Loading...
Minutes-ZA 2000/05/18• ACTION AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR THURSDAY, MAY 18, 2000 9:30 A.M. Staff Present: Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator Peter Gambino, Associate Engineer Kathie Pfost, Associate Planner Danielle Masciel, Word Processor Selma Mann, Deputy City Attorney Della Herrick, Associate Planner David See, Associate Planner 1a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION SECTION 15061(b)(3) 1b. ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT N0.2000-00192 OWNER: Roland S. Tanner 180 Canyon Crest Drive Anaheim, CA 92808 LOCATION: 180 Canyon Crest Drive: Property is 0.45 acre having a frontage of 170 feet on the north side of Canyon Crest Drive and a maximum depth of 226 feet located at the terminus of Canyon Crest Drive. Waiver of minimum side yard setback (10 feet required; 8 feet proposed) to construct a 541 square foot first floor room addition and a 161 square foot second floor room addition to an existing single family residence in the RS- HS 22,000 (SC) (Residential, Single Family Hillside Scenic Corridor Overlay) Zone. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION NO. 2000-23 Appeal period ended at 5:00 p.m. on Monday, May 15, 2000. Concurred with staff Approved Project Planner: (vknox@anaheim.net) No opposition was received. Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator, granted Administrative Adjustment No. 2000-00192 for a waiver of minimum side yard setback for the construction of a room addition. ZA051800. DOC 7A05/18/00 Page 1 • 2a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION -CLASS 3 I Concurred with staff 2b. ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT NO. 2000-00194 Approved OWNER: Pacific Islandia California Inc. 1015 West Ball Road Anaheim, CA 92802 AGENT: Anaheim Sheraton 1015 West Sall Road Anaheim, CA 29802 Jeffrey Morse LOCATION: 1015 West Ball Road: Property is 11.82 acres located at the northeast corner of West Street and Ball Road, having a frontage of 450 feet on the north side of Ball Road and 620 feet on the east side of West Street. Waiver of maximum permitted height to construct parking lot gate arms in the "Anaheim Resort SP92-2 (36 inches permitted for gate arm located in the 20-foot setback along Ball Road and West Street; 45 inches proposed for a gate arm located 3 feet from Ball Road and West Street). ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION NO. 2000-24 Project Planner: Appeal period ended at 5:00 p.m. on Monday, May 15, 2000 (dherrick@anaheim.net ) *Previously advertised as the Disneyland Resort SP92-2 No opposition was received. Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator, granted Administrative Adjustment No. 2000-00194 for a waiver of maximum permitted height for the construction of parking gate arms in the Anaheim Resort SP92-2. ZA05/18!00 Page 2 i PUBLIC HEARING: • 3a. CEQA MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3b. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP N0.2000-129 OWNER: Benjamin Fisher 1110 Tamarisk Drive Anaheim, CA 92807 AGENT: Anacal Engineering 1900 East La Palma Avenue #202 Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 1110 Tamarisk Drive: Property is 1.27 acres located at the northeast corner of Tamarisk Drive and Avenida De Santiago with frontages of 338 feet on the south side of Tamarisk Drive and 76 feet on the east side of Avenida De Santiago. To establish a 2-lot single-family residential subdivision in the RS-HS-22,000 (SC)(Residential, Single-Family Hillside; Scenic Corridor Overlay) Zone. Continued from Zoning Administrator meeting of May 4, 2000 Continued to the Zoning Administrator meeting of August 24, 2000 Project Planner: (kpfost@anaheim.net) Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator opened the public hearing and introduced Tentative Parcel Map No. 2000-00129 David See stated for the record that a total of 15 letters of opposition were received. Ben Fisher, owner presented the proposal. I thought I was doing the neighborhood a favor. The lot is an eye sore in my view. The other residents are acting a little hastily. If your approval is forwarded, this would a give the Homeowners Association and those opponents an opportunity to discuss this, but we are not building anything at this point. Ms. Santalahti assured the applicant that he would have an opportunity to respond at the end of the meeting. No one present in favor of this proposal. OPPOSITION: 10 people were present in opposition of this project. Glenn Salsbury, 1130 Tamarisk Drive. My property adjoins Mr. Fisher's property on the west side. I would like to reiterate that these meetings during the day are difficult to attend but the Doctors Gronskis' live to the north of Mr. Fisher and they have called and spoken with me and they are extremely opposed to it. They wondered why Mr. Fisher didn't go to his neighbors first and ask what impact this might have. The Gronskis had gone to the Association and the City for everything that they wanted to do including putting a play yard in their backyard. They have been very considerate towards