Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-07-1988 City Council Minutes MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL TIME: Wednesday, September 7, 1988 PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga CA TYPE: Regular Meeting 1. ROLL CALL: Mayor Anderson, Councilmembers Clevenger, Peterson, Stutzman present at 7:30 P.M. Councilmember Moyles present at 7:34 P.M. 2. CEREMONIAL ITEMS: A. Resolutions 2509, 2510 honoring outgoing Parks and Recreation Commissioners Vallone and Pakula B. Resolution 2511 Appointing and Reappointing Parks and Recreation Commissione;s Anderson, Gilman, Franklin and Ward CLEVENGER/PETERSON MOVED APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 2511 APPOINTING MEMBERS OF THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION. Passed 5-0. C. Administration of Oath of Office to~the above Mayor Anderson administered the Oath of Office to Ms. Franklin, Mr. Ward and Ms. Gilman; the Oath of Office was administered to Ms. Anderson later in the Meeting. D. Proclamation on PTA Week Mayor Anderson read the Proclamation and introduced local PTA Presidents. 3. ROUTINE MATTERS A. Approval of Minutes: Meeting of August 17, 1988, and August 22, 1988 Councilmember Clevenger asked that the vote on Resolution 2505 be listed as "Passed 5-0." CLEVENGER/MOYLES MOVED APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF AUGUST 17, 1988, AS AMENDED. Passed 5-0. MOYLES/ANDERSON MOVED APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF AUGUST 22, 1988, AS PRESENTED. Passed 5-0. B. Approval of Warrant List: CLEVENGER/PETERSON MOVED APPROVAL OF THE WARRANT LIST. Passed 5-0. C. Report of City Clerk on Posting of Agenda Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on September 2, 1988. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: A. Planning Commission Actions, August 24, 1988, - Noted and fried. B. Heritage Preservation Commission Minutes, August 17, 1988, - Noted and filed. C. Saratoga Cable TV Community Access Foundation Bd. Minutes, August 23, 1988, - Noted and fried. D. Public Safety Commission Minutes, August 8, 1988, - Noted and filed. E. Authorization for City Manager's Attendance at ICMA Annual Conference, Charlotte, N.C., October 23-27, 1988, with reasonable and necessary expenses per City policy. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL - Page SEPTEMBER 7, 1988 CONSENT CALENDAR Continued F. Authorization for City Attorney's Attendance at Land Use Regulation Seminars, Berkeley, Oct:. 20, 1988 an~t November 17, 1988, with reasonable and necessary expenses as approved in current budget. G. Authorization for Sweet Superintendent's Attendance at Maintenance Superintendents Association Annum Conference,.Garden Grove, September 7-9, 1988, with reasonable and necessary expenses. H. Authorization for Heritage Commissioners' attendance at Building Codes Workshop, San Francisco, September 23, 1988, with reasonable and necessary expenses. I. Construction Acceptance, Tr, 7919, Saratoga Avenue, and Release of Cash Bond (Kelly Gordon Development) J. Final Acceptance and Release of bonds, Tr. 8100 (Woolworth Construction Co., developer) K. Construction Acceptance for SDR 1623 and Release of 50% Cash Bond, Miljevich Dr., (D. Coffey, developer) L, Final Parcel Map Approval for SD 86-010, Sobey Road (2 lots) (Trapani, developer) M.Final Acceptance of Improvements and Release of Bonds, SDR 391 Lamonica), 593 (Johnson), 716. (Irany), 1232 (Johnson), 1248 (Irany), 1314 Stewart), 1329 (Krajeska), Vista Regina N. Proclamation of Adult Day Care Week O. Resolution 2494.1 to Reclassffy a Position in the City Service P. Ordinance HP 14 designating House at 15231 Quito Road as Heritage Resource (second reading and adoption) Q. Treasurer' Report - July 1988 R. Financial Report - July 1988 S, Investment Report - July 1988 Councilmember Stutzman requested removal of Consent Calendar Item J. PETERSON/MOYLES MOVED APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR, REMOVING ITEM J. Passed 5-0. Councilmember Stutzman noted the removal of significant trees on Tract 8100 during construction; the City Engineer stated that such was approved during the subdivision process. STUTZMAN/CLEVENGER MOVED APPROVAL OF ITEM J. Passed 5-0. 5. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS AND THE PUBLIC: A. Oral Communications from the Public and Commissions Mr. Russ Crowther, Norada Ct., Saratoga, reviewed his letter of August 18th and asked that the General Plan Noise Element be returned to the Planning Commission for review. Mr. Mark Pierce, 15295 Sobey Rd., Saratoga, thanked the Council for their endorsement of Proposition 100 on behalf of the Insurance Consumer Action Network. B. Written Communications from the Public 1) Hoyd Steinberg, concerning traffic problems (speeding) on Saratoga Glen Place. Consensus to refer to City Engineer and Public Safety Commission for study and review. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page SEPTEMBER 7, 1988 COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS AND THE PUBLIC Continued 2) Campbell Union School District requesting additional school crossing guard The City Manager reviewed the Memorandum from the Community Services Director. Community Services Director Argow cited unsuccessful efforts to recruit crossing guards; he asked that the Campbell Union School District co-operate in recruitment efforts and conf'mned that the locations cited required crossing guards for the safety of the chi/dren. Councilmember Peterson did not object to allocating the necessary funds; however, he ques- tioned whether the City should be required to both fund the position and recruit personnel. Councilmember Clevenger concurred and suggested that the School District's aid be enlisted. CLEVENGER/MOYLES MOVED TO AUTHORIZE AN ADDITIONAL SCHOOL CROSS- ING GUARD FOR THE INTERSECTION OF POLLARD AND QU1TO RD., MAKING A REQUEST THAT THE CAMPBELL UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT ASSUME PRIMARY RESPONSIBILTIY FOR RECRUITMENT EFFORTS. Passed 5-0. City Manager stated that a Resolution to this effect would be presented September 21, 1988. 3) Dianne McKenna, County Transit District, 70 W. Hedding St., San Jose, 951 I0, requesting proclamation of Paretransit Month Councilmember Clevenger provided information on the benefits of the paratransit program. Councilmember Stutzman added that the City's support of this program was essential. Consensus that a Proclamation re: Paratransit Services Month in Santa Clara County be issued. 4) Russell Crowther, 20788 Norada Ct., with questions about actions taken by Council on Noise Element. The City Attorney reviewed the Memorandum Re: Mr. Crowther's letter of August 22, 1988. Councilmember Clevenger responded that she was satisfied that the City had acted prope~y. Consensus reached that Mr. Crowther's letter be received, acknowledged and filed. 5) Lawrence R. Kelly, County Sheriffs Office, recommending interchange between Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and Highway 17. - Received, fded and hcknowledged. 6. OLD BUSINESS A. Proceedings in Connection with Vi/lage Parking District #3. City Manager reviewed the status of proceedings in connection with Village Parking District 3. 1) Resolution 2473.9 awarding construction contract MOYLES/CLEVENGER MOVED APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 2473.9 AWARDING CONTRACT FOR VILLAGE PARKING DISTRICT NO. 3. Passed 5-0. 2) Resolution 2473,2/9 authorizing change orders MOYLES/PETERSON MOVED APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 24733. (F~UTHORIZING CHANGE ORDERS FOR VILLAGE PARKING.DISTRICT NO. 3. Passed 5-0. 3) Acceptance of Easement from George Payne The City Manager presented the following additional items and asked that the Council authorize the acceptance of four easements to the agenda. CLEVENGER/MOYLES MOVED TO ADD FOUR EASEMENTS TO THE AGENDA. Councilmember Moyles questioned whether there was an appropriate urgency for such action; City Manager confamed that until easements were accepted, contracts could not be executed. Mayor Anderson called for a Vote on the Motion. Passed 5-0. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 4 SEPTEMBER 7, 1988 OLD BUSINESS Continued 4) Acceptance of Easement from Richard L. Kirlin, individually and dba Kirlin & Associates 5) Acceptance of Easement from Dennis M. Cunningham and Susan K. Cunningham, his wife. 6) Acceptance of Easement from Otto M. Crawford and Bette R. Crawford, husband and wife 7) AcceptanCe of Easement from Dennis M. Cunningham, individually and dba State Farm Insurance Co. MOYLES/PETERSON MOVED TO ACCEPT THE EASEMENTS FOR RECORDATION ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA. Passed 5-0. Mayor Anderson proceeded to Public Hearings. 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Reconsideration of appeal of denial of use permit and variance to expand a restaurant's seating capacity by installing outdoor dining at 14510 Big Basin Way in the C-C zoning district without providing additional parking spaces (Appellant/applicant, La Trattoria Restaurant) (UP-87-019; V-87-032) Planner Catdwell reviewed the Report Re: V-87-032 dated July 6, 1988. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:04 P.M. Mr. Luigi Martinetti, General Manager, reviewed their request for outdoor dining during lunch hours; he did not feel parking would be a problem during this period in the day. There was no objection from adjacent tenants and an agreement had been reached with the landlord. Councilmember Peterson supported the request with the understanding that no additional seat- ing would be added to the restaurant; should violations occur, he would withdraw his support. Mr. Martinetti conrimmed that he understood this restriction. Ms. Jackie Welch cited the Saratoga Village Plan which supported Outdoor dining in this area; she favored efforts to attract visitors to the Village area. Ms. Lois Cockshaw, 20995 Canyon View Dr., Saratoga, stated that customers strongly favored outdoor seating. Mr. John Di Manto, San Jose Construction Co., Inc., cited his letter of June 28, 1988. He suggested a review of applicable Ordinances and allow increased seating for outdoor dining during the seasonal months; such would provide the City with additional revenue. In addition, he asked that employee parking be designated in sites not competing with customer parking. PETERSON/CLEVENGER MOVED TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARINGS AT'8:15 P.M. Passed 5-0. Councilmember Clevenger stated that she had changed her mind since there had been no objection from adjacent tenants; on the contrary, tenants strongly favored the use requested. She concurred that if violations occurred, a review would be conducted. Councilmember Peterson favored consideration of Mr. Di Manto's idea. Parking District No. 3 would have a synergistic effect, i.e., more requests for outdoor dining would be received. He suggested retailers discourage employee parking adjacent to restaurants/stores and asked the Village Memhants Association to address this issue. Councilmember Clevenger concurred. Councilmember Stutzman asked that any changes be made in a timely manner pending further review; he noted the progress made at this hearing in agreeing on the above suggestion. Councilmember Moyles noted that while he reconsidered his position, he had come to the same conclusion as previously stated. He subscribed to the Planning Commission's analysis; the location in question was inappropriate since such was a thoroughfare. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page SEPTEMBER 7, 1988 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Consensus reached by the Council on the following Conditions: Hours of operation for lunch to be def'med as 11:00 A.M. - 5:00 P.M. Outside seating not to exceed 15 with a proportionate number of inside seating closed off Condition of liquidated damages for violations; free set at $100 per day Upon a second violation, Use Permit to be reviewed by the Council for possible revocation CLEVENGER/PETERSON MOVED TO UPHOLD THE APPEAL OF TRATTORIA RESTAURANT. Passed 4-1, Councilmember Moyles dissenting. The City Manager stated that a Resolution would be presented September 21, 1988. B. Appeal of denial of design review and variance approval to allow the construction of a new 5,225 sq. ft. two-story single family home, where only 4,440 sq. ft. floor area is allowed in die NHR zoning district at 12502 Parker Ranch Ct. (Appellant/applicant, Sun) Planner Caldwell reviewed the Memorandum of August 7, 1988. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:29 P.M. Mr. Kurt Anderson, Architect, commented as follows: Reviewed the Application and noted that the property owners had purchased the lot before the new Design Review Ordinance was implemented Appellants wished to build a 6,000 sq. ft. house (4400 sq. ft. living space with the remaining square footage in the garage) Contended that due to the unusual site constraints and location, a variance was warranted Staff/Commission felt this was a visible location; speaker disputed this view Mr. Bill Heiss, Civil Engineer, addressed the unusual site considerations as follows: Reviewed the history of the Parker Ranch Subdivision Noted that if the new Design Review Ordinance guidelines had been anticipated, the lot would have been approximately two acres During the Tentative Map stage on Parker Ranch, there was discussion regarding circula- tion pattern and the extension of Wardell Rd; lots were adjusted with this option in mind When the Wardell Rd. connection was eliminated, there seemed no necessity to revise the Tentative Map since the building sites had been designated and were not impacted This lot had been penalized for not anticipating the importance of the lot size; original lot size was 1.6 acres--very close to die 1.7 acres required for a 5,200 sq. ft. house The lot (comer) abutted open space, possibly triggering the applicable credit; in addition, a scenic easement existed on-site. Thus the intent of the open space credit had been met Slides of the area and the lot in question were presented Mr. Anderson presented a series of site pictures; applicants were prepared to lower the family room and reduce the size by 560 sq. ft. Mr. Mike Lawful, Architect of an adjacent project, noted that individuals who bought into the area assumed that they would be able to build 6,200 sq. ft. homes; however the new Ordinance drastically reduced square footage