Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-15-1989 City Council Minutes MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL TIME: Wednesday, November 15, 1989 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue TYPE: Regular Meeting 1. ROLL CALL Councilmembers Peterson, Stutzman and Mayor Clevenger present at 7:35 p.m.; Councilmembers Anderson and Moyles arrived at 7:40 p.m. 2. CEREMONIAL ITEMS A. celebrate!Saratoga Recognition - ceremonial Resolutions commending volunteers for their efforts in the preparation of the successful festival. MOYLES/CLEVENGER MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTIONS COMMENDING VOLUNTEERS FOR THEIR EFFORTS IN THE PREPARATION OF THE SUCCESSFUL FESTIVAL. Passed 5-0. Mayor Clevenger congratulated the volunteer participants in the Celebrate!Saratoga Festival and read a Resolution of Appreciation prepared for each participant expressing the City's appreciation for their contribution to such a successful event. She presented the resolutions, individually. It was reported that several hundred dollars from the fund raisers will go to nearby communities affected by the October 17 earthquake. Mr. Charles Mirrone, Saratoga Postmaster, presented a collection of postmarks for the week of the celebration. Mr. Adrian Stanga, on behalf of the Celebrate!Saratoga Steering Committee, expressed appreciation to all Councilmembers and staff for their cooperation and assistance in this endeavor. Special thanks was given to Councilmember Peterson for his assistance. A final report on the event will be presented to the Council. Councilmember Peterson thanked the Committee for its efforts and expressed his pleasure to have worked with the Committee. 3. ROUTINE MATTERS A. Approval of Minutes - 10/18; 10/30; 11/1; 11/7 MOYLES/ANDERSON MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS SUBMITTED. Passed 5-0. B. Approval of Warrant List STUTZMAN/MOYLES MOVED TO APPROVE WARRANT LIST. Passed 5-0. C. Report of Cit'y Clerk on Posting of Agenda Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on November 10. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR n. Planning Commission Actions, 11/8 - Noted and filed. B. Youth CommiSsiOn Minutes, 10/2; 10/16 - Noted and filed. C. Final Acceptance and Notice of Completion, Slurry Seal II, cape seal and chip Seal on Various City Streets D. Appropriations Resolution 2575.7 on Big Basin Way Project E. Resolution 2610 upholding Planning Commission Decision on Hyland Appeal of Young Project F. Resolution 2611 modifying Planning Commission Decision on seacrist Appeal of Espeseth Project City Council Minutes 2 November 15, 1989 ANDERSON/MOYLES MOVED APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR. Passed 5-0. CONSENT CALENDAR II - Claims A. Claim of PG&E in connection with gas service damaged by pavement work ANDERSON/MOYLES MOVED TO DENY CLAIM. Passed 5-0. 5. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS AND THE PUBLIC A. Oral Communications from the Public and Commissions 1) Mrs. Pauline Seales of Saratoga addressed the Council and spoke against mega-mansions being built in the City of Saratoga and effects of those types of homes on the environment. 2) Willem Kohler of Saratoga addressed the Council. He referred to a letter he wrote to the Council and to the Sheriff's Office regarding the Mt. Eden development currently under construction behind his home. He registered his complaint that the hours of construction (9:00 p.m. and 12:00 midnight and on weekends) is not legal and referred to a paragraph on page 34-2 of the October 1988 Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for that project. The document reflects that construction shall be conducted on weekdays between 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. He also stated that if the oak trees at Oak Way and Chiquita Court were illegally removed from the construction sites, the contractor should be directed to replace them. Mayor Clevenger suggested Mr. Kohler Stay at the meeting to hear Item 7A. 2) Karin Dowdy of Saratoga addressed the Council expressing thanks for their attendance at the San Jose City Council Meeting wherein the proposed development of the E1 Paseo de Saratoga was discussed. She expressed various concerns about the project includin< the high density, the proposed creation of 2,000 jobs, the proposed 200 apartments, and the severe traffic impacts which would be created. She also expressed concern regarding the proposed research and development uses and the presence of dangerous chemicals in those applications. Discussion ensued regarding the schools which would be affected. Mayor Clevenger suggested that Ms. Dowdy contactTrixie Johnson, Chairperson of the San Jose City Planning Commission, to discuss the issue. Councilmember Stutzman