Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. McMorrow agreed that the traffic sequencing at the First Street/Ray StreetNineyard <br /> Avenue intersection is inefficient. <br /> Mr. Iserson clarified that the Traffic Impact Fees are geared to an identified and adopted <br /> list of mitigations throughout the City. <br /> Randy Bly, partial owner of neighboring property, expressed concern about the location <br /> of the tot lot. The main issue related to the proposed location of the tot lot is that it is located <br /> five feet from the fence of his property and 30 to 40 feet from any of the buildings within the <br /> development. He believed there was a possibility that the tot lot could expand in the future, and <br /> the attractiveness of the tot lot would draw other people to use it from the neighboring areas, <br /> particularly those apartment complexes that do not offer any type of tot lot, which he believed <br /> would impact his ability to rent his unit. <br /> Mr. Thorne asked where the nearest community park was located. <br /> Mr. Iserson said Kottinger Park was located across the street from the project site, which <br /> included a tot lot and substantial open space. <br /> Mr. McMorrow indicated that the applicant had spent some time trying to figure out the <br /> location of the tot lot. The tot lot could not be located along the Arroyo because of a sewer line <br /> easement. The tot lot could not be located in the center of the complex for a number of reasons <br /> which included the Livermore Pleasanton Fire Department's requirement for wide turning <br /> radiuses and to make the turning radius any wider, it would eliminate the handicapped parking <br /> spaces which must be located in the center of the complex to accommodate handicapped <br /> residents living on the ground level. He pointed out that this project is one of the first apartment <br /> complexes in the area to accommodate handicapped residents. <br /> Mr. Sullivan wondered if there was a way to control keeping nonresidents from using the <br /> tot lot. <br /> Mr. McMorrow said the tot lot was located on private property and nonresidents using <br /> the tot lot would be considered trespassers. <br /> Vice Mayor Sullivan closed the public hearing. <br /> Mr. Thorne liked the project, particularly because the Planning Commission identified <br /> and solved the issues prior to the matter coming to Council for its consideration. He believed <br /> the tot lot could remain in the project without having an impact on the neighbors, particularly <br /> because of the close location of Kottinger Park, which contains a large tot lot. <br /> Mr. Brozosky concurred with Mr. Thorne's comments. He was supportive of the plans as <br /> presented and could go either way with the incorporation of the tot lot. <br /> Ms. McGovern approved of the design including the proposed number of trees and the <br /> incorporation of the tot lot. She believed the design plan was short on landscaping. She <br /> expressed concern about the shortage of parking. She was interested in the placement of a <br /> flashing yellow pedestrian beacon, particularly because the project is near a school site. She <br /> was interested in changes to the traffic sequencing at the First Street/Ray StreetNineyard <br /> Pleasanton City Council 21 02/21/06 <br /> Minutes <br />