10/16/1967 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

COMMUNICATIONS continued: REEL 1, SIDE 2, TRACK 4 continued —� Mrs. S. Anderson, 13051 La Paloma Road, and Mr. C. A. Walter, Chairman of the Sewer Committee, spoke on the issue of the appointment. Council .. discussion followed, and Mr. Aufmuth!s appointment affirmed. City Manager advised that four communications had been received relating 300 to the proposed revision to Ordinance No. 8 (providing for sanitary sewage in the Town), as authored by the Homeowners for Responsible Action, Deputy Mayor Davey directed the City Manager to continue with the reading of the communications for discussion at this time. 8) Letter dated October 17, 1967 from Preston Burchard, Chairman, Home- owners for Responsible Action, urging the Council to proceed with the enactment of the proposed revision to Ordinance No. 8. 9) Letter dated October 16, 1967 from Mr. and Mrs. Lawrence W, Templeton, 319 12846 Viscaino Road, urging the Council to proceed with the enactment of the proposed revision to Ordinance No. 8. 10) Letter dated October 15, 1967 from Thomas H. Marshall, Charter Member 328 of Homeowners .for Responsible Action, urging the Council to act on the proposed revision to Ordinance No. 8. 11) Letter dated October 16, 1967 from Dr. W. Mary Riggs, District Health 337 Officer, County of Santa Clara, requesting the Council to refrain from any - action until her Staff has completed its report on the proposed revision J\� to Ordinance No, B. MOTION AND SECOND: That the proposed revision to Ordinance No. 8 as authored by the Homeowners for Responsible Action be discussed tonight and that the ordinance be scheduled for first reading at the November 6th meeting. Oral testimony was heard from: C. A. Walter, Chairman of Sewer Committee, and Peter J. Nardini, Supervising Sanitarian of the Santa Clara County Health Department,. opposing the Motion. Mr. B. W. Marsh spoke in favor of the Motion. Deputy Mayor Davey pointed out the proposedrevision had not been formally submitted to the Council nor accepted by it, and that it should properly be agendaed for discussion. Council discussion followed. MOTION FAILED; The Motion for discussion on revision to Ordinance No. 8 failed for lack of a majority on a voice vote of 2 to 2, with Councilman Fowle and Deputy Mayor Davey opposed. MOTION, SECONDED AND CARRIED: Councilman Aiken moved, seconded by Council- man Benson, and unanimously carried by voice vote, that full discussion on the proposed amendment. to Ordinance No. 8 be agendaed for the November 6th meeting, and that the Staff - legal, engineering and administrative be asked to look into the ordinance and various alternatives that may come V 1 into their mind and that the Staff particularly contact the Health Departs --t J and the Sewer. Committee for any suggestions. -3-