Loading...
Item 1 - Hillside/Ridgeline MDRA 02-85 R.E. & Charlotte Collins Limited Dis~rib~tign- lpril 15, 200~ AGENDA REPORT SUIVt,vIARY/ ' _ REVISED TO: Honorable Mayor and Mem bers~o(~ City Cou nell FROM: James ~. Bowersox, City Man~'- INITIATED BY: Niall Fntz, Director of Developme~ Services ~ DATE: Apdl 15, 2003 SUBJECT: Hillside/Ridgeline Minor Development Review Application 02-85: R.E. and Charlotte Collins, Applicant. A request for approval of a Minor Development Review Application to allow the construction of a 3,800-square-foot, single-family residence on a 9.01-acre property located at the eastem terminus of ~ Golden Supset Court. The property is zoned Rural ResidentiaI-A and located within . the Hillside/Ridgeline Review Area. APN: 321-220-13 ABSTRACT The applicant is requesting the approval of a Minor Development Review Application to construct a 3,800-square-foot, two-story, single-family residence measuring a maximum of 28 feet in height, on a 9.01-acre property located at the eastem terminus of Golden Sunset Court; The property is zoned Rural ResidentiaI-A (RR-A) and located within the Hillside/Ridgeline Review Area. Pursuant to Section 17.52.050, City Council approval is required for grading and development within the identified Hillside/Ridgeline review area. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The project is Categorically Exempt, Class 3, from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 15303(a), in that it is the construction of a single-family home in a residential zonew thin an urbanized area. FISCAL IMPACT None. ADDITIONAL PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND CORRESPONDENCE A preiect notice was mailed to adioinin~l property owners. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council approve Minor Development Review Application 02-85, subject to the conditions contained in the attached proposed Resolution. ACTION M:\planning\02repo~mdra\mdra02-85 summary revised.doc 1 of 36 April 15, 2003 Item # t CITY OF POWAY AGENDA REPORT This report is included on the Consent Calendar. There will be no separate discussion of the report prior to approval by the City Council unless members of the Council, staff or public request it to be removed from the Consent Calendar and discussed separately. If you wish to have this report pulled for discussion, please fill out a slip indicating the report number and give it to the City C~eTk prior to the beginning of the City Council meat[ng. REVISED TO: Honorable Mayor and Members~L.e City Council FROM: James L. Bowersox, City Mana~ ~ ,{ INITIATED BY: . . Niall Fritz~ Director of Develo~,ment Services/-. Patti Brindle, City Planner ~ Jim Lyon, Senior Planner ~ V DATE: April 15, 2003 SUBJECT: Hillside/Ridgeline Minor Development Review Application 02-85: R.E. and Charlotte Collins, Applicant. A request for approval of a Minor Development Review Application to allow the construction of a 3,800-square-foot, single-family residence on a 9.01~acre property located at the eastern terminus of Golden Sunset Court. The property is zoned Rural Residential A and located within the Hillside/Ridgeline Review Area. APN: 321-220-13 BACKGROUND This application was originally heard on March 25, 2003. The applicant is requesting the approval of a Minor Development Review Application (MDRA 02-85) to construct a 3,800- square-foot, two-story, single-family residence on a 9.01-acre hillside property located at the eastern terminus of Golden Sunset Court~ northwest of Tooth Rock (Attachments B through G). The property is zoned Rural ResidentiaI-A (RR-A) and located within the Hillside/Ridgeline Review Area. The main residence measures approximately 28 feet in height and will be accessed from a private driveway measuring approximately 900 feet in length that interconnects with Golden Sunset Court. The site is bounded on the west by single-family homes. The surrounding property remains undeveloped and covered primarily with Coastal Sage Scrub. At the hearing of March 25, 2003, the City Council requested additional information regarding the appearance of the residence and the retaining walls, with respect to the hillside, from the surrounding areas. Mrs. Garland, an adjoining property owner, had also submitted a letter expressing her concerns regarding development of the parcel and proximity of the retaining walls to her driveway. The application was continued to April 15 for the applicant to provide the requested information. 2 of 36 April 15, 2003 Item #1 Agenda Report April 15, 2003 Page 2 Since then, the proposed house plans have .been modified to reflect the house style ofth~ Mr. Wagenbach, who is in escrow to p[itcha§e ~e property, Attachment E. The proposed ~ house has been reduced in size from 4,500 square feet to 3,800 square feet, but increased ~J 4 feet in height from 24 to 28 feet high. The building pad has also been reduced by 10,000 square feet. Attachments H, I and J provide photo simulations of the drivewaY entrance, and perspective views fi.om Espola Road and High Valley Road. Staff is also working with the project engineer to eliminate or reduce, where feasible, segments of the retaining walls adjacent to the neighbors' (the Garlands') driveway. Staff has conceptually found a wayto move the retaining walls back from the Garlands' driveway. The walls are proposed to be 15 feet from the Garlands' driveway. Staff has conceptually found a way to move the walls back another 25 feet, 40 feet in total, from the Garlands' driveway. The Garlands' concems are expressed in a letter included as Attachment M. · Mrs..Garland had been waiting for her husbandto return from~a business trip to explain the ~ '. project and to meet with Staff. It was not until last Friday, April 11, 2003, that staff was finally able to meet on site with the Garlands'. Also attending that meeting was Mr. Bowman, who owns the property immediately to the south. In an effort to find an access solution that would be acceptable to all parties, a revised concept alignment was discussed. The revised alignment would have Mr. Collins' driveway extend south off his property and interconnect with Mr. Bowman's proposed driveway, Attachment N. This combined driveway would access Golden Sunset Court at the west end of the Garlands' property, away from their gate. The Garlands, Mr. Collins, and Mr. Bowman all appear amenable to this concept alignment. The project resolution has been modified to require that the access to Mr. Collins' property use the proposed alternative alignment through the Bowmans' property. The condition will also include a caveat that indiCates that if Mr. Collins is not able to secure access through Mr. Bowman's property by September 1,2003, then Mr. Collins may request the City Council to allow the existing legal access, adjacent to the Garlands' property, to be used. It should also be noted that Mr. Bowman has not yet submitted an MDRA for his property. Staff's review of the altemative access is based on an MDRA submitted by a former owner, Vision Homes, that was not completed. The site consists of steep topography that ranges from a Iow elevation of approximately 825 feet near Golden Sunset Court to a height of 1,025 feet, rising in a west to east direction. An intermediate ridgeline follows the east property line. A relatively fiat knoll, located at the 950-foot elevation, is situated on the north side of the ridgeline. East of the parcel, the land drops into a small valley and rises again to approximately 1,075 feet, forming the prominent ridgeline that serves as a backdrop to the proposed residence. The parcel is located within the City's water service area. As such, it should be reliant upon pressurized City water for drinking and fire prevention purposes. However, an evaluation of the hydraulic conditions found that given the height of the pad, the existing water pressure was insufficient to support a fire hydrant within 500 feet of the structure. The Safety Services Department subsequently required the installation of a 10,000-gallon water tank to meet the minimum City fire prevention requirements. The water tank will be located behind the house, within a cut slope to minimize its appearance. 