CCMIN050200 - Laserfiche WebLink

they wish to expand those houses. There is one tree in poor condition that could be impacted. Ms. Dennis did not believe this development was visually obtrusive and did not think people would notice it with the conditions that have been imposed. She agreed the negative declaration was appropriate. Item 6d ADDroyal of Alameda County 20-Year TransOortation Exoenditure Plan and Recommendation to the Board of Sunervisors to Dlace an extension of the sales tax on the November 2000 ballot.. (SR 00:117) This item was continued to the meeting of June 6, 2000. Item 6e Review of ReQuest for oarking on Cameron Avenue between EQuestrian Drive and Courthey Avenue. (SR 00:119) Bill van Gelder presented the staff report. Ms. Ayala referred to the fence on the Lehman property and asked if it was normal to have a fence right next to the street like that. Mr. van Gelder indicated there is very little that is normal in this area. Typically there would be a setback and sidewalk before a lbnce, but Mr. Lehman objected to maintaining the area or deeding the area to 'the City. If the Lehman property were developed, it is possible that could change. Ms. Ayala asked if those people who objected to on-street parking actually lived on the street and did they have parking on their streets? Mr. van Gelder said those who objected lived ihrther away and do not have parking on their sweets. Those most affected live between Equestrian and Courthey and none of those residents objected. She asked why staff changed its position on parking. Mr. van Gcldcr said that at the meeting artended by Mr. Higdon it was thought there was consensus on approving parking. At the last Coonell meeting and subsequent neighborhood meetings, it is clear them is not consensus. Mayor Tarver invited public testimony on this item. Pleasanton City Council 18 05/02/00 Minutes