Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-06-1989 City Council Minutes MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL TIME: Wednesday, December 6, 1989 7:30 p.m. PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Ave. TYPE: Regular Meeting 1. ROLL CALL Councilmembers Anderson, Peterson, Moyles, Stutzman and Mayor Clevenger present at 7:30 p.m. 2. CEREMONIAL ITEMS A. Resolution Appointing Parks and Recreation Commissioner PETERSON/MOYLES MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2612 APPOINTING MARIANNE SWAN TO PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION. Passed 5-0. E. Administration of oath of Office to Commissioner Mayor Clevenger welcomed and administered the Oath of Office to Commissioner Swan. 3. ROUTINE MATTERS A. Approval of Minutes - 11/15, 11/28 The Minutes of November 11, 1989 were corrected as follows:- Mayor Clevenger deleted reference to Councilmember Moyles on Page 7, paragraph 7. Mayor Clevenger deleted the words" . also on public facilities issues." at the end of paragraph 5 on Page 7. Mayor Clevenger amended paragraph 1 on Page 9, under Old Business, item A to read: ". .the variance for the side yard setback mentioned under item 4 is n__o longer necessary." Mayor Clevenger amended Page 10, paragraph 6, to read: " the estimated restoration costs seemed understated". Mayor Clevenger amended Page 11, under Reports, paragraph c), to read: " .regarding the use of 'Saratoga Woods'. .". Mayor Clevenger amended Page 4, deleting paragraph 11, which begins: "Mayor Clevenqer directed staff to return . ." Councilmember Moyles amended the last sentence of paragraph 5 on Page 3, to read: " . under the circumstances the City miqht have to absorb the cost". City Manager Harry Peacock deleted the words" .expressed concerns that the easement would qo across her propertv. ." from the first sentence on Page 6. PETERSON/MOYLES MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTE8 OF 11/15/89 A8 AMENDED. Passed 5-0. MOYLES/PETERSON MOVED TO APPROVE TME MINUTES OF 11/28/89 AS SUBMITTED. Passed 5-0. B. Approval of Warrant List PETERSON/ANDERSON MOVE TO APPROVE WARRANT LIST. Passed 5-0. C. Report of City Clerk on Posting of Agenda City Councll Minutes 2 December 6, 1989 Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on December 1. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Planning Commission Actions, 11/22 - None; meeting cancelled. B. Youth Commission Minutes, i0/30 - Noted and filed. C. Heritage Preservation Commission Minutes, 11/1 - Noted and filed. D. Saratoga Community Access Cable TV. Foundation Board of Directors Minutes, 10/17 - Noted and filed. E. 'Public Safety Commission Minutes, - 11/12 -.Noted and filed. F.' Expirations of Terms of Public Safety commission G. Res01ution MV-188 designating intersections of Glasgow Dr. and Glasgow Ct. with Miljevich Dr. as stop intersections H. ResolutionMV-189 designating intersection of Parker Ranch Road and Parker Ranch Ct. as stop intersection and a yield intersection I. Resolution 2575.8 appropriating funds for Big Basin Way Crosswalks Project J. Proposed Policy and Fee Changes: 1) Change in Community Center Rental Policy and Resolutlon '2383.7 amending Fee Schedule for same 2) 'Change in Rental Policy for Hakone Gardens, City Parks and Athletic Field use and Resolutlon 2383.8 amending Fee schedule for same K. Final Acceptance and Notice of Completion, slurry Seal and cape Seal on Various City Streets - Graham Contractors L.- Ordinance 71.71 adding section t0 City Code concerning purchase of recycled paper products (second reading and adoption) Mr. Peacock mentioned that the estimated bid amount under Item I. should be refined. MOYLES/STUTZMAN MOVED APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR WITH EXCEPTION OF ITEM K. WHICH WAS PULLED BY COUNCILMEMBER ANDERSON. Passed 5-0. K. Final Acceptance and Notice of Completion, Slurry Seal and cape 'Seal on Various City Streets - Graham Contractors In responseto concerns from Councilmember Anderson, Mr. Peacock verified that the City is satisfied with the outcome of the project. He reported that a portion of the street in question was overlaid with asphalt, but the other streets were done with slurry and cape seal so there is a difference inthe smoothness of the surface. He explained the schedule and procedure for the resurfacing of asphalt streets. ANDERSON/MOYLES MOVED APPROVAL OF ITEM K. Passed 5-0. 5. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS AND THE PUBLIC A. OraI Communications from the Public and COmmiSSionS ~ 1) Dora Grens of Saratoga read a tribute to Mr. Russ Crowther, former Planning Commissioner and spoke of his dedication to the Saratoga community in all issues, particularly the importance and necessity of monitoriDg of'hillside developments. t'2)'Jeff Schwartz of Saratoga gave tribute to Mr. Crowther and spoke of his long and dedicated service to Saratoga issues, his c6ntributions and accomplishments as a nuclear engineer, his creative City Council ~i~m-hes 3 December 6, 1989 ideas for solutions to issues and his serious manner and thoroughness in his awareness of communityissues. 3) Willem Kohler of Saratoga gave tribute to Mr. Crowther. He also quoted an article from the San Jose Mercury News regarding the recent illegal activity in the Saratoga hillsides, agreeing with the suggestion in the article which indicated the building permits for the Cocciardi development should be withheld until the land in question is returned to its original state. Mr. Kohler mentioned the developer's long history of violations and legal suits, as reported in newspaper articles from as far back as 1958. He suggested that the City investigate other developments in the area developed by Mr. Cocciardi. 4) Bonnie Goldman of Saratoga spoke of her request to the City for monitoring by the City of the cutting of trees in the Cocciardi development. She expressed her opinion that much of what occurred was because of lack of thorough inspection. Mayor Clevenger encouraged communication to the City Council regarding comments from City staff which Ms. Goldman determines is unsatisfactorily answered. 5) Charles Grens of Saratoga thanked the Mayor and Vice Mayor for their timely responses regarding the Old Oak Way project following non-responses from City staff. In response to a request for clarification of confidentiality of the Cocciardi project issue, Mayor Clevenger reported that a public hearing will be held the second Council meeting in January, 1990. 6) Allen Chadwick of Saratoga reported that he owns 5 lots, off Chiquita Way, which have been connected with the subdivision in question. He stated that although his property and the Cocciardi property construction approvals were given simultaneously, he has nothing to do with the developer regarding co-ownership, responsibility, etc. He stated he resents the implications that he is connected with the developer and is upset that there is no mention made that his property is separate from the Cocciardi Development. He believes that the responsibility for what has happened lies with owners of each of the respective properties. He stated he has been issued a Stop Work Order and requested Council's approval to continue to finish his properties. He detailed the problems with the property which could occur if he were not allowed to do so. Because this item did not appear on the agenda, a 4/5 vote was needed in order to agendize the matter. There was no motion made to place the item on the agenda. Mayor Clevenger encouraged Mr. Chadwick to work through the City staff for agendizing the issue. Mayor Clevenger stated that after hearing from the public, staff and Council, it is clear everyone is agreed that this area should be repaired and returned to its original state. The particulars of how that will be done still need to be worked out. She discussed the permit process and pointed out that the activity in question occurred after the earthquake and when City staff was working full time handling approximately 500 inspections. She stated that if the City of Saratoga determines the expectations of the inspection process are not being met, the matter will be reviewed. Councilmember Moyles agreed with the Mayor's comments. He added that although Mr. Cocciardi was granted a limited permit for grading, he evidently thought it was a license to plunder the hillsides, and now the council must try to remedy the wrong as quickly as possible. He believes that the Council would agree with the need to evaluate the City's performance. He indicated that if it is determined more resources for better code enforcement on hillsides are needed, that issue will be considered at budget review. Councilmember Stutzman stated he felt this is a test case for Saratoga because much of its future development will be in the hillsides and that this case should be made an extreme example for code enforcement. 