PC 042606 - Laserfiche WebLink

Ron Cote, 870 Montevino Drive, noted that he lived two homes from Ron Lloyd, and he and his family supported this development. He noted that many of the neighbors had signed a petition protesting the EIR dated October 7, 1992, with respect to the cul-de-sac entering the Hatsushi property. This entrance would be a blind intersection with rapid two-way traffic. The residents requested that they be involved in redesign meetings. He believed the road was dangerous enough without the additional development, and he was concerned about the impact on the neighborhood for the next five years. Steve Andrews, 886 Montevino Drive, noted that he was not opposed to the development but was opposed to adding more traffic at the proposed intersection on Montevino Drive. He noted that Montevino Drive has had along-standing problem with speeding traffic and was very concerned about the safety impacts. JeffNespor, 837 Claza Lane, supported the Hatsushi project, but was firmly opposed to access through Claza 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 of the neighborhood. He noted that Montevino Drive was a very dangerous street and that much of the traffic consisted of service vehicles. He was very concemed 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 Matazo 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 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Apri126, 2006 Page 14 of 22