Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-17-1989 City Council Minutes MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL DATE: Wednesday, May 17, 1989 - 7:30 P.M. PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting 1. Roll Call: Mayor Anderson, Councilmembers Clevenger, Moyles, Stutzman present at 7:35 P.M; Councilmember Peterson absent. 2. CEREMONIAL ITEMS: A. Presentation of Resolutions passed May 3, 1989, commending Warren Heid and Barbara Voester for service on Heritage Preservation Commission Mayor Anderson presented a Proclamation commending Mr. Warren Held. B. Proclamation on Older Americans Month Mayor Anderson presented the Proclamation on Older Americans Month tO Ms. Peggy Corr. C. Proclamation on Alcohol-Related Birth Defects requested by Councilmember Clevenger 3. ROUTINE MATTERS: A. Approval of Minutes: Meetin~ of May 3, 1989 Councilmember Clevenger asked that her remark be amended to read, "...while she preferred a modification of Alternative 1, the Motion passed was reasonable. MOYI.,ES/CLEVENGER MOVED APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF MAY 3, 1989, AS AMENDED. Passed 4-0. B. ApprovalofWarrantList: CLEVENGER/MOYLES MOVED APPROVAL OF THE WARRANT LIST. Passed 4-0. C. Report of City Clerk on Posting of Agenda Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on May 12, 1989. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: A. Planning Commission Actions, May 10,1989, - Noted and filed. B. Heritage Preservation Commission Minutes, April 19,1989, - Noted and filed. C. Public Safety Commission Minutes, May 8, 1989, - Noted and filed. D. Ordinance HP-4 designating the Judge Foster House at 14510-14540 Big Basin Way as a Heritage Resource (second reading and adoption). E. Ra~o].ut'i0n modit~,'ing Planning Commission decision on Kohler appeal of Burke (Harbor Builders)Project heard April 19, 1989 (continued from May 3,1989) (to be con- tinued to June 7, 1989) F. Approval of Easement for Electrical Service for Blue Hills Pedestrian Overcrossing at State Route 85. G l~inal t4aD Approval-, Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd. and COx Ave., Tr. 8220 (Developer, Saratoga Partners). MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 2 MAy 17, 1989 CONSENT CALENDAR Continued The City Manager cited Item 4 GZ and recommended the City CoUncil remove the two Conditions of Final Map Approval which required the securing of encroachment permits from Cal Trans and Santa Clara Valley Water District; construction could not proceed without these Conditions being fulfilled and Cal Trams had indicated that it would be several months before the permit was issued. STUTZMAN/MOYLES MOVED APPROVAL OF CONSENT CAI .ENDAR ITEM O. WITH RE- MOVAL OF TWO CONDITIONS OF THE FINAL MAP APPROVAL REQU/RING THE SECURING OF ENCROACHMENT PERMITS FROM CAL TRANS AND SANTA CLARA V. AI .l .t~y WATER DISTRICT.. Passed 4-0. CLEVENGER/STUTZMAN MOVED APPROVAL OF THE BALANCE OF CONSENT CAL- ENDAR. Passed 4-0. Mr. Marc Kocir, 12795 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd., Saratoga, wished to speak on Item Gi a letter from his attorney was sent to the City and the developer in September, 1988, regarding an en- croachment at the Pierce Ave./Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd. intersection; there had been no response from the City. Approval of this Consent Calendar Item allowed the developer to go forward on another project without having resolved questions on a previous one. Mr. Jerry Kocir, 12855 Saratoga-SUnnyvale Rd., Saratoga, reviewed the history of the project at the Pierce Ave./Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd. intersection and asked for a review of this situation. The City Manager responded that the two projects were not related and advised the City Council against delaying the Conditional Final Map Approval for Tract 8220. The City Attorney added that the City's main interest was to provide signalization of the intersection prior to occupancy of the buildings; an]~ issue regarding a possible encroachment was between Cal Traps and the affected property owner~ Mr. Bill Herschman, Saratoga Partners, reviewed the status of the project at Pierce Ave./Saratoga- Sunnyvale Rd. with respect to the installation of a traffic signal and a possible encroachment. Councilmember Clevenger thought it unreasonable to delay a Final Map Approval for this project due to questions about an adjacent site; Cal Trans and Mr. Koch' would have to resolve the issue. The City Council did not wish to reconsider the Conditional Final Map Approval for Tract 8220; however, City Staff would be assisting Mr. Kocir to resolve concerns regarding the possible en- croachment at Pierce Ave./Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd. intersection. