CCMIN051606 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Rasmussen verified the change in lanes and number of right turn lanes in and out of the park; this is not yet a detailed plan, but it recognizes the need to maximize the lanes to address the potential traffic issues. Mr. Brozosky commented on the effect of altering lanes and increasing the amount of real property used for this purpose. Mr. Rasmussen explained that it depends on the amount of traffic going out the other direction. The second intersection would be used for large events or several events leaving at the same time. The intersection on page 18 would not change substantially. Mr. Brozosky asked if a private development comes later that is proposed to impact the intersections, would the City have to contribute to the improvements. Mr. Rasmussen commented that the improvements would not fully mitigate the traffic impacts to the area. The City would be involved in the improvements. Mr. Dowdon interjected that at the freeway ramp, a project study report initiated by CalTrans may help with the situation. Ms. McGovern commented about her concern for bicycle and pedestrian safety. We should encourage people to walk and ride bikes in the area. The children already use the asphalt near Case Avenue to get to school. In looking at page 57 in the Specific Plan, phase 2, the bike paths are not fully shown and she hopes they remain in the Plan. Mr. Rasmussen commented that it was a good point and that it should be emphasized in this Plan. Ms. McGovern commented that she does not want the trail to be removed. It adds support to the trail system near Bernal Avenue and it is important for safety reasons for the school children. In looking at the potential permitted uses on Sub-Area 6 it notes childcare, but it is riot stated elsewhere in the Illustrative Plan. Where are we planning on placing childcare? Mr. Fialho stated that the Illustrative Plan is a depiction of what it could be, but this could be an alternative use. If the plan did not work out this way, it is listed to accommodate childcare, should it be desired. Mr. Rasmussen commented that it maximizes the use in this area. The area could be designed to accommodate a childcare center, and then the lake area would be designed around that. Ms. McGovern does not see that this is a good use in Area 6. Childcare is an important issue! in the community and she doesn't want to give the impression to the community that more childcare is being built. Mr. Thorne had the same question related to noise pertaining to childcare. Mr. Rasmussen responded that Sub area 5 addresses noise coming from the daycare, as well as other noise coming into the area. Pleasanton City Council 6 05/16/06 Minutes