SR 06:182 - Laserfiche WebLink

Dear Mike: Page I 01'2 Marion Pavan From: Jerry Iserson Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 1 :57 PM To: Marion Pavan; Donna Decker Subject: FW: Our meeting today on PUD-50 FYI. Jerry -----Original Message----- From: Michael Roush Sent: Wednesday, August 30,20069:08 AM To: Matt and Cheryl Cc: Mary Lu Campbell; Jerry Iserson Subject: RE: Our meeting today on PUD-SO Matt, I appreciated the chance to meet with you yesterday and hear your concerns about the project. As City Attorney, my role is neither to support or oppose your position on the project. Rather, I provide legal advice to Council and staff concerning, for example, conditions of approval for a project. Most of the planningltraffic items that we discussed could be accomplished if the Council concludes that is the best way to proceed. To date, however, some of your suggestions, such as offsetting where the project's main road ties into Cameron, have not been accepted by staff and were not adopted by the Planning Commission. That doesn't mean that you should not advocate your position to Council but there are other positions on most of these items. If you have any other questions of me, please email or call. Michael Roush (931-5017) From: Matt and Cheryl [rnailto:mlawer1@comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2006 12:44 PM To: Michael Roush Cc: Mary Lu Campbell SUbject: Our meeting today on PUD-SO Dear Mike: Thanks for meeting with me this morning regarding the PUD-50 project. Your comments were very helpful and insightful. I hope that you can support my family's position on the project and can counsel the city commission to accommodating our family'S requests. We are ground zero from the project and should be weighted accordingly and we feel that we have been ignored in our big issues. Some of the topics that we hit were: -Preserving our home value before, during and after construction, if project is approved -Look and feel of the neighborhood -Not wanting a 3 or 4 way stop in front of our home-ever -Liking the curved version of Cameron Avenue -Not for sidewalks -Not for street "A" intersecting with Equestrian Avenue (should be off set) -Not for the narrowing of Cameron Avenue as it approaches Martin Avenue -For a pathway through the new project for foot and bike traffic only near the Diablo Court area -For the new project sharing in the foot and auto congestion that the Ponderosa projects will create -For a cone set up trial period before deciding on narrowing Cameron Avenue -Not for street speed hubcaps at our intersection -For a crosswalk light on Martin Avenue for school children to use -Opposed strongly to anything that causes autos acceleration and deceleration noise or light strobeing onto our house -Opposed to project proceeding until full effects of the same developers "Ironwood" project's traffic is known We did not touch on the importance of construction sequencing for the project. It is important to investigate this thoroughly to keep up the values and look and feel of our neighborhood during this lengthy project (4-5 years). We feel that the following should be considered when approving the developer's plans to make money at our expense: -For the cutting into Cameron Avenue for utilities or for any other reason for one time and one time only and, the subsequent finish paving immediately after -For the building of all the homes alone Cameron Avenue at the first phase to shield the roughly 4 Y, year project from our 9/5/2006