PC 062707 - Laserfiche WebLink

In response to an inquiry by Chairperson Fox regarding the lot split and property rights, and whether the applicant had development rights, Mr. Roush replied that there were currently no vested property rights on the property. Under the Housing Element, the property had a holding capacity of 98 units, which meant that if those 98 units were not going to be built on that site, in order to remove the 98 units, another site within Pleasanton must be found to house those 98 units. Other than that, there were no property rights or vested entitlements on the property. On the other hand, the property owner is entitled to an economic return on the property, and some economic value has to be associated with that property. Bob Grove, 28 Grey Eagle Court, noted that the staff report contained references to the likelihood of fire in this area being “remote” and the likelihood of injury being even more remote. Because there was no timeframe associated with this comment, he believed that staff meant that fire at any time on this property would be remote. He noted that page 226 of the Draft EIR, under Key Project Characteristics, states: “The site is in a location at high risk for wildland fires.” He displayed the front page of that day’s Valley Times, which reported on a recent major fire and read from the article quoting Morgan Hill’s Fire Captain: “In California, it’s not a question if a wildfire is going to occur, it’s when.” He noted that Mr. Roush and Ms. Decker met with several members of the Grey Eagle homeowners association several weeks before, and he had expressed a concern that the EVA immediately to the east of his property was only 17 to 17.5 feet wide. He recalled that the statement was made by Mr. Roush that something would be put into the documents to ensure that that would not be made wider and that the Fire Department was comfortable with that width because it was a relatively short distance. He noted that page 12 of the staff report stated, “When it came time to construct the EVA easement, the Fire Department would apply whatever standards were then in effect.” He noted that an additional right of way would be required and was included as a condition of approval. Mr. Grove wished to address the visual impacts, especially with respect to the focal length of lenses discussed by Mr. Roberts. He had a very hard time deciding whether the visuals were representative of what would actually occur by looking at the visualizations. He believed that staff felt that the visuals were in fact representative and noted that the Commission must rely on what was in the EIR. He displayed a visual representation as it appeared from his backyard, and distributed several photographs to the Planning Commission. He displayed the visual representation of his 3,950-square-foot house from the distance shown in the documentation and displayed a representation of a 12,000-square-foot house from the same point of view. Commissioner Narum understood that the width of the easement east of Mr. Grove’s property was 20 feet and requested clarification of the figures. Ms. Decker noted that the language on page 12 of the June 27 staff report referred to the EVA past the location, and there was an understanding between the staff and the City that will be memorialized in the Development Agreement language that the section of the EVA that would be improved by the Groves, which was improved to be 17 feet in width for approximately 130 feet as discussed in the previous staff report, would remain as is. She believed that the Groves put in the improvements, such as attractive railings and mature trees. When PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 27, 2007 Page 13 of 28