My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
03
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2018
>
050118
>
03
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/25/2018 4:23:18 PM
Creation date
4/25/2018 4:23:17 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
5/1/2018
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
7
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
In response to Councilmember Narum's inquiry regarding whether the city would be liable if a car <br /> sustained damage from driving over speed bumps, City Traffic Engineer Tassano stated it would <br /> not. Councilmember Narum asked about the number of homes voting in the petition and City <br /> Traffic Engineer Tassano reported there were 99 "yeses" out of 145. <br /> Councilmember Pentin asked whether there will be increased enforcement and inquired about <br /> fines. City Traffic Engineer Tassano reported a moving violation would be the same, unless the <br /> Officer cites for reckless driving adding it is at the Officer's discretion. <br /> Councilmember Olson asked regarding the efficacy of the election and City Traffic Engineer <br /> Tassano reported the methodology relative to the subject petition was the same as other petitions <br /> and addressed the process. Councilmember Olson noted the community has indicated they do <br /> not want a gate installed and City Traffic Engineer Tassano reported he has not heard that from <br /> the public noting that the opposite is true. <br /> Councilmember Olson asked whether the community would own that road if a gate were installed <br /> and City Manager Fialho responded it would not. The road would remain public right-of-way and <br /> there would be added steps to convey that land to the HOA or private property owners. He <br /> reported a private gate is not an option in this case. <br /> Councilmember Pentin asked about the reason for prohibiting a left-turn out and City Traffic <br /> Engineer Tassano explained staffs rationale and reported the survey showed a right-turn only on <br /> the exit. <br /> Mayor Thorne opened public comment. <br /> Ed Swetavage commended staff and reported no assessment has been made regarding the <br /> impact to residents. Residents will have to follow the same rules for entrances and exits as non- <br /> residents and felt it possess an inconvenience. He suggested Council consider a temporary <br /> solution or a pilot program to test out various options for additional data points under different <br /> conditions. He stated he would hate to see a program created while attempting to solve another <br /> one. <br /> Stan Willis reported he became involved in this matter because of a traffic accident near his <br /> home. A traffic study revealed on certain parts of the road, the critical speed ranged from 35 mph <br /> to 38 mph and noted there are many cars travelling faster than that. He referenced the <br /> application, "Way" and reported it was instrumental in routing drivers through their neighborhood <br /> roads without regard to speed limits. He added committee considered speed lumps, but they were <br /> not feasible. <br /> Andrew Gelb stated he is one of the residents that will be inconvenienced but noted he would take <br /> inconvenience over danger, any day. He reported speed is an issue and explain concerns with <br /> debris and obscene gestures. He added it makes it easier for burglars to drive through the <br /> neighborhood and stated the numbers prove the calming measures that were attempted did not <br /> work. He reported the people voted and have a legitimate expectation that the city will honor their <br /> vote. He hoped for Council's support. <br /> Chin Lee disagreed with the Traffic Engineer's data; questioned the validity of the petition and <br /> noted those living within 500 feet were asked to respond, however, people outside radius also <br /> responded. The policy stated the proposed device must be approved by all property owners <br /> fronting each device and did not believe that was done. He commented on costs and benefits and <br /> felt one group of people is causing another group to increase their travel times. <br /> City Council Minutes Page 5 of 7 February 6,2018 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.