7) Cheriel Jensen, representing Protect Our Valley, reminded the Council that currently a man is in jail for cutting down trees in Saratoga and that incident was minor compared to the current activity in the hillsides. city Council Minutes 4 December 6, 1989 She reported that Protect Our Valley will establish an annual "Russ Crowther Citizenship Award" in his honor; a brilliant, selfless, and stellar public citizen. She reported on discussions held by the Corporation regarding problems stemming from the earthquake. She read, verbatim, a letter to the Council which encourages protection from additional, preventable damage, and which suggests that the City set up a formal study to determine the extent of damage and its pattern and that a formal process be established to collect reports of structural damage and a map where it occurred. She recalled to the Council CEQA requirements regarding new information on projects which could affect the outcome of projects and the environment. Mayor Clevenger requested that staff examine the suggestions and report back at a future Council meeting their assessment of same. Councilmember Anderson agreed that an analysis of the earthquake's effects on Saratoga should be done and that the City may wish to consider Setting standards for properties along the fault lines which may be affected in the future. Mayor Clevenger moved the agenda to the Public Hearings, since the hour of 8:00 p.mo had passed. 8. PUBLIC HEARING8 A, Ordinance repealing Section 16-55 of the'City Code and adopting Uniform Codes as follows= 1) 1988 edition of the Administrative Code, Building Code, Plumbing code, Mechanical Code, Housing code, and Abatement of Dangerous Buildings Code, with local modifications (NOTE: Amendments to the Building Code include requirement for Class C fire retardant roofing for residences.) 2) 1990 edition of the Electrical code, with local modifications Mr. Oncay reviewed the proposal with particular emphasis on the recommendation for a fire retardant roofing ordinance requiring a minimum of Class C roofing for all,new construction within the City and fbr all reroof construction when reroofing consists of more than 25% of the gross square footage of the roof. He stated that most of the modifications in the staff report are existing modifications to the 1985 codes and there are only a few minor modifications as recommended by building officials. Mr. Toppel summarized the change which is being made from the Uniform Building Code regarding minimum roof classes. The Uniform Building Code indicates, that R-3, residential category, is Non-Rated for minimum roof classes.'-The.Table on Page 8 of the Ordinance reflects that R-3, residential category, shall be C rated for minimum roof classes. The class rating shall be determined by a testing agency acceptable to the building official. Additionally, a requirement that documentation to substantiate the rating will be furnished upon request. Beginning on Page 10 of the Ordinance, Section 16-15.130and remaining sections deal specifically with making the Uniform Grading Ordinance the same as the City's local ordinance. I~ r~sponSe to a question from Councilmember Moyles, Mr. Oncay reported that to assist-'home owners in purchase of only the materials approved by the Building Department, flyers and brochures Will be distributed to the public. At the time a roofing'or reroofing permit is issued, the type of material to be used will be obtained and identified clearly as to whether those types of shakes and shingles are acceptable. He reported that the COncerns of the Board of Realtors have been satisfied by this proposed procedure. Councilmember Moyles suggested that the language in the Ordinance regarding Class C definition exclude dipped and sprayed shakes. Mr. Peacock stated that, under current technology, there is no known way that a dipped and sprayed shake and shingle can achieve a Class C rating certified by an independent testing laboratory. Mr. Toppelreferred to language in the Ordinance:.on Page 8 in Sec. 3201 and suggested that the language: "and a method" be inserted in the second City council Minutes 5 December 6, 1989 sentence so that the sentence reads: The class rating on roof material shall be determined' by a testing agency and a method acceptable to the building official. Mayor Clevenger opened the Public Hearing at 8:35 p.m. Frank Lieder of Saratoga presented a petition with 26 signatures from residents, urging the Council to vote no on the amendment to the Saratoga Building Code which includes Class C fire retardant rating for roofing in the flatlands. He objected to a 30% cost increase to reroof with fire retardant shake which he felt is not justified by the infinitesimal chance of a roof started fire; .04% which is almost nothing. The