CC Min 1997-06-02 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

. . . - owner, placement of some object in the easement's right of way so that it might affect the use of the easement, if it resulted in an accident, might be considered a proximate cause. - Therefore the property owner might be liable if there were an injury occurring on the property or as a result of it. It really relates to the use of the property and the involvement of the property owner in the factual circumstances that might give rise to liability." In response to Vice Mayor Howard's questions regarding the Sartain's insurance, Ken Sartain said, "What we offered to do is to carry them on our policy as additional insureds at no cost to them, insured to the amount of a half a million dollars. If they so chose they could increase that amount to one million dollars for $184 additional per year." Mayor Hartnett asked the City Attorney, "In your view could the Council impose a condition as part of the proceedings.... that the parties in question be added as an additional insured?" City Attorney Schricker said, "I think there is a reasonable relationship between that condition and the use of the property." Mayor Hartnett said, "It would be of course a contractual agreement between the parties, but beyond that there could be an enforceable condition." City Attorney Schricker said yes, "which would also require that the (policy) be maintained in a current" status, renewed every year. In response to Councilwoman La Berge's questions, City Attorney Schricker said the off street employee parking requirement of the City Code is enforceable. L Councilman Claire said, "This is a situation that really shouldn't be before the Council. We have two neighbors who are having a problem because of the way one neighbor operates a business within an R-l neighborhood which traditionally would not have any businesses in it at all. The state of California in its wisdom, and I tend to agree, has decided in the case of child care up to six children can be cared for in a single family neighborhood without any permitting process through the City whatsoever. If you go beyond six it requires a permit from the City but does not require a public hearing, and there was none given. There are some requirements, that the operation does not interfere with neighbors or the neighborhood. This would be a no brainer if that easement did not exist, because we have one neighbor who has asked the City for the privilege of potentially grossing $50,000 a year.... The law has been changed to allow eight children, and ifI look at what my daughter is paying for her two children for three days a week, my estimate is that they could probably gross $50,000 more a year if they went to fifteen children. They only have eleven, but they could potentially do that. That is a privilege that we as a City are giving them. It is a privilege that is bothering their neighbors, and it is a privilege that I am not so sure that the City should in fact give them. But if we could find an alternative that would allow both of the individuals involved to be satisfied with that alternative, then I would not be in the mood to change the permit at all. The altemative I'm considering is one that would ask both parties, although they have tried before, to get together during the next month or so and take a look at different approaches to the driveway, take a look at the situation where possibly the easement is used for its original intent when it was granted, '- and that's egress to the garage, not as a circular driveway to drop off kids, and that potentially we might be able to find an engineering design that would allow a drop off REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTE BOOK NO. 55 JUNE 2, 1997 MINUTES Page No. 363 PAGE 7