3 of 36 April 15, 2003 Item #1 Agenda Report April 15, 2003 Page 3 An existing equestrian/pedestrian trail parallels the west portion of the parcel, continuing onto the applicant's property without easement. The project will be conditioned for the applicant to improve and coordinate the location of the trail extension through the parcel. FINDINGS Compliance with the General Plan Architecture and Visibility - The proposed building pad is located on the most level portion of the property at an elevation of approximately 950 feet, 125 feet below the adjacent ridgeline. As noted, the residence will be two-story, 28 feet in height, and will utilize a medium grey stucco and dark gray concrete tile to help the structure blend with the existing terrain. Access to the parcel is from Golden Sunset Court located on the southwest comer of the parcel. The proposed building home site is positioned on the northeast comer of the parcel. As such, this necessitates the creation of an unusually long driveway. As the driveway will traverse across the side of the 'hillside, it will require the construction of retaining walls along a majority of both sides of the 16-foot-wide driveway. The walls will range from 2 to 5 feet in height. Given its length and relative steepness, the Fire Department will require that the driveway be widened from 12 to 16 feet and contain 2 pullouts to permit vehicles to pass. The proposed house will be visible from a limited section of Espola Road, Del Poniente Road, and from the higher elevations in the Boulder Mountain area west of Espola Road. The adjoining ridgelines will preclude its visibility from the east and south. The residence will also be visible from sections of High Valley Road and Tim Connole's new subdivision (Country Ridge Estates) located to the north. While the General Plan does not contain a definition of prominent versus intermediate ridgeline, staff would classify this ridgeline as intermediate because of the higher ridgeline located to the east that serves as a backdrop from the majority of views. Strategy 16 of Goal 1, Policy C - Site Design, of the Community Development Element of the Poway General Plan states as follows: "Intermediate ridges and hilltops shall be preserved in a natural state to the maximum extent possible. Development on intermediate ridges shall only be permitted in association with the preservation of significant open space, habitat, tree and reck outcropping, unique geographical features and/or cultural or agricultural uses within the same project. Open space proposed for dedication to the City should perform multiple functions such as view maintenance, resource protection and hazard avoidance." Staff reviewed the feasibility of moving the house further down slope to minimize the length of the driveway and to keep of the house off the ridgeline. The applicant prepared a concept grading plan that placed the building pad at the 895-foot elevation. Placing the building pad at the lower elevation created a greater visual impact, as the mid-slope 4 of 36 April 15, 2003 Item #1 Agenda Report Apd115, 2003 Page 4 location required extensive cut and fill slopes that required more grading, scarred a m.a. jority of the west-facing slope, and impacted ~ Or~a{~l- atnount of sensitive habitat. Staff believes that there would be no significant gain moving the house further to the west and that the proposed pad location and driveway will result in lesser impacts to habitat and aesthetics due to grading. Compliance with Gradin.q Standards- In June 2001, the City Council approved Ordinance 538 pertaining to the grading of lots and lot shape. This Ordinance clarified the grading standards contained in both the General Plan and the Poway Municipal Code. The average slope of the 9.01-acre property is 28 percent. Strategy 19 of Goal 1, Policy C - Site Design, of the Community Development Element of the Poway General Plan (which applies to the maximum allowable area of the lot that may be graded for' driveway, residence and accessory -functions foi' Ifillside developments) would limit the area of' allowable grading on the project site to 20,000 square feet or 10 percent of the lot, whichever is greater. In this case, 10 percent of the 9.01-acre lot would permit 0.9 acres of disturbance. Construction of the finished grading plan will require moving 18,500 square feet of dirt. Construction of the driveway is anticipated to require moving approximately 20,000 square feet of dirt. This results in an approximate total of 38,500 square feet or 0.85 acres of disturbance and in compliance with City General Plan and grading requirements. The proposed project would comply with Strategy 15 of Goal 1, Policy C - Site Design, of the Community Development Element of the Poway General Plan (which applies to Hillside Developments) states as follows: "Driveways shall be designed to avoid cuts or fills in excess of 10 feet in height and at no greater than 2:1 inclination." It also would comply with Strategy 22 of Goal 1, Policy C - Site Design, of the Community Development Element of the Poway General Plan (which applies to Hillside Developments) which states as follows: "Building pads, driveways, roadways and structures, including recreational coUrtS and accessory buildings, and hillside areas shall follow and not significantly alter the natural contour of the land", as the building pad will be located on the flattest portion of the property requiring the least amount of grading. The proposed project involves the least amount of grading and landform alteration in comparison to the other alternatives that were evaluated. FISCAL IMPACT None. 5 of 36 April '15, 2003 Item #1 Agenda Report April 15, 2003 Page 5 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The project is Categorically Exempt, Class 3, from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 15303(a), in that it is the construction of a single-family home in a residential zone within an urbanized area. The project area is within the preserve boundaries of the Poway Subarea Habitat Conservation Plan (PSHCP) Mitigation Area. The project site contains 8.61 acres of Coastal Sage Scrub habitat, and 0.4 acres of barren dirt. The applicant is proposing to remove the maximum 2 acres of habitat, which will include development area and the required clearing for Fire Management Zones and leach field area. Brush clearing and landscaping of the area within a 100-foot radius of the structures will be provided, pursuant to the City's Fire Management Zon_e r. equirements. The applicant will be required to .mitigate through the dedication of an on-site biological conservation easement for a minimum of 4 acres, based on a mitigation ratio of 2:1 relative to the area of removed habitat. In accordance with the PSHCP, a condition of approval for the project requires that the balance of the undisturbed habitat on the property that is in excess of the allowable 2 acres to be disturbed, be preserved in perpetuity by an open space easement to insure preservation. Considering the lot size, the design preservation objectives for the area, and the mitigation requirement, the proposed project is consistent with the PSHCP. FISCAL IMPACT None. ADDITIONAL PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND CORRESPONDENCE A project notice was mailed to adjoining property owners. