SR 06:201 - Laserfiche WebLink

From: Steve Brozosky Sent: Saturday, May 20, 2006 12:29 PM To: Jerry Iserson; Donna Decker Subject: Revised Comments on Water Tank / Reznick Property PDR-520/PCUP-162, & PUD-54 May 20, 2006 This set of comments supersedes my previous comments from the prior Planning Commission Meeting. I believe some of my concerns were addressed while talking with the developer. I will not be attending the Planning Commission meeting but wanted to get my comments in being I am at the property adjacent to these plans. Below are my comments on the development plans that will be at the Planning Commission hearing. Could you also distribute this to the Commissioners. Issue 1 - EVA PUD-54 shows a potential EVA going straight across my property as part of attachment 11. Even though the staff report indicates this as "Staff-Recommended EVA Alignment", I understand this alignment is no longer Staff's recommendation. I am not open to this new alignment option. Besides it being significantly different then the Specific Plan, it would slice my property in two, look visual unappealing to my family, be quite visible from Vineyard Avenue and Livermore, and would be an attractive nuisance for people thinking this is a hiking trail. The Specific Plan shows the EVA this nicking the corner of my property, while the Tentative Vesting Map for Silver Oak Estates - Tract 7399 shows the EVA connecting to the Berlogar property at a more Southerly connection without going through my property. If the EVA location is to be changed in the Reznick development, the Vesting Tentative Map for Tract 7399 _ Silver Oak Estates will need to be modified. There has been some question on whether the EVA is still required. If it is determined that it is not required, the Specific Plan should be modified to remove it since it effects three properties and there could be confusion in the future if it is not removed. There are too many ambiguities in this EVA; (a) whether it is required or not, (b) if money is collected, how is cost determined, (c) Is the sole cost of the EVA to Reznick, (d) If the money is collected, when will the determination be made if it is needed or not or could this happen 20-30 years in the future, (e) If the EVA is built in the future, who builds it, (f) If the EVA is built in the future and the cost is much higher, who pays the difference and how is this collected once a development has been complete. Being there are many unanswered questions at this point, I would recommend modifying Condition of Approval # 9 to be: Recommended Condition of Approval # 9 Prior to approval of the final map, the City shall determine whether an emergency vehicle access (EVA) road on the Reznick property is required. Shall it not be required, a Specific Plan change to remove the EVA shall take place prior to, or as part of, the approval of the final map. Shall it deemed to be required,the applicant shall grant to the City an easement on Lot 6 for an EVA road on the Reznick property and the application shall also enter into an agreement with the City that specifies the amount of funds the applicant must deposit with the City, the timeframe where if no EVA is constructed the money will be returned and the EVA removed (with a Specific Plan change), who will be responsible for constructing the EVA, and what to do if the cost of construction is higher then the deposited