allowed. He asked the Council to consider these property owners and suggested they be allowed to build under the old Ordinance. Secondly, the design under consideration was compatible with the homes he was designing. CLEVENGER/MOYLES MOVED TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARINGS AT 8:45 P.M. Passed 5-0. Councilmember Moyles commented as follows: Noted concerns to control the excessive bulk of homes on the ridgeline and in the hillsides Cited efforts to develop Ordinance guidelines that equitably controlled the size of homes This was the fast appeal of the application of the new Ordinance Appreciated the difficulty of purchasing a lot under previous Ordinance; however, the new Ordinance appeared to be doing what had been hoped for--reduce the size of the homes Allowing an exception on the first appeal would destroy the 0rdinance's effectiveness and render useless the lip service paid to strict controls on hillside development New evidence was not presented to overrule the unanimous decision of the Commission MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 6 · SEPTEMBER 7, 1988 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued. Councilmember Stutzman commented as follows: Average slope was 40% with a building site slope of 35%--an extremely steep slope Such would require a 9 ft. cut into the hillside Lot was quite visible from the valley floor; 5225 sq. ft. house would prominen~y stand out A large, obtrusive and bulky appearing home would deface the scenic easement on the site; in addition, the colors proposed were beige with teal trim and red roof Felt the architect was aware when designing the house, that 4,440 sq. ft. was allowed The provision that the house could be built on a 35% slope was quite an accommodation; to obtain a second concession allowing an oversized structure would be excessive Ordinance was designed for a purpose; he objected to granting variances and noted concern that allowing structures as proposed' would totally deface the hillside Councilmember Clevenger commented as follows: Noted the steepness of the lot and the limited size of the building area Felt that the 4,440 sq. ft. allowed accomplished the intent of the new Ordinance--namely, when a lot was extremely steep, less obtrusive homes were allowed In addition, the home would be seen from the rear The Council could not disregard the effort to design and/or the intent of the new Ordinance Suggested consideration of not allowing any building on slopes in excess of 30% Councllmember'Peterson commented as follows: Mr. Heiss made an excellent point regarding the 'subdivision of the Parker Ranch; none- theless, the City had viewed homes already built and wished to redesign the Ordinance Noted his efforts to control/minimize the size of homes in the Parker Ranch subdivision; however, the 30% slope was an arbitrary number and he did not object to 31 or 32% slope In fairness to this particular lot, a limitation of 4,440 sq. ft. may not accomplish the intent of the new Ordinance; reducing this house 12% would not make a significant difference Since the property had been purchased prior to the new Ordinance, he would have favored some flexibility, considering the 6200 sq. ft. homes previously allowed Mayor Anderson commented as follows: Was concerned regarding the Variance granted to build on a slope in excess of 30% and suggested consideration of limiting the number of variances granted to any one site Considering the Variance already granted, she was not inclined to grant another This was the f'u'st appeal of the Ordinance; precedent would be set by granting an exception In addition, this house would be very visible from the valley floor MOYLES/STUTZMAN MOVED TO DENY THE APPEAL ON V-88-005, UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. Passed 5-0. C. Appeal of variance to construct home on a 31.2% slope at 20881 Canyon View Dr. where 30% is the maximum allowed in the R-I-40,000 zoning district (Appellant, Kissel; applicant, Krueger) (V-88-010) Planner Caldwell reviewed a Memorandum of September 7th, and introduced the following: SunDlemental Geologic & Geotechnical Review. Wm. Cotton Assoc., September 2, 1988 Lei/er of Daniel L. Casas, Reynolds, Roux, and Price, Re: V-88-010, September 6, 1988 Applied Soils Mechanics. August 30, 1988 Mr. Emil Kissel, Appellant, read into the record a prepared statement and presented pictures. A diagram showing area mud slides was displayed and damages sustained by these property owners discussed; local newspaper articles were cited. Ms. P. Kim; Adjacent Propmy Owner, reviewed past landslide damage on her property. Ms. Susanne Armbmster, 21169 Canyon View Dr., Saratoga, commented as follows: Presented pictures taken by Mr. W. R. Swain Reviewed damages sustained by her home in 1982; discussed the necessary repair work Felt