SR 06:159 - Laserfiche WebLink

JeffNespor, 837 Clara Lane, supported the Hatsushi project, but was firmly opposed to access through Clara Lane before the extension could be built. Bob Philcox, 1005 Malaga Court, noted that he had lived in Pleasanton since 1954 and that this project seemed to be a good project. He believed this was a well thought-out development with generous lots. He believed the traffic was mitigated as much as possible and that the traffic flow would be fine once the units were built. He believed the applicants were good residents and citizens who had made positive contributions to the City. Brian Sereda, 809 Montevino Drive, supported the development but believed it should be done within the context ofthe neighborhood. He noted that Montevino Drive was a very dangerous street and that much of the traffic consisted of service vehicles. He was very concerned about the safety impact of increased density on the street. He was also concerned about the City's liability with respect to the traffic. Fred Musser, 1138 Mataro Court, spoke in support of this project. He noted that the applicants had come to Pleasanton in 1970 and that they had been in this location before the other homes had been built. He noted that the Hatsushis had endured the noise and dust from construction of hundreds of homes without complaint. He noted this was a typical infill development and that the issues had been discussed at length by the Commission and Council previous to this meeting. The conclusions were contained in the Specific Plan before the Commission, allowing use of the EVA on a temporary basis. Mr. Hughes complimented the Planning Department through this process. He noted that the applicants had not asked for a single deviation from the General Plan or the Vineyard Avenue Corridor Specific Plan. He would like this matter to be moved to the City Council. He noted that Mr. Hatsushi wanted this development to be his legacy and that at age 75, waiting eight years to begin the project was too long. He noted that the neighbors supported the project in principle. He did not believe there any new facts that would require re-examination of the project. He noted that none of the speakers discussed hours of construction, which are Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., which is when the majority of the neighbors would be at work. No weekend construction would take place, and, therefore, the EVA would only be used during those hours. He disagreed with the assessment that this was a dangerous street and noted that the major issues in any project were traffic, noise, and congestion, regardless ofthe scope of the project. He noted that if this were truly a dangerous street, a traffic study would have been performed stating that the mean average of traffic well exceeded 25 miles per hour (mph); the mean speed was 30-3 I mph, which the City believes in within acceptable limits. He noted that there had been no traffic accidents between the Hatsushi and Lloyd driveways. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Roberts regarding construction traffic, Mr. Grubstick noted an unsafe condition would require flaggers on the street. There would be a stop sign at the EVA before traffic came out to Montevino Drive. EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES, April 26, 2006 Page 3 of5