expressed concern with the general issue of development and discussed a proposed development of 1800 homes in 'the Almaden Valley area. 3) Bill Carlson, Saratoga Village Association, addressed the Council to report that the Saratoga Cleaners has been "red-tagged" for demolition because of structural damage from the October 17 earthquake. He expressed the Association's concern for the proprietor, Mr. Howard Lee, and appealed to the Council to assist in making the transition to a new location easier. Mr. Oncay reported that staff has contacted Mr. Lee to offer staff assistance and he briefed the Council on those efforts.' Mayor Clevenger moved the agenda to the Public ~le~r~ngs; ~incc the hour of 8:00 p.m. had arrived. 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Formation of Utility Underground District #7 on Oak St. between Saratoga-Los Gatos Rd. and Komlna Ave. and Saratoga- Los Gatos Rd. between Oak P1. and Big Basin Way/Saratoga Ave. (continued from 10/4) City Manager Peacock recalled to the Council the questions raised by property owners at the meeting of October 4 who had deferred improvement agreements for utility undergrounding in the City. They city Council Minutes 3 November 15, 1989 wanted to know what the engineered estimated costs to meet the agreements would be. They questioned why they were being singled out to help pay for the undergrounding which will not be paid for by others in the City. Mr. Peacock reviewed, in detail, his memorandum of November 15, 1989 to the City Council regarding the issue and alternatives Council could consider. He advised that Council has discretion to make any final determination on the costs as long as costs do not exceed the actual costs to install the improvements as listed in said memorandum. He recommended that Council act to form the District and approve the cost estimate for deferred improvements on a not-to-exceed basis as calculated by PoG. & E., less a $45 per customer and pass a resolution adopting the formation of the Utility Underground District #7. Discussion ensued regarding the October 4 meeting and the fact that some of the deferred agreements had never appeared on the title reports for some of the properties at issue and that there were no legal descriptions recorded with the agreements (through clerical error on some). Mr. Peacock confirmed that to be true of the copies the City of Saratoga has on file. City Attorney Toppel gave his opinion on the issue relative to disclosure, stating that the seller of the property had the obligation to disclose the deferred improvement agreement but that the circumstances would depend on each individual unit owner at the time of purchase. He advised that Council could 1) impose the obligation, 2) relieve them of the obligation if there was no legal description on their title report, or 3) impose the obligation subject to further determination. It was explained that it is the City's responsibility for preparation of the documents and for attachment of the legal descriptions for recording. Additional discussion ensued regarding the signing and recording dates of properties in question. Councilmember Moyles expressed concern regarding whether there is culpability on the part of the City of Saratoga, and on the property owner who was not properly noticed. He felt that under the circumstances the City of Saratoga might have to absorb the cost. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:26 p.m. Virginia Fanelli, property developer for the 3rd and Oak Streets. condominiums addressed the Council reporting that her company originally disclosed the deferred agreement information to the title company and to the Department of Real Estate and that the disclosure is not contained in the sub-division final report. She stated it was documented on the original title reports to the property; however, the property description is not attached to the title reports of the- subsequen~ owners. Discussion ensued regarding who the responsible entity would be for such cases. Mrs. Fanelli questioned the P.G~ & E. cost analysis for the two projects currently under development and registered a complaint regarding the estimate on her project as not being equitable. Councilmember Peterson agreed with Councilmember Moyles and stated that he does not understand how the City of Saratoga could bill residents for assessments not recorded on their property title. Ted McKibben of Saratoga addressed the Board stating that although he is an owner of one of the units wherein the deferred agreement was not properly recorded, his concern is regarding possible damaging of Oak trees along Oak street which would detract from the beauty and value of the homes. He requested that Council consider that a certain percent of the deferred agreement obligation