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council approve Minor Development Review Application 02-85, subject to the conditions contained in the attached proposed Resolution. Attachments: A. Proposed Resolution B. Vicinity Map C. Grading/Site Plan D. Aerial photograph E. Building Elevations F. Building First Floor Plan G. Building Second Floor Plan H. View Locations for Photo Simulations I. View of the driveway entrance 6 of 36 April 15, 2003 Item #1 Agenda Report April 15, 2003 Page 6 J. View from D.el Poniente~/Esl~ola I~oad Intemection K. View from High Valley I~°ad ' L. Driveway Cross Section M. Letter from Mr. and Mrs. Garland N. Recommended Driveway Access M:~plannlng~2re~raVndm02q~5 agenda revised.doc 7 of 36 April 15, 2003 Item #t RESOLUTION NO. P- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF POWAY, CALIFORNIA APPROVING MINOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION 02-85 ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 321-220-13 WHEREAS, Minor Development Review Application (MDRA) 02-85 submitted by R.E. and Charlotte Collins, Applicant, requests approval to construct a 3,800-square-foot, two-story residence on a 9.01-acre property located at the eastern terminus of Golden Sunset Court. The property is zoned Rural ResidentiaI-A (RR-A) and located within the Hillside/Ridgeline Review Area; and WHEREAS, on April 15, 2003, the City Council held a public meeting to consider the merits of the appeal request relative to this application. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1: The project, MDRA 02-85, is found to be Categorically Exempt under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303(a), Class 3, as it is the construction of a two-story residence in a residential zone in an urbanized area. Section 2: Pursuant to the City of Poway Subarea Habitat Conservation Plan (PSHCP), a biological survey was conducted by Brock Ortega on February 8 and updated on March 11,2002, to update the distribution of habitat on the site and identify new habitat impacts associated with the project. Project grading and Fuel Management Zones will impact Coastal Sage Scrub (CSS) habitat. In accordance with the Poway PSHCP, the required findings for approval of the proposed mitigation for the removal of habitat for MDRA 02-85 are as follows: A. The project site is within the Mitigation Area of the PSHCP, and also within the Rattlesnake Canyon Cornerstone and Biological Core and Linkage Area. The mitigation is consistent with and furthers the implementing objectives of PSHCP in that the applicant will mitigate the removal of 2.0 acres of CSS at a 2:1 ratio. The mitigation will be satisfied through an on-site dedication of a biological conservation easement involving comparable undisturbed and unencumbered habitat of equal or greater value. B. The mitigation habitat wiLl be located on-site and in the Mitigation Area to enhance the long-term viability and function of the preserve system in that the mitigation will be accomplished through dedication of a biological conservation easement preserving a minimum of 4.0 acres of comparable undisturbed and unencumbered CSS habitat of equal or greater value within the Mitigation Area of the PSHCP. 8 of 36 ATTACHMENT A April 15, 2003 Item #1 Resolution No. P- Page 2 c. The mitigation will be to the long-term benefit of the covered species and their habitats in that the dedication of.a cor~se~ation easement over und sturbed hab tat promote a mean ngfu add~bon to the assemb y of a ~nab e reg~ona system of interconnected natural habitat resoumes, habitat linkages, buffers and wildlife corridors. Any remaining habitat not used for development or mitigation of biological resoume impacts shall be placed in an Open Space Easement. The Open Space Easement will further the goals of the Poway HCP. D. The mitigation will foster the incremental implementation of the Poway Habitat Conservation Plan in an effective and efficient manner in that any off-site habitat will be within an identified Mitigation Area within the City and contiguous to the open space land to the east, recently pumhased for additional mitigation in the Heritage Development to minimize edge effect. E. The mitigation will not result in a negati~,e fiscaHmpact with regard to the successful implementation of the Poway Habitat Conservation Plan in that the subject mitigation area will be placed in a recorded conservation easement paid and maintained bythe applicant. Therefore, such dedication will not result in a negative fiscal impact. Section 3: The findings, in accordance with Section 17.52 of the Poway Municipal Code, to approve Minor Development Review Application 02-85 to construct a.3,800-square-foot, - two-story residence located at the eastern terminus of Golden Sunset Court in the RR-A zone, are made as follows: A. That the home has been sited to minimize landform alteration, and conforms with City zoning and grading standards. Therefore, the proposed use respects the interdependence of land values and aesthetics to the benefit of the City; and B. That the approved project will not have an adverse affect on the aesthetics, health, safety, or amhitecturally related impact upon adjoining properties, as the residence is consistent with surrounding residences. Therefore, the proposed design, size, and scale of the proposed addition is compatible with and will not adversely affect, or be materially detrimental to adjacent uses, residents, buildings, structures, or natural resources; and C. That the granting of the MDRA would not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare since the proposed use will complete improvements as deemed necessary; and D. That the approved development encourages the orderly and harmonious appearance of structures and property within the City as the neighboring properties consist of rural residential estate lots with similarly spaced home sites. The project has been designed to minimize impacts on the surrounding community by utilizing a Iow profile architectural design and earth-toned wall and roof materials. Therefore, 9 of 36 April 15, 2003 Item #t_ Resolution No. P- Page 3 the proposed development respects the public concems for the aesthetics of development; and E. That the proposed use will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the. vicinity nor be contrary to the adopted General Plan; and F. That the proposed development will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and the General Plan. Section 4: The findings, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020 for the public improvements, are needed as a result of the proposed development to protect the public health, safety, and welfare are made as follows: A. The design and improvements of the proposed development are consistent with all elements of the Poway General Plan, as well as City Ordinances, because all necessary facilities will be available to serve this project. The construction of public improvements is needed as a result of the proposed development to protect the public health, safety, and welfare as identified below: 1. In accordance with the Poway General Plan, the project requires the payment of drainage, park, affordable housing, and traffic mitigation fees, which are assessed on a pm-rata basis to finance public infrastructure improvements and which promote a safe and healthy environment for the residents of the City. Section 5: The City Council hereby approves Minor Development Review Application 02-85, to allow the construction of a 3,800-square-foot, two-story residence on a property located at the eastern terminus of Golden Sunset Court per plans on file with the Planning Division dated September 24, 2002, subject to the following conditions: A. Approval of this MDRA shall apply to the subject project and shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Zoning Ordinance and all other applicable City ordinances in effect at the time of Building Permit issuance. B. Within 30 days of approval, the applicant shall submit in writing that all conditions of approval have been read and understood. C. The conditions of MDRA 02-85 shall remain in effect for the life of the subject residence and shall run with the land and be binding upon future owners, successors, heirs, and transferees of the current property owner. D. Prior to grading the applicant shall obtain a Grading Permit. Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit, the applicant shall comply with the following: l0 of 36 April 15, 2003 Item #1_ Resolution No. P- Page 4 1. A grading plan for the development of the lot prepared on a City of Poway standard mylar at a scale of 1~=20'~ shall be submitted along with a Grading Permit application and applicable fees to the Development Services Department-Engineering Division for review and approval. A grading plan submittal checklist is available at the engineering division front counter. As a minimum, the grading plan shall show the following: a. All new slopes with a maximum 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) slope. Tops and toes of graded slopes shall be shown with a minimum 5-foot setback from open space areas and property lines. Buildings shall be located at least five feet from tops and toes of slopes, unless waived by the Planning Division and/or Engineering Division pdor to issuance of a Grading Permit. b. Driveways, in compliance with the specifications provided in Section 17.08.170D of the Poway Municipal Code, and including minimum structural sections together with their elevations and grades. c. A separate erosion control plan for prevention of sediment run-off during construction. d. All utilities (proposed and existing), together with their appurtenances and associated easements. Encroachments ara not permitted upon any easement without an approved Encroachment Agreement/Permit. e. Locations of all utility boxes, cleady identified in coordination with the respective utility companies, and approved by the City pdor to any installation work. f. Top of wall and bottom of wall elevations. g. Fire protection zones pursuant to the Fire Management Zone pursuant to the site plan dated September 24, 2002 on file with the Planning Division to the satisfaction of the Director of Safety Services. h. Limits of clearing/grading in defining the maximum 2-acre maximum native habitat removal. i. The location of the biological conservation easement area. j. The location of the equestrian/pedestrian trail. k. Utility boxes shall be screened to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services. 11 of 36 April 15, 2003 Item #1_ Resolution No. P- Page 5 A soils/geological report shall be prepared by an engineer licensed by the State of Califomia to perform such work, and shall be submitted with the grading plan. A drainage study using the 100-year storm frequency criteria shall be submitted with the grading plan. The drainage system shall be capable of handling and disposing all surface water within the project site and all surface water flowing onto the project site from adjacent lands. Said system shall include all easements required to properly handle the drainage. Concentrated flows across driveways are not permitted. 2. Prior to issuance of a Grading or Building Permit, whichever occurs first~ and if construction of this project is to disturb one acre or more; the applicant shall file with the State Regional Water Quality Control Board a Notice of Intent for coverage under the statewide General Permit that covers stormwater discharges. Proof of filing of the NOI and an assigned waste Discharge Identification Number shall be submitted to the Development Services Department- Engineering Division prior to issuance of a Grading or Building Permit. Applications may be obtained by contacting: California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Diego Region 9174 Sky Park Court, Suite 100 San Diego, CA 92123 (858) 467-2952 3. Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit, and if construction of this project is to disturb one acre or more, the owner shall prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that effectively addresses the elimination of non- storm runoff into the storm drain system. The SWPPP shall include, but not be limited to, an effective method of hillside erosion and sediment control; a desilting basin with a capacity of 3,600 cubic feet of storage per acre drained, or designed to remove fine silt for a 1 O-year, 6-hour storm event; a material storage site; measures to protect construction matedal from being exposed to storm runoff; protection of all storm drain inlets; on-site concrete truck wash and waste control; and other means of Best Management Practices to effectively eliminate pollutants from entering the storm drain system. The engineer shall certify the SWPPP prior to issuance of a Grading or Building Permit. 4. The applicant shall pay all applicable engineering, plan checking, permit, and inspection fees. 12 of 36 April 15, 2003 Item #~_ Resolution No. P- Page 6 5. Grading securities in the form of a performance bond and a cash deposit, or a letter of credit shall bep0st~, W~ the City prior to grading plan approval. A minimum of $2,000 cashseCurity deposit is required. 6. The applicant shall attend a pre-construction meeting, at which time they shall present an Action Plan that identifies measures to be implemented during construction to address erosion, sediment, and pollutant control. Compliance for erosion control can be provided using one or more of the following guidelines: a. Provide an on-site desiltation basin with a volume based on 3,600 cubic feet per tributary acre drained. b. Cover all flat areas with an approved mulch. c. Install an earthen or gravel bag berm that retains 3 inches of water over all at areas prior to discharge, effectively creating a desiltation basin from the pad. 7. Prior to start of any work within City-held easements or right-of-way, a Right- of-Way Permit shall be obtained from the Engineering Division of the Development Services Department. All appropriate fees shall be paid prior to - permit issuance. 8. Construction staking is to be installed and inspected by the Engineering Inspector prior to any clearing, grubbing, or grading. As a minimum, all protected areas as shown on the project plans are to be staked by a licensed surveyor and delineated with lathe and ribbon. A written certification from the engineer of work or a licensed surveyor shall be provided to the Engineering Inspector stating that all protected areas are staked in accordance with the approved project plans. 9. Prior to any rock blasting, a pre-blast survey of the surrounding properties shall be conducted to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services, and a Blasting Permit shall be obtained from the Engineering Division. Seismic recordings shall be taken for all blasting. Blasting shall occur only at locations and levels approved by the Director of Development Services. 10. A landscape/irrigation plan in accordance with the Poway Guide to Landscape Requirements shall be submitted and approved by the Director of Development Services. Said plan shall include landscaping for all manufactured and disturbed slopes greater than a 5:1 slope and for Fire Management Zones. In accordance with said requirements, and the Poway General Plan requirement for hillside development, the landscaping shall 13 of 36 April 15, 2003 Item #1_ Resolution No. P- Page 7 utilize materials similar in appearence to the existing native vegetation. The plan shall include trees and shrubs to provide visual relief of the retaining walls and buildings to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services. 