SR 06:182 - Laserfiche WebLink

sidewalk was a separate entity from a road. He believed the sidewalk would damage his heritage trees and would amount to taking his land. When the Busch property is developed, most of the children would go on Cameron Avenue. He noted that page 17 stated the sidewalk was part of the highway and that bicycles may ride on the sidewalk. By that logic, any vehicle may use the sidewalk. He referred to VC 21.663 to override that statement. Janice Cain, 2033 Palmer Drive, noted that she was an original Palmer Drive resident, which was a unique section of Pleasant on. She noted that Ponderosa had been good about communicating with the neighbors, but she was not convinced that this was the best layout for the site. She would like to see fewer homes on larger lots with prettier country-style homes. She was very concerned with the traffic issue, especially the number of car trips. Matt Lauer noted that they had met with the City plarmers, attended meetings, and had written many questions regarding this plan. He had not seen any of his requests included in the plan, including the sidewalk, traffic, and a four-way sidewalk in front of their home. He believed the current situation damaged his property value, his family, and his neighborhood. He believed that if this property were to be approved, it would be a black mark on Pleasanton. He reiterated his concern about traffic safety. He noted that there was more benefit to the developers and very little to them. Ms. Hardy noted that their dust mitigation measures would minimize the dust and disruption as much as possible. They will pre-treat the material with water as well as the on-site soil. They would have a water truck on site, as well as a street sweeper up and down Cameron A venue. If the wind reaches a speed of25 miles per hour, they cannot work. They would be able to put up a screened fence to screen the dust or can look at a screen fence on the south side of Cameron Avenue. They would be aware of the reimbursement issues. They had met with City staff, police, fire, and engineering to determine access points. They believed it was logical to have two public streets. The footprint of the houses show movement in the architecture with a lot of articulation. The curved street would have an advantage in shifting the traffic pattern away from Mr. Lauer's house and existing curb line. They have tried to be responsive to his concerns. Commissioner Blank would like it to be clear that the property was under the traffic pattern of the Livermore Airport and would like it to be disclosed to property buyers. In response to an inquiry by Chairperson Arkin regarding the affordable housing allowance, Ms. Decker replied that any project over 15 units must be addressed. However, all projects are required to pay fees for inclusionary housing; fees would be collected for this project, amounting to approximating $8,000 per lot. Ms. Hardy noted that they would utilize fair-share housing credits from the Busch property. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Pearce regarding the eminent domain issue regarding the sidewalks and streets, Ms. Harryman stated that the property that will be used to construct the sidewalk portion is within the public right-of-way. Therefore, there would be no need for EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES, June 28, 2006 Page 50f7