Loading...
Minutes-ZA 2000/02/24 ACTION AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR THURSDAY, FEBRARY 24, 2000 9:30 Q.M. STAFF PRESENT: Annika Santalahti -Zoning Administrator Selma Mann -Deputy City Attorney David See -Associate Planner Melanie Adams -Associate Engineer Danielle Masciel -Word Processing Operator 1 a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION -CLASS 15 1 b. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP N0.98-242 OWNER: Thoai Tang 7730 Autry Drive Anaheim Hills, CA 92808 AGENT: Hoss William and Associates 100 South Anaheim Boulevard # 360 Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 7730 Autry Drive: Property is 3.0 acres located 200 feet east of the centerline of Eucalyptus Drive and terminus of Autry Drive. To establish a 4-lot (3 numbered lots, 1 lettered lot) single-family residential subdivision in the RS-HS-22,000 (SC)(Residential, Single- Family Hillside; Scenic Corridor Overlay) Zone for the future construction of 3 single family homes. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION NO. Con't to the 3-23-00 Zoning Administrator meeting TW Opposition: 6 people were present Tri Tang was present and was satisfied with the staff report. Doug Hill, 148 S. Eucalyptus Drive, Anaheim Hills. All of the homes in that area share a common access way and that is Eucalyptus Drive imparticular. That road has been in disrepair for some years now and is in need of immediate attention, especially where Eucalyptus meets Santa Ana Canyon Road. I would hope that the Zoning Administrator would approve improvements to that driveway. I live close to the end of that street. Certainly where Eucalyptus meets Autry Drive at least that section should be improved. With every rain the road becomes more undermined. I have on occasion asked the City to repair the road. They are claiming that it is a private drive but indeed with every bit of construction that goes on in that area the road becomes more in disrepair and in need of service. Pat Stowers, I live on the corner of Autry and Eucalyptus. 7707 Autry Drive. I agree with the gentleman that spoke before me but I also agree that we all join together in taking responsibility for that road. I see no need to impose any further hardship on this proposed builder. We have had one resident newly come in that propose that we all share in taking care of that road since it is a private road. Out of 44 residents only 17 said yes. So I feel that it is a responsibility of everyone that lives access to Eucalyptus. Now I would love to impose this on Tri but I could not honestly do this. I'm very concerned about Autry Drive. It has not been ZA021000.DOC Page 1 2/24100 • maintained accept for what we do on our own, but Tri has assured us that he will make sure that the road is strengthened and taking care of when that propose to do the construction. So I'm satisfied and in favor of seeing that development. We have been in communication with him. We are aware of what they are doing. We want the improvement but I feel that it is a joint responsibility of those neighbors that live on that road. Mike Patel, 102 South Eucalyptus Drive. I would like to give my remaining time to Tom Tonelli to speak. Tom Tonelli, P.O. Box 51 Yorba Linda, CA 92686. My concerns are two-fold. First off the original plan references the sewer going through the easement on the 20 foot south section of Eucalyptus but the plan indicates a different location for the sewer. In any case I have the rights to that sewer and I want to make certain that my rights are protected on the sewer. And then also Grading Plan GP 1501 indicates that in order to put in the driveway in accordance with Ciry requirements on the easement that there would have to be an approximate 9 foot retaining wall not a 5 foot retaining wall. Further the drawing as it is indicated with regards to the easement along 102 South Eucalyptus indicates that the retaining wall is going to start in the middle of Mr. Patel's driveway. That is totally not in keeping with any kind of zoning ordinances or what I was told what would happen when I submitted Grading Plans 1501. Certainly this needs to be looked at more closely and needs to be fixed. Also if you are going to cut in a 9 foot retaining wall for that easement to go in properly, it is a hillside area, you have to have concerns for the house next door to make sure that what ever impact you are doing on that existing slope does not impede there footings and whatever is supporting the house because the house is relatively close in that area. Speaker approached the exhibit and continued discussing the issue with Annika Santalahti, Selma Mann, Melanie Adams and David See. Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator summarized the discussion by indicating that the speaker was commenting on basically what impacts the two properties at the northwest comer of the property. The one at the immediate corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Eucalyptus Drive which is Mr. Patel's property and the property adjacent to that. The proposed Dorothy Way goes through those properties and he was commenting on those properties and the information given in the staff reports and on the plans. Hoss Efterkhari, Agent and Civil Engineer of the project. The comment of Mr. Patel will be granted. We are going to adjust the wall and also the grade will be meeting the existing grade at his property and this is just a preliminary and 1 have no problem taking care of those concerns. Mr. Tang commented on the driveway that Mr. Patel is concerned with. That driveway located on his garage has been built so that his driveway runs right across into the Dorothy Way which is the access way that we intent to build. So his problems is that he has started his construction which runs right into our construction way. So there is no way to avoid contacting his driveway. So I would like for you to take that into consideration. Ms. Santalahti clarified with the audience the location