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR II - CLAIMS: A.. Claim of Scott Bradley concerning incident where cyclist struck head on branch broken from tree by windstorm CLEVENGER/MOYLES MOVED TO DENY THE CLAIM OF SCOTT BRADLEY. Passed 4-0. 5. ' COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS AND THE PUBLIC: A. Oral Communications from the Public and Commissions Ms. Karin Dowdy, 19101 Brook Ln., Saratoga, asked that the City Council Meetings be televised. Councilmember Clevenger responded that the City Council was in favor of tele'vising the meetings. Councilmember Moyles added that the Cable TV Access Board understood there was consensus to televise the meetings; the problem was the expep~e of .~',*~;.!?"~ *~'~ ~'Z,'~!"~r. lun~.Sor TV cameras. Mayor Anderson added that there was also a lack of volul~tecr Sts;ff to provicl~' technical assistance. Councilmember Stutzman favored televising their meetings; however. he noted the costs involved and advised that citizens would have to make a determination whether they wished to subsidize it. Ms. Kathleen Amezcua. Owner, International Coffee ExChange, asked that the Camphor trees be preserved on the north side of Big Basin Way; currently. they were scheduled for removal. The City Manager noted the lengthy process by which the Beautification Committee had reached their decision; the contract had been awarded and Work was ready to proceed. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 3 MAY 17, 1989 COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE COMMISSIONS AND THE PUBLIC Continued Councilmember Clevenger .suggested the Beaufificafion Committee hold an emergency meeting; Councilmember Moyles was not opposed to convening a meeting if Committee members and Village Merchants could be assembled; however, he did not wish to see the entire project delayed. Consensus that the City would notify the Committee and Ms. Amezcua notify the merchants. Mr. Harve Green, 18744 Casa Blanca Ln., Saratoga, requested information on mitigations for the railroad between Saratoga Ave. and Quito Rd. Councilmember Moyles reponeA on the Traffic Authority's discussions on the use of soundwalls. Mayor Anderson added that neighborhood meetings would be held on this issue. Ms. Scarlet, 13551 La Paz: Wy., Saratoga, asked that the streets in her neighborhood be cleaned. Mr. Willem Kohler, Pierce Canyon Homeowners Assoration, objected to a Saratoga News article of April 26, 1989, which correlated the accidents on Pierce Rd. with the high number of trees in the area; accidents were caused by excessive speed and the use of this narrow mad by large trucks. He added that the native California Oaks were disappearing. B. Written Communications from the Public 1) Eleanor Ray, 22000 Mr. Eden Rd., with concerns about traffic on Pierce Road. - Received, acknowledged and filed. 2) Daniel N. Hoffman, 19403 Vineyard Lane, requesting proclamation of Peace Day. - Received, acknowledged and filed. Mayor Anderson proceeded to Public Hearings. 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Emergency Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to impose a moratorium to prevent a subdivision of property which results in the creation of a "flag lot." The City Attorney presented the Report Re: Urgency Ordinance to Impose a Moratorium on the CreatiOn of New Flag Lots in the R-1 Zoning District Planning Director Eroslie reviewed the Memorandum Re: Study to Revise Subdivision Standards and a Temporary Moratorium for "Flag Lot" Application, dated May 17, 1989. In response to Councilmember Moyles' questions, the City Attorney stated that the urgency was based upon the expectation that if the value to be obtained from a lot split were affected, many ap- plications would be submitted while the study was underway; in this case, urgency was defined as ensuring that the situation remained stable, enabling a study to be completed. Furthermore, a lot split was a permanent action and a matter of public record; the intent was to preserve the quality of the neighborhood and avoid over-intensification. Finally, Findings of the Subdivision Ordinanc~ did not address flag lots as a separate entity; flag lots were not previously viewed as an issue. The Public Hearing was opened at 9:17 P.M. Ms. Jean Jett, 20760 Wardell Rd., Saratoga, commented as follows: ' ' She and her husband had lived at their present home since 1954 and had raised their family; this 1.72 acre parcel was considered their primary retirement fund Listing the preperty resulted in an immediate offer; however, the proposed moratorium on flag lots caused the potential buyer to exercise his contingency fights and withdraw his offer They were now in the state of shock; the proposed action seriously impacted them and resulted in frustration, so~ disappointroe.* ~-,~ ~ ~: ........ ~-- °~'°:- ~--""- Recent review of flag lot applications showed that the tools were already in place tO control flag lot development and were functioning smoothly and logically; examples were cited Satisfactory resolution of applications received did not suggest an emergency, or a moratorium In addition, there was not much land available for development of any kind; it seemed unlikely that many of the remaining undeveloped parcels could be subdivided with a flag lots While they were not necessarily pro-developer, behind every developer requesting a subdivision with a flag lot configuration, were individuals similar to them Urged the Council to carefully consider the proposed moratorium which would affect long time residents of the community MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 4 MAY 17, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. David Morrison, Real Estate Appraiser, Consultant and resident of 19590 1une Ln., Saratoga, reviewed his letter Re: Flag Lots, dated May 16, 1989, which opposed flag lot configurations. -Mr. Doug Adams, Attorney for Mrs. Maynard, 19330 Saratoga-Los Gatos Rd., Saratoga, con- tended the Ordinance was discriminatory, violated Government Code Section 37 100, and was in conflict with both the United States and the California State Constitution. The Ordinance as framed, appeared to permit current applications, while disallowing special cases. Mr. Sam Espeseth, 20271' Merrick Dr., Saratoga, stated it appeared that his p/'evious application, which was denied by the Planning Commission, was one of the reasons for this discussion; he objected to a possible prohibition of flag lot development and requested infom~ation on the topic. The City Attgrney responded that the current proposal did not address existing legal lots of record which had a flag lot; the lot line adjustment being requested by Mr. Espeseth was not affected. Mr. P. Lawrence Klose, Attorney for Mr. Espeseth, stated that their concan was that the Ordi- nance not include existing flag lots; with respect to urgency, there had been no significant increase in applications in the month long period since the City Council first discussed this item. Mr. Bill Murphy,' Los Gatos-Saratoga Board of Realtors, opposed the urgency ordinance and noted the need for additional housing; some flag lot developments enhanced the neighborhood. Testimony taken at the hearing showed that the imposition of an urgency ordinance could do sig- nificant damage to some individuals. The number of applications with flag lot configurations did not appear to have a significant impact on the community; the rejection rate indicated the City had con~ol over those lot splits which were not desirable. He asked that the status quo be retained. Mr. Willem Kohler, 21843 Via Regina, Saratoga, commended the City for pro-active planning; he favored the exclusion of flag lot developments and added that in the future, these large lots would become so valuable there would be no comparison with the profit to be gained by a subdivision with a flag lot configuration. He urged that the trees on these sites be preserved. Mr. Warren Held, 14630 Big Basin Way, Saratoga, stated that testimony given at the hearing demonstrated that certain large parcels deserved special consideration. Mrs. Winifred R0manchak, 1520 Quito Rd., Saratoga, stated she and her sister were considering a lot split for a jointly owned pwperty; the Planning Commission had done an excellent job evaluat- ing a sirnil~tr application for an adjacent proper~y. She asked that they continue to perform this task. Mr. Gene Zambetfi, 15231 Quito Rd., Saratoga, commented as follows: Planning Commission had determined at its recent policy development Conference that in certain areas such as the NI-IR and HC-RD districts and, to a certain extent the R-l-40,000 district, flag lot development could be appropriately designed (Memorandum from the Planning Director) The proposed Ordinance only mentioned the R-1-40,000 zoning district Urgency Ordinance should not be acted on at this hearing due to one Councilmember's absence - Disagreed with Mr. Morrison's comments and felt a tremendous appreciation in property value could result from a subdivision of a parcel, with a flag lot configuration Every Urgency Ordinance he was familiar with, ~vas enacted for a two year period; he noted the resulting difficulty for some individuals from such an enactment - For infill properties, some flag lot configurations contiguous and/or adjacent to one another in the flatlands and in the R-1-15,000 zoning district, were very compatible with the neighborhood and would not add to the intensity of development Mr. Brian Kelly, 14772 Live Oak Ln., Saratoga, commented as follows: - Saratoga Design Review process had the most restrictive guidelines on the pehinsula - The tools to handle any situation, including a flag lot configuration, were already in place - With respect to increased density, the current zoning regulations controllext s,ch .... - Urged the Council to reject an Urgency Ordinance and refer the item to the Planning Comrmssion Mr. Mike Romanchak, 15201 Quito Rd., Saratoga, Was surprised at the 'low number of applica- tions for flag lot developments; the fact that four of the eight applications heard were not ap proved demonstrated that controls were in place. He recommended the Council reject the moratorium on the basis that it was not an urgent matter and asked that the City review applications on an individ- ual basis; if an Urgency Ordinance were adopted, he asked that consideration be given to the exclusion of the properties cited in the Memorandum of the Planning Director, noted above. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 5 MAY 17, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. MiChael Kenrich, 20270 Merrick Dr., Saratoga, stated he actively opposed the application to subdivide the property at 20271 Merrick Dr. (Espeseth site); while them were situations that quired exceptions, flag lots wer~ a bad idea and unattractive. There was no policy informing velopers that flag lot configurations were undesirable; failure to develop such a policy would result in a decline in quality in the City. Mr. Albert Zecher, Altomey, commented as follows: Noted the only evidence before Council concerning an urgency on the basis of health and' wel- fare, was Staffs statement; no new applications had been received since the discussion began - While flag lots may appear ugly to the above speaker, the property owner of such a lot may not view the site in the same manner There was no information available on the potential number of flag lot subdivisions in the City Some of ~e people who spoke against the Ordinance were long time residents of the City Noted other jurisdictions wherein moratoriums having to do with zoning and/or urgency mea- sures had been enacted; the outcome was similar to that already contained in the City's Design Review process Ms. Wanda Alexander, Coalition for Hillside Protection, stated that a number of people she had spoken to were against flag lot development; people who moved to Saratoga came for the quality of life, not the potential profit to be made; an example was cited. Some flag lots were a result of gerrymandering lot lines. An Urgency Ordinance was required due to the continuing destruction of every piece of land; the Coalition supported the moratorium and the prohibition of flag lots. Mr. R0bson, 15891 Ravine Rd., Saratoga, stated that visitors to the City now asked what had happened to Saratoga; his response to them was that the City was 'maxing out". Flag lot sub- divisions were one means of maximizing develqpmenL Dr. Donald Prolo, 19841 Glen Una D~., Saratoga, was in favor of the moratorium; such repre- sented a pause, not a denial for individual petitioners for flag lot development and allowed the Planning Commission to hear public comment and consider the issue fully. Ms. Janice La MoRe, 13700 Calle TacUba, Saratoga, reviewed her letter of May 11, 1989, favor- ing a moratorium on flag lot development. Mr. Mark Heath, 14300 Saratoga Ave., Saratoga, felt that Saratoga was a beautiful city; the pro- posed moratorium was a rash act~ The City should be open to the possibility that flag lot develop- ment could improve some sites. He noted the current housing shortage. Mr. Shelly Willjams, 11951 Brookridge Dr., Saratoga, opposed the enactment of a moratorium; an Urgency Ordinance was not required. The intensification of neighborhoods by flag lot develop- ment did not appear to require immediate action by the Council. Applicable provisions required a larger lot for a flag lot configuration than that required for a standard subdivision; in addition, new housing in the County ~yas needed. Councilmember Moyles commented as follows: Testimony showed there was a mixture of opinions on the issue; the lack of consensus con- finned that the usual process for adoption of an ordinance or ordinance amendment was required Reiterated that he failed to see an urgency, despite careful consideration of the information With respect to a concern that a spate of applications for flag lots would be received, such may be inappropriate, since individuals had the prerogative to exercise their rights under the law until changes occurred; furthermore, the anticipated number of applications had not been received A moratorium would remove the right to utilize the laws as presently written--denial of such a right would be a extraordinary process Phone calls received were from individual property owners, long term residelts of Saratoga and not "developers"; some of these individuals had their entire lives wrapped up in this decision Cited comments of Mrs. Jett who cogently stated that ,x~.,hi.l.~ d, ..... :c.-.~, .......... .