the other neighbors in asking if it bothered their view or is this against the feeling that you have for the property. Gary Lewkay from the Irvine Company has helped us and he is opposed to it. I can get letters from these people but it is just difficult for these people to make the meetings. ZA05/18/00 Page 3 I would like to respond to one of Mr. Fisher's erroneous statements. He thought we as owners would be supportive of him and felt what was existing is an eyesore, I think you can see by the letters there that we are not. It is an eyesore because Mr. Fisher has never done anything with this property. Originally the CC & R's and the permit process stated that this was to be a green area. ft was to be maintained and paid for by the homeowner's association. While I was president of the homeowner's association there were members of the association that wanted to take the responsibility out of the Association and return it to the homeowner to maintain it. I recommended against it. At least with the Homeowner's Association slopes are maintained which benefits all of us. I spend about $1,500.00 per year maintaining the trees, which included Mr. Fisher's trees. However, they are all dead. If Mr. Fisher would maintain his property it would benefit the entire association. It is a known fact by statements from the homeowners and on record with the Sierra Club that there may not be any gnatcatchers, however there is a bobcat, deer and mountain lion that lives in the area and have been there for about 10 years. We as residents enjoy the relationship that we have here with nature and it's beautiful. When we bought up here 10 years ago and made improvements, graded and built our home. The lots had Buyer CC&R agreements and we received a copy of that agreement with our escrow papers. Each of us had an envelope to build a single home on. In order to keep the rural atmosphere of the area and keep estate type homes with minimum square footage as well as keep the rural atmosphere of the area in tact, we had to have our landscaping in by a certain time and we had to stay within our envelope. Mr. Fisher was president after I was and brought suit against one of the homeowners for trying to build outside his envelope. This cost the homeowners over $3,000.00 each and our time to go to deposition and the lawsuit went on for 3 or 4 years. So now I don't know why we would be in favor of someone building another lot up there. After all that the home still got built and it is beautiful there. 1 mentioned the green areas that were specified by the Sierra Club and in our CC&R's and another private group are concerned with this and will probably come to address this situation to the City Council if it comes to pass. We feel that our values will decline which is not just an emotional statement it is a business decision. The homeowners do not need the fees from another homeowner when the fees are only $157.00 per month. I live on the east side of the Fisher's property and the lot is approximately 28 feet in elevation above the street. You said that if this is granted then all that is needed is a 10-foot side lot. Well I've got a 28-foot hill up there and I either need to put a retaining wall on it or cut it at a 2 to 1 slope. 2 to 1 slope means that you have to come in 56 feet on that lot. It's not fair to have a substandard development next door to this lot. When I wanted to enter my garage off of Tamarisk Drive from the back way that was not permitted. I went to the Sierra Club and the Audubon's Society and provided the information but we all agreed to build within our envelope. We all took that agreement on as we signed our escrow papers. Our property values may have declined as a result of the landslides. My company has done work on the storm drains that were damaged by the landslides. By grading the hill and developing on it, it will increase the stress for that hill. What do we do with the rain water that come off that hill because there is a culvert that runs back towards my house into the storm drain system? In summary, this is a bad idea, however I am not opposed to growth in the City. In ten years there has not been another homeowner with acre size lots who has come before you and proposed such a project. We want to preserve the neighborhood that we bought into. Gilbert Wiggam, 6860 Avenida De Santiago. It directly impacts the view in the backyard if the lot were split. We all bought the existing lots as they are now and conformed to the standards when developing the houses and at this point we are breaking some of the CC&R's. It may be an eyesore to Mr. Fisher but to me it is my backyard and I don't want anyone destroying that view. Mr. Wiggam identified his lot as being Lot 12. Robert Zerrenner, 6985 Via EI Estribo. I do think this is a very bad idea. Most of lots up there are large enough that they could all build a couple of houses on each lot, but it just goes against the grain of what that whole area is about. I also think that Mr. Fisher's comment about the lot being an eyesore is only because he lets it be that way. There are a couple of dead trees that could be removed