of Dorothy Way and Autry Drive. Addressed Melanie on this private street situation Citywide when subdivisions have occurred and the private street were developed and associations were not set and things were not necessarily done to accommodate and that everybody should be contributing to the upkeep of that private street. This is not a typical City of Anaheim residential problem. Particularly when streets may not have been constructed to anywhere near City standards of long term longevity. Melanie Adams, Associate Engineer -Concurred with Ms. Santalahti. Eucalyptus Drive is in fact a private road and it is the understanding when it was initially developed that portion was County territory and I am not aware of any maintenance association for Eucalyptus Road. It is my understanding that the property owners themselves would need to get together and form an improvement association. A question has probably come up as to what would be the appropriate maintenance standards for both Dorothy Way and Autry Drive. Those roads would be shared with a couple of existing homes but perhaps it would be appropriate for this subdivision to share in maintenance of those two roads. Ms. Santalahti asked if Ms. Adams if the City has any situations where they may have gotten involved in with setting up a district or do a certain amount of work, or has that been left up to the home owners to work it out themselves. This is one of the worst situations in terms of the shear number of homes up there. Page 2 2/24/00 Ms. Adams responded that she had no recollection of the City being involved with anything such as this. If the easements were large enough to accommodate the public street standard and all property owners agreed, I imagine that a petition could be put forward for that effort but a lot of research would need to be done to ensure that a public street could be constructed within an easement. Ms. Santalahti commented that Eucalyptus Drive was in fact a pretty steep grade for that. Selma Mann, Deputy Attorney remarked that it would be the property owner that would construct in to the street standards and then dedicate the improved street to the City. Then from there after would be maintained by the City. So it would not be a situation where it could just be dedicated to the City and then the City would be responsible for bringing it up to standards. Ms. Adams clarified concerns with Mr. Tonelli regarding the sewer. The sewer is master planned to be extended up Eucalyptus Drive to the extent that if the sewer was allowed to come through Dorothy Way that it would get a little more extension on the Eucalyptus Drive sewer which may encourage others to continue the sewer further south, and actually we were hoping to help his sewer cost. Ms. Santalahti on that sewer point what is shown on the tentative map that we have dated 12-30-98 is a proposed sewer easement that runs on the northerly on the west property line of the subject property to Santa Ana Canyon Road. Is that an accurate representation of what is planned or have changes occurred. Ms. Adams responded that we would have to see what restrictions there would be on Dorothy Way. Mr. Tonelli said that the sewer would not be allowed through Dorothy Way and he is the former owner so he does have more knowledge of what the extent of the easement through the property is. Ms. Santalahti stated that Dorothy Way actually exist as an access way now as an ingress egress easement. And is that at a 20-foot width? Mr. Tonelli confirmed Ms. Santalahti description of the location of the sewer and easement. Pat Stower is the property owner on the north side of Autry Drive (Parcel 3 of Parcel Map 1830). Stated that they have lived in the vicinity and new Dorothy when she was alive. Dorothy formed the street name for Dorothy Way and Autry Drive. We were aware of both easements and were concerned because Ms. Autry wanted to have development out in this area and we thought that Autry would have the only easement. Ms. Autry assured us that whenever there would be any development that there was another easement and that was on presently of the property of Mr. Patel. That has always been there and everyone has known that. It is a deeded easement of ingress/egress. Our easement is a used one and Mr. Patel's easement has never been used it has just existed. Ms. Santalahti refers back to the sewer issue. It sounds like the proposed sewer easement shown on the map is possibly not the sewer easement that is going to end up being there. It is going to take research because there is interest in running it through Dorothy Way. Melanie Adams asked for clarification on whether or not the easement would allow for the sewer from Mr. Tonelli. Mr. Tonelli stated that the easement was strictly an ingress/egress easement. That doesn't mean to say that arrangements can not be made with Mr. Patel to allow for sewer and water and possibly electric to be put in there but as far as I know right now it is strictly ingresslegress. When we did this and when we did the sewer extension we did put a lateral towards that front as you have it on the drawing so that it could hook up but that also puts them in the Santa Ana Canyon right-of-way. There is also a horse trail right-of-way there and an undeveloped portion of Santa Ana Canyon Road that the sewer trail would travel through in order to hook up properly. Ms. Santalahti stated that from the City's point of view it is assumed that what would happen is that when someone comes in with a proposal for a sewer easement on something other than their own property they will have to furnish evidence that the City verifies that they have the right to do so. Ms. Adams concurred with Ms. Santalahti's statement. Page 3 2/24/00 • • Ms. Santalahti stated from the City's point of view is there a preference assuming all parties are in agreement and the rights are there. Also which way the easement would go whether it would go up to Eucalyptus or Santa Ana Canyon Road directly. Ms. Adams stated