038 SARATOGA-SUNNYVALE ROAD (Lillian Rodoni, UP-315) (COnt'd. 1/19J77) The City Manager advised that the staff has met with the Rodoni's attorney; however, were not able to finalize the plans which were previously discussed by the. Council. It is therefore recommended this matter be continued to March 2nd. The Mayor opened the public,hearing at 8:35.P.M. There being no comments from the audience at this time, it was moved by CoUncilman Brigham and seconded by Councilman Kraus this matter be continued to.the March 2nd ~eeting of the Council. The motion was carried unanimously. - 4 - B. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S REgiStRaTION OF A USE PERMIT (UP-296) ISSUED TO LYNGSO GARDEN ~TE~I~, TO ALLOW THE CON- TINUATION OF A NON-CONFORMING COMMERCIAL 'USE IN-A RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 15 OF ZONING ORDINANCE NS-3. SAID USE IS A GARDEN MATERIAL SUPPLY OPERATION LOCATED AT 12405 S. SARATOGA-SUNNYVALE ROAD, SARATOGA The City Manager indicated~there is one item of correspondence received on this matter, from Richard Graves, 20576 Manor Drive., requestingno chang~.be'made in the present use permi~. The City Manager then. reviewed this issue with the Council. He explained that several months ago, a dual appeal of Condition 8 of the use permit was filed with the City Council -- by Lyngso Garden Materials and by surrounding residents. This condition required that in addition to the 5~year~phase-out ~, '~h'[ L~g~'~ ~nter~ into an ~f[~nt ~i~h"[~'Ci~,. f~F that phase-out period. The agreement had been signed bythe Lyngso's; however, the~cover letter from Mr. Gardella'indicated' they were not in agreement'with the agreement they had signed~ Therefore,'the~CitX AttorneX brought this matter back to the City Council~ad~s~n~6~hi'~h'i~.~e~l ,I~he City had an agreement that woul~t~'d?~'~a'tTa~l'~date, if necessary, and recommended the matter Tbe referred back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration of this condition. Mayor Bridges indicated that the report back from the Planning Commission~is_e'_e~'~l-_s_.the CouHcii of the Commission's action t0. eliminate CS'~di%'fon 8 = . Mr. Beyer expJai~!ned that Mr. GardellA's letter, dated January 14, 1977, r~_!~quests'an ap~al=in G~se the Planning Commissio~ in taking it~'~i%~'t~riy reconsidering'the entire.use permit. Mayor Bridges requested Mr. Gardella's explanation of this appeal,prior to opening th~ public hearing.~ Richard Gardella,.Att~rney !representing Lyngso Garden Materials, addressed the Council, stating that he was unclear as to the action of the Planning Commission on January 12,71977. Therefore, he felt he was required to 'exhaust~administrative remedies and carry an appeal forwar~ based on there being a ~e-affirmation of the use permit. He commented thatif someone were to tell him the only thing that was up ifor reconsideration was that one item, there would not be a need for a hearing. this evening. The City Attorney advised that it was his feeling the entire use permit was before the Planning Commission, and the appeal is from the implied re-acclamation of the use permit and its con- ditions, with the elimination of Condition 8, and modification .~cL-Condi~ion 10_ It was, therefore, moved by Councilman Matteoni and seconded by ~U~e~ni~i~m~h~'~'dWl~iE'h~a~i~ 6[ ~hi%'~et'g~'b~ '0De~'~d . on the basis of reviewingOt, from the record of the Planning Commission and interpretation by the appellant, with ~he. under- standing that it is not a'hearing de novo. The motion was carried unanimously. The p~blic hearing was opened at 8:47 P.M. ~' I~yng~o Garden Materials Cont'd.) Mr. Gardella addressed the. Council on-behalf Of the Lyngso family and Lyngso Garden Materials. Mr. Gardella stated that since the time the Council referred this matter to the Planning Commission there have been a series of~'F~e~'p~an-~ing~m~i~si~-d~n~i~'~' r-"-N~2'2' ~ D e c em~e~~ I~8%~ ~~27'i~ 77 .~ ~"f~'d i j~t~ ~'tha t point, he still had no fi~ statemenD of precisely-why he~was there -- they were not helped by any staff r.eport or materials. He stated this led to a vague kind of proceeding, and that is why they are still operating in a certain vague atmosphere. Mr. Gardella indicated they concurred with the basic Planning Co~ission action; they do.not~b~lieve Condition 8, requiring the execution of an agreement, properly belonged in the~ petit as initially granted, and they specifically opposed the Darti- eular terms they were given on a "take it or leave it"basis. He stated that he believes their function this evening is largely technical, and they are hopeful of avoiding litigationl They are, therefore, appealing the conditions that were opposed and presumably reaffirmed. Mr. Gardella stated'that t~ey have ready to re-submit at this time all of the material previously submitted. He then su~arized the applicant's'basic objections to the conditions: Condition No. 1 - The Valuation expert'indicates that a 20-year