has already been paid through regular utility bills and that those figures should be applied toward the costs for those property owners with deferred improvement agreements. Tom Hawkins, President of Saratoga Homeowners Association, addressed the Council and requested that Council consider using an assessment City Council Minutes 4 November 15, 1989 district amortization approach to financing to give relief to those people affected. He disagreed with P.G. & E.'s cost figures. Mr. Chopik of Saratoga addressed the Council regarding his property which presently has a questionable recording because the description of the property was not recorded and stated that the document is also not recorded under the names of the previous property owners. He reported that his title company informed him that the document does not stand on its own to allow the City the ability to bill the work to those owners, No one further appearing to speak, the Public Hearing was closed at 8:38 p.m. In response to a question from Mayor Clevenger regarding concern for damage to the Oak trees, Bob Storm, Manager for P.G. & E. indicated that every consideration is being given not to damage the trees along the construction route. STUTZMAN/PETERSON MOVED THAT, USING RULE 20A PROJECT MONEY, COUNCIL ADOPT RESOLUTION NO 399.10 ESTABLISHING UTILITY UNDERGROUND DISTRICT #7. Passed 5-0. During additional discussion regarding cost estimates for deferred improvement agreements, Councilmember Moyles suggested that Council establish guidelines for staff and that where there is cu!pability on the part of City staff for failure to have descriptions properly recorded, that the City absorb the cost and waive those deferred improvement agreements which were apparently flawed at inception. Where the City is not at fault, the records must be pursued. He suggested that the City consider offering terms of 2 to 3 year installments for the obligations. Mr. Peacock pointed out that 4 parcels have agreements recorded in 1979 without Exhibit A, the property description. He stated that, at that time, those types of documents were recorded by the Public Works Department. Councilmember Anderson agreed that if costs are more than what P.G. & E. estimates, then Council should absorb the additional costs. She felt that in the cases where the property was not properly recorded the second time, that there is legal recourse through title insurance companies. Councilmember Peterson disagreed with Councilmember Anderson and- expressed his opinion that when a property is recorded properly it runs with the land. Mr. Toppel expressed his opinion that culpability for the 4 parcels in question, which were not properly recorded, rests with the City of Saratoga. However, in the cases involving second owners who still do not have a properly recorded title, the culpability rests on the title .company due to lack of a proper title search. ANDERSON/MOYLES MOVED THAT THE CITY ABSORB COSTS IF THE CITY IS CULPABLE FOR IMPROPERLY RECORDED PROPERTY DOCUMENTS, ACCEPT INSTALLMENT TERMS OF 3 YEAR8 FOR PAYMENT OF THE OBLIGATIONS, AND APPROVE THE COST ESTIHATE FOR DEFERRED IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENTS ON A ~OT--T~-~C~D ~ AS CALCULATED BY P.G. & E. LESS A $45 PER CUSTOMER DISCOUNT. P~ssed 5-0. B. Appeal of approval of lot line adjustment to transfer 3.32 acres from Fiynn to Dymand, resulting in a parcel size of 8.25 acres; request for design review and variance to allow 'construction of a 9,555 sq. ft. two-story residence in the NHR zone district at 21116 Comer Dr.; variance approval would allow exceptions to the "floor,,' ,,impervious coverage" and "height above a major ridge', standards of the NHR district. (Appellant, Nieman; applicant, Dymand) (LLS9- 005; DR89-085; V89-021) City Council Minutes 5 November 15, 1989 Planning Director Emslie reviewed the issues, noting the application requires approval of variances for its height above a major ridgeline, impervious coverage and maximum floor area. The Planning Commission approved variances based on exceptionally large size lot and the variance condition prohibiting further subdivision. The appeal was made by an adjoining neighbor who is requesting the inclusion of an access easement across the Applicant's property from Comer Drive to service the rear portion of their property and maintain that because variance was granted to build the structure which prevents vehicular access to the rear yard where access is necessary. Staff recommended that Council uphold the Planning Commission's approval of DR-89.065, V-89, 021, and LL-89-005, and deny the appeal. Mr. Toppel expressed his opinion that the neighbor is requesting an easement which has no relationship to the development. He advised that the same request was made of the