18 ATTACHMENT 04(A) - Laserfiche WebLink

Chairperson Fox noted that this was the first time she had seen an item go forward without the applicant and stated for the record that the Commission understood that it was acceptable to the applicant that the item be heard without the applicant present. Ms. Amos then presented the staff report and detailed the background, scope, and layout of the proposed application. She noted the email on the dais. She indicated that the subject site is in a PUD but that staff determined that this falls back to the R-1 district standards. She added that staff had further determined that a PUD minor modification is not required to process this animal use permit. She stated that information has also been provided on hawk attacks in other areas and are mainly in the East Coast and Great Britain. She noted that the California Raptor Center had indicated that this is unlikely to happen in particular areas such as the Bay Area. Ms. Decker presented an overview of the information placed on the dais. She noted that Commissioner O'Connor had inquired whether a homeowners association (HOA) would govern or enforce the CC&R's. She added that staff understood that there was no active HOA within this PUD. She noted that the CC&Rs did default to state that any owner within the PUD may enforce the CC&R's as he or she saw fit. Staff believed that the applicant's request was consistent with the directive to conform to all local laws and regulations. She noted that staff had no knowledge of any owner trying to enforce various issues within the PUD. She noted that this location met the setback requirements with respect to accessory structures. Chairperson Fox noted that the CC&R's prohibits the construction on Lots 18 and 19 of any other structure within 20 feet of their western boundary. She inquired if the subject lot was in Lot 18 or 19. Ms. Amos replied that it was not. In response to an inquiry by Chairperson Fox regarding the meaning of the phrase in the CC&R's "which might obstruct or interfere with the rights of other owners which might be noxious, harmful, or unreasonably offensive to other owners," Ms. Harryman replied that if there was an existing HOA, the HOA Board might consider a neighbor's action that might be noxious to another. Given that there was no active HOA, a neighbor who objected to a neighbor's use would retain the private right to enforce the CC&R's. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Blank regarding whether an individual landowner would still be able to attempt enforcement under the CC&R's if the application were to be approved by the Planning Commission and/or City Council and given that it has federal and State approvals, Ms. Harryman replied that there are different levels of approval with different requirements to be satisfied. She confirmed that these approvals did not prevent a neighbor from attempting enforcement under the provision of the CC&R's. Commissioner Blank inquired if a person's attempt for remedies would have to go directly to court since he or she cannot come to the City and there is no HOA Board. Ms. Harryman indicated that would generally be the case. She added, however, that she has not read the CC&R's in its entirety and noted that there might be a provision for arbitration. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Blank regarding whether HOA dues would still have to be paid if the HOA were to become bankrupt and if the CC&R's would still be binding. EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, December 12, 2007 Page 2 of 15