phase-out De~iod would be appropriate. It i~ conceivable that i0~years,.aS originally reco~ended by the staff, might be a compromise, but they know the 1980 date is clearly an unreasonably short period of time, and constitutes a taking of the property without due compensation. They would urge they be granted at ~ leas~js longSperiod as the ne~ghbor,~~17 ~ho~ Mr. Gardella co~ented that as a collective matter, he feels the conditions are designed to unreasonably burden the small family corporation, and the type of'conditions are clearly designed to possibly financially drive them out of business before 1980 even comes around. Condition No. 2 - This involves a partial~elimination of the business when 75 feet of bins are reqdired for re- moval, and the provision that no relocation can take place. This is a removal or elimination of business with no amorti- zation period at all. r l' Condition No. 4 - Landscaping. This is a condition imposed solely for ~p!~ylte' aesJ~Ft~..~eas ns. Condition No. 8 - Cannot proceed with the development of the property. They have been granted permits in the past, have spent a lot of money on this in the past for street improvements, drainage-funds, and even have a signed improve- ment agreement with the City that is now being eliminated by this condition on the use permit. ~ Ly~gso Garden Materials (Cont'd.) Condition No. 9 - This is a requirement for the con-. version of the frontlOader to propane. This is felt to be unjustified as it enters into a field of ~egulations (vehicle regulationp)p~e-empted by the State. Condition No. 11 - Thi~ is a taking Of access without compensation, and to a'street the ap~!icant was required to help build. Mr. Gardella stated that he would urge that.the use permit be' granted with no conditionS', and particularly, that the time limitation be modified into a reasonabl~ time period -- for instance, the same as Haven Nursery, which.is 15 years. Mr. Van Duyn indicated he.would like to correctla statement by Mr. Gardella. He stated that the'staff at no time recommended 10 years as the amortization period. Also, he indicated that Mr. Cardella makes comments relevant to the 'staff'saction, and this is confused. With the Planning Commission. For instance,. the Planning CommisSion recommended 10 years; however, at the · time of the appeal, the'CoUnCil-specified 5 ~ears, and when the staff prepared its analysis to the Planning Commission, 5 years was recommended a~ the amortization period also. The City Attorney pointed out that there is a provision whicb states "No ground of appeal not specifically set forth in' the 'notice of appeal may be raised or considered at the time of the hearing on the appeal." Fred Tatar, 20577 Manor DriVe, addressed the Council. Mr. Tatar commented that in discussing the current status of this situation with the homeowners, they feel the use Permit ~s defined with its conditions was disappointing, but perhaps a tolerable Position. He indicated they were ~illing to acceDt the fact that the Lyngso facility would be phased out .by October 3, 1980. Now, thev have some a~preps~ons'b~cause~the current action of the Planning Commission, ~h'i'ch-Was~-to-d~lete item 8 from the list of conditions He stated that this is recognizing that the Lyngso's will not accept a compromise on this position. Mr. Tatar commented that the homeowners also feel that time could go by, until 1980, and then the.whole issue could be resurrected at that time.- He commented that this issue is already in. its fourth year,Tby April 1977,' and by. 1980, it will be up to 8 years, and then it could go on for a COUPle of more years. Therefore, it is their concern.that what did look llke it was finally going to come to an end could be oDened UD all over again. Mr. Tatar indicated tha~the ot~er concern is that during the interim, the maintenance of:the property could go to pot,i. llke it ~as.in the past, and the~e conditions really don't enforce that particular fact. However, they know they do have the re- course of coming to the Planning Commission. He further commented that they do not feel the City Council should be intimidated by discussions of the Lyngso's recovering their investment, and whether these conditions allow them this. Mr. Tatar stated that the Lyngso.'s.bought thins property in the early 1960's, and they have had at least 15 years to recover whatever investment they have. He indicated that the property has always been on the General Plan &s Residential, so everybody knew it would eventually have to come to an end. - 7 Lyngso Garden Materials (Cont'd.) Mr. Tatar concluded that in taking these things into con- sideration, the Council could bring this issue to a head tonight. He commented that one of the reasons this has dragged on is because of this list of conditions, and one way to bring this is to a head is to remove all the conditions and deny the use permit. He stated that if the Council is not receptive to this DOsition