Planning, which he advised that the City does not have the authority to impose such an easement. In response to a question from Councilmember Anderson, he stated that an easement, not a road, could be required for public utilities. Utilizing an overhead map, Mr. Emslie pointed out the area of the requested easement. He stated that although there is a considerable slope, there is also a relatively level area between the two properties at issue. Mayor Clevenger opened the Public Hearing at 9:00 p.m. Doug Adams, representative for the Appellant, addressed the Council. He distributed seven letters from adjoining property owners in support of reversal of the Planning Commission's decision because that decision would permanently land-lock over 2 acres of the Appellant's (the Neimans') property. He expressed concerns regarding the liability and effects of that decision which could jeopardize the adjoining properties. He gave a history, from June 1987, to the present, relative to information of new building permits and new developments which the Appellants received from the Planning Department. He stated that the Appellants were informed that the City of Saratoga was powerless to do anything on previously developed properties but that the Appellants would be notified of new building permits which would affect their access. He stated that October, 1988 was the first time the Appellants learned of the new development (known as the Coccardi development) and were told that although access was not planned for their property, they could use the open space easement, which he pointed out is impossible because of the topography. After April 12, 1989, the Appellants were informed for the first time that the City would not be able to do anything to provide them with vehicle access to their property. The Appellant was always under the impression that access would be provided. He stated that the Appellant's requested condition is in direct response to an effect of the proposal and that the effect of the proposal of the applicant is to forever shut off the appellant's vehicular access to their property. Virginia Fanelli, representative for the Applicant, addressed the Council referring to her letter of November 9, 1989 requesting denial of the appeal based on the City Attorney's position that the City has no jurisdiction over easements between two property owners, and that thc-~l i~ i___i~.i_~L-~o'the subject of the applications which were submitted before the Planning Commission and subsequently approved. She agreed with the staff report which indicates no direct relationship exists between the application'and the access request and that imposition of such a requirement would be contrary to accepted planning policy. She further stated that the Applicant (Mr. Dymand) has indicated a willingness to work with the Appellants to keep the weeds abated on both properties for fire prevention and stated that this offer was also made by Mrs. Norling. The Appellant and the nearest neighbors, the Sniffens, are opposed to a permanent easement for access and such an easement would be a detriment to both properties. She reported that the Applicant's engineer issued an opinion that for any type of vehicular movement across the slope City Council Minutes 6 November 15, 1989 (other than 4-wheel drive), for safety's sake, there probably needs to be grading, cutting and maybe retaining wall requirements. Mrs. Fanelli concurred with staff's recommendations to uphold the Planning commission's decision without modification and requested denial of the appeal. Willem Kohler of Saratoga addressed the Council regarding the general issue of large homes on steep slopes. He spoke against the variances necessary to allow construction of the Applicant's home and felt that this large home would be an imposition to neighbors. He stated his opinion that in granting the variances to the builder, the builder should be asked to grant access to the Appellants. Utilizing an overhead map, Daryl Sniffen of Comer Drive addressed the Council pointing out his property in relation to the Appellant's property. He spoke in opposition to vehicle access across his property, the Norling's property and the Applicant's property. Mr. Sniffen did not object to construction of the Applicant's property and agreed with staff's recommendation to uphold the Planning Commission's decision. Janet Harris of Comer Drive expressed detailed concerns regarding previous problems and encounters with 4-wheelers when illegal grading was done in the area. Mrs. Harris stated that following a meeting held with Mrs. Fanelli and the neighbors to review a model of the Applicant's home, there was consensus that the Planning Commission had adequately addressed their concerns. She spoke against any changes to the conditions