that technically it can be done either way but the hope was that if the easement could be secure through Dorothy Way that the sewer would be extended further south along Eucalyptus encouraging others to connect and extend the sewer further south to Eucalyptus Drive. Many homes in that area are on septic tanks. Ms. Santalahti stated that as far as that particular decision being made when is the appropriate time for that decision to be made. Is it made in connection with the maps or does it come when the map is approved when the first house is built. Ms. Adams stated that it would be preferable if that decision could be made before the map is approved. That way we would know for certain which way it was to go and all proper easements were reserved accordingly. Ms. Santalahti asked what condition would reflect that need. Ms. Adams responded that currently Condition No. 2. However it is necessary to separate the sewer and the storm drain issues. It is probably preferable for the drainage itself to go to Santa Ana Canyon Road so if the issues it would be appreciated. Ms. Santalahti stated that Condition No. 2 as it is worded now doesn't discuss the issues of easements at all so would it be appropriate to add on a "; and the appropriate easements shall be obtained... "then it ties into the final map so that the easements will be established in connection prior to the final map being recorded assuming the tentative map is approved. Now as to the issue of the actual configuration and the grade changes and anything that might take place on Dorothy Way. With construction to the way the road is, the easement itself may not adequately address that subject and that the property owner of the underlying land may have something to say in practice about grading and other things that may take place on his property. Ms. Adams stated that Condition No. 3 refers to compliance with the Certificate of Compliance No. 91-06. That Certificate of Compliance had two conditions. First to relinquish vehicular access rights to Santa Ana Canyon Road and the second was the development of Dorothy Way. Those plans need to be approved by the City Engineer before approval and the restriction is that the grade should not exceed 10% on that stretch. Ms. Santalahti are these conditions of the Certificate of Compliance, is that an item that only pertains to the subject property signing off on it or does that involve Mr. Patel. Ms. Adams stated that it did not specify. Ms. Santalahti asked if normally the expectation would be that the two parties to sign off on this sort of thing? What the interest is, is that the owner of the subject property does have to comply with existing easements and other owners may become involved so that they may have to work a deal amongst themselves before the maps or certificates get signed appropriately. Ms. Mann interjected that with regard to what they need to work out themselves, that would depend upon what the terms the Certificate of Compliance indicates. We need to be cautious about putting a requirement on an individual that would require the approval of 3`~ parties that are unrelated to the subdivision other than "use best efforts or reasonably attempt to" or with regard to the street "enter into an agreement on a fair share basis". It is clearly a nexus to what it is being applied for here. Ms. Santalahti stated that the point that needs to be made is that if the tentative map is approved and the appropriate conditions are on the map tied in to be resolved prior to the final map, that whoever has whatever interest that it will be taken care of in the appropriate fashion required. Not specifically addressed because we don't necessarily know everything right now. But the tentative map for 4-lots would not be approved unless the City felt that the appropriate sewer and driveway can be taken care of. Now if somebody gets tricky about it or doesn't want to pay whichever happens then that is their problem but then the map doesn't Page 4 2/24/00 • • get recorded. We just want to make certain that everybody that needs to be involved will be involved and that the tentative map is approved and it is a reasonable proposal at the point of the tentative map more information will be obtained before the final map goes for approval. At that point all the details will have been nicely identified and worked out with Engineering and the City Attorney's Offices. Ms. Adams requested clarification on timing of Condition No. 6 related to specimen tree removal, Condition No. 8 regarding the Knat Catcher habitat and Condition No. 10, the final site, floor and elevation plans etc. currently prior to final map approval. The applicant had indicated that they were going to subdivide the property and develop the home at a later date. Ms. Santalahti stated that on the final plan approval and which is under Condition 10 and Condition No. 9 which it's recommended that the noise study the Ciry's requirements regarding noise intenuation tie into building permits typically. David maybe able to comment further but my understanding on Condition No. 9 which addresses the noise because one can have double pane windows, or properly designed walls to reduce the impact of sound or seek a waiver if it is impossible to comply with Council Policy regarding sound intenduation. But prior to the first building permit issue as each building permit that comes in because of the distance from Santa Ana Canyon Road. David See interjected that it was correct prior to the issuance of a building permit and staff wanted to add for Condition No. 10 that some wording be added like "prior to issuance to building permit that final plans be submitted and not to final map approval". So that would require striking No. 10 from Condition No. 15. Ms. Santalahti concurred and further asked about the sound intenduation, would that pertain to the entire parcel subdivision or does that only go back a certain distance from Santa Ana Canyon Road. Then asked the applicant if they had received