CCMIN010687 - Laserfiche WebLink

351 developer, and he felt part of the responsibility before finals were given to the developer allowing him to sell the property is for someone to make him aware of the potential responsibility that the purchase was having to assume by purchasing these lots. Mr. Stansell stated all his permit money was paid, however, something that is a little more financially aggrevating was never made known that this was the situation when buying into these lots. He was under the impression that there was an Upper Homeowners Association of which they were not a part of, there was a green belt area when he was told he would have to have written permission to do anything on. He had a letter from Mr. Smith, the attorney, stating that someone, they supposed under his direction, went on their property and dug pits for some sort of soils engineering infor- mation. He stated he was not even aware anyone was up there. This made him feel more satisfied that this was a separate entity. Councilmember Brandes stated there are four alternatives set forth in the staff report, and obviously the Council can come up with its own alternative. He asked Mr. Stansell if he favored Alternative 2 or 4. Mr. Stansell stated he was not sure what was fair; he was just trying to give the facts as far as he is concerned. He was not aware that he had a potential responsibility to maintain the upper street and that his street was supposed to be private. If this was supposed to be a private entity as one as the PUD looks at it, then Gloria Court and Dorothea Court should be private streets, not maintained by the City as Twelve Oaks is, however, he was not made aware of that - he was under the impression that Gloria Court, and he thought it was in the report, was given as a public street with access to the City and maintained by the City. Councilmember Brandes asked Mr. Stansell if he would be opposed to having the work done and the work being prorated between the three different areas. Mr. Stansell stated he could not speak for everyone in that respect; some are affected by the situation directly on the westerly side, and those who are not. Monetarily the money being talked about, No that it not a problem with him, however, by doing so if that means assuming eternal responsibility for any maintenance and any liability stemming from injuries, etc., No, he is not prepared to assume that. He was never made aware of that at the time he bought the lot and he was very specifically told that this was not their prop- erty, to stay off of it, and therefore he did not feel it is his responsibility. Councilmember Wilson stated he is concerned about the City making these repairs. In the process of making the repairs or after completing these re- pairs and subsequently there was a slide, is the City putting itself in a position of being liable either for making inadequate repairs and can be blamed or being negligent. Is the City not doing something on private proper- ty that it could later be held liable for. In protecting the City's position, he would rather see the City loan Twelve Oaks Homeowners Association the money to make the repairs. Mr. MacDonald stated Councilmember Wilson has raised a valid point; if the City goes on and does the work and the work is done negli- gently then the City is liable for that. The City is not liable for not doing work that it had no obligation to do in the first place and he thought it should be clear that if the City goes on this property it stands in the shoes of the homeowners association doing only what the homeowners association should have been doing in the first place. He stated that is the basic au- thority for being here, that is in enforcing the requirements of the owners association under the PUD. There is a potential for liability, there is a potential for being drawn into any lawsuit no matter what; they always claim - 8 - 1-6-87