and a lot of brush that could be cut down that would make that quite an attractive lot. It would also enhance the area between the two houses. Maybe you could consider a little maintenance on the property rather than another home. ZA05l18/00 Page 4 • Bruce Hitchman, 1135 Tuckaway Circle is on the board of Hidden Canyon Estates. I am one of the first purchasers in the area and I bought in December 1985. These lots were marketed not to be subdivided. In fact the lot I bought has a very clear open view that if my neighbor was allowed to subdivide he could probably put six homes across the street from me, but that was not the intention. In addition to environmental and open space concerns that have been voiced here, there are legal and ethical concerns, which must not be ignored. The CC&R's of other Hidden Canyon Estates and Anaheim Hi{Is Master Associations strictly forbid the further subdivision of lots without first going to those associations. Mr. Fisher was well aware of the process having served on the board himself and having wielded the CC&R's very heavy handedly as Glen Salsbury has already mentioned. Every homeowner agrees to abide by the CC&R's when he or she purchases a home. These are recorded documents and are legally enforceable in a court of law, which we will pursue if we have to. Also the final subdivision report dated July 17, 1985 which I received (when I purchased the lot) from the California Department of Real Estate clearly states that the project will consist of a total of 3 phases containing 36 residential lots within the overall projected development. I relied on this when I bought my lot as well as I relied on the CC&R's which are also referred to in this document. It also clearly states that the original subdivision is subject to CC&R's which are enforceable in a court of law. The major attraction to the Hidden Canyon Estates planned development is the large amount of unspoiled open spaces. When people purchased a home in Hidden Canyon Estates it relied on the fact that the development was guaranteed to remain as originally designed and described to them in the CC&R's. If this guarantee is removed it would have a significant negative impact both to value and quality of life, not only to the homeowners surrounding 110 Tamarisk, but for all homeowners currently protected by CC&R's. This does not directly impact my view, I cannot see Ben Fisher's house from where I am, but what it does is impact the value and the quality of life. I enjoy seeing the wild life. There is significant wild life in that area and it's been able to adapt to us building the 36 homes which was a lot to ask but I don't think we should ask further of it since it wasn't set up that way. The City zoning allows up to 1 %2 dwelling units per acre which when viewed in isolation would have allowed for the development of 108 single- family lots on this 72 acres. Obviously that is not what occurred. The Sierra Club as well as Sea and Sage, The Audubon Society was admittedly opposed to any development and they actually compromised with the developer and reached a balance of both the environmental concerns and the developer's property rights. And they settled on 36 homes. I do believe this proposal would seriously damage that balance. A calculation was made of the ultimate dwelling units per acre at 1.34, which was well within the 1.5 allowed by the zoning. I asked staff how that calculation arrived and was told that they allow up to the centerline of the street. However, a good portion of that is a private street. It does not seem to me that the street should have been included in the calculations. It is evident that it exceeds 1.5, not that I would try to stop it on that basis alone. To look at a subdivision plot map it would be awkward to cut Mr. Fisher's lot in any manner. The surrounding homes are very well laid out and to cut his in half would create an eyesore. The staff report states that the law requires the Zoning Administrator to make any of the following findings when denying or recommending denial of a parcel map. I contend that you address No. 2 specifically that the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with applicable General Plan and Specific Plan being the original plot map as detailed. That is not in line with the map or the intention of the developer or the environmental concerns. To address Mr. Fisher's statement that he wanted this as an opportunity to discuss this. He knows full well that the opportunity to discuss this should have been afforded us through proper procedures such as going before the Homeowners Association and the Hidden Canyon Association and then the Master Association before he came here. He knew full well that he was circumventing the process and that is in line with things that he has done before. He is not trying to increase the value of our properties, he is trying to increase the value of his property at our expense. The final subdivision report cautions perspective buyers that "When contemplating the purchase of a dwelling in a common interest subdivision you should consider factors beyond the attractiveness of the