PC 061307 - Laserfiche WebLink

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 weeks prior to this hearing, a representative of the Grey Eagle Estates HOA met with the City of Pleasanton Fire Marshall, who had indicated that Grey Eagle Court was not the primary choice for an EVA. Mr. Janas noted that he had spoken to the Fire Marshall’s office earlier in the week, and the staff indicated to him that the current Uniform Fire Code that allowed local, City, and fire officials to waive Code requirement was about to be affected significantly with the adoption of portions of the 2006 Uniform Fire Code. The new Code would severely restrict deviations or waivers by local officials, which he understood happened because the State had concerns that there were numerous instances where local officials were making Code waiver decisions due to political pressure or tax revenue considerations. As a result of that meeting, the homeowners had legal counsel spend some time with them over the past several days. He submitted the analysis by the legal counsel after that discussion about those affected changes that should be in place by the beginning of 2008 and what their view was of the impact to the current proposal of the EVA. He recalled a personal experience when he lived on a private street in Atlanta, where a moving truck parked overnight by a neighbor, blocked emergency vehicles responding to a fire and trying to access the EVA. The Fire Department tried to move the van, which jackknifed and blocked the road. The fire truck and van were both damaged, and the two homes were virtually burned to the ground, resulting in two deaths. Their HOA and numerous homeowners suffered hundreds of thousands of legal expenses in liability resulting from that incident. He was concerned that the same problems would be created for the residents of Grey Eagle Court. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 13, 2007 Page 20 of 29