residents are of the opinion the fire retardant roof presents a much higher risk to the residents in the home to be injured in an internally started house fire. He urged a no vote and requested the freedom for residents to decide the type of roof for their homes. Richard Much of Saratoga spoke against adoption of the amendment. He spoke of his concern regarding the lack of longevity, the substance of and negative ecological effects of poisonous chemicals used in fire retardant materials. Karin Dowdy of Saratoga, representing Westbrook Homeowners Association, spoke against adoption of the amendment due to concerns of entrapment of persons, cost vs. risk ratio, and that it is not council's place to determine what type of roof residents must apply. Ed Lothgren of Saratoga spoke against the amendment and stated that .04% chance of a roof started fire does not justify the additional cost. Mr. William Greenmore, AMCO Shake and Shingle Company of Los Gatos, spoke against adoption of the amendment. He pointed out that the cost analysis given to the Council is from wholesalers, not from those who would be applying the work. He spoke of safety factors and detailed the progress inspections required of his company for projects in Saratoga which are not required by other companies. Ms. Richmond of Saratoga spoke against adoption of the amendment.' She objected to the loss of freedom and the right to choose while being made to pay for that loss. Reginald Rikert of Saratoga spoke against the amendment. He felt that the requirement is reasonable for hillside districts.but not economically justified for flatland homes. John Lundell of Saratoga spoke against adoption of the amendment relative to expenses, limited lifetime of fire retardant roofing and suggested consideration of such roofs only in hillside areas above a certain altitude or above a certain slope. He urged a no vote. In response to Mr. Lundell's question regarding the schedule for enactment of the Ordinance, Mr. Toppel indicated that tonight is the first reading, the next regular meeting of the Council will be the second reading, which would include modifications, and the ordinance would become effective 30 days after that. A permit for a replacement roof, under the existing Ordinance, could be obtained from the City up until the day before the new Ordinance becomes effective and would be good for 6 months. John Mallory of Saratoga spoke against adoption of the amendment as excessive, bureaucratic and felt that the costs are not justified. He urged a no vote. Brett Borah, Chairman of the Public Safety Commission, stated that the Commission's unanimous vote in favor of the amendment has not changed. No one further appearing to speak, the Public Hearing was closed at 9:00 p.m. In response to a question from Councilmember Anderson, it was reported that Los Altos Hills residents voted 74% against a'similar Ordinance. Councilmember Anderson reviewed statistics from a recent report from the Chief of the Central Fire District, gave her ana~ysisof public opinion against the amendment, and stated she would vote'no on the amendment. City Council Minutes 6 December 6, 1989 She felt residents should be able to choose the kind Of roofing material they want. Councilmember Peterson stated his original position was to uphold the recommendation by the Public Safety Commission because of safety, but that after hearing the public speak he is not convinced of the justification for this public requirement. He stated he would vote no on the amendment. Councilmember Stutzman expressed his concern regarding the future of Saratoga concerning predictions of an earthquake of 8.0 magnitude and the-effects it could have regarding fire if there were no fire retardant on roofs. He felt that costs, amortized over a period of time, are not that great and that the improvement would add to the value of the home and would be 'a good investment. 