dwelling units themselves, study the governing instruments and give careful thought to whether you will be able to exist happily in an atmosphere of cooperative living." The interest of the group must be taken into account as well as the interest of the individual. I urge you also to take into account the interest of the group not just the interest of the individual when making your decision. ZA05/18/00 Page 5 Sandra Andre, 1150 Tamarisk Drive. I'm on the cul-de-sac where they are proposing to build. One of the selling points for me was that this property was in a stable mature neighborhood. I just purchased this property in November and it was very important to me that I am free from the construction that possibly would result from anyone building on that street because I do like the privacy and quietness of the neighborhood. I would like to state my opposition and that I would like it to remain the same neighborhood as when I purchased it. Sonja Grewal representing the Anaheim Hills Citizen's Coalition Board of Directors. We continue to oppose this project as presented and even as conceived. An EIR scoping meetings and other extensive meetings with an environmentalist, the developer and the City were involved in making a tentative tract. This fulfilled the intent of CEQA and was an entity in itself. If that is true then how can the City, without reopening the Tentative Tract and looking at the entire design. Say that it is OK to process individual lot splits? It doesn't make any sense to say that it is not our problem we put the CC&R's there so it is their problem. It isn't their problem the City legally set up the tentative tract for purposes that upheld the Canyon Area General Plan environmentally. It addressed all the environmental concerns and this gentleman wants to build on a slope that was designated in response to those EnvironmentallCEQA findings. The tract had exhibits that were part of the legal record of the tract. If this subdivision is allowed then those exhibits are no longer valid so therefore it would seem that the tentative tract is not valid. Also those exhibits were legal responses to the CEQA actions that were taken at the time. Staff has said that there is not a problem with the General Plan because the numbers work. The General Plan is much bigger than just numbers. The goals and policies are very specific and it's exciting that at least Hidden Canyon Estates in Anaheim Hills completely fulfills the goals and policies of the General Plan. It restricted development in hazardous areas and carefully chose lot pads so that the view shed from Weir Canyon was minimally impacted. The City set the conditions that the CC&R's had to be there so they shou{d have culpability. Therefore if this tentative tract only met the City's specification with the restricted development within it, the City would seem to have some responsibility when considering to completely overturning the tentative tract conditions by allowing a lot split and building on one of the restricted slopes. The goals and policy were to "Maintain a dynamic General Plan which would serve as the basis for land use". Dynamic means yes it moves with the growth but that tentative tract was established at the time when growth was occurring. There is no need for change since the lot is not responding for any need for housing. "Preserve an open space system which satisfies rural and urban needs and is related to the natural resources of the area and all the policies which support that goal were fulfilled with this tract." To allow change to the tract, which underwent so much study just in a simply zoning action, there has to be a tighter process. The process allows this and throws such an important issue to the homeowner's board then there is something wrong with the process. Annika Santalahti verified if there was anyone else interested in responding to this item. (There was no one). Therefore requested Mr. Fisher response to the comments. Mr. Fisher apologized for raising the dander of the neighbors, since this is not my intent. In terms of the order of business my neighbors understood for some time now what I had in mind or what was petitioned. We could have met together at their request and talked about it. My feet are not in concrete on this matter. There has been too much said today for me to respond successfully. There have been a few things that have been mis-stated. Such as Tamarisk Drive is a public street in the portion that we are referring to. As for the CC&R's, the judge had a lot to say about that, much to my surprise. In view of rebutting all of these statements one by one successfully and reasonable I'd like to ask for a continuance. Annika addressed questions to the City Attorney. When CC&R's are done or when slopes are identified as restricted slopes pertaining to maintenance obligations l would have expected that had the map been approved with those. ZA05/18/00 Page 6 • If an obligation has been change I would have expected that typically had the map been approved with those obligations identified for the Master Association that can the Master Association determine