for the Applicant's home. Don Norling of Comer Drive addressed the Council pointing out his property as it relates to the easement in question. He stated he has an easement for his access road which is off Comer Drive. He emphasized that the requested easement would have adverse impacts on his property and opposed the requested easement. He expressed his opinion that access for disking is not an issue and clarified that he has offered the names of his disking contractor to the Appellant so that the disking could be done at the same time as all the neighbors. Marilyn Norling of Comer Drive gave a history of the Appellant's property when first proposed to the City of Saratoga. She spoke against approval of any road for vehicle access which would go across the hill. She reiterated past problems with 4-wheelers and dirt bikes travelling up the hill. Mrs. Sniffen of Comer Drive reported on past drainage problems on her property and expressed her concern that vehicle access will destroy the existing drainage maintenance on her property. She spoke of a past incident where residents were forced to get clear of their homes because of an unsafe position of an unauthorized vehicle on the'hill. Bernard Nieman of Saratoga addressed the Council reporting on various unsuccessful attempts to utilize the recommended contractor to disk his property. He expressed concern with the problems the Sniffens encountered with unauthorized vehicles and stated that he would place a gate across the access area to prevent such incidents. Luanne Nieman stated that for 2 years it has been her understanding from the City P]~nninq office that when application is made~for~.a new building site permi~ ~u~ une property adjoining ~r'~opertr~, that a condition could be made to provide vehicular access to the rear portion of her property. She pointed out the necessity for maintenance affecting the surrounding property including disking, slide area maintenance and a sewer easement. Mrs. Nieman expressed disappointment in how this issue has been handled by the City. No one further appearing to speak, the public hearing was closed at 9:35 p.m. Councilmember Anderson expressed concern that whatever informal agreement takes place between the Appellants and their neighbors might not be effective for future owners of that property and expressed City Council Minutes 7 November 15, 1989 concern with the possible disturbance of the drainage plan in that area. Councilmember Stutzman expressed his concern for the need for access for maintenance purposes and expressed concern with staff's alleged information to the Appellant which led them to believe they would gain vehicle access. He expressed his opinion that responsibility lies with the City of Saratoga and that the City has an obligation to stand by the commitments its staff makes. He felt that some restrictions could be placed on the request for access, i.e. fire trucks, agricultural equipment, etc. Mayor Clevenger stated that she believes staff has been cooperative and that it hasn't been within staff's power to provide access. She expressed concern that if the appeal is denied the Appellants won't be able to access 2 acres of their property. She stated that the City has a certain amount of responsibility because the home has been build recently and that for health and safety reasons the City should be able to require some type of access. Regarding health and safety concerns, Mr. Toppel expressed his opinion that it is important to distinguish safety from development. He stated that the Applicant's property can be conditioned on public safety issues. Mr. Toppel briefly reported on a plan under consideration by the Parks Department for an equestrian trail to go through the area in question. That trail could possibly be utilized for a means of access for disking of the property for safety reasons. Lengthy discussion ensued regarding the possibility of an equestrian trail as a means of disking access. Councilmember Peterson expressed his opinion that in the absence of anything in writing indicating the City would grant the easement, and in the absence of conditions on any of the development, he is reluctant to take the responsibility of granting an easement across other property for various purposes. He felt that the easement is something which must be worked out between the property owners because that issue is a private ownership responsibility. He expressed reluctance to place conditions other than a ~equest that the Applicant cooperate with weed abatement needs. Councilmember Moyles stated his opinion that the requested easement does not relate to a direct effect of the proposal. He agreed the only request within the Council's power is to preserve an easement for public health and safety reasons. He stated that if staff made some assurances beyond their ability to deliver, it is regrettable because staff has the same limits as Council. Councilmember Anderson suggested that in addition to the request for an agreement for disking the property that there should be some provision for possible emergency repair to the Appellant's property. Councilmember Anderson and Mayor Clevenger stated that Appellants should also be able to care for the orchards on their property. Lengthy discussion ensued regarding the equestrian trail which seems to have been contemplated. Mr. Nieman testified that when the ~z~p~'~y .