PC 061307 - Laserfiche WebLink

Bob Grove, 28 Grey Eagle Court, expressed concern about the liability issue and noted that he had lived through three grass fires in his 20 years on the street. He believed there would be another fire south of Grey Eagle Estates and noted that any City approval that directly or indirectly allowed public use of Grey Eagle Court would create a potential liability for the Grey Eagle Estates residents. He did not believe that any Grey Eagle Estates homeowners should be forced to take on this liability. He did not believe that indemnification was the correct solution to the problem and noted that the City had acknowledged that the EVA did not meet Code in terms of width or grade. He believed there would be a high likelihood that the City would be found to be grossly negligent, and every citizen in Pleasanton would be forced to pay damages. He did not believe the Final EIR could be approved since an adequate EVA that addressed the project needs did not correspond with the City’s current easement. He noted that two property law firms independently concluded that the City had no legal right to allow public use of a private street, even in an emergency. He did not believe that placement of signage by the City could circumvent this fact. He noted that the Grey Eagle Estates HOA was prepared to enforce its legal right to prevent public use of its private street. He noted that they were not opposed to development of the property and added that there were many positive aspects to this project. He requested that the Planning Commission deny the current plan and direct the developer to resubmit an alternative plan with appropriate EVA ingress and egress that would not utilize Grey Eagle Court. Russell Schmidt, 18 Grey Eagle Court, noted that he was an open space advocate and used the Pleasanton Ridge trails weekly. He noted that the appealing part of this project was the preservation of the trails but was very concerned about house sizes and view impacts. He believed the visualizations were flawed and misleading, done with houses sizes much smaller than the targeted sizes for those lots. He believed the viewpoints were also chosen to minimize the impact. He added that the imagery did not seem to be peer-reviewed. He requested more realistic visualizations and asked that the Commission not certify the Final EIR because of the flaws. He further requested that the Commission not approve the PUD plan and that it be returned to the developer to address the siting and house size issues. He would like to see a lower view shed impact; he added that the open space would be retained as well as a reasonable return on investment. Rick Bentley, 23 Grey Eagle Court, President, Grey Eagle Estates HOA, noted that the letter written by Allen Roberts on June 12, 2007 covered many of the concerns expressed by the residents. He concurred with Mr. Grove’s comments regarding the EVA road and requested that the Commission consider the concerns seriously before proceeding. He believed it was too early to move forward with this project and suggested that Mr. Berlogar’s road be considered for an EVA. Lee Fulton, 3407 Brandy Court, read the following statement into the record: “At first I thought the inadequate and misleading Visual Impact evaluation was the result of sloppy work by staff’s hired consultants. But given staff’s responses to citizens’ comments and direct requests by this Commission since PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 13, 2007 Page 21 of 29