12 ATTACHMENTS - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner O'Connor stated that he did not agree with the City requiring the homeowners to fix the problem when the City's Engineering Division or the developer made some technical mistake, and the City should have, in fact, concentrated on the matter. Commissioner Blank stated that he has seen situations where there is grading which had been approved by the City and the contractor, and three years later, there is heavy rain and the grading was not sufficient. He added that the City cannot be sued for this, and the only course one has is to go back to the developer. He stated that he felt everyone gets together to come up with the best solution, but "should" does not necessarily always mean "will," and it is challenging to say to a developer or the City that one would get a 100-percent guarantee. Commissioner O'Connor stressed that his point is that he thinks the City should at least take a role or look into it as opposed to waiting for one homeowner to sue another homeowner. Ms. Seto clarified that agreements are written with options for being proactive. She explained that typically for sites where there is a detention basin and other types of improvement and where there would need to be maintenance done by homeowners, if these were not maintained properly or sedimentation has built in the detention basin such that the quantity of water that the detention basin holds starts to be reduced because there is so much gravel and sediment built up over time, there are provisions in the agreements where the City Engineer can direct the owners to remediate that. She added that if there is an emergency situation, there are provisions where the City can have the work done and go back and bill the property owner. Commissioner Blank noted that there are several detention ponds and that the matter is taken very seriously for that very reason. Commissioner O'Connor stated that he likes the project and felt the density fits into the intent of the Happy Valley Specific Plan. Commissioner Blank agreed and stated that the fact that it is not quite one acre is to the City's advantage. He added that he did not know how the project would pencil out if one lot were eliminated, and he was hesitant to entertain that. He noted that the fact that it is a private versus public open space is preferred by the City and that he prefers an HOA to a maintenance association. He stated that he would support the project. Commissioner Fox noted that Lots 1 through 4 total 3.48 acres. She stated that she would prefer that there be three lots rather than four and that they all be in excess of one acre. She added that if there were three lots, houses could be brought closer to the street and away from the seasonal drainage area more effectively. She indicated that she will not support the project with lots less than one acre. Commissioner Olson agreed with the assessments made by Commissioners O'Connor and Blank and stated that he preferred to look at the project as a ten-acre site with five EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, January 14, 2009 Page 8 of 10