a copy of Council Policy No. 542 and then informed the applicant that a copy would be forwarded to him. David See Ms. Santalahti -asked applicant if they had received a copy of Council Policy No. 542. We will provide you with a copy. We are not real clear on which lot, if it is the whole property or just Lot 1. The grading situation on Dorothy Way because of the retaining walls, from the City's point of view if the landowner says it needs a 9-foot retaining wall, it is as ugly as sin but I can do it. Is that something that can normally happen or is it often so expensive that they wouldn't even consider it. Ms. Adams -answered No because money appears to be no object in the hills. What is meant by that is that what normally looks like a very difficult piece of property to develop no longer is. People are putting up wall, multiple walls, in what was considered expensive at one time is no longer. What is allowed by code id a 10 foot exposed wall height. If it goes above 10 feet they would need to tier it before they start the next way and in between those walls and at the base of each wall would need to be landscaped. Ms. Santalahti -Clarified that code allows it to go up to 10 feet before it gets tricky and it is a 10 foot engineered wall rather than rocks piled up. Asked a few questions about conditions. Condition No. 1 asked for the appropriate fees, if you know the answer to that because it is water engineering. For primary mains, it is that appropriately paid in connection with a subdivision map. Ms. Adams - Answered that it is typically paid with a tract map, not with a parcel map. I don't know if in this case there is an issue of the fees being overdue. Ms. Santalahti - Ok but they do in cases of larger subdivision. What I wanted to do here basically is just verify other that that discussion on Condition No. 10 that the other condition as listed on NO. 15 are valid for the satisfaction... OK No. 6 as listed is the specimen tree removal condition. David we wouldn't know until the practical time when trees are impacted. David See -Concurred and further stated that it may be more appropriate to say "prior to issuance of building permits for Condition No. 6 and under Condition No. 15 strike No. 6" Ms. Adams - Clarified that fact. A building permit is not going to be issued until a grading permit is done because of the amount of grading that may be needed to create the building pad. Page 5 2/24/00 • Ms. Santalahti -interjected leaving Condition No. 8 in but striking it out from Condition No. 15. Melanie was asked if that was her area of responsibility. Condition No. 14 is this because No. 13 is the electrical utilities and that is just if anything has to be done the developer has to pay for it. So I guess that can be tied into the final map. Then the only question... Note for the record: The plan has Variance No. 4385 stamped on it because originally it was a variance but it was withdrawn because no waivers were identified. So therefore it was a mistake. The other question was on Item No. 6 in the staff report under lot frontages where it says that the requirement is 60 feet and one of the proposed residential lots is 55 feet. Is this a situation where the requirement is there because of an average minimum? Mr. See -Yes that notation was made under the chart that there is an average frontage and this frontage is also adjacent to a private road and a lettered lot. Ms. Santalahti - Wanted to be sure that the required frontages are satisfied under code. The future house shown on the map, I assume, is just an illustration of what might happen. It may be fairly different from what is shown. That is just to show something could be done. Going back to the private street and maintenance situation. In a situation like this the three lots are going to be sharing something and then they're going to be crossing on another piece of property. Are the three lots themselves going to be required to have an association or maintenance contract to maintain and take care of and pave and whatever else they might need to do of a shared acce4ss easement. Or in a situation like this which is three lots does we leave it up to the intelligence that those people will work it out amongst themselves ultimately. Ms. Adams -responded that it would probably be appropriate since there is the common Lot A that a maintenance covenant be executed for the shared maintenance and improvement for those lots. Ms. Santalahti - asked if a condition was addressed in the staff report? Ms. Adams -suggested that it should have been added but it was missed. Ms. Mann -interjected that the maintenance covenant would include all aspects of maintenance, which would include any private sewers, and anything else that would require maintenance. Ms. Santalahti - asked it there was a standard condition that addressed that and it so what is the number Ms. Santalahti - asked staff if there was any other concerns that have not yet been addressed. However in the piece along Dorothy Way that goes across Mr. Patel's property, can we require under this condition that a maintenance agreement for that section be set up between the 4 parcels that will be involved. It is to the benefit of all of them so hopefully this would not be a big deal. Since Mr. Patel or who ultimately owns the property ultimately doesn't want to have anything to do with this on the other hand they will get to look at it all the time and have to listen to the cars going through the potholes and anything else. In that sense it does seem like something could appropriately work out between 4 consenting property owners. Ms. Mann - interjected that it is appropriate to include that in the maintenance covenant to the extent that there is a nexus to what is being requested and to the extent that it is providing access to the parcels. I think we do have that nexus. Ms. Adams -asked if that would apply to both Dorothy Way and Autry Drive. Ms. Mann - responded that if both were providing a necessary access to the property