CCMIN031505 - Laserfiche WebLink

_ _ concerns seen about notorious activity. The staff report indicates that the City would be the first party from which liability responsibility would be sought and the City would be responsible for maintenance. She urged Council to not eliminate the walkway, as she would like for the neighborhoods to be connected and built before the three new homes are constructed. Mike Statz, a Pleasanton resident, expressed his support to remove the proposed sidewalk from the North Sycamore Specific Plan. He said that the proposed sidewalk is a narrow passage way. He did not believe it was feasible to retain the sidewalk at this point without having to reroute it, as it is too hazardous. Kurt Kummer, a Pleasanton resident, said this issue was not referred to the Parks and Recreation Commission or the Trails Ad Hoc Committee. It is clear that this sidewalk fits the City's definition of a trail and should have been in the purview of the Trails Ad Hoc Committee. If Council is inclined to eliminate the sidewalk trail, he requested that it be reviewed by the Parks and Recreation Commission and the Trails Ad Hoc Committee for consideration and recommendations prior to it being eliminated. Ed Lamb, Jr., applicant, was glad that everyone had an opportunity to express their opinion. He said that in no way is he refusing to protect the Bozorgzads' privacy. He concurred with staff's recommendation that a six-foot solid privacy wall is sufficient and that in his PUD application, this wall is to be set at the Bozorgzads' elevation level which is higher than the level of the pedestrian pathway. According to staff guidelines, one part of the sidewalk should remain open. He is hoping to build his home on the ~ - other lot adjacent to the pedestrian sidewalk and he has agreed to have his portion of the sidewalk open. According to information submitted by Mr. MacDonald, the Bozorgzads are requesting a six-foot solid wall to protect their interior rooms from direct views by users of the pedestrian trail. This mitigation requires that the trail be built away from the Bozorgzads' property line up to an additional three-feet. He disagreed with this request and concurred with staff that a solid wall/fence could be built in the place where the current rot iron fence is located on the Bozorgzads' property. He referenced documents that showed that the Bachs took care of their portion of these developments; particularly regarding the costs associated with the implementation of the private road/driveway and the sidewalk. He referenced Ordinance 1788, an ordinance approving the application of Mr. Bozorgzads' home and the Conditions of Approval that state that ~prior to the recordation of any parcel map, a separate deed instrument for the public trail, sidewalk and water easements on the Bach property, shall be completed and submitted to the City Attorney for review and approval. The easements on the Bach property shall be recorded prior to the recordation of the Parcel Map." He provided a copy of the Reciprocal Easement Agreement, which was prepared by Mr. MacDonald and paid for by the Bachs and Bozorgzads jointly. The document states that the Bachs and the Bozorgzads are each responsible for one-half of the cost of the installation of the roadway. This document further states that by separate agreement, the Bachs and Bozorgzads have each made arrangements with Greenbriar Homes for their respective shares of the cost of the roadway installation. He referenced the Parcel Map and noted that the location of the easements and public trail are in the same location as his PUD application. He referenced a letter from the Sycamore Funding Development Company, ~ which is the funding company for Greenbriar Homes and the company that the Bachs and Bozorgzads entered into negotiations with to fund the project. He believed that Mr. Bozorgzad was able to convince Sycamore Funding Development Company that it would provide for the entire cost of the road, and Mr. Bach was only able to get Pleasanton City Council 9 03/15/05 Minutes