perhaps another way to go would be to modify Condition 1, which talks about discontinuation of the use in 5 years. If the Council voted tonight to change that to 1 year, and change the timing to October 3, 1977, this would force the issue to a head. Mr. Tatar stated that he feels the Council has an obligation to support the Zoning OrdinanCe, and all the actions the Council has taken thus far have gone that way the property is zoned Residehtial and there has been a vote to Dhase it out, but it has taken so long and there has been so much uncertainty. He felt the Council co~{d'remove this uncertainty by acting on the recommendations present~ed tonight. There being no further comments from the audience on this issue, it was moved by Councilman Matteoni and seconded by Councilman Brigham the public hearing be closed. The motion was carried unanimously. T~e public hearing was closed at 9:05 P.M. Councilman Matteoni commented that he is viewing this as a technical type of appeal, and is focusing on Conditions 8 and 10, modified to 11, and Icomf.ortable with___t_~h_tlhe~.~O~n~_g~Commission's action in this regard. CWith~~t~e~al issue, Councilman Matteoni stated he would re=incorporate all his comments at the l~st__pu~l_i~he~ring= Councilman Kraus indicated that he feels Condition 8 should be put back in, as he doesn't feel we have an agreement at this point. Mr. Kraus stated that the Zoning Ordinance says 1 year for an outside use in a residential zone, and since Mr. Gardella has chosen to modify his signature on th~se conditions, it is his feeling leaving Condition 8 out is not right. Therefore, he feels Condition 8 should be put back into the listof conditions, and Condition 1 s~ould be modified to state "1 year". y r Bridges ith regard to the Council's earlier action concerni~gg'it~findings. He explained that he voted "No" on this particular action for a specific reason, that reason being that he felt more cou!d be done to mitigate the impact of those 5 years on the residences in t~is area. However, he felt the agreement which Mr. Gardella originally signe~ and the spirit.of.the law has been complied with in making these certain findings. It was then moved by Councilman Matteoni and seconded by Councilman Brigham to deny the appealby Lyngso Garden Materials, and affirm the action of the Planning Co~ission to delete Condition 8 and modify Condition 10 of the use permit, UP-296. The motion was carried, 4 to i, Councilman ,Kraus in opposition. The Mayor recognized the pre. sence of 3 students from the University of Santa Clara . Rick Allen, Patricia Barr, David Fillio. Recess and Reconvene 8 VII. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS A. MAYOR 1. Announced Executive Session following the Regular Meeting this evening for the purpose of discussing Litigation. 2. Appointments to Youth Service Bureau It was moved by CounCilman Brigham and seconded by Councilman Kraus the appointment of~Pamela Nesbit and Laura Putney (repreSenting the Saratoga ~gh School District). The motion was carried unanimously.~ 3. Appointments to Village Task Force It was moved by Councilm~n Brigham ahd seconded by Councilwoman Corr appointment of the ~ollowing reDresentatives on the Village Task Force: RaiSa Kocher, Jane Dennis, Roge~ Haag, Ed Garner, Barry Turkus,,Virginia Laden, and Ernest Kraule. The motion was carried unanimously. B. COUNCIL AND COMMISSION REPOkTS C. DEPARTMENT HEADS AND OFFICERS 1..DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKSr'RE:RAZARDOUS STAIRS ATeGUAVA COURT The Director o~ Public WQrks outlined 4'alternatives to be considered regarding this matter: 1. Do nothing, allowing the condition to remain as' it is. 2. A partial improvement to ease the ihgress and egress to Guava CoUrt for bicyclists. 3. Fully improve this crossing to provide a safer crossing of the PG&E and Southern Pacific rights- of-way, estimating'S2,000. 4. Close 'the facility off entirely, thereby reducing any real or implied liability to the City. The City Manager indicated there was item of correspondence received on this issue prior to this evening, from:" Sandra Brems, 20175 Guava Court, requesting that the walkway off Guava Court be closed. This evening, 10 letters were the pathway bekept open~ Linda Callan, 12598 Fredericksburg Drive, addressed the Coundil, stating~that the pathway~is the way the children of the 85 families that live in this area get tO the other neighborhoods and to the schools, to scouting, cDu~trqhes, etc.