with regard to one where it is exclusively for this parcel it would be appropriate to have it be exclusively for the subdivision. With regard to one which is shared access with others it would be a fair share so that not more than it's own impacts upon that access would be a requirement for maintenance for these 4 parcels. Ms. Santalahti - addressed Autry Drive even though it terminates in the subject property the way the map looks those people are not going to have access across Autry Drive, is that correct? Mrs. Mann -directed that then there should be no maintenance obligations. Page 6 2/24/00 • • Pat Stower asked for a clearer explanation of what was just said from Selma Mann Mrs. Mann - explained that state law in the United States Supreme Court imposed a requirement on public entities that require a nexus or connection between the conditions put on a particular request and it has to be related in type and in proportion to the impact that the particular development is going to have. So if the applicant is asking for permission to put in a subdivision, it can not be required to improve more than my fair share then say the streets that lead up to the subdivision. The impact that this development is going to have to the extent that it is an exclusive access, then it is the responsibility of the developer to make sure that all of the people that are going to be buying lots are going to be subject to the requirement such a CC&R's that say the buyer is going to share in the maintenance of that particular ingress. Pat Stower asked to reiterate the statement made by Selma for a clear understanding. As far as I'm concerned my access or ingress/egress for that back property is Autry Drive. You are saying to me that we can't impose anymore than what the upper lot would be using because of the design. The design comes down and then goes back up. Fully he probably could say, "I'm never going to use Autry Drive because there is no fence or gate keeping anymore out of that and anyone could use that. As far as covenants on properties the builder that developed the one just opposite of us that gives them the ingress/egress have a maintenance covenant but we take care of it. There is no way to force people to take care of property that they don't want to take care of. So it is a matter of decency and understanding. I would say we are not at all fully loaded with money as Melanie says, that go ahead in the hillside property and do it but I am saying that we are all pretty practical about taking care of our property. I think it is a matter of understanding between people but if one doesn't do it then another one will, but I don't think that we should have laws to impose us to take care of our property. I think this is getting way out of hand. Ms. Santalahti - explained that the reason the question came up was that Dorothy Way and the driveways on the subject properties were shaded in on the map. However, Autry Drive is shown but not shaded in and I could not tell if it was going to be fenced off or it the Fire Department or somebody else wanted it to provide access across it. If it doesn't matter at all to this particular property and it won't be allowed t have access on this particular property then that is one thing but if they are going to be allowed to have access then that is something else. Ms. Adams - stated that based on her review it appeared as though they were going to be taking access in that this is the access the existing home is using now. Could the applicant clarify this concern? Ms. Santalahti - directed Mr. Tang to answer this question. Was the intent that the access provided also or that people be permitted to come along Autry Drive to one of these 3 new houses. Was it your expectation that Autry Drive would be another way of getting to the 3 new houses. Mr. Tang answered yes but that the main road would be Dorothy Way. It would still be in use but in use but not as much as Dorothy. Ms. Santalahti - asked the City Attorney if there were covenants on properties that these 4 people shall share in the maintenance in the appropriate fashion. However, it 3 of them do it and one of them says that they will not participate because they only drive once a day on that driveway, is it then up to the other three. Then it would be recorded in the proper fashion, then it they want to sue to force that person to participate in necessary maintenance is that something that could happen. Or do they truly trust each other and work it out. Ms. Mann - explained that they have legal rights. Something property owners are not willing to sue each other and all the City can do is place a mechanism in place that will permit the property owners to enforce their rights if they choose to do so. The City is not going to be able to do this. We can not get involved in the private disputes, to the extent that there is going to be some sort of a secondary impact on the street to the south which is Autry Drive. There could possibly be a requirement but again it may not be easy to determine fair share for these particular parcels if there is going to be a limited access. Also there is no way to require as it was pointed out reasonability and courtesy and common sense can't be litigated. I feel that there needs to be something that is feasible, because if others are not willing to enter into an agreement there is no way you can force these four people to somehow require other people to do something. They have no authority, the only property that this would bind would be the property that is subject to the subdivision at this time. Page 7 2/24/00 • • Ms. Santalahti - asked Selma if she had a way of wording a condition for Autry Drive that would at least set up opportunity for something to be done regarding the use of Autry Drive. Ms. Mann - suggested that if could be included as part of the maintenance agreement that if there is an assessment district or financial mechanism that is set up for the maintenance of Autry Drive that the parcels in the