PC 020905 - Laserfiche WebLink

In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Blank regarding liability in the event of an injury on the path, Ms. Nerland confixziied that the City would be the first party from which liability would be sought. She added that each claim is examined on separate merits and that other possible culpable parties may be sought out as well. The City would be responsible for the maintenance of the sidewalk. Commissioner Roberts advised that she had spoken to Mr_ Lamb, the Greenes, and Kathy Ferreira. Commissioner Fox advised that she had spoken with the Greenes, Mr. and Mrs. Bozorgzad, Kathy Ferreira, and Mr. Lamb, Sr., and had contacted the Police Department to have a patrol officer in the neighborhood survey the planned path at San Carlos Way. Commissioner Blank advised that he had spoken with Mr. and Mrs_ Bozorgzad and Mr. Greene. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Roberts whether the neighborhoods in Val Vista Park that ended in cul-de-sacs stated that they did not want the street to go through to the park, Mr. Pavan confirmed that was the case. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Fox regarding how the City determined whether a neighbor was "walled-in" by a proposed development, Mr. Pavan replied that the question had been an issue within the City for many years. He added that this was determined by examining a combination of grading, height, and form of the house, landscaping, and the separations between houses. He described the view analysis process and noted that the future height of landscaping upon mature growth was an important factor in determining view impact. He noted that the Commission may add a statement to the guidelines stating that the design and location of the houses will be done in a manner that would reduce massing in order that an adjoining neighbor does not have any significant view impacts_ He noted that in an urbanizing area such as this, there will be some impact on the views of adjoining neighbors. Staff would endeavor to ensure that reasonable views would be maintained. Ms. Decker noted that Mr. Pavan had included conditions recommending view studies, with which the applicant concurred Mr. Pavan noted that based upon his conversations with Mary Greene, she had stated to staff that the line was surveyed as being accurate in conjunction with the subdivision done by Greenbriar and the extension of Sycamore Creek Way through their property_ He added that dedication was required to accommodate that; he suggested that she present that material to the Commission for its determination. After the PUD development plan is approved by City Council, the applicant must present a tentative parcel map because only four lots were under consideration_ The subject property would PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 9, 2005 Page 12 of 22