'He felt that this requirement for fire retardant should be put in place before a problem can occur. Mayor Clevenger stated she would vote no on the amendment because protection by this method cannot be quantified and costs not justified. She stated she prefers to allow the individual residents to-make that decision on the type of roof they will have. Councilmember Moyles stated he agrees with Dr. Stutzman's analysis and that of the Public Safety Commission. However, because the costs for changes to be mandated are objected to by the community and clearly will not be accepted he suggested this portion of the Ordinance be tabled. Mr. Toppel suggested the following changes: On Page 6, modification to Sec. 3201 of the Uniform Building Code would essentially require a Class A or B roof in a hazardous fire area and no requirement elsewhere. (The hazardous fire area is designated by the Fire Chief by a map in the Building Code. ) On Page 7,- to delete entirely, Sec 16-15.110 which modifies the chart. Therefore the chart in the Uniform Building Code would remain as is, and would refer to Non-Rated roofs in the R-3, residential category, except when the homes are in a hazardous fire area. Sections will be renumbered accordingly and modifications will be included in the Ordinance at the second reading. PETERSON/ANDERSON MOVED TO INTRODUCE THE ORDINANCE A8 AMENDED BY TITLE ONLY, ADOPTING THE 1988 EDITION OF THE UNIFORM ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, BUILDING CODE, PLUMBING, CODE, MECHANICAL CODE, HOUSING CODE, AND ABATEMENT OF DANGEROUS BUILDINGS CODE, DELETING SECTION 16-15.110, AND' WAIVE FURTHER READING. Passed 4-1 (Stutzman opposed). Mayor Clevenger declared a recess at 9:20 p.m. Up'on reconvening at 9:35 p.m. the same Councilmembers and staff were present with the exception of Councilmembers Anderson and Moyles who returned as noted below. B. Weed Abatement Protest Hearing Mr~ Peacock reviewed the Report Summary and recommended adoption of the resolution ordering abatement. Mayor' Clevenger opened the Public Hearing at 9:37 p.m. There being no one present who wished to speak, the Public Hearing was closed at 9:37 p.m. PETERSON/STUTZMAN MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2613 ORDERING ABATEMENT OF A PUBLIC NUISANCE BY REMOVAL OF HAZARDOUS WEEDS. Passed 3-0 (Anderson, Moyles absent). Councilmembers Anderson and Moyles returned. Mayor Clevenger returned to Communications From Commissioners and the Public. B. Written communications from the Public · 1) Willem Kohler, 21842 Via Regina, objecting to hours of construction on Mt. Eden Estates Project. Consensus to authorize sending draft reply. City Council Minu~es 7 December 6, 1989 2) E.T. Barco, 19101 Camino Barco, requesting information as to validation action regarding sunset clause of Utility Users Tax. Consensus to direct.staff to reply that no decision has been made to commence a validation action. 3) Anthony M. Cook, 20312 Edinburgh Dr., complaining about quality of repaving on Edinburgh Dr. Consensus to direct staff to send draft reply. Mr. Peacock verified that the repair meets the City's specifications and indicated that Mr. Cook acknowledged that the work has improved the surface of the street. 4) Letter from Marcia Fariss objecting to 90-height limit. Consensus to direct staff to prepare response indicating that her concerns will be communicated to the. City of San Jose along with other concerns raised by the City. 6. OLD BUSINESS A. Appeal of approval of lot line adjustment to transfer 3.32 acres from Flynn 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, D~mand) (LL89-005; DR89-085; V89- 021) (continued from 11/15) Mr. Emslie, Planning Director, reviewed the findings requested by Council at its meeting of November 15. He reported that staff has found no Santa Clara Valley Water District maintenance easement over the Nieman property. According to Santa Clara Valley Water District officials, the swale on the Nieman property is considered a private facility which the District does not maintain. Maintenance responsibility lies with the private property owner. Staff pointed out that if Council determines there is a health and safety need, a narrowly defined easement for safety purposes expressly for yearly disking and erosion control related to maintenance of the drainage swale could be required. The easement is vastly different in scope from the vehicular access requested by the Appellants. Staff recommended the City Council uphold the Planning Commission approval of DR-89-065, V-89-021 and LL-89-005 giving consideration to an added condition that a limited and unimproved safety easement be granted to the appellant for routine weed abatement and erosion control subject to approval of the City Attorney. In response to request for clarification of the easement, Mr. Toppel explained that there are two forms of access to consider: 1) over a fixed location and 2) to require an agreement that would allow Mr. Dymand's neighbor access for purposes of disking. Neither alternative refers to a graded road. The basis for the easement is public safety consideration. The building permit for the Dymand property would be conditioned on the recorded easement