CCMIN022106 - Laserfiche WebLink

In response to an inquiry by Mr. Brozosky, Mr. Iserson confirmed that a traffic problem existed at the pedestrian crossing near the project location and nearest to the School site, which is specifically related to an increase in speed and higher volumes of traffic than on a normal residential street. Since this project is adding to the existing problem and there is a concern about safe crossing on Vineyard Avenue, staff suggested including the placement of a flashing yellow beacon as a condition of the development requirements. Mr. Fialho said the cost to install a flashing yellow pedestrian beacon would be approximately $5,000. Mr. Brozosky inquired about the proposed small tot lot at the westerly boundary adjacent to an existing single family residence currently occupied by a tenant. He asked staff to provide a status update. Mr. Iserson said the original submittal to the City incorporated a small tot lot located at the westerly boundary adjacent to an existing single family residence currently occupied by a tenant. During various discussions, the tenant had concerns related to noise from children playing. The tot lot was removed to mitigate both the perceived lack of parking by adding on- site parking in that location and noise impacts within the neighborhood. The Planning Commission considered these concerns and determined that it would be more important to provide a small outdoor area in the development where families would be able to take their young children to play. Therefore, the Planning Commission amended the conditions requiring the tot lot to be reinstalled at the original location and eliminated one guest parking space knowing there would be a sufficient number of guest parking spaces. Staff concurred with the Commission's recommendation. Mr. Brozosky mentioned Council approved a recent proposal for a development plan approval for residential homes on Peters Avenue. Council approved the project subject to the condition that the applicant must advertise special "affordable by design" units in its marketing efforts to Pleasanton residents and employees. Mr. Iserson believed the "affordable by design" units would include the preferential condition. The condition would require the applicant to make a reasonable effort to market the project in this fashion. Steven Bocian, Assistant City Manager, pointed out that the Affordable Housing Agreement as currently drafted, includes both the affordable units and the "affordable by design" units. As requested by Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Bocian said the development includes five units that are preserved for low- income households. These units contain two bedrooms with 2.5 bathrooms and are approximately 1,200 square feet. The current initial sales prices is $205,000 that will be adjusted as the median income increases between now and the time the units are offered for sale. These units target families of four whose household income is $65,760. The development also includes two moderate income homes comprised of three bedrooms and 2.5 bathrooms, approximately 1,700 square feet. The current sales price is estimated at $310,000 and subject to the same area median income adjustment. These units target families whose household income is $98,640. All of the seven units will be affordable for perpetuity. There is a requirement that the exterior finishes be consistent with the project with the interior products and finish subject to approval by the City provided that they are not more costly or greater than what Pleasanton City Council 17 02/21/06 Minutes