11. According to the habitat assessment and area calculations prepared by Brock A. Ortega, the project will impact 2.0 acres of CSS. Impacted CSS habitat shall be mitigated at a minimum of 2:1 retio for 4.0 acres of undisturbed unencumbered native CSS habitat. Impacted Mitigation will be completed as follows: a. On-site dedication of 4.0 acres of habitat of equal or greater conservation value. Said on-site dedication shall require the applicant ~-. · . ,. to place 4.0 acres of in-kind habitat in a Biological Conservation Easement. Said Conservation Easement shall be approved by the Director of Development Services and shall be notarized and recorded with the County of San Diego at the cost of the applicant. In compliance with the PSHCP, the City shall subsequently rezone the mitigation area to Open Space-Resource Management to insure its permanent preservation. b. Any remaining undisturbed habitat not used for development or mitigation of biological resource impacts on the project site shall be placed in an Open Space Easement for further protection of the City's PSHCP goals. c. In accordance with Condition H of the PSHCP Incidental Take Permit, a take of active California Gnatcatchers nests, which includes haressment of the bird due to greding noise and vibretions from February 15 through July 1, is not permitted. Therefore, greding during this timeframe will only be permitted subject to the following conditions having been met to the satisfaction of the Director. The applicant is hereby advised that, during greding, if active nests are found within 500 feet of the greding, the greding activity shall be stopped until such time as mitigation measures to the satisfaction of the City and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) are implemented. There is no guarantee that grading will be allowed to resume. · If grading or clearing is to occur between February 15 and July 1, the applicant shall previde to the Planning Division before issuance of a Clearing/Grading Permit, a letter from a qualified biologist retained by the applicant with a scope of work for a CSS habitat and Gnatcatcher survey and report for the area to 14 of 36 April 15, 2003 Item #1 Resolution No. P- Page 8 be cleared and/or graded and CSS habitat areas within 500 feet of such area, ,The biologist shall contact the USFVVS to determine the aPPmprlate survey methodology. The purpose of the survey is to determine if any active Gnatcatcher nests are located in the area to be cleared or graded or in CSS habitat within 500 feet of such area. To be considered qua/tried the biologist must provide the City with a copy of a valid Gnatcatcher Recovery Permit from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFVVS). · The scope of work shall explain the survey methodology for the biological survey and the proposed Gnatcatcher nest monitoring activities during the clearing/grading operation. · Should the report show, to the satisfaction of the Director of Development' Services, that Gnatcatchers nests are not present within .the area to be graded/cleared or within CSS habitat located within 500 feet of said area, approval may be granted to commence clearing/grading within the Gnatcatcher nesting season from February 15 through July 1. · If Gnatcatchers are present within the area to be graded/cleared or within CSS habitat located within 500 feet of said area, no grading will be allowed during this time. d. The biologist must attend the City's pm-construction meeting for the project and must be present on-site dudng all clearing/grading activities to monitor that the clearing/grading activities stay within the designated limits. During this pedod, the biologist shall also monitor and survey the habitat, on a daily basis, within the area to be cleared/graded and any habitat within 500 feet of said area for any evidence that a Gnatcatcher nest(s) exists or is being built. Weekly monitoring summaries shall be submitted to the Planning Division. Should evidence of a Gnatcatcher nest(s) be discovered, the grading operation shall cease in that area and be directed away from the Gnatcatcher nest(s) to a location greater than 500 feet away from the nest(s). If grading is required to stop due to the presence of active nests, the applicant shall provide erosion control to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. This paragraph must be included as a note on the cover sheet of the clearing/grading plan. e. Upon completion of the clearing/grading activities, the applicant's biologist shall submit to the Director of Development Services a biological monitoring report summarizing the daily observations of the biologist, including whether any Gnatcatchers or evidence of active 15 of 36 April 15, 2003 Item #1_ Resolution No. P- Page 9 Gnatcatcher nests were present during clearing and grading activities within the area and any habitat within 500 feet of said area. f. At a minimum, all protected areas, as shown on the grading plan, shall be staked by a licensed surveyor, and delineated with lathe and ribbon. The applicant shall have said staking inspected by the Engineering Inspector prior to any grading; clearing, or grubbing. A wdtten certification from the engineer of work, or a licensed surveyor, shall be provided to the Engineering Inspector stating that all protected areas are staked in accordance with the approved project plans. g. The biologist shall provide the City with written conflrmationlthat the ~ limits of clearing/grading are in accordance with the project's Biological Resource Assessment. h. Pursuant to Poway Landscape Guidelines and the Fuel Management/Landscape plan on file with the City for landscape of all manufactured slopes greater than a 5:1 slope and Fuel Management Zones, all landscaping and irrigation shall be installed, to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services and the Fire Marshal. Manufactured slopes greater than 5:1 shall be planted with a combination of ground cover, shrubs, and trees (with ratios and sizes consistent with the guidelines), and shall be provided with an automatic irrigation system operational at the time of final inspection. A $525.00 plan check fee/deposit is required with the landscape plan submittal package. i. A fence between the approved development area of the parcel and the conservation easement deed area shall be installed and maintained to protect in perpetuity the conservation values and function of the property. The applicant shall obtain approval by the Director of Development Services regarding the specific location, type and height of the fence prior to its installation. 12. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall submit a revised grading plan and modified house plans, as necessary, that'comply with the City's General Plan grading standards for approval by the Director of Development Services. 13. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit the applicant shall have the grading plan, site plan, and landscape plan reflect access to the subject parcel from the adjoining parcel to the south, APN: 321-220-10 and as conceptually shown on Exhibit A attached to this resolution. If Mr. Collins is not able to secure access through Mr. Bowman's property, APN 321-220-10, by 16 of 36 April 15, 2003 Item #1_ Resolution-No. P- Page 10 September 1, 2003, then Mr. Collins may request the City Council to allow the pamel's existing legal a ~ccffs~0~djacent to the Garlands'property, to be used. E. Compliance with the following conditions is required during grading operations: 1. The site shall be developed in accordance with the approved site plans on file in the Development Services Department and the conditions contained herein. Grading shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, the City Grading Ordinance, the approved grading plan, the approved soils report, and grading practices acceptable to the City. 2. Erosion control, including, but not limited to, desiltation basins, shall be installed: and maintained by the developer throughout the duration of the .. · ..... construction period. The developer shal~maintain all erosion control devices throughout their intended life. 3. Prior to any rock blasting, a pre-blast survey of the surrounding properties shall be conducted to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services, and a Blasting Permit shall be obtained from the Engineering Division. Seismic recordings shall be taken for all blasting. Blasting shall occur only at locations and levels approved by the Director of Development Services. 4. Construction staking in accordance with the approved grading plans shall be maintained. F. Prior to construction the applicant shall obtain a Building Permit. