Attachment 6
From: Scott Atkinson
Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2024 11:31 AM
To: Netto, Margaret <[email protected]>
Cc: Scott Atkinson
Subject: RE: 198 Easy Street ZA meeting
Thanks, I upgraded my Adobe Acrobat, so I can see all the files now:
QUESTIONS/CONCERNS I have, but did not find answered in the documents (If you can point me to where they are answered, maybe they can resolved prior to the meeting today):
1. Prior conditions addressed that All buildings must be completed prior to any occupancy permits provided. Item #51 indicates a “single phase” development—but the concern is if they are able to complete and sell 1 at a time (that would elongate the construction process/time and then there would be the possibility of not completing the remainder/whole project). A condition is needed that protects from this potential issue?
2. Is there anything that limits the duration of time that the construction can stretch out? (it seems that with extensions, construction and disruption could be expanded to 2-4 years to build)
3. Condition for driveway pavers (not asphalt). I see pavers appear to be shown in the plans A.03, but not as a condition of approval.
4. Plan A.02.1 Can you tell me what the “Rain Garden – Ponding” area is? (I can’t tell what that is—grass, a ditch).
5. Item #126 specifies a “Double yellow centerline” in Gladys Court. This requirement is not desirable or functional, and it is odd/silly to have a centerline in a cul-de-sac. Minimal lines should accommodate tenants from the adjacent apartment exiting the apartment driveway and accessing the Stop sign location DIRECTLY (without having to do 4 turns to go 20 feet up Gladys Court and access the Stop Sign location)
6. Item #134. Why should Gladys Court have a 5’ wide sidewalk & 5’ Landscape strip, whereas Easy Street only has a 4’ sidewalk and 4’ landscape strip? This should be consistent (and 4’ each seems adequate for Gladys court as well)
I’m unavailable until after 2:30, but can read emails.
Thanks for all your help.
Thanks,
Scott
From: Sharon Read Veach
Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2024 2:41 PM
To: Administrative Zoning Hearing <[email protected]> Cc: North Whisman Neighborhood >
Subject: 198 Easy Street APN 160-37-005 - VERY BAD IDEA WHICH IS ALREADY HAPPENING AUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL - Ensure you trust this email before clicking on any links or attachments.
Hello, AZH:
I live on Easy Street. Traffic in the morning is already backed up from the metering lights at the 85 ramp all the way to Central Expressway. Car exhaust coats the area. Drivers often prevent folks from turning left onto the road towards downtown - they block the intersection, resulting in even more exhaust floating into the area.
And you propose to remove trees that protect the entire area from carbon emissions and put oxygen in the air.
You also propose to subject the folks who decide to buy those doomed row houses at 198 Easy Street to toxic fumes and long waiting lines to get onto the freeway or surface roads.
This Phan development is shortsighted for climate, for the neighborhood, and for the very few semi-rich folks who would deign to buy such a poorly situated property.
This property should keep the heritage trees (which I note are already being removed) and build/restore a low-rise ranch house surrounded by trees that protect its inhabitants.
I will point out that the Mountain View building whoevers are saturating Middlefield with new apartment blocks, removing heritage trees, with no regard for increased traffic (no extra lanes, no wider ramps to the freeways), and an as-yet unpredictable and infrequent bus service.
You are building a slum on and near Middlefield, Moffett, Easy, and Whisman Streets.
Shame on you,
Sharon Veach