~ ...... developer, behind the developer with a flag lot proposal, were individuals simliar to them Individuals such as the Jetts did not develop their property during the 1970's when property values skyrocketed; to severely penalize these individuals now for their prudence in the past, made it all the more difficult to agree to an Urgency Ordinance Urged that the usual procedures be foliowed, starting with hearings at the Planning Commission' level with Staff input on the technical issues - While he had not come to a decision on the issue of flag lot development, he had very strong ob- jections to the proposed moratorium' on the creation of new flag lots MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 6 MAY 17, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Councilmember Clevenger supported an Urgency Ordinance and felt a moratorium in order to re- view flag lot development would not create a hardship. She was uncertain of the outcome of the review; possibly, it would be easier to obtain approval of a flag lot configuration. There were issues which required consideration and she wished the Planning Commission to begin reviewing the item, whether a moratorium were enacted or not. Problems surrounding flag lots existed; in addition, the public had raised issues for consideration. A moratorium would allow greater clarity in the upcoming discuss~ons since applicants would not feel their project was being refenv, d to. Councilmember Stutzman commented as follows: - Favored the moratorium - Had moved to Saratoga for the open space which was an invaluable asset enjoyed over the years Several speakers had experienced the same situation; they had raised their families in this auno- sphere and now wished to 'subdivide 'their property and realize a profit - Questioned whether this was best for the community and asked why this invaluable asset was not being passed on to future generations Questioned the obsession for increasing density in the City of Saratoga; there were other areas where people could live that were not so impacted by population - Questioned whether the current residents of the City had no concern for Saratoga or what the City would look like in the future - The current restrictive regulations were what made Saratoga what it was today; why should not the City continue to have these roles Larger lots were worth a great deal more than the profit realized by a subdivided lot; he urged prospective applicants to retain lots of an acre or more - Planning Staff were wise to recommend a moratorium in order to study the issue r Flag lots did nothing to improve the ambiance of the City or its environment, rather develop- ment of this type increased congestion and was undesirable if the community wished to preserve that which was worthwhile Mayor Anderson stated that her first home in SaratOga was on a flag lot; she was not opposed to a flag lot configuration per se; however, the applications and appeals heard by the Council often had a good reason why the developer had decided to allocate a larger area to the subdivided parcel--the lot Was faulty in some manner, i.e., it was too steep or a riparian corridor existed on-site. She wished the Planning Commission to develop guidelines restricting similar flag lot developments; a time limited moratorium was required as demonstrated when Design Review Guidelines were developed and a spate of applications had been received. The Public Hearing remained open. Item Continued to the June 21, 1989, Meeting of the Council. Break: 9:25 - 9:38 P.M. Mayor Anderson then returned to Old Business. 6. OLD BUSINESS: A. Penelope R Lave, City of Los Altos, 1 N.San Antonio Rd., concerning formation of group to coordinate work of cities. Consensus reached to send a reply in favor of her proposal. Mayor Anderson was absent for the~'='t~ainc~of the Meeting;Vice Mayor Clevenger presiding. 7.' NEW BUSINESS: A. Resolutions 2564.2, 2564.3 in connection with LLA-1 (existing) MOYLES/STUTZMAN MOVED TO ADOPT ~ RESOLUTION 2564.2 OF PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF ENGINEER'S REPORT FOR ' ~': LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT LLA-1. Passed 3-0, MOYLES/STUTZMAN MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2564.3 OF INTENTION TO ORDER THELEVY AND COLLECTION OF ASSESSMENTS PURSUANT TO THE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972, LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT LLA-1, FISCAL YEAR 1989-1990. Passed 3-0; MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 7 MAY 17, 1989 NEW BUSINESS Continued B. Resolutions 2565.2, 2565.3 in connection with LLA-1 (annexa,tion) MOYLES/STUTZMAN MOVED TO ADOPT BY TITLE ONLY, WAIVING FURTHER READ- ING, RESOLUTION 2565.2 OF PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF ENGINEER'S REPORT OF LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT LLA-1 ANNEXATION NO. 1989-1, HSCAL YEAR 1989-1990. Passed 3-0.