PC 062806 - Laserfiche WebLink

~-. it. They would match grades along the perimeter along the west end of the property to produce position drainage away from those homes. They anticipated a continuous eight-week grading process and asked the neighbors to consider lengthening the allowable workday to accelerate the grading process. They tried to phase the home building schedule so existing residents did not have to drive through construction. Will Selway noted that he was pleased with the layout and design by Ponderosa Homes and believed they would be a jewel in the eyes of Pleasanton. Edwazd Reedy, 2101 Palmer, noted that he had attended all the meetings and believed the inclusion of a sidewalk was very important. He supported the plan and was happy with Ponderosa's dealings with the residents. Kelly Cousins noted that the parking on the north side was restricted in certain azeas and that the parking was very important to her when she had company. She noted that she would beaz the brunt of the development if it were to be approved as planned. She did not believe the density fit into the neighborhood. She believed that Cameron Avenue should be curvilineaz to increase the safety for children, although it would not mitigate the traffic entirely. She felt she would lose her privacy, quiet, and pazking. She expressed concern about speeding traffic and traffic noise. She would like to see fewer homes with a more consistent design to blend into the neighborhood. Denny Leuthauser, 3623 Cameron Avenue, expressed concern about the sidewalk and noted that to the best of her knowledge, there had not been an accident with children. The Commission had agreed that they were opposed to eminent domain, and the sidewalk would take 2.5 of their front property. They believed the children would be safer on the south side, where there were only seven homes and 14 cars. She would like to eliminate the sidewalk, keep the street as wide as it is now, and let the children travel on the south side of the street. Carol Lehman noted that the State informed them that the trees in their orchard were diseased, and her husband has maintained it for weed control. It was very important to her that the homes fit into the neighborhood, and she hoped the Planning Commission would approve this project. Greg Ketell, 3611 Cameron Avenue, expressed concern that the Mazch 29 minutes did not reflect the Commission's almost unanimous agreement opposing eminent domain. He noted that the May 10 minutes did not reflect Mr. Jost's response to a bike path being disallowed in front of his and the Leithauser's house; he stated that having a bike path on one side would cause liability issues if it were not allowed on the other side. He also stated that liability issues would come up with a singie sidewalk rather than with a dual sidewalk. He had sent afour-page letter documenting his issues and concerns, which he did not see in the public record. He noted that with respect to the easement, Vehicle Code 21.663 stated that "no vehicle may use a sidewalk for any purpose, other than crossing the sidewalk to get to the driveway." He noted that the sidewalk was a sepazate entity from a road. He believed the sidewalk would damage his heritage trees and would PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 28, 2006 Page 22 of 26