agreement. Councilmember Stutzman stated that after walking the property where an easement could be located, he determined the area could be easily accessed in its natural state by a type of vehicle that would not disrupt the soil surface. Virginia Fanelli, Applicant's Representative, questioned if there really is an issue of health, safety and welfare and said if there is such an issue, consideration should be given to resolving the concerns without an easement. She reiterated that neighbors have said disking has been done by hand and could easily be .done by the Niemans and by traversing over their own property. She named other methods of disking and pointed out the County's weed abatement program for safety purposes in hazardous areas. She reiterated the neighbors are willing to work with the Niemans to have the disking done and that the neighbors all have agreed there is concern regarding vehicular crossing of the property which could lead to City CouncilMinu~es 8 December 6, 1989 erosion, destruction of landscaping and improvements,'and creation of further enticement for 4-wheel vehicles. Ms. Fanelli stated there are other methods for maintaining the Nieman property which do not impact the Dymands or any of the neighbors which will meet the Council's concerns about safety. She requested that the appeal be denied and the Planning Commission's decision be upheld. Doug Adams, Appellant's Representative, thanked the Council for walking the property, stating there is no question there is an issue of health, safety and welfare. He said that although the Norlings have stated they -will work with the Niemans regarding the disking, that has not occurred. Hestated the Niemans were not invited to the neighborhood meetings to discuss theissue and stated that it is necessary for the City to ensure that the Niemans will be able to maintain their property. willem Kohlerof Saratoga reiterated his objections to the City allowing exceptions to the large impervious area, the extended height above the ridge and the large area of the home as being against all the City's rules and regulations. J.R.'Harris of Saratoga reported he and others have disking on his property done by hand and testified thereare alternatives available without having to intrude on another person's property. Elaine Sniffen.reiterated objections to the easement on the Dymand property. She questioned the necessity as being one of health and safety issue or if it is for other uses. She stated her opinion that the Fire Marshal and the City would not have allowed a building permit on the property if it was going to be unsafe and stated that if the City now determines it as unsafe, then the City must admit its error which the neighbors arenow being made to pay for. Bob Yeager of Comer Drive agreed with the neighbors of the Dymand property that there is no particular reason to allow an easement to the Niemans. He expressed concern regarding future development near his property. Don Norling Of Comer Drive reiterated his opinion that the request for easement does~not address the real reasons the Niemans are seeking an easement.. He'reported on his efforts to assist the Niemans retain a contractor for disking and pointed out there is no access easement required for County to disk properties. He pointed out that the adjoining neighbors have property to maintain but none have vehicular access to the rear portions of their properties and that the Niemans purchased the property knowing the limitations. He stated he believes any access across the Dymand property would be detrimental to all adjoining properties. Daryl Sniffen-of Comer Drive reiterated that weed abatement is not an issue because the County has an abatement program. He also questioned the Niemans'. reason for the easement request and reiterated that if the Niemans wanted to, they could have their property disked along with the other neighbors. Luanne Nieman clarified that she has no intention of developing the property and that if the City wishes to impose a limitation prohibiting future development, the Neimans would agree to that. She reported on her many efforts'in attempting to have her property disked. Marilyn Norling reiterated her offer to the Niemans to cooperate in the disking of their land. She pointed out the County has a'listing of people Who do disking which the Neimans may want to utilize. Steve Dymand, the Applicant, gave background on the acquisition and plans for his property. He stated he has complied with all direction from Council and=spoke strongly against granting an easement