that it should revert back to the property owner. Selma Mann responded that in just hearing what has been said and in reviewing the staff report feels there needs to be a distinction between the requirements for approving a Tract Map and the environmental considerations in the approval of a negative declaration on this. With regard to the original approval for the entire tract, it would be required to take a look at that approval including its environmental determination to see what the rationale is for those slope restrictions. It may be that the slopes were mitigation measures for aesthetic and other purposes or possibly even for runoff. There are multiple reasons you may want to maintain a portion of a tract as open space that were actually the reasons that the EIR was approved in the first place. If that is the case then it would be necessary to examine what the impact of a change in that would be to the original approval so that we didn't have a mitigation measure that formed the basis for an approval that is modified at a subsequent point. I don't know that this is the case but is seems that it is possible in view of the testimony that has been presented. It is frequently the practice that CC&R's impose maintenance obligations upon a tentative tract to require certain areas to be maintained as open space or drainage purposes. Those portions of the CC&R's are expressly set aside as maintenance obligations and those may not be modified without the City's approval. I can't speak for what the situation was 20 years ago, but that would certainly be my practice today in reviewing a set of CC&R's or in approving a maintenance obligation. It would be necessary to review the CC&R's to see what extent the Association could or could not modify who maintains it and if the CC&R's state that they be maintained then that would be a matter of reviewing that. In view of some of the statements that have been made (i.e. if one is approved then others will come forth to build outside of the envelope is the environmental consideration of potential accumulative impacts.) We are talking about a substantial amount of acreage and the potential number of homes here is probably even higher than the number than has been stated going by an RS-A 22,000 standard. The terms of view shed, aesthetic impacts, traffic impacts has not been reviewed here today. The City is preempted from looking at the CC&R's for the tentative map in terms of whether or not to approve a tentative map. However, the City is just required to consider the requirements of the Map Act and is required to approve a request for a parcel map unless one of the specific items set forth in the staff report on page 4 is applicable. There have been some suggestions that the proposed subdivision may not be consistent with goals and policies of the General Plan. That may be something else that would be looked at here. The CC&R's addressed in the staff report had little discussion that indicates that the City Attorney's office has studied the matter. Unless the resolution approving the original tract included a condition of approval that restricting further subdivision of the lots within the existing Tentative Tract No. 10996 or unless the City was a signatory of the CC&R's it's not the City's right or responsibility to enforce the CC&R's. This is a private and legal agreement between the property owners and the homeowner's association. That is the position of this office with regard to the CC&R's which is impacted by whether there are specific provisions in the CC&R's that were required as conditions of approval of the project. I don't know if that is the case here. Whether or not the City approves a parcel map, the association still has its existing rights in the enforcement of its private contract regarding no further subdivision of the property. Mr. Fisher stated that it would seem that the higher hurdle would be with the City to get this tentative parcel map approved. Given that if it was approved then the hurdle would be with the Homeowner's Association. Nothing had been done at the time the tentative map had been approved. I should have an opportunity, if it is approved, to go to the Homeowner's Association but lacking approval it is pointless. The opposition I understand but I think it is a little premature. It should be more studied and more reasoned. The CC&R's have been administered arbitrarily and have been abrogated in many instances, and there is no point in going through all that right now because I don't even know it all. Mr. Salsbury stated that the copy of the agreement that the homeowners signed when they purchased our property has about 40 pages that identify every slope as a fire barrier slope, a critical slope for structural work and a beautification slope. When the Hidden Canyon Homeowner's Association was ZA05/18100 Page 7 • brought into a lawsuit we had our depositions taken and stating that we are opposed to this lawsuit. Mr. Fisher was president when one of the homes down below off of Hidden Canyon was off of their single building envelope by some footage that was not clear too most. It was Mr. Fisher