that the property in question was not as stable as before cuts were made Mr. Donald Krueger, Applicant, commented as follows: Felt that the classic situation occurred wherein neighbors who had already built their homes wished to discriminate against applicants; the lot was a legal lot of record Appellant's motives included avoidance of legal and environmental responsibilities MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 7 SEPTEMBER 7, 1988 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Krueger continued as follows: Appellant installed utility and sewer lines in the center of the Applicant's property rather than in the easement area; preventing development of the property would relieve the Appellant of the cost of correcting this error Asked the Council direct the Engineer to examine drainage from the Appellant's property; the Appellant was in fact, the culprit, disregarding the environment Geotechnicai issues were covered in Reports presented; the City's Geologist, Wm. Cotton Associates, concurred and recommended approval of the Application Building on-site would stabilize the property and prevent further mud slides; noted the advance in technology which would be employed in building this hillside house The previous speaker employed this advanced technology in stabilizing her own home Mr. Daniel Casas, Attomey for the Applicant, commented as followed: Basis for the Appeal was that the Applicant's property posed a landslide problem Asked the Council to consider that them was no evidence submitted to support this claim.; in fact, just the opposite was true. Reports submitted were reviewed. Problems on adjacent lots were earth movement exa:~rbated by poor construction Felt that the Appellant had ulterior motives in opposing the Application; examples cited Asked that the decision of the Planning Commission be upheld Mr. Thomas Sparrowe, Project Geologist, reviewed the Report of Applied Soil Mechanics, GeolOgic Review and Preliminary Soil Feasibility Study. August 1988, and answered questions addressed by the Council as follows: Felt that conditions shown on photographs submitted would not occur on-site If the rather large landslides shown on the pictures were to occur, they would have done so already, especially during the winter rains of 1981-82 and 1982-83 If the site were developed, drainage would be taken cam of; them would not be sheet flow Did not see adverse conditions on-site that would create landslides The weight of a house would not facilitate a slide; pier foundations would stabilize a house Bedrock conditions were such that they did not angle out toward the outside of the slope While some surface soil creep might occur, there would not be a deep seated landslide Underground springs were not found on-site Did not feel that 1.2% in excess of the 30% slope allowed made the situation more danger- ous in this particular case; however, such evaluations must be made on a site specific basis Confirmed that having viewed the photographs presented, he would not change the Report statement in Conclusions, 2. Landslides Ms. Lois Cockshaw, 20995 Canyon View Dr., Saratoga, reviewed the building of her home and felt that current reslrictions had been relaxed. She was concemed regarding landslides. Ms. Cheriel Jensen, Quito Rd., Saratoga, commented as follows: Reviewed the history of this site and presented maps of the area; the Sorg and Mc Laughlin Geologic Maps, 1975, were cited Reviewed potential landslide activity in the area Felt that underground springs existed which were not apparent during two drought years On a slope of 25-30% the ranoff would be uncontrollable Noted the loss of the watershed/recharge area by impervious coverage of the hillsides Noted the damages paid by the City for damages on unstable sites; conversely, there were no damages paid when City refused to allow building unless a taking had occurred Asked that the application not be approved at this time; such was premature Mr. Sparrowe provided additional information on the Sorg and McLaughlin Study of 1975. He confirmed that it was possible that underground springs existed on-site; however, their review of the area did not reveal gross indications of spring action on the hillside. In addition, the vegetation would have helped express the location of springs, if any. Mr. Kruger asked the Council to consider the Consultant Geologist, not lay persoWs views. PETERSON/STUTZMAN MOVED TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARINGS AT 10:29 P.M. Passed 5-0. Councilmember Moyles was favorable to completing the required soils studies prior to reaching a decision; if a Variance were approved, he recommended specific Conditions be added to insure public health and safety. