CCMIN020706 - Laserfiche WebLink

which would create safety issues; and the nature of the private street created an enforceability with regard to traffic problems. He believed the denial of the application based upon traffic issues should not be based upon assumptions and the adverse effects should be adequately identified. He noted that issues with neighbors and the HOA centered on traffic and parking issues, particularly as it related to the design capacity of Genovesio Drive. While studying the traffic on the street, he had personally observed that only the neighbors speed in the area. He believed the reduction in the requested number of children from 14 to 11 would reduce the total amount of traffic generated by the proposed use, thus mitigating related issues of traffic speeds and safety. He outlined his efforts to mitigate and arrive at a compromise and noted that unfortunately, he and his wife were not successful in negotiating an agreement. He noted that questions were raised by residents in the neighborhood related to the legality of operating a daycare center out of his home. He confirmed that he and his wife have obtained liability insurance and it is in compliance with State law. He and his wife have accepted all of the conditions of approval as presented by staff and will refuse service to those patrons who are in violation of the conditions of approval. He assumed an average of 10 vehicles daily would either be dropping off or picking up children and he did not believe it would impact the overall traffic conditions. He pointed out the Planning Department had already confirmed that existing traffic issues were not attributed to the daycare and legal counsel confirmed durin9 the Planning Commission's public hearings that speeding issues faced by the neighbors could not be attributed to the daycare. In conclusion, he believed the neighbors' opposition was not based on genuine and sincere reasons. He believed his application should be approved as he and his wife have met all of the criteria and accepted all of the conditions of approval. He urged Council to uphold the appeal thus approving the use permit for a large family daycare for up to 11 children. Dharini Bsakaran, a Pleasanton resident, reiterated the need for quality daycare in the community. She vouched for Ms. Thuse's organization and discipline in expecting parents to adhere to the rules that she makes. She believed daycare traffic only occurred two times during the day, either in the morning when parents dropped of their children or in the evening when parents picked up their children. She supported the application and encouraged Council to uphold the appeal and approve the use permit. Michael Montoya, a Pleasanton resident and patron, voiced his support for the conditional use permit. He has never encountered more than a maximum of two vehicles in front of the applicant's home. He believed the traffic issue affected less than 10 percent of the homes in the entire neighborhood. He believed Ms. Thuse would enforce the traffic conditions and police her patrons in order to get traffic in and out in a timely manner. Vaibhav Lole, a Pleasanton resident and patron, supported the conditional use permit to expand the small family daycare into a large family daycare. He noted that Ms. Thuse provides individual attention to the children and tries her best to fulfill their dietary needs. Shreepad Chinchankar, a Pleasanton resident and patron, supported the conditional use permit. He noted that he personally parks in the driveway, which allows him to drop off and pick up his children in a safe manner. He noted that it is difficult to find a daycare that accommodates the dietary needs of the children and Ms. Thuse provides quality food for vegetarians. Michael Gibson, a Pleasanton resident and patron, supported the conditional use permit. He noted that it is not easy to find a quality daycare center. He vouched for Ms. Thuse and Pleasanton City Council Minutes 9 02/07/06