and Mr. Roach were so adamant that this house being off of the envelope was disturbing his view and they live on acreage. Mr. Fisher through Mr. Roach had to enforce it because we are all a united party in the CC&R's to defend them we all ended up paying out of our own pockets about $3,000.00 each. The president of our association took it upon himself to bring suit against these people for building a few feet off of their envelope to build their house. I put about $2,500 in for maintenance of the trees to make the slope better. I benefited from it as well as the community even though it is not in my direct view. The philosophical argument that I have is with an individual that says the association should defend ourselves against this person building off their envelope to build a single family dwelling, but yet the association should let me, which I lead the charge, split my lot. The City may not be involved with this idea but I am as a person in my community. For most our homes are our biggest investments and this is a beautiful area. We went through a lot with the landslides in the area and the possibility of it happening again in the future. We created emergency evacuation roads and calculated how many car trips it would take to get the existing residence out and now what will happen by allowing more home to go in and how will we get them out. You open the opportunity for one and we all live within the rules and we all should understand that we all live within a society where we all have to get along. It isn't all against one it's for the betterment of our community. Anaheim Hills is a pretty neat place to live. Annika verified that the contents of 40 pages of exhibits regarding the slopes are that part of the CC&R's. Bruce Hitchman tried to have the slopes revert back to the individual homeowners and the majority were opposed. Our legal council advised us that it wasn't enforceable and that we were indeed responsible for It therefore, we never followed through with it. 1n fact we have put over $20,000 into the slopes and improving the vegetation and sprinkler system over the last two years. The association maintains the slopes. They may not be evenly and equally maintained because we are a small association and we don't have volunteers stepping up. The reasons the CC&R's are not evenly enforced is because there needs to be reasonability. We don't want to waste time on small issues, especially after we lost the will to get into a lawsuit after Mr. Fisher cost the homeowners so much money and time people have on appetite for that. However, we will indeed make an exception in this case. I have no doubt that individuals as well as the association will sue if this goes forward. Mr. Fisher responded that this meeting is very emotional and very unreasonable and unstudied. I'm not sure from where it all comes. The property where it stands at least the area facing the street is the responsibility of the Homeowner's Association. It hasn't been maintained all these years. The property looks like it is a victim of the landslides. It's not an asset to Hidden Canyon Estates or myself as the adjacent property owner. Mr. Wiggam's view would be detracted by having (Mr. Wiggam gave Mr. Fisher a set of pictures that show the lot in question). In summary considering all of this I believe that a continuance is in order. I should have an opportunity to discuss and reason this matter and reflect on it myself. Maybe it is a bad idea but maybe not. I would like to alter my petition to reflect a request for a continuance. Ms. Santalahti takes a moment to verify how long the map has to go from the date it is officially being received. Then explained to the community what the criteria is for a continuance on a tentative parcel map. And further explains that any continuance needs to work around a scheduled absence from the office. David See elaborated on this item before any action is taken. Pointing out that the staff report does recommend approval further explaining that it is based on compliance with the Anaheim Municipal Code for half acre zoning and for the General Plan density of 1.5 dwelling units per acre. Since the staff report went out Staff investigated previous entitlements including the original tract approvals for these three tracts which total 78 acres approved in 1980 by Planning Commission. Staff found that there was extensive consideration given to the environmental impacts of these tracts and these impacts were summed up in a memorandum from Joel Fick. These impacts included open space, lot densities, and view sheds and wild life among other things. Staff also found that these tracts totaled 78 acres, which ZA05l18/00 Page 8 • based on the zoning would allow up to 156 dwelling units (that is 2 units per acre). 