CCMIN022106 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Iserson said no. To address this matter, he believed the City could require the CC &Rs to stipulate that garages be available for resident parking at all times. Ms. McGovern said she was concern about providing adequate parking on -site to address the current parking problems of the neighborhood, particularly as it related to the number of proposed three bedroom units. She referred to the Bernal Commercial Development Traffic Study that was considered for this project. The Study mentioned First Street/Ray StreetNineyard Avenue and assumes certain mitigations need to be in place to address the traffic problems. She believed the staff report indicated that the traffic sequencing for the signal at the First Street/Ray StreetNineyard Avenue intersection would not be changed from a split phased operation to a protected permissive left/left yield similar to the Meadowlark Drive /Bernal Avenue intersection operation. However, the Study indicates these are inefficient traffic lights. Mr. Iserson believed the recommendation was to change the traffic sequencing at the First Street/Ray StreetNineyard Avenue intersection; however, the neighbors expressed concern. Therefore, staff believed this should not be required knowing that there were concerns expressed by the neighbors. Council could include this requirement as a condition. Staff believed it would significantly improve the level of service at that intersection. Ms. McGovern believed the traffic sequencing had been identified as inefficient and ineffective and to not to make this a requirement would continue the traffic problem, which does not adequately mitigate the problem and allows it to become worse. Mr. Iserson pointed out that the First Street/Ray StreetNineyard Avenue is a downtown intersection and as such, is not subject to the normal City level of service standards. He recognized Ms. McGovern's point and if there was a way to identify and mitigate the problem at a minimal cost, the option is available. The City's Traffic Engineer has determined that it would be a significant improvement. Council could include a condition that would state that because this condition is not a high cost item, it would be done on an interim basis and subject to change if it did not adequately address the problem. Ms. McGovern believed the City owed it to the neighbors and the community to provide the best traffic system as possible to mitigate the issue. She expressed concern regarding the affordable units. She referred to page two of the January 25 Planning Commission minutes in which Commissioner Maas noted that while her son was raised in Pleasanton, he lived in San Leandro because of affordability issues and hoped that kind of situation would not be an obstacle. She asked if it was possible to assist those who have grown up in Pleasanton and are currently non residents who might want to move back to Pleasanton? Mr. Bocian said anyone is eligible for the units; however there is a preference list. He noted that it would be dependent upon the popularity of the individual development. The current preference list makes some provision for applicants who have recently moved out of town and want to move back, but it does not address those applicants who have moved out of Pleasanton for some time. Ms. McGovern said her concern as a councilmember has been allowing Pleasanton's children the opportunity to return to Pleasanton and being able to afford to live in the community in which they grew up. Pleasanton City Council 19 02/21/06 Minutes