11 ATTACHMENT 8 - Laserfiche WebLink

feasible to try to meet their concerns. He understood that they would not be able to satisfy every concern of every party. In response to an inquiry by Chairperson Fox regarding whether there was a written agreement that the City facilitated between the applicants and the Kottinger Ranch HOA, Mr. Inderbitzen replied that an agreement had been drafted, although he did not believe it had been signed. In response to an inquiry by Chairperson Fox regarding whether that agreement would be made public, Mr. Inderbitzen replied that he had no reason to object to it being made public. In response to an inquiry by Chairperson Fox regarding whether the visual simulations could be done with a 20-percent FAR, Mr. Inderbitzen replied that the visual simulations were done at 7,500 and 10,000 square feet, which was specified in the Draft EIR. Commissioner O'Connor inquired whether public access through Red Feather Court would eliminate the need for the EVA through Grey Eagle Court. Mr. Inderbitzen did not believe that would be the case because it was too close to the entrance, off Court 1 of the project. It would provide a benefit for the first seven or eight lots and that it would be a great benefit to get access to the project from multiple locations because of the large size of the site. He noted that one of the grass fires had occurred near Court 1, but if a grass fire were to occur near the existing water tank, there was no real way to get there past the top of the tank. He believed that would be reasonable to suggest additional access for the benefit of the community and the residents. He emphasized that they did not want to subordinate the property rights of individuals and was relying on an easement already owned by the City. Commissioner Pearce inquired how the dual goals of being environmentally sensitive and topographically appropriate would be achieved by or would relate to Lot 51. Mr. Inderbitzen replied that Lot 51 was a large fill area, which was an opportunity to get off the ridgeline but was also environmentally sensitive. They utilize that lot as an opportunity to utilize the last area that was being filled. Ed Janas, 14 Grey Eagle Court, noted that his home backed up to a direct view of Oak Grove. He noted that some of his concerns had already been investigated. He added that the Grey Eagle Estates CC&Rs, as approved in the early 1980s, did not prohibit parking on Grey Eagle Court, but they did limit the duration that cars may be parked on the street. He believed the 51 homes, open space, and hiking trails comprised a wonderful project, but that he and the Grey Eagle Estates HOA had some concerns. He noted that he would not be addressing these concerns had the process worked as he expected; he had read in the newspaper that it would be a model of the cooperative process. He noted that the Kottinger Ranch residents had experienced a great deal of cooperative spirit, but he had not experienced that with respect to the Grey Eagle residents. He noted that they felt compelled to force the issue when they became aware of the entry into Grey Eagle Estates. He noted that their issue was not that of access, but rather, of liability, feasibility and public safety. He noted that Mr. Roush had commented that the residents would potentially be indemnified in some way with respect to liability. He noted that legal counsel had informed the HOA and residents that indemnification may not protect the Grey Eagle Estates HOA and the individual property owners from having significant legal expenditures. He noted that about six EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, June 13, 2007 Page 12 of 19