to the Niemans for any purpose. He said it is not Council's place to give access to a · property which already has access off the street and that Council does not have the right to cloud his property title. He said that although health and safety considerations have been brought up no one has addressed the Council on any issue other than disking.. Councilmember Moyles clarified that the health and safety concerns in this case are those that might be created by growth of underbrush where the absence of disking could create a fire hazard. He said he does not city CouncilMinutes 9 December 6, 1989 believe the easement is required because this is not a public health and safety concern that cannot easily be addressed by other means less drastic than requiring Mr. Dymand to grant access. He stated that even if the easement were granted it would not address the Niemans' concerns regarding full use and enjoyment of their property. He said that the easement, if required, must address an effect of the development, created by the development, and that he believes it does not. He supported the variances granted by the Planning Commission because they eliminate the possibility of far greater development and far greater impacts and stated that the appeal should be denied. Councilmember Peterson stated his extreme reluctance to grant this easement for the reasons given which he feels are not valid and for which there is no overwhelming safety need present. He agreed with Councilmember Moyles' remarks and stated he would vote to deny the appeal. Councilmember Anderson agreed with Councilmember Moyles in that the Council is probably not addressing the Niemans' needs regarding their rear property by granting the requested easement. She expressed her concern with an informal agreement for disk access and stated she would like to see a written agreement between the Niemans and the Dymands for the access to disk. Councilmember Stutzman reported his findings after walking the property in question. He felt the property is accessible by caterpillar,' tractor or truck but would not be in favor of a formal road. He felt there should be some access for fire equipment as the area is heavily wooded. He stated his belief the request is minimal and supported the granting of a safety access to be used for property maintenance and that improper use should be penalized. Mayor Clevenger stated that because it does not appear neighborhood cooperation will solve the issue, she believes there should be access for disking. Lengthy discussion ensued regarding whether the Council should impose access for disking to eliminate a fire hazard and what form of access it should be. Several alternatives were discussed. Mrs. Fanelli posed a list of questions and concerns which the Dymands would want the Niemans to agree to if such an agreement becomes necessary. Mr. Toppel suggested that rather than Council solving the mechanics, he would prefer to see the applicant and neighbors work out'an access agreement in favor of the Niemans to be brought back to Council for review, approval and recordation. If an agreement cannot be worked out perhaps Council would then need to impose an easement and indicate the location of same. MOYLES/PETERSON MOVED TO DENY THE APPEAL. Failed 2-3 (Anderson, Clevenger and Stutzman opposed). CLEVENGER/ANDERSON MOVED TO IMPOSE ACCESS FOR WEED ABATEMENT AND GIVE THE PARTIES 60 DAYS TO AGREE AMONG THEMSELVES HOW THIS ACCESS WILL BE DETERMINED. Passed 3-2 (Moyles, Peterson opposed.) Mr. Peacock clarified the agreement must contain language which indicates that no building permit will be issued the Dymands until the agreement is recorded. It was agreed to amend the motion to delete the 60-day reference. Mr. Toppel suggested the Dymands may want to consider a grant which the City could accept. He said this condition is not subject to an agreement with the Niemans but can be done unilaterally as long as.the City approves it. CONSENSUS BY COUNCILMEMBERS ANDERSON, CLEVENGER AND 8TUTZMAN, TO UPHOLD THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION, THAT IS, TO DENY THE APPEAL AND MODIFY THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION BY ADDING A CONDITION WHICH REQUIRES THAT AN ACCESS AGREEMENT FOR WEED ABATEMENT ONLY BE RECORDED ON THE DYMAND PROPERTY IN FAVOR OF THE OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY AT 13217 PADERO COURT, SARATOGA~ CA, 95070. ALSO, CONSENSUS TO HAVE THE CITY ATTORNEY DEVELOP A RESOLUTION TO BE BROUGHT BACK IN TWO WEEKS FOR City council Minutes 10 December 6, 1989 APPROVAL