~'ds p~h~_~.'{~ ?~ ~" ., '~i~~', ..,~2e under the impression that an equestrian trail already existed along Calabazas Creek. Various alternatives and limitations for the easement/equestrian trail were discussed. It was noted that vehicles, other than emergency service vehicles, Santa Clara Valley Water District vehicles, or vehicles authorized to maintain the trail, would not be allowed on the trail. Councilmember Peterson indicated he saw no connection between the equestrian trail discussion and the issue before the Council. Mr. Toppel stated that if the issue is 'an easement for disking purposes, the preference would be to have a definite location rather than a blanket easement. Another possibility could be to have an City Council Minutes 8 November 15, 1989 agreement requiring simultaneous annual disking of the neighbors' and both the Appellant's and Applicant's property. FolloWing discussion and a suggestion made by Mr. Peacock, Mayor Clevenger summarized that the Planning staff is directed to examine the issue of securing some kind of access for the Appellant in order to be able to utilize, service and repair the land located at the back portion of the property so as not to have to depend on neighbors' cooperation. She clarified the easements would not be a construction easement but could be an equestrian trail easement access. Mr. Emslie stated that the trail connection currently referred to in the Master Plan would probably not access the Nieman property. He felt that the placement of an equestrian trail is an independent issue. After additional discussion, Mayor Clevenger suggested the issue be continued until information is received from the Santa Clara Valley Water District regarding how it services the property. She reiterated it is her hope to provide access to service whatever exists on the Appellant ' s property. MOYLES/PETERSON MOVED TO DENY THE APPEAL AND CONDITION THE APPROVAL ON EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT THAT ALLOWS DISKING ACCE88. The motion failed. CLEVENGER/ANDERSON MOVED TO CONTINUE THE ITEM TO THE NEXT REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING UNTIL INFORMATION IS RECEIVED FROM THE SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT REGARDING SERVICING TO THE PROPERTY. Passed 5-0. Councilmember Anderson expressed concern with the size of the home. Councilmember Stutzman stated he is concerned and unhappy that the City of Saratoga is still granting variances for houses of over 9,000 square feet. He expressed concern that although design standards have been set, the Council seems to consistently violate those standards. He felt that the home is too large, will be highly visible and has too much impervious coverage. He questioned the validity of the slope studies on the Dymand property. Mayor Clevenger declared a recess. Upon reconvening, the same Councilmembers and staff were present with the exception of Councilmember Peterson who returned as noted below. Mayor Clevenger returned to items preceding public hearings on the agenda. 5. COMMUNICATION8 FROM COMMISSIONS AND THE PUBLIC B. Written Communications from the Public 1) Petition from residents of Lannoy Ct. regarding poor condition of pavement M6YLES/ANDERSON MOVED AUTHORIZATION TO SEND DRAFT LETTER FROM CITY MANAGER. Passed 4-0, Councilmember Peterson absent. 2) Letters concerning non-compliance with trucking ordinances during earthquake period from Safeway Stores ..... ~ .... and Calif~_...~ ..... ..~':-' MOYLES/STUTZMAN MOVED THAT CITY COUNCIL GRANT THE REQUEST FOR A 30- DAY PERIOD SUBJECT TO FINDING THE OCTOBER 17 EARTHQUAKE TO BE AN EMERGENCY PURSUANT TO SECTION 7-30.050 (b) OF THE CITY CODE. Passed 4-0, Councilmember Peterson absent. Councilmember Peterson returned during consideration of the next item. 6. OLD BUSINESS A. Resolution 2598.1 modifying approval of DR 89-013 (Velinsky project ) City Council Minutes 9 November 15, 1989 Curt Anderson, Applicant's architect, stated that language in the proposed resolution needs to be changed because the variance for the side yard setback mentioned under item 4 is no longer necessary. CLEVENGER/ANDERSON MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2598.1 MODIFYING APPROVAL OF DR 89-013 (VELINSKY PROJECT) WITH THE REVISION TO ITEM 4 AS MENTIONED IN THE ABOVE PARAGRAPH. Passed 5-0. B. Ordinance extending Utility User Tax (second reading and adoption) MOYLES/ANDERSON MOVED TO READ ORDINANCE BY TITLE ONLY, WAIVING FURTHER READING. Passed 5-0. MOYLES/ANDERSON MOVED ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE 71.70 AS READ BY TITLE ONLY. Passed 5-0. C. Ordinance adding section to city Code concerning purchase of recycled paper products (first reading and introduction) PETERSON/MOYLES MOVED TO INTRODUCE ORDINANCE BY TITLE ONLY, WAIVING FURTHER READING. Passed 5-0. 