subdivision will participate for their fair share of that maintenance. That would leave two points of discussion amongst the people who live around there and it would be fair share. And the second is that they would have to beat this association of whatever else was formed to maintain this street. Ms. Santalahti -clarified regarding Autry Drive is it three people excluding the piece in discussion today. Tom Tonelli -stated his confusion from hearing this because it almost seems that with this tentative map you are going to impel Mr. Patel and the other neighbors to have to agree to something in order to support this tentative tract map. Ms. Santalahti - stated that it was not the intent. The interest is anything on the easement as it pertains specifically and only on Mr. Patel's property. Because I thing that the owner has certain benefits from property maintenance. To that extent those other three should participate in that. Now if he chooses not to do that himself and they have legal rights well... Mr. Tonelli -stated that was basically what the concern was. You say his fair share is going to be whatever and he does not agree to that amount based on what he thinks his use is. However the residents say there is 3 of us plus you make up the forth so you have 25% of the cost so now we have a battle going on. So what might seem simple right now because the improvements are now however 10 years from now when things look in disrepair and she is saying these three would have legal recourse against him on something that right now they are getting the benefits of getting a subdivision. I think the whole cost should be bore by the three parcels. Ms. Santalahti - informed the audience that somebody put that access easement in and somebody accepted that so... I'm not going to talk about it. Mr. Tonelli -addressed Condition No. 3 and suggested that it be changed to say 'wvithout negative impact not only to just conform to the Certificate of Compliance but without negative impact to existing improvements. Because the improvements on the Grading Plan 1501 we are done and approved by the City with the knowledge that the Certificate of Compliance. This is what they mandated be done for that easement. Unfortunately when I bought the property the easement was not in our title report and the became a source of litigation and was resolved by that Certificate of Compliance. Grading Plan 1501 was designed in theory so that the Certificate of Compliance could be conformed to without a negative impact to drainage or the existing improvements. I think Condition No. 3 should reference without impact to existing improvements. Instead of blanketing it with saying Certificate of Compliance because your 10% could not be taken from the front of the property instead of from the low point which is what I was discussing with you previously. This could skew the whole thing and have a negative impact and I would hate for it to have to get to the grading level where it is being argued. It would be better to have it referenced now so that it could be fixed now instead of somebody pointing to the idea that they approved the Tentative Map which gave us this right and now we are in this whole other argument. Ms. Santalahti - explained that a tentative map truly is just a tentative map and all the information one might opt to have isn't necessarily available. Either it hasn't been researched by the landowner or the City hasn't verified and it's that one year between the Tentative and the Final Maps that it all gets worked out or not worked out. This I assume because there is Tentative maps that have never recorded because of various difficulties or expenses that turn out to be too high. Ms. Adams - I believe I understand the concerns of Mr. Tonelli and it is true that the Grading Plan 1501 was designed so that there could be the future development of Dorothy Way and so it would not be our intention that the property be negatively impacted by the development of the street so to the extent that the wording could be added I'm not opposed to it although I don't know what the full ramification would be. Page 8 2/24/00 Ms. Santalahti - The Certificate of Compliance was done because there were certain unknowns at the time that the property was developed and that was put in to make sure that things were done properly. 1991, does that mean that was when this was done? Ms. Adams -explained that what happened was a portion of the property was sold without processing a parcel map and so the Certificate of Compliance was tied into making... Ms. Santalahti 1 also suppose that any phrase in term of not Negatively or Adversely impacting something that negative or adverse thing is all in the eyes of the beholder. One person may care and one person may not care but we may not know that. The City may feel that something is a perfectly good idea and Mr. Patel may be seriously bothered by it and both side legitimately on both sides. So that issue about adding something onto Condition No. 3 regarding something does not adversely affect Mr. Patel... That seems tricky to something here because I don't know everything. It needs to be worked out amongst the people involved and interested and they may not agree in the long run and maybe it can't be resolved. That may mean that the map is not recorded. Ms. Mann - I can see that we are getting further into areas that would be very difficult to determine at the tentative map stage. I can see the concern with regard to what is fair share. It's that fair share with regard to how much do you use or would it be fair share to the number of parcels that have access to it. Something like that would be fairly easily determined at this point. If there are going to be 4 parcels they are not going to be responsible for more than 25% of the cost of the maintenance but also there should be some kind of agreement or some sort of a plan to maintain. However it is among so that they are not required to put 25% where no one else has to put anything