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the applicant shall comply with the following: 1. The site shall be developed in accordance with the approved site plans and conditions of approval on file in the Development Services Department and the conditions contained herein. Grading of lots shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, the City Grading Ordinance, the approved grading plan, the approved soils report, and grading practices acceptable to the City. 2. Erosion control, including, but not limited to, desiltation basins, shall be installed and maintained by the developer throughout the duration of the construction period. The developer shall maintain all erosion control devices throughout their intended life. 3. Rough grading is to be completed and meet the approval of the City inspector and shall include submittal of the following: 17 of 36 April 15, 2003 Item #1_ Resolution-No; P- Page 11 a. A certification of line and grade for the lot, prepared by the engineer of ' work. b. A final soil compaction report for review and approval by the City. 4. Any well system for the residence shall be approved by the County of San Diego Department of Health. 5. Leach field layout or seepage pit layout for the res dence sewage disposal system shall be submitted to the City's Engineering Services Division for review and approval by the City Engineer prior to obtaining a septic system installation permit from the County of San Diego Department of Health. If a permit is obtained without a City approved layout, a copy shall be submitted prior to installation of leach lines. Leach fields and septic system shall be shown on grading plan prior to issuance of grading plan approval. §. The following development fees shall be paid for each lot to the Engineering Services Department prior to Building Permit issuance; These fees are currently in effect and are subject to change. Traffic Mitigation $ 990 Park $2,720 Drainage $1,570 7. The building plans shall be consistent with the approved site plans and elevations dated September 24, 2002, on file in the Development Services Department, except as modified by the conditions herein. 8. School impact fees shall be paid at the rate established at the time of Building Permit issuance. Please contact the Poway Unified School Distdct for additional information at (858) 748-0010, ext. 2089. 9. The building plans shall depict the approved exterior materials and colors consistent with the approved sample board showing the Proposed colors and exterior building materials. 10. Water, sewer, and fire protection systems plans shall be designed and constructed to meet the requirements of the City of Poway. 11. The maximum height of any fence or wall shall not exceed 6 feet. The retaining walls, depicted on conceptual grading plans, shall be of decorative block or stucco finish consistent with the exterior of proposed residence. A color sample of proposed walls and fences shall be submitted to the Planning Division for review and approval. t8 of 36 April 15, 2003 Item #'1 Resolution No. P- Page 12 12. If a Grading Permit is raquired, rough grading of the lot is to be completed and must meet the approval of She City Inspector and shall include submittal of the following: a. A certification of line and grade for each lot, prepared by the engineer of work. b. A final soil compaction report for each lot for review and approval by the City. 13. An Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fee in the amount of $4,500.00 shall be paid prior to Building Permit issuance. G. The applicant shall comply with the following conditions prior to occupancy: 1. Driveways, drainage facilities, slope landscaping and protection measures, and utilities, shall be _constructed, completed, and inspected by the Engineering Inspector. The driveway shall be constructed in accordance with Poway Municipal Code, section 17.08.170D, and its structural section shall be shown on the grading plan. 2. A private road construction and maintenance agreement for Golden Sunset Court, in a form satisfactory to the City Attorney, shall be executed by the owner. Said agreement is to comply with Ordinance No. 280, Poway Municipal Code, Section 12.20.060. 3. The applicant shall repair any and all damages to the private read caused by construction activity from this project, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 4. An adequate drainage system around the building pad capable of handling and disposing all surface water shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Engineering Inspector. 5. All proposed utilities within the project site shall be installed underground. 6. Record an equestrian/pedestrian trail easement to the City of Poway across the property in a location and dimension subject to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 7. Improve the pedestrian/equestrian trail to City standards, subject to the Director of Public Works. 8. Record drawings, signed by the engineer of work, shall be submitted to Development Services prior to a request of occupancy, per section 16.52.130B of the grading ordinance. Record drawings shall be submitted in 19 of 36 April 15, 2003 Item #t_ Resolution No: P- . Page 13 a manner to allow the City adequate time for review and approval prior to issuance of occupancy and release of grading securitieS. 9. Fencing shall be muted in colors that blend with the native surroundings. 10. The water tank shall be painted a muted earth tone color to blend with the surrounding habitat and is subject to the approval of the Director of Development Services. H. The applicant shall construct the following improvements to the satisfaction of the Director of Safety Services: 1. Roof covering shall be fire retardant as per UBC Section 1503 and 1504, UBC Standard 15-2 and City of. Poway Ordinance No. 64 and its amended Ordinance No. 526. 2. Approved nUmbers or addresses measuring 4 to 6 inches in height shall be placed on the building in such a position as to be plainly visible' and legible from the street fronting the property. Said numbers shall contrast with their background, Address shall be required at private driveway entrances. 3, Each chimney used in conjunction with any fireplace shall be maintained with a spark arrester. 4. Dead end access roadways in excess of 150 feet long shall be provided with approved provisions for the turning around of Fire Department apparatus. Curves and topographical conditions could alter the requirements for turnarounds and the width of access ways. 5. This dwelling is being built on a parcel size of 9.01 acre(s)and is beyond 500 feet maximum from the nearest fire hydrant. The dwelling will haveto have standby water for firefighting and a residential sprinkler system. Contact the Fire Prevention Bureau for details. 6. A residential fire sprinkler system with a one-inch meter will be required. Plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. (If a one-inch lateral off the street main is currently not present, one will have to be installed.) 7. The applicant shall comply with the City of Poway Guide to Landscape Maintenance as it relates to fuel management zones. 8, A minimum 10,000-gallon water tank with fire department connection will be required for fire protection purposes Contact the Fire Prevention Bureau for locations and details. 20 of 36 April 15, 2003 Item #1_ Resolution No. P- · Page 14 9. The driveway shall be minimum 16 feet in width· 10. Two turnouts on the driveway shall ~e required to allow two-way traffic. 