7. NEW BUSINESS A. Stop Work Order on Old Oak Way and Chiquita Court Mr. Peacock apologized for delivery of the report this evening but stated that staff had been continually working on it until 5:00 today. Council was asked to consider this report an interim report as all the damage and nature of violations are still being assessed. A series of photographs were distributed depicting the illegal grading on the property in question. Mr. Peacock reviewed the report in detail. Mr. Peacock read'the findings of the investigation which are documented in his report to the Council which include information regarding illegal grading on 6 lots, and on various other areas within and outside the subdivision. Other findings include approximately 18,450 cubic yards of soil moved or removed; illegal removal of 34 oak trees and excavation for drainage structures and storm drain lines not shown on any of the plans approved or submitted. The non-compliance creates unacceptable conditions for the City's residential design criteria relating to hillside lots. An attempt has been made to identify parties who may be involved in the illegal activity. The roles of Myren Jacobs and ~ssociates,'soils engineer, and Westfall Engineers, civil engineers, as well as Mr. Voss, the owner of Stevens Creek Quarry, have not yet been deter~nined in relation to this illegal activity. Mr. Peacock read, verbatim, 5 actions listed in the report which staff suggests the Council consider: 1) establish a moratorium on all non- remedial activity until .total plans for various and all subdivision work receives City approval; 2 require that remedial work and environmental protection measures be undertaken immediately, but that all work be planned ~nu ~ppl~v~ _~ ___i_ _~ ......... ~_, ~,.~ posting of a CASH bond as noted; 4) a fine equal to twice the estimated cost of the value of all restoration work; and 5) that the above actions be contained in an agreement between the developers and the City that they accept all of the above and agree to pay future similar penalties if further violation occurs as a condition of approval of any future permit for work to be undertaken. The estimated restoration costs x 2 totals approximately $295,882. Mr. Peacock stated that the final subdivision map has been recorded. That final map was conditioned upon the provision of an adequate water system for the lots on Old Oak Way. The lots on Chiquita Court are City Council Minutes 10 November 15, 1989 serviced by San Jose Water Company. Discussion ensued regarding the requirements for water and the need for an emergency access road, and regarding the estimated loss value and method used to establish those values. Mr. Peacock stated that plans were never approved by the City Engineer for work to begin and gave Council background on the permit issue. Councilmember Anderson stated she is aghast at what types of activity was legal, let alone activity deemed illegal. She expressed regret at having been a party to the approval of that subdivision. Mr. Toppel reported that because the subdivision was conditioned on a site-development plan for each individual site, new geology and analysis reports will be required before continuance of the project because there has been site disturbance. Councilmember Stutzman and Mayor Clevenger agreed that the estimated restoration costs seemed understated. Discussion ensued regarding punitive measures as a means to deter like activity, and erosion problems which could occur as a result of the illegal grading. Further discussion ensued regarding the 5 possible actions Council could take in this matter. Mr. Peacock stated that due to the circumstances there has been little opportunity to discuss the matter in depth in terms of all legal ramifications. Following lengthy discussion, there was consensus to approve items 1, 2, and 3, as recommended by staff in the report, and that item 4 will be deferred until such time as the City Attorney has an opportunity to determine the process. The City Attorney will report back to the Council regarding the options and requirements for imposing fines. Councilmember Moyles expressed concern that an appropriate, established