in. There seems to be a basic fairness. There has to be some sort of a plan to do an improvement before you are required to put your fair share in. But I can see that specifying what a fair share is, is something that could be done right. With regard to the details to the Certificate of Compliance, a grading permit is a discretionary approval. Is there notice given to the surrounding property owners with a grading plan. Ms. Adams - Grading in the hillside that exceeds 100 cubic yards of cut or fill and there are some other categories, but that is the major one that would be noticed to all properties within 300 feet of the boundary of the property. Ms. Mann -would this project fall within that criteria Mrs. Adams -responded that she was not certain. If they were just doing the street first before they were doing additional construction on the property perhaps they may fall under 100 cubic yards. Ms. Mann - In that case the interested people in the Council Chambers today can request notice even if notice is not required. This way you will be notified at such time as the item comes before the City Engineer for whatever permit it is. You make a request of the City to the Public Works Department, City Engineer so that somehow the file would be tagged and even if notice may not otherwise be required you wilt be receiving notice. You just ask for notice of any grading permits or any other type of permit that you are particularly interested in. With regard to the building permits, that is pretty ministerial. But with regard to the grading permit conditions can be imposed on that and you certainly would have an opportunity then to have some input into the process. Ms. Santalahti -And for them to do that Melanie, 1 assume that you would want each property owner to submit an letter to say concerning this property we would like information that comes up. I assume it also means that if nothing comes for 10 years that maybe they should send in that letter every year to keep active... Do grading plans take an environmental assessment? Or does that also hit that 100 cubic yard issue that comes into play. Ms. Mann - answered that is was a discretionary approval and it is subject to CEQA to the extent that new issues come up which didn't come up at this particular level of review. It is possible that the grading plan may require additional environmental review. Page 9 2124/00 • Ms. Santalahti - Is it also like if this parcel map get approved and recorded and then two weeks later one of the owners says that they would like to divide their lot into two parcels and if it met the Zoning Code. Then if they do it in whatever period then the tract map thing comes into play. You can't keep dividing parcel maps and pretend that it is coincidental. There are some limitations on that as well. On grading, lets say they get the street graded on 98 cubic yards and then two weeks later they want another 98.2 cubic yards elsewhere. Does the City have any recourse to control this or is grading so expensive that they like to take care of it all at once? Mrs. Adams - If the combined grading went over the 100 cubic yards it would seem as though it was one continuous grading project and would be reviewed as such. Ms. Santalahti - Certainly people grade a parcel and the parcel is sold and that owner has their own ideas and then they have to grade it again. But that is different then what 1 am talking about. I'm talking about don't do anything on the parcel and the all of the sudden you want to do lots of work. So the City does take that in to account if that happens or at least questions it. Now the third part of the street issue is Eucalyptus Drive. Eucalyptus Drive, when it was annexed to the City, was in kind of tricky condition and I don't know how the density has grown since 1971. There is nothing set up on Eucalyptus Drive set up to my knowledge. These residents potential contribution other than us conditioning that if something is ever done in connection with Eucalyptus Drive they will have some unknown fair share participation in that kind of like we talked about in Autry Drive. The likelihood of that ever happening on Eucalyptus Drive is possibly very difficult to expect that it would happen with so many landowners up there. Mrs. Adams -The Eucalyptus Drive appeared to be more complex because of the number of property owners taking access. Ms. Santalahti -The first person who spoke about this was Mr. Hill, I would say that this developer was willing to do some sort of proportional fair share of work on Eucalyptus could end up being filling up a few pothole because there is may be 100 or more potholes. Mr. Hill stated that he believes it goes beyond fair share. As this construction is taking place damage will occur to Eucalyptus Drive. Already the street is damaged and with every development that goes on in this area the street shows more wear so something needs to be done as this is happening as well as a long term solution for Eucalyptus' problems because the street is in need of repair and every year it gets worse. With every rain indeed that street become more undermined. Ms. Santalahti interjected that it was in need of repair in 1972. When damage is done to something by construction vehicles or moving van in the normal way, it is hard to imagine if there is anything that can be done now. Ms. Mann - I can see a requirement that any damage caused by construction be repaired but I don't know how it could be determined that the damage was caused by trucks. Mr. Hill It would be difficult to prove what is damaged by construction verses normal of that road. Indeed is there a way that a plan can be implemented so that there is shared responsibility on Eucalyptus Drive. Ms. Santalahti - That was the earlier question I had that when you have a lot of owners that if they agree... Mr. Hill -stated that it had been attempted privately and only 17 of 44 neighbors were willing to go in on that, which certainly makes the cost extraordinary for those 17 neighbors