11. Provide engineers certification that grade of driveway does not exceed 25% as shown on plan· Section 6: This Minor Development Review Application 02-85 shall expire on April 15, 2005, at 5:00 p.m. unless a Building Permit has been issued and construction or use of the property in reliance on this permit has commenced prior to its expiration. Section 7: Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020, the 90-day approval period in which the applicant may protest the imposition of any fees, dedicatior~s, reservations, or exactions imposed pursuant to this approval shall begin on April 15, 2003. PASSED, ADOPTED and APPROVED by the City Council of the City of Poway, State of California, this 15th day of April 2003. Michael P. Cafagna, Mayor ATTEST: Lod Anne Peoples, City Clerk 21 of 36 APril 15, 2003 Item #1_ Resolution No. P- . Page 15 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) SS COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ) I, Lod Anne Peoples, City Clerk of the City of Poway, do hereby certify, under the penalty of perjury, that the foregoing Resolution No. P- , was duly adopted by the City Council at a meeting of said City Council held on the 15th day of April 2003, and that it was so adopted by the following vote: AYES: NOES: .. ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Lori Anne Peoples, City Clerk City of Poway M:\planning\02report~ndra~mdra02-85 res.doc 22 of 36 April '15, 2003 Item #1_ · Resolution No. P- Page 16 EXHIBIT A RECOMMENDED DRIVEWAY ACCESS RECOMMENDED GOLDEN~ 23 of 36 April 15, 2003 Item #1_ 24 of 36 April 15,2003 Item#t Z % I l 25 of 36 ATTACHMENT C April 15, 2003 Item 26 o~ 36 ATTACHMENT D April 15, 2003 Item #1 North Elevation South ElevatiOn East Elevation West Elevation 27 of 36 ATTACHMENT E April 15, 2003 Item #1 28 o~ 36 ATTACHMENT F April 15, 2003 Item#1 Bedroom #3 ATTACHMENT G 29 of 36 April 15, 2003 Item#1 VIEW LOCATIONS FOR PHOTO SIMULATIONS ATTACHMENT H 30 of 36 April 15, 2003 Item#1 31 o:E 36 32 of 36 33 o£ 36 ATTACHMENT L 34 o~ 36 April 15, 2003 Item #1 RECEI,VED MAR 3 ! 20O3 Friday, March 28, 2003 CITY OF POWAY William and Gall Gadand __ C~YC~ER~SOmC~ 14933 Golden Sunset Court Poway Ca. 92064 Mayor Cafagna and Members of the City Council, I turned in a letter to the council last week that stated Our concern about the proposed entrance/access to the property MDRA 02-85. I find it necessary to repeat my statement about the retaining structure that is proPOSed. We are strongly and completely against it as is propos~ d. I Was asked after the meeting why I said ~n my letter that we would accept it as long as there were plantings along the wall. That is not what I stated, perhaps I wasn't stating it strongly enOugh. We ask the council to protect and uphold our rights as an existing, established homesite in this matter. We request that when the drawing or image is made, that our fenceline and gate be added; showing exactly how close our two entrances will be, thus being able to judge the ful! impact of it's size and location in relation to our property. We also ask we be allowed time to see and comment before any final judgement is made on this project. There may be the possibility of purchasing a right of way or easement from the vacant property to our south. This property, which is the upper of three, will be very difficult to develop. We feel it is likely that an easement could be had. This would allow the proposed drive to go around the swale instead of into it; and would alleviate not only the intrudence to our property, but the risk to vehicular mishaps would be greatly reduced. We ask that you consider the financial harm that can come to us as we have begun a major remodeling project on our home, from which this structure will be the main view. Such a massive structure, that does not belong in a neighborhood such as ours, will be a hard thing to miss. Keep us in mind so there are no consequences we have to pay for someone elses problem. Thank you, William and Gall Garland ATTACHMENT M 35 of 36 April t5,2003 Item#1 GOLDEN SUNSET CT~ ~ttachment N 36 of 36 April 15, 2003 Item #1_ VIEW LOCATIONS FOR PHOTO SIMULATIONS - Limited Di~-h'ibution: April 15, 2003 April 14, 2003 R E C E I V E D William and Gall Garland APE ! 5 2003 14933 Golden Sunset Court CITY OF POWAY Poway Ca. 92064 C~TYCLERK'SOFFICE Mayor Cafagna and Members of the City Council, We are faced with a problem of Mr. Collins property, created 20 years ago with the approval of a 1:1 grading plan and placement of an easement on the opposite side of the parcel building pad. Now, in order to access, the 1:1 must be brought down to a 2:1 grade and a 900' driveway and walls built to the pad. The extreme degree of excavation alone is OVerwhelming, overly intrusive, and an extreme burden and over-use of this easement. We now find ourselves faced with the prospects of another road, occurring on the same swale, also beginning on our driveway, starting out in the same direction; not one wall, but two. With the purchase of the three plots to our south by the Bowman family. They also need to use the swale, put in an extremely long drive and retaining walls. Twice the excavation, twice the massive retaining walls, twice the 900' or more driveways, twice the concrete and block being brought up our street, twice the earth being hauled away down our street, twice the destruction. Obviously we are concerned about the Collins access road; it may be the prospective buyers right to demand the use of our easement, but the devaluation of our property and the placing of ourselves in harms way is not acceptable to us. This is not the normal access road that is proposed, this is a road comparable to Golden Sunset Lane; but with freeway walls and necessary "high acceleration" speeds to get up the road. As ruling body for the city of Poway, you have the right and the duty to protect and defend your citizens from such situations; to reject and correct a mistake made long ago to retain our family's comfort and safety, to keep us out of harms way, and to prevent the devaluation of our property. The alternative is to allow the proposal to happen, with possible disastrous results for our family. if this access road is allowed to go in, then another road go in right next to it, it would be a glaring act of mismanagement of land and an obvious show of lack of planning; and would be a statement to the whole community of the disregard given to us as a neighborhood when it comes to the development of property here. 1 of 3 April 15, 2003 Item # 1 We believe that we deserve the master planning other ridge top developments receive, that enhance and protect our properties and open spaces. We believe in ten years time that the neighborhood will see major changes, and that improvements here are inevitable. If we did not believe that, we would not be doing a major remodeling of our home, or continue to improve our landscape, or even think about paying for the repair and improvements to Golden Sunset. We are not alone in our perception of what will come, and we are not alone in our concern of what is about to happen right now. To address the access/retaining wall/driveway proposed for the Collins property; we have repeated again and again that it does not matter what they do to improve the look of it, it is in fact it's massive size, length, steepness, and proximity to our entrance and property line that can not be overcome by the movement of a few feet here or there. A structure of such size and length will appear atrocious at best, a large scar across the land. We ask you to consider what this added steep grade of driveway will do to our drive. We see it everyday at our neighbors driveways; the speeds needed to get up, the inevitable speeds going down, the large trucks that can't make it, even witnessing one vehicle losing control, coming down too fast, jumping the curb and taking out the corner mailbox and garbage cans. The difference in our case is; our neighbors have a safe entrance and exit from their property, we will not. We ask that you consider the steepness of our own driveway, add the 25% grade on and up, and ask yourselves how you would approach getting a vehicle to the top. Consider that you can not accelerate until you have turned the sharp corner at the bottom of our property. The only way you can get up enough