SR 06:201 - Laserfiche WebLink

RESPONSE TO STEVE BROZOSKY'S LETTER DATED MAY 20.2006 Staff responses to the followina comments are italicized and in red. May 23, 2005 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 Staffs 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. You are correct that the alignment shown in the May 10, 2006 and the May 24, 2006 staff report is incorrect. The proposed EVA alignment across the Brozosky property as shown on Attachment 11 is no longer considered a preferred alternative. 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. The alignment shown on Tract Map 7399 is not considered any more feasibte than the alignment shown on the Specific Plan Land Use Map in that it would need to have excessive grading across the terrain, would be costly, require deep cuts in the ridge, and result in grades too steep to meet the maximum slopes dictated by the fire fighting equipment. I believe that the wording of the condition of approval for TR 7399 (below) would probably avoid the need to modify that Tract Map approval.