that are willing. So is it possible to make it a requirement. If indeed it is a private drive then what rights do we have as property owners to insist that this street be maintained. Ms. Mann - said that if there are 47 properties that take access from this and this would possibly be 3 more and one lettered lot then there could be an argument that they might be responsible for 6% of the total maintenance cost but I don't know that this would be the case if they`re within the first 100 yards. So it all depends on how you determine fair share. If there is not outlet on Eucalyptus and there is not reason for the people in this subdivision to be traveling the entire distance of Eucalyptus. I don't know if possibly a fair share would be more related to the distance of the total length of Eucalyptus and the Page 10 2/24/00 portion of it. Even then it would be a fair share of the portion, but then that really becomes very complex. We haven't heard from the property owner with regard to what they would be willing to enter into and that may be something that could simplify matters. Pat Stower -When the gentleman sent us a letter, he was an asphalt contractor it was extremely reasonable. I grabbed at it that he would be willing to do this as a contractor and surely everybody would see the value of improvement. No it wasn't seen as a value it was seen as a burden to many. There are a lot of people up there that are older and on fixed incomes and have been there a very long time and they are not willing to put out the extra money. There has been a lot of discussion on the area that is going to be used for construction. I think that is the only fair thing that Tang can do is take care of that area that he is going to be involved in that would impose a burden on the rest of the residents. Otherwise we are responsible for Eucalyptus Drive. All of us use it and we are all in the hillside area and if we don't care enough to take an interest in it, I don't know how we can expect for others that are on fixed incomes do that. Ms. Mann - There is noway that the City can require the people whose homes have already been constructed to participate in maintaining Eucalyptus short of possibly Code Enforcement Department going in and declaring the situation a nuisance and taking all the property owners to court to resolve this situation. This is very extreme, but it would definitely have to reach a level of becoming a nuisance and possibly a danger. In that instance if there were complaints to the City with regard to the condition of Eucalyptus then there may be some things that the City would be looking at in terms of eliminating a nuisance. But the only thing that I can address is the limitations on what we can impose upon an applicant under the law. We have not heard from the applicant with regard the their feelings as to what fair share would be. Now is there is something that is set up and only 17 people are willing to participate, legally we still could not require this development to do more than 6% under the formula that we just average by the current number of parcels. Or alternately in looking at the entire length of Eucalyptus Drive then you would just be seeing the first 100 feet. That is a fact based decision and it's not one that I make, it is one the Zoning Administrator makes. Ms. Santalahti - I think with the condition of Eucalyptus with somebody filling in the potholes how long would it actuaNy last. It is not the same as having a well constructed street up there and this developer's amount of construction is on top of what has happened in the past he should have to make up for what others should have done themselves or what the weather is doing right now to it. Mr. Hill stated that patch work repair on Eucalyptus has proven not to work. In fact there had been some potholes filled at the junction of Eucalyptus and Santa Ana Canyon Road about one month ago and it is already undermined so and extensive action needs to take place. Indeed it is a hazard to drive up and down that street while you are avoiding potholes you are also trying to avoid traffic coming up the street. There are blind intersections on that street and it is in need for repair. My main reason for being here was to find resolution to the condition of that street and even if it is just a partial fix at the base where most of the damage takes place something needs to be done. Ms. Santalahti - if Eucalyptus were suppose to have curbs on it and if this developer put curbs on one side and divide up the numbers to 6% in the bigger picture curds would make no practical difference to the condition of the street even at that part. I don't see any solution at this level. Ms. Mann - It may be that this wasn't really analyzed because these were all issues that have come up during the public hearing and it may be appropriate to reopen the public hearing and continue it. And give the applicant and the surrounding property owners one more opportunity to meet possibly with a representative from Public Works to see if there could be an agreement reached as to what fair share would be in this instance. Ms. Santalahti - Also the conditions that we have discussed we can get those in hard copy so everybody could see that way it would look otherwise you may not like it when you see it meaning both the neighbors and the owner and whoever. Ms. Mann - mentioned that the applicant had not seen a copy of the Council Policy and I think it would be important to get a copy of that to the applicant. Page 11 2/24/00 Ms. Santalahti - This way the applicant could see how the conditions would be before they are acted upon. Because this is overall more complex and has impacts that are different from the other Tentative Parcel Maps that have been looked at in the past. They are usually on flat pieces of properties. I think two weeks is not enough time so this item is continued to the 4 week date would be March 23. ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST: None Page 12 2/24/00