process is necessary for future legalities in the matter. Willem Kohler expressed concern regarding the oak tree removal and suggested the Council require the developer to replace the trees. There was consensus that the Public Hearing on the issue be scheduled for the second Council Meeting in January, 1990. B. Authorization of Staff Bonus Holiday and Approval of Special Staff Recognition PETERSON/ANDERSON MOVED TO APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO GIVE EMPLOYEES OPTION OF DEC. 22 OR DEC. 26 AS BONDS HOLIDAY AND APPROVE CITY CONTRIBUTION TO COST OF EMPLOYEE CHRISTMAS PARTY. Passed 5-0. C. Draft Memorandum of Understanding for Regional Hazardous Waste Management MOYLES/ANDERSON MOVED TO APPROVE IN PRINCIPLE, PENDING DETAILED DETERMINATION OF FUNDING AND ORGANIZATION. Passed 5-0. 9. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS A. Authorization of Mayor to support Councilmember Moyles for Traffic Authority Reappointment PETERS6N/ANDERSON MOVED AUTHORIZATION OF MAYOR TO SUPPORT COUNCILMEMBER MOYLES FOR TRAFFIC AUTHORITY REAPPOINTMENT. Passed 5-0. B. Reports from Individual Councilmembers a) Mayor Clevenger reported on information received from a citizen regarding the late hour and low flying of military helicopters. She requested that Mr. Peacock contact the proper authority and attempt to resolve the matter. b) Mayor Clevenger reported that Mr. Delmonico of Saratoga --Village has requested outdoor dining including music for his City Councll Minutes 11 November 15, 1989 restaurant in the downtown courtyard. Mr. Peacock pointed out that outdoor dining is encouraged in the Village Plan and suggested that the Planning Commission is the body Mr. Delmonico must address. c) Mayor Clevenger reported on a complaint received regarding the use of "Saratoga Woods" as part of the name of a new development. d) Mayor Clevenger expressed great concern regarding reference to a half-diamond interchange at Saratoga and Prospect Road which appears in the most recent Traffic Authority Report. She requested staff to investigate removal of that reference from the report. e) Councilmember Moyles requested agendizing a follow-up discussion at its next meeting relating to the E1 Paseo Project and requested that staff be prepared at that time to advise Council on- procedure for filing a challenge to the adequacy of the environmental workup of the General Plan Amendment voted by the San Jose Council this past Monday night. He requested that Council budget funds for such a challenge, if feasible. Discussion ensued. f) Councilmember Anderson requested an alternate representativ& to attend the Saratoga Community Access Cable TV Meeting scheduled to be held on November 21, 1989 and the Traffic Authority Advisory Meeting next Monday. Mr. Peacock reported that Mr. Trinidad will be Acting City Manager while he is on vacation through December 1, 1989. Mr. Peacock requested placement of an emergency item on the agenda. Mr. Toppel advised that this item can appropriately be considered an emergency item because it came up after the agenda was distributed and because the meeting at which the information was discovered occurred only yesterday. ANDERSON/MOYLE8 MOVED TO PLACE SAID ITEM ON THE AGENDA. Passed 5-0. Mr. Peacock reported that as requested, the Finance Advisory Committee met to discuss development of a policy on housing assistance. A recommendation, in report form was distributed. Me reported that an offer of employment is currently out for Mr. Swanson's position and for the City Engineer position. He reported the successful candidate for the City Engineer position is willing to accept the position to start on January 3, 1990 and that he would like to confirm the Uolicy as part of the employment offer and would like to be able to make that offer before leaving on vacation tomorrow. Discussion ensued regarding a 12-point program outlined in the report. Mr. Peacock stated his opinion that the program is a prudent approach, clearly consistent with current investment policy and priorities'of the City and one which the Committee is comfortable in recommending. The Cities of San Mateo and Sunnyvale have very similar policies to that which is recommended for Saratoga. Councilmember Moyles expressed concern regarding internal equity and requested a synopsis of the City survey portion of the report. ANDERSON/CLEVENGER MOVED APPROVAL OF T~ ~AFF ~G~N~A~Q~ ~0~ A HOUSING ASSISTANCE POLICY AND OF THE FINANCE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION. Passed 5~0. 10. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:45 p.m. to a meeting scheduled to be held on November 28, 1989 at 7:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, C~,;~ci~Tinutes 12 November 15, 1989 ~ictoria R. Lindem~n~'j Minutes Clerk