11 ATTACHMENT 8 - Laserfiche WebLink

they were unaware that they were not supposed to use it. The City believes it is reasonable that it can mitigate the concerns of the HOA and individual property owners by having the City indemnifying them in the unlikely event that someone may be injured on the Grey Eagle Estates property as a result of egressing the project site. The City would then seek indemnification from the Oak Grove HOA, and those provisions were written into the development agreement. Commissioner O'Connor inquired whether it would be logical to assume that residents egressing through the non-permitted route in the event of a fire would not be able to sue either Grey Eagle, the City, or any other entity because they were in violation of the CC&Rs. Mr. Roush replied that the proposal to have the City indemnify the Grey Eagle Estates development/owners/HOA was an effort to address the concerns expressed by the Grey Eagle Estates representatives and that the City has effected the same proposal in other developments. The City did not believe this to be a very likely occurrence, and the likelihood of someone being injured was likewise remote. In the event of both situations occurring, it was recommended in the development agreement that the City provide indemnification so that the Grey Eagle Estates homeowners would not have to worry about seeking indemnification from Oak Grove; the City would seek indemnification from Oak Grove. Mr. Roush advised that Section 3.04.c. of the development agreement addressed the indemnification issue. In response to an inquiry by Chairperson Fox regarding whether there had been three grass fires in that area in recent years, Chief Cody replied that was correct, although he could not provide the exact dates or the exact locations relative to the project area. In response to an inquiry by Chairperson Fox regarding whether the Fire Department would want a fire station in that vicinity, Chief Cody replied that placing a fire station in that area did not make sense and did not lend itself to overall system design. He noted that there were a number of specific requirements for sites outside the five-minute response zone relative to construction type and fire protection sprinklering that reasonable address the fire issue. He noted that it would be very cost-ineffective to place a fire station in that area with respect to use of resources and that he would not recommend placement of a facility at or near the project site. In response to an inquiry by Chairperson Fox regarding whether sprinkling the inside of a house helped when a grass fire was present, Chief Cody replied that homes located near open space need to provide a clear defensible space around the homes to protect the structure from burning grass and, in conjunction with sprinklers, that provided a high level of overall fire protection for the structure. Commissioner O'Connor noted that Condition No. 75 on pages 28 and 38 of the conditions of approval addressed the public access easement that went from Grey Eagle Court to the northern property line. He inquired whether that was a typo and whether that should be a fire easement or emergency easement. Mr. Roush replied that on the map, it was shown as an access and public service easement; for brevity, it was called a public access easement. An easement was also granted to the City for public safety purposes over Grey Eagle Court itself; this was not intended EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, June 13, 2007 Page 4 of 19