WHICH WILL INCLUDE LANGUAGE DISCUSSED WHICH COUNCILMEMBERS DETERMINED MUST BE INCLUDED IN SAID RESOLUTION. Mr. Dymandreiterated strong opposition to the access agreement and reiterated that Council does not have the right to do this. B. Report and update on Santa Clara County's. General Plan Review Mr. Peacock referred to the status report from staff as an information item only. 7. NEW BUSINESS 'A.' Extension of Cooperative Agreement for Reconstruction of Bridges on Quito Road MOYLES/PETERSON MOVED TO APPROVE AGREEMENT AND AUTHORIZE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE ON BEHALF OF CITY. Passed 5-0. B. .Waiver of Fees for saratoga High School Christmas Tree Sales Temporary Use Permit (TUP. 89-004) ANDERSON/MOYLES MOVED TO WAIVE $400 PERMIT FEE AND $250 CLEAN-UP DEPOSIT. Passed 5-0. C;' Award of contract for Re-roofing Community center and Resolution appropriating funds MOYLESZCLEVENGER MOVED TO AWARD CONTRACT TO GUY'S ROOFING IN THE AMOUNT oF $49,400 AND ADOPT RESOLUTION 2575.9 APPROPRIATING FUNDS. Passed 5- 0.- 9. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS Reports from Individual Councilmembers 1) Councilmember Peterson reported on a letter he received from the Rotary Club requesting they be allowed to place banners for the art show. He suggested that a pro~ess be set up similar to the banner in Blaney Plaza and that those interested make a request through the Maintenance'Director. Councilmember Moyles suggested and staff agreed to prepare information and a recommendation and that the matter be agendized to a-future Council Study Session. 2) Councilmember Moyles referred to Mr. Samuelson's "no" response to the City's request for .a waiver. He requested that the matter be one of priority for the new City Engineer to expedite. 3) Councilmember Moyles reported on two issues regarding the Traffic Authority: 1) Bascom Avenue and 2) Winchester Boulevard. 4) Mayor Clevenger discussed and requested that Council consider agendizing a policy for planting trees for deceased Planning Commissioners. 5) Mayor Clevenger reported on the City of Campbell's "Earthquake Law". Mr. Toppel verified that every city in the State must implement that law. Mr. Peacock reviewed the City's efforts to date. Mayor Clevenger requested that when information becomes available that it be scheduled for a Council Study Session before agendized on the City Council Agenda. · B. Items added to the Agenda City Manager requested that two items be added to the agenda which had arisen after the posting of the agenda. MOYLES/CLEVENGER MOVED TO ADD THE TWO ITEMS TO THE AGENDA AS REQUESTED BY THE CITY MANAGER. Passed 5-0. 'Resolution appointing Councilmember Peterson as Saratoga's -representative to the Santa Clara County Cities Association. MOYLES/CLEVENGER MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2586.~. Passed 5-0. City Council Minutes 11 December 6, 1989 2) Resolution concerning designation of applicant's agent as Harry Peacock or Patricia Shriver The City Manager explained that the designation of the City's agent was necessary in order to progess requests for disaster funds through the State Office of Emergency Services. MOYLES/ANDERSON MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2614. Passed 5-0. 10. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:30 p.m. in memory of Russ Crowther, Planning Commissioner, to closed session on potential litigation concerning Draft Environmental Impact Report for E1 Paseo Redevelopment prepared by City of San Jose. Councilmember Stutzman gave the following tribute to Mr. Crowther: "Russ was truly a man for all time. In fact, a man ahead of his time. I had the good fortune to know him for two years and the misfortune for not knowing him longer. He was a very private man--a modest, caring person for his family, friends, community and the environment. He was a brilliant individual, probably one of the most, of that category, that I have ever known. He will be long remembered by those of us who knew and by many who didn't know him, for he did leave a heritage which will benefit many for years to come. Some men walk this earth with shoes that are much too large for any successor to fill. Such a man was Russ Crowther and I am certain that our Creator must be proud of His handiwork in Russ and I wish to offer thanks on the part of Saratoga for His willingness to have shared him with us, the brief period of time that Russ had on this earth. May God be with you, Russ Crowther, and may you rest in peace." Respectfully submitted, ~R~. Linde a~ Minutes Clerkind~e~'