- MOYLES/STUTZMAN MOVED TO ADOPT BY TITLE ONLY, WAIVING FURTHER READ- ING, RESOLUTION 2565.3 OF INTENTION TO ORDER THE ANNEXATION OF TERRITO- RY TO AN EXISTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT AND THE LEVY AND COLLECTION OF ASSESSMENTS WITHIN SAID TERRITORY PURSUANT TO THE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972, LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT LLA-1 ANNEXA- TION NO. !,989~1, FISCAL YEAR 1989-1990. Passed 3-0.. C. Discussion of California Healthy Cities Project. Consensus reached to take no action at this time on the Califomia Healthy City Project. D. Publicity for Upcoming Hearings - Budget Consensus reached to accept Staff Recommendation on Publicity for Upcoming Hearings. E. HaTardous Materials Testing and Disposal - Recycle C~nter The City Manager reviewed the Report Re: Hazardous Materials Testing, Removal and Disposal - Recycle Center, dated May 17, 1989. Mr. David Lively, Attorney, Member of West Valley Kiwanis Club, stated that the Club did not operate a self service oil deposit, but a manned recycling facility; he stxongly disagreed with the Recommended Motion to direct the City Manager and the City Attorney to seek to negotiate partial or total restitution from West Valley Kiwanis Club; the Club was an incorporated, non-profit association which did not have the assets to respond to damages of this type. He urged the Council not to adopt the above portion of the Recommended Motion. Vice Mayor Clevenger favored Recommended Motion 1, authorizing the clean-up work. Councilmember Moyles agreed; with respect to the second portion of the Recommended Motion, he suggested West Valley Kiwanis Club's records be reviewed to detemaine their financial status. Finally, the Community Services Director could be asked to analyze the situation in view of the mandatory curb side recycling which would be put into effect; consideration should be given to the disposal of toxic items in the light of new legislation on this matter. Consensus reached by the Council to: 1. Authorize the City Manager to execute a letter of agreement as submitted by Safety Specialists to sample and dispose of contaminated soil as proposed in its letter of April 21, 1989, at a cost not to exceed $18,000 unless further authorized by the City Council. 2. Direct the City Manager and the City Attorney to seek to negotiate partial or total restitution from West Valley College and the West Valley Kiwanis Club and report to the City Council on such efforts by the Meeting of July 5, 1989. F. Progress of Improvements, Tract 7888 (Mo;row) - Oral Report The City Manager presented an oral report on the status of the improvements. The following speakers were recognized by the Chair. Mr. Bruce Williams, 14821B~hJ- man Rd., Saratoga, noted the impri, vements to Flal~oi,;, and added that this was the third year the road was scheduled to be completed; during the winter, access to his property was through the Gardens. He asked the City to require the developer to com- plete the project and thought that the scheduled road improvements had been downgraded. The City Manager confirmed that Bc~hlman Rd. would be built to City standard for residential areas. Mr. Nile McMullin, Property owner on .Bohlman Rd., Saratoga, was concerned that insufficient funds existed to complete the required road improvement; it was his understanding that a portion of the bond had been released by the City. Furthermore, he wished to see the street built to standard. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 8 MAY 17, 1989 NEW BUSINESS Continued The City Manager responded that the City's Engineering Staff had reviewed the compaction reports and were satisfied that such was structurally sound and would comply with City street standards. With respect to the release of a portion of the bond, the City was investigating this situation. The City Attorney added that during construction, a change in banks occurred and an adjustmere in the mount of the bond was made; the City's usual procedures regarding bonds was reviewed. Mr. George Hall, Skylin~ Construction Company, was very interested in completing the project. A previous stop work order by Mr. Morrow had now been rescinded; in addition, Mr. Morrow indicated to him that there.was adequ;tte funding to complete the project. 9. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS: A. Repbrts from Individual Councilmembers Councilmember Moyles reported on a recent Meeting of Hakone Gardens Board of Directors. Councilmember Clevenger reported on the recent Meeting of West Valley Sanitation District 4. B. Discussion of a Summer Meeting Schedule. Discussion postponed until the June21, 1989, Meeting of the City Council., The Meeting of the City Council was adjourned at 11:43 P.M. to a closed session on personnel negotiations. Res.p0afully submitW. xt,