~She pointed ~M~ 1 ter ~ ~nd ~' othe~hools is~~Cox 'Ave~,'~ro~ ~f~'~d~B~dB~o=S'e~g~Tl7~'Miller Avenue and cross Cox again to come back in ab6ut a mile to get to the schools. This crossing twice on C6x Avenue was felt to be a real risk to the children. She, therefore, urged that the Council consider keeping this pathway open. Meg Clay, 12414 Fredericksburg Drive, commented that if this pathway is closed, the p~rents will have to take the children by car in any direction they might go. She strongly urged that the pathway be kept!open. -'9 'Guava Court (Cont'd.) Don Landberg, 12253 Fredericksburg Drive, commented-h~ felt the Council must take a cormnon sense look at the con= venience to the community, and closing it would necessitate travelling 3/4 mile to 1 mile to get around to the other ~ide. Mrs. Sheila O'Leske, 12379 Fredericksburg Drive, sD0ke in support of keeping the route open, Suggesting .the improvement of a curved ramp parallelt0 the fence to enter the street would be a satisfactory. way of resolving the problem. ~ ther ~comments'were rece~ved~favorzng t.he-Dathway, from ~e f~!~f0~in"ffY~Si~d~/~i~'baf~p~L~e~i~,~. 20057 Glen Arbor and Fran~a~12!5~5 Fr~derick~Surg~.DF~e~!? ; Martha Konrad, 20125 Guava Court, addressed the Council, indicating that sheand~her neighbor, Mrs. Lava feel the pathway should be closed. She stated that their concern is for the safety of their s~hli~Ichildr. en, in that there has been rock throwing, small grass fires, motorcycles going up the stairs, small Vandalism, and small children being threatened by.the older children. Mrs. Lava presented a petition signed by. all but one of the residents on Guava, requesting closure of ~the~athway.for reasons of safety. ~~l'~d~u~ia'~K~ alternative measures as D~esented b~Mt?~!Shook. It ~'~s~he consensus to direct staf~ to '. officially contact the Southern PaCific R~ilroad and PG&E to find out the requirements for impr0vin~ the pathway. across the railroad trackS, with a report to follow in 30 days. D. CITY MANAGER ,.l,, !z~ , .'~I 1. Requested setting a public hearing for M~rch 16, 1977 Re: recommendation of the Planning Commission for rezoning by Osterlund Enterpri'ses~forfront p0rtion-ofCamDbell School site off of Allendale A+enue This was~e~b~=c e Council. ' ? VIII. COMMUNICATIONS A. WRITTEN . ! 1'. Information 'and Referral. Services of~Santa Clara County, Inq. expressing appreciationrfor the City~of Saratoga's support for necessary funds to Continue serving the community. ~ INoted~ and filed. 2L Carmen Newby,Women's International League. for Peace and Freedom, requesting 'support in the.re-structhring of tax priorities. Noted andSfiled; no action required. 3. Santa Clara Valley Wa'ter District, ResOlUtion No. 77-11, Resolution Urging ObSerVation.of Rules to Eliminate Water Waste During 1977. - The City Manager indicated there'would be a report on this matter at the March 2nd Regular Meeting. - 10 Written Communications' (Cont'd. 4..City of Palo Alto, Resolution No. 5327,1a Res01ut{onof the City Council of Palo Alto Requesting the Santa Clara County Transportation District Board to Make Funds Available to the Cities f~r Community Transit Service. It was moved by~ a~or'I~i_ridges~and seconded by Councilman Brigham the' Coundi~I'~ad~'~h~ following minute resolution: 'The Coui{cil feels in-roads of this kind into the District funds wi'll result in decreased service in the most important areas of our transit system." The motion was carried unanimously, and the' staff was directed to forward these comments to.the Dist~idt Board. 5. Mrs. Alex Hor~ath, 20330 Los GaEos Road, s'upporting the porposed bus terminal in the Village. Noted and filed. 6 Resolution No. 77-7, a Resolution of the Ci~ty Council-of the City of Escondido, Opposing the Redistribution of Sales Tax Revenues on the Basis of Population - Noted and filed. 7. Richard H. Graves, 20576 Manor Drive, R~ Lyngso Garden Materials Use Permit, requesting that no change,Be made' in the present use Permit. - Noted and filed. 8. Town of Los Altos Hills, Robert C. Cheney~ Mayor, Re: Proposed Ordinance' to Establish Santa Clara County IntergoVernmental Council. - Noted and filed; City Manager to respond indicating Council's previouS"posi~iDn in support of the recommendation. 9. John S. Cavalli, Director, West Valley YoUth Service Bureau, requesting the .City Council appoint Laura Puthey to. the West Valley Youth Service -Bureau Advisory. Board'. Approved appo int- ment. B, . ORAL._ . 1. Planning Director - Advised the City is intending to re- stripe area of Third Street and Big Basin Way for on-street parking purposes. Requested minute resolution by the'Council providing for prohibition of parkihg on the west side of Third Street in order that the City could ins'tall necessary signs. It was moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded by Councflwoman Corr approval of the Third Street parking facility as proDbsed by the Planning Department. The motion was carried ~nanimously. C. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF PUBLIC GROUP REPRESENTATIVES The Mayor acknowledged the presence of Planr~ing Commissioners Callan Lustig and Be~a~n_~%this evehing. IX. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Councilman B~gham and seconded by. CounCilman Kraus adjournraent of the meeting to an' Executive Session. The motion was carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:45 P.M. sDectf bmitted, Ro 11 ~)