CCMIN090203 - Laserfiche WebLink

Ms. Ayah said it was the process that bothered her also. It appeared that staffhad told the neighborhood that the Council would not be taking action on a particular portion of the project and she became uncomfortable that there was an unclear message sent. Mr. Campbell felt that since the item was on the agenda, it was Council's responsibility to take action. His conversations with neighborhood residents was not that Council had taken action, but after they lef~ the Planning Commission, they felt it was going to go in one direction. Subsequently, however, the City Council went in a different direction. It was not a process issue, but the final decision of the Council. Mr. Swift commented on the neighborhood request. The one of three things identified on the petition is to install a street barrier at Dennis Drive at the north boundary of the Peterson property. This would be a first where a street closure of an already existing open street would be put into place in conjunction with a PUD project. This is something that staff would probably not recommend. The Planning Commission addressed this and felt it was better passed on to the neighborhood traffic calming committee, which is what the Commission recommended that the City do. This would be staff's recommendation. If the Council feels that the only way it can approve the Peterson subdivision is to have the street closed, then the recommendation would be to either postpone indefinitely or deny the Peterson application until such time as Council completes the normal process to close an existing City street. With respect to the second item having to do with the construction and access and construction hours, there is already a condition that addresses this. It is requested that construction use of the streets do not coincide with the school traffic. Staff would have no problems with Council adding that additional language to the conditions. The third item on the neighborhood request is already addressed in the PUD conditions. There was a condition concerning the visibility of the doors and a side entry door that. This is already a condition. Mr. Pico asked if the property adjacent to the Peterson property along Dennis Drive, between the Petersons and the end of Newton, had a time frame for improvements to be put in place. He had visited the site and saw the sharpness of the corner, along with the location of the crosswalk. He shared the neighborhood's concerns that extending the sidewalk on the Peterson side could potentially entice students to walk in the street or to cross in unsafe areas. It seemed to him that one of the solutions would be to extend the sidewalk completely on the Peterson side of the street, down to Newton Way. This would create a continuous sidewalk. He asked what options Council had addressing this situation to make it safe. Mr. Swift said a condition of this approval would be that the Petersons extend the sidewalk and ask for reimbursement at a later time, or the City could do it as a CIP Project. The problem with either of these is acquiring the right of way as if there are two propexfies involved. One has a large barn at the rear of the property line. Stafflooked at the possibility of installing an interim sidewalk adjacent to the existing 20' wide road. There is not room to do this in a width that would make staff comfortable as a good pedestrian alternative. Basically, an interim sidewalk would have to dodge around the barn on the Singleton property to the east of the barn, well within the existing property Pleasanton City Council 11 09.02.03 Minutes