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page SEPTEMBER 7, 1988 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued f Councilmember Stutzman stated he had reservations on this Application and noted the City's potential liability whatever the decision. He was specially concerned regarding erosion on slopes exceeding 25%; furthermore, there was no guarantee that drainage systems would not become clogged, exposing the City to liability. If approved, stringent regulations needed m be incorporated with a guarantee that approvals granted would not hold the City liable. Councilmember Clevenger concurred that further study was required prior to a decision. Counqilmember Peterson felt that precedent would be set in making a decision before all the required reports were completed. While the City was on the cutting edge of hillside develop- ment, the extensive process of project approval was not being communicated to the public. The City Attorney responding to Councilmember Peterson's question, stated that the City did not incur liability by virtue of approving a project; the City incurred liability when public improvements were involved. The City's responsibility was to assure that the proper studies were conducted and that the site was buildable. Councilmember Peterson was not convinced that proper construction and installation of drainage facilities on-site would not be a benefit to the neighborhood. MOYLES/CLEVENGER MOVED TO CONTINUE V-88-20881 TO OCTOBER 19, 1988. Passed 5-0. Break: 10:50- I1:01 P.M. D. Corfn'mation of Weed Abatement Report and Assessment of Charges The Public Hearing was opened at 11:02 P.M. There were no speakers. MOYLES/STUTZMAN MOVED TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARINGS AT 11:02 P.M. Passed 5-0. MOYLES/PETERSON ~ TO ADOPT RES. 2512 CCNFIRM]lqG REPORT AND ASSESR4llqT OF WEMD ABATEIMMqT CHARGES. Passed 5-0 o E. Ordinance Relating to Modification of Zoning Standards through Subdivision Approval and Use Permit (fu'st reading) The City Attorney reviewed the proposed Ordinance. The Public Hearing was opened at 11:04 P.M. There were no speakers. MOYLES/CLEVENGER MOVED TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARINGS AT 11:05 P.M. Passed 5-0. PETERSON/CLEVENGER MOVED TO INTRODUCE AN ORDINANCE BY TITLE ONLY AMENDING SECTION 14-35.010 RELATING TO EXCEPTIONS PROM DESIGN REQUIREMENTS OF THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE AND REPEALING SECTION 15-55.030 AND SUBSECTION 15-80.030 (K) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE RELAT ING TO MODIFICATION OF STANDARDS THROUGH ISSUANCE OF A USE PERMIT. Passed 5-0. Mayor Anderson returned to New Business. 7. NEW BUSINESS A. Adoption of Customer Service Philosophy Statement and Establishment of Council Participation in Future Task Forces City Manager reviewed the Report Re: Customer Service Training Project, September 2, 1988; Councilmember Clevenger was designated as the Councirs Representative. PETERSON/CLEVENGER MOVED TO ADOPT THE DRAFT CUSTOMER SERVICE PHILOSOPHY STATEMENT. Passed 5-0. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 9 SEPTEMBER 7, 1988 NEW BUSINESS Continued B. Traffic Safety Improvement at Saratoga Hills Rd. and Reid Ln. The City Engineer reviewed the Report of September 7, 1988. PETERSON/CLEVENGER MOVED APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION MV-177 DESIGNAT- ING THE INTERSECTION OF SARATOGA HILLS ROAD AND REID LANE AS A STOP INTERSECTION. Passed 5-0. C. Request to Annex to West Valley Sanitation District-Robert Benech, 19750 Litfie Brook Dr., LOs Gatos (APN 510-27-006) The City Manager reviewed the Report of September 2, 1988. Councilmember Clevenger suggested consideration of an Annexation Agreement; City Manager and City Attorney provided additional information on City policy and the rationale for such. MOYLES/CLEVENGER MOVED TO INSTRUCT THE CITY REPRESENTATIVE TO DENY REQUEST, INDICATING THAT THE CITY WILL NOT FAVOR AN EXCEPTION TO EITHER LOCAL OR LAFCO POLICIES IN THIS CASE. Passed 5-0. D. Agenda Item for Meeting with Hakone Foundation Board Councilmember Moyles reported on the recent Meeting of the Board. 9. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS: A. Reports from Individual Councilmembers Councilmember Peterson suggested a Newsletter be dedicated to the Geotechnical issues of hillside development, new technology available and the process for securing City approval Councilmember Moyles stated that he had seen the model for the Route 85 interchanges; consideration given by the Council to displaying the model in the library Councilmember Cievenger reported on the upcoming Sister City Visit. She reported on Sanitation District 4. B. Fall Newsletter DisCussion by the Council on the t ic and la out of the u co in newsleuer. Newsletter to be ADJOURNMENT: The meeting of the City Council was adjoumed at 12 Midnight. Respectfully submitted, Carol A. Probst-Caughey Recording Secretary