14 ATTACHMENTS - Laserfiche WebLink

1987 and August 15, 1989. She inquired if the Conditions were attached to the resolution or to the grading map and if there might possibly be an ordinance with the restriction on re-grading. Ms. Amos replied that staff also looked for ordinances or other avenues, given the age of the Tract itself. She noted, however, that this is a straight- zoned property and that it is not typical for development on this type of property to have an ordinance or conditions of approval on a tract map. Mr. Roush explained that this was not a PUD zoning ordinance but simply an approval of a tentative map to which conditions were attached, as set forth in Exhibit D. He noted that it apparently had been denied at the Planning Commission level in November of 1987, was appealed to the City Council, and then approved on January 19, 1988. In response to Commissioner Fox's inquiry if this Tract Map was tentative or final, Mr. Roush replied that a map is submitted as a tentative map and that once the conditions of approval were satisfied, the final map was recorded. Commissioner Pearce stated that she knows from contract law that the City is not in the business of enforcing CC&R's which is a private contractual relationship between the parties. She inquired whether, in the event the City directs the development to include prohibitions in the CC&R's, this impacts the relationship of the City and its conditions to the CC&R's or if the intent is to shove off responsibility of those particular issues to the CC&R's in a private contractual relationship. Mr. Roush said if there is a condition of approval that indicates that certain matters are to be contained in the CC&R's, then it would be the responsibility of the City to make sure those conditions are reflected accurately in the CC&R's. He noted that for whatever reason, Condition No. 16 did not include a strict prohibition against grading when it was translated into the CC&R's. He stated that it allowed some flexibility in that re-grading would be subject to the approval of the Building Official. He noted that there were some correspondence in the file which show that the CC&R's were reviewed at the City Attorney level and that, in fact, there were changes made to the provision in the CC&R's concerning this issue that did not absolutely prohibit the re-grading, but instead, gave it some flexibility. Commissioner Pearce inquired why there would be a condition that directs the CC&R's to prohibit something but doesn't actually include the prohibition in the Conditions of Approval. Mr. Roush replied that theoretically, a person who purchases a piece of property is subject to the CC&R's that they might be more apt to be some kind of constructive notice of what is in the CC&R's rather than what would be in the Conditions of Approval. He noted that the idea would be that the purchasers would review those CC&R's and know that they are not allowed to do certain things. Chair Blank noted that it would be similar to signing-off on deed restrictions. Mr. Roush stated that it is a constructive notice to the people buying the property as opposed to assuming the buyers are going to review a staff file that might prohibit the re-grading. EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, September 10, 2008 Page 5 of 25