36 units were built. The total density of these three tracts is .46 dwelling units per acre and as indicated in the staff report this specific project is 1.34 dwelling units per acre. Staff is concerned about the relationship of this project and the previously considered environmental impacts with these tracts. We are especially concerned with the cumulative impacts pertaining to open space and lot density up to 156 units, which could be built in this area potentially. Also based on the input received at this hearing from the neighbors and the potential cumulative impacts staff is not comfortable with the negative declaration as the appropriate environmental documentation and perhaps further study into the environmental impacts may be needed. Selma Mann included that Section 66451.1 of the Subdivision Map Act indicates that the time limit specified for acting on maps may be extended by mutual consent of the subdivider and the advisory agent. Since that is stated here that the Map Act requirements are actually shorter then the ones under the permit streamlining. This particular law does permit for extension of time if the subdivider request it. I think that the Map Act time limitations may be extended. We are still guided by the Permit Streamlining Act, time requirements and CEQA time requirements, but no decision has been made with regard to CEQA at this point and the Permit Streamlining Act requirements will trigger from the point at which the environmental determination is made. Richard Gunther resides at 6960 East Avenida de Santiago. I've listened to a lot of this and I'm fairly new on the block. I have done extensive work to my property and I have over 2.5 acres. Before I could even come to the City with any of my plans my CC&R's instructed me to get the necessary applications from the association and also have signatures from my immediate neighbors on the intent of what I was going to do my property. Then and only then could I come to the City and ask for the necessary permits and rules to go along with that. What all this talent is doing here today is beyond me. I can not see how it got this far. If Mr. Fisher had gone through the channels maybe it would be different today. Mr. Fisher stated that he was overwhelmed and was unaware that there was an order of procedure. He requested continuance to the August 24, 2000 Zoning Administrator meeting. Mr. Salsbury offered to pay for the slope to be landscaped with trees and shrubs and ground covering because it only enhances the area for me. I have maintained the slope for 10 years already. When someone makes a statement like "I would have gone to the homeowner's Association but..." Maybe if you would have we in turn would have been cooperative. Maybe if you would have been a part of a viable community effort we could have talked about these things. You don't always have to be adamantly opposed with somebody or have your self-interest at heart. It is your community that matters and these people are community. When you state how emotional this meeting is, I don't think it is emotional it is economics. There are million dollar homes up here, which may mean somebody's whole life savings well that could be emotional. You bought it under one pretense and that pretense should be protected by all of us. You need to live within your community and do what is right for the community and what is right for your neighbors and talk with your neighbors. Ms. Santalahti stated that one of the things that occurred to me in looking at this information is when these tracts were done 10996 through 10998 there was a lot of background on this particular thing. There were lawsuits and there is a relatively extensive file and we have some of the information and I have some of it here as well. Another area that I was interested in was the lot sizes in the tract when the projects were approved there are average lot sizes and minimums and maximum lots sizes and how this particular proposal fits into the character of the area. In the file there is a piece of correspondence from the County of Orange Environmental Management Agency dated September 1980. This letter makes a notation that the landowner, being Anaheim Hills, is to make assurances that estate densities and the restricted grading and landscaping edged treatments in the view shed and open spaces areas and the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions would be placed on the area resulting in affected private open space to buffer Weir Canyon from adjacent residential developments. My interest lay in the things being addressed more specifically into the staff report. I am also interested in the lot sizes. If the lot sizes end up being significantly different from the others there would be a concern. The zoning requirements are minimum and the General Plan is more than just the density. It is also the text in the General Plan. Also requested a complete copy of the CC&R's as approved and recorded. ZA05/18/00 Page 9 Mr. Hitchman submitted a copy of the original plot plans from the original tract layout approval and also offered to obtain a copy of the CC&R's upon Annika's requested. Ms. Santalahti continued this item to the Zoning Administrator meeting of August 24, 2000 as requested by the applicant Mr. Ben Fisher. Also she informed the citizens that the staff report for this item would be available about 2 days prior to the meeting. 4. ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST: NONE ZA05l18l00 Page 10