PC 062707 - Laserfiche WebLink

the City had no access on their side of the access road. They were not amenable to any widening of the access road behind their home, and they would not freely give that property to the City. She did not believe people would obey a sign stating they could not leave a fire by the Grey Eagle Court EVA, and she was very concerned about that possibility. She noted that three recent fires came up against their landscaping. She thanked Mr. Inderbitzen for meeting with them at their home and mentioned that the access on Red Feather Court would be a possibility, but that it was eliminated because the neighbors were unhappy with it. She would like Red Feather Court to be considered as an egress for the Oak Grove neighbors. She was concerned about the size of the houses, which would be larger than shown in the photos. She was worried about the liability for the homeowners and the City of Pleasanton. Lee Fulton, 3407 Brandy Court, noted that at the last meeting, testimony was received from a gentleman who had contacted the State Fire Marshall. He believed the gist of the conversation was that the State codes would eliminate the latitude of local entities to make modifications to their suggestions of EVA roads. He requested that staff check with the State Fire Marshall. He believed that the project application clearly stated that the trees that were to be planted in this project would be three different species of oak trees. He recalled the Fire Chief’s statement that the distance of trees from each house would be determined by the species of the tree; he believed that was already specified. He had asked Fire Marshall Eric Carlson whether the additional 100 feet precluded putting 100-foot mitigation oak trees at the property line; he was told that it depended on the species of the oak trees and the Fire Management Program and that it would be determined after the project was approved. At that time, the Fire Program for each house would be evaluated by the Fire Department. He noted that at the last meeting, it was stated that MataroCourt could not be seen from the project; he noted that the pavement could not be seen, but the houses and backyards could be viewed from Lots 2 and 3 of the proposed project. Mr. Fulton noted that he agreed with the statement that it was not so much the size of the house but how well it blended into it surroundings; he noted that John Madden’s 15,000-square-foot house could not be seen from the main road. He then distributed his prepared statement and read it into the record: “First, let me preface my remarks by saying that I have finally walked the property’s upper lots and have found much of what staff and the applicant have been saying about placement and potential mitigation with planning does seem appropriate. The upper levels of the project did not seem to impose on nearby homes. The upper lots seem to be primarily visible from very distant locations. The low viewing angles would lend itself to screening by planting. I believe probably 80% of this project is a pretty good project. But you don’t buy a car that is 80% okay without looking very closely at the other 20%. “Staff has made some very good comments in the latest staff report. They stated [italics added for emphasis]: ‘The Pleasanton General Plan contains a number of policies that address visual resources directly or indirectly. Because these directions have been articulated, the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 27, 2007 Page 18 of 28