speed in such a short distance is to floor it and hold on. Now, think about us just leaving our property; we must clear through our gate, and we can not yet see you coming, the front end of our car already in your path as you are accelerating. As the parents of a teenage daughter, we can tell you frankly we are terrified and sickened by the thought of what could happen to our daughter or her friends if put in this unsafe situation. The drive down this steep grade will likewise be treacherous; if one descends too quickly or misjudges the sharpness of the corner turn, they will find themselves in the Clingmans property below, either in or on top of their house. We respectfully submit that this project, as planned, will place us in harms way, devalue our property, and cause financial harm and damage to ourselves and our neighborhood as a whole. We feel our concern over the obvious should be considered with great weight as the existing property 2 of 3 April 15, 2003, Item if I - ownerS affected; and that the neighborhood, being affected also, Should be considered at least as important as one more new development. It is careful and wise planning that is needed here, please spare us another Connole's, or worse; a concrete freeway entrance with long block tentacles reaching out to the horizon. If these properties are to be developed, and they both have the swale, driveways and retaining walls to contend with; the two projects must be combined. Save at least par~ of the swale; using only the south side of it will greatly decrease the affect on us, and our immediate problem is solved. Allowing them to go in separately on both sides isn't an option, it's a major mistake. This is of course not addressing Mr. Bowmans property, and what he intends to do with it. That is a matter for the council to take up at a later time. The gaining of the access could allow him only~ the acce. ss to the one lot he intends to build his own home on, although I have not yet seen a plan for where he intends to go. That is up to you also. At any rate, neither party loses anything by sharing the easement. We ask that you take the time and care to consider the mistakes already made; and what would be best for the existing community, individuals and properties concerned. That regardless of an apparent sense of urgency, or any individuals rushed timetable, or pressure for a quick decision; that you consider that we and everyone in this community have to live with what you decide and the after effects of your planning. Thank You, William and Gail Garland 3 of 3 April 15, 2003 Item ! Mickey Cafagna - Golden Sunset Court project ....... ,,,, Page 1 i ............. :: t From: "Vicki Gowey~ <vgowey@buckelectric.com> " To: "Betty Rexford" <brexford@ci.poway.ca.us>, "Bob Emery" <bemery@ci.poway.ca.us>, "Bob at home Emery" <powaybob@cox.net>, "Mickey Cafagna" <mcafagna@ci.poway.ca.us>, "Don Higginson" <dhigginson@ci.poway.ca.us>, "Jay Goldby" <jgoldby@ci.poway.ca.us> Date: Tue, Apr 8, 2003 7:35 PM Subject: Golden Sunset Court project As you are all aware, we have been struggling to come up with a way to get our road re-paved. We are very close to a final plan to just bring it back up to great standards rather than try to bring it up to City Standards in hopes that the City will then take it. Unfortunately it came to my attention that yet another project is about to be approved that will seriously impact our road. That is the parcel at the end of Golden Sunset Court. It is my understanding that if this project is approved many tons of dirt will be moved via trucks using Golden Sunset lane. Once the grading is done, thousands of blocks will be delivered to the site to build retaining walls then hundreds of yards of cement will be delivered to pour the road followed by months of construction trucks using Golden Sunset to access the site to perform work. I realize that everyone has the right to build a home providing they obtain the proper permits and approvals from the City. The problem I have with this is the damage all of these trucks will do to Golden Sunset Lane again. If we pave within the next three months as planned the read will soon be ruined again by the trucks doing this project. If we don't pave until the project is completed and the project drags on for several years as Murray's project did, the road will be a total loss. I am once again asking the City Council and the City's Planning Department to help the residents of Golden Sunset Lane with this issue. You approve the work but take no responsibility regarding the damage that is done to our investment. The issue of the previous damages and repair costs has already created serious animosities in our neighborhood. Our road is a mess but half the people refuse to pay their fair share to repair it because they feel that those who built over the last five years should carry the entire cost. Many of us are willing to pay our fair share right now and get the road back into good condition but we cannot carry the cost of those who refuse to pay. I am pleading with all of you to stop right now and review the impact that this new project will have on our neighborhood. You must come up with a way to compensate for the damages done by the trucks who use private roads to access building sites. Not just for our neighborhood but for all neighborhoods with private roads in our City. It is a very unfair situation that must be addressed. I will be at next weeks Council meeting to state this case once more as I did in November of 1999. I truly hope that this time the City will take action to protect existing property owners and the investments they have made in their roads. It just does not seem right that anyone can use our roads for projects that will cause great damage, with the City's blessing, yet the City will not pay to repair the roads once the work is done. CC: <bkutzner@ci.poway. ca.us> RECEIVED APR 9 2003 CITY OF POWAY CITY CLERK'S OFFICE I of I April 15, 2003 Item # --1 - Distributio=: April 11, 2003 RECEIVED MAR 3 I 2003 Fdday, March 28, 2003 CITY OF POWA¥ William and Gall Garland CJTYCLERK'SOFFICE 14933 Golden Sunset Court Poway Ca. 9Z064 Mayor Cafagna and Members of the City Council, I turned in a letter to the council last week that stated our concern about the proposed entrance/access to the property MDRA 02-85. I find it necessary to repeat my statement about the retaining structure that is proposed. We are strongly and completely against it as is proposed. I was asked after the meeting why I said in my letter that we would accept it as long as there were plantings along the wall. That is not what I stated, perhaps I wasn't stating it strongly enough. We ask the council to protect and uphold our rights as an existing, established homesite in this matter. We request that when the drawing or image is made, that our fenceline and gate be added; showing exactly how close our two entrances will be, thus being able to judge the full impact of it's size and location in relation to our property. We also ask we be allowed time to see and comment before any final judgement is made on this project. There may be the possibility of purchasing a right of way or easement from the vacant property to our south. This property, which is the upper of three, will be very difficult to develop. We feel it is likely that an easement could be had. This would allow the proposed drive to go around the swale instead of into it; and would alleviate not only the intrudence to our property, but the risk to vehicular mishaps would be greatly reduced. We ask that you consider the financial harm that can come to us as we have begun a major remodeling project on our home, from which this structure will be the main view. Such a massive structure, that does not belong in a neighborhood such as ours, will be a hard thing to miss. Keep us in mind so there are no consequences we have to pay for someone elses problem. Thank you, William and Gall Garland I of 1 April 15, 2003 Item #1