SR 06:155 - Laserfiche WebLink

There has been some question on whether the EVA is still required. If it is determined that it is not required, the Specific Plan should be modified to remove it since it effects three properties and there could be confusion in the future if it is not removed. The question as to whether or not an EVA is still required has been considered for some time. The condition of approval for Tract Map 7399 no. 12 states: .. In the even/the City Engineer determines an EVAJi"om the end of the caretaker's driveway to the Reznick (Konig) property is irifeasihle due to topography, the City Engineer may delete the requirement fill' this EVA easement; no deletion shal/ be made without notice to the Reznick property owner and its concurrence. In the event this EVA is deleted, the Berlogar properly owner shal/ negotiate in goodfilith alternative EVA locations which the City Engineer may determine to be necessary to aI/ow the level (~rdevelopment anticipated in the Specific Plan/or the Reznick property and which can be feasibly instal/ed given the natural topography and improvements contemplated in this area. " Interdepartmental discussions have taken place that have determined that staff does not recommend the deletion of an EVA. Staff believes that a secondary access is of utmost importance to ensure that an alternate route out of the development and not be in conflict with equipment that may be enroute to fight fires or provide other life safety support. Staff believes the EVA is required by the Specific Plan and is a critical need for the development. As you know, consideration is being given to an EVA connection to the Robert's driveway, which is acceptable to the Fire Department and, at this point, appears to be acceptable to the Roberts. There are too many ambiguities in this EVA; (a) whether it is required or not, (b) if money is collected, how is cost determined, (c) Is the sole cost of the EVA to Reznick, (d) If the money is collected, when will the determination be made if it is needed or not or could this happen 20-30 years in the future, (e) If the EVA is built in the future, who builds it, (f) If the EVA is built in the future and the cost is much higher, who pays the difference and how is this collected once a development has been complete. Being there are many unanswered questions at this point, I would recommend modifying Condition of Approval # 9 to be: Recommended Condition of Approval # 9 Prior to approval of the final map, the City shall determine whether an emergency vehicle access (EVA) road on the Reznick property is required. Shall it not be required, a Specific Plan change to remove the EVA shall take place prior to, or as part of, the approval of the final map. Shall it deemed to be required,the applicant shall grant to the City an easement on Lot 6 for an EVA road on the Reznick property and the application shall also enter into an agreement with the City that specifies the amount of funds the applicant must deposit with the City, the timeframe where if no EVA is constructed the money will be returned and the EVA removed (with a Specific Plan change), who will be responsible for constructing the EVA, and what to do if the cost of construction is higher then the deposited amount. Shall the EVA location be different then what is shown in the Vesting Tentative Map of Tract 7399-Silver Oak Estates, that map shall be adjusted. 2