My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN060298
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1998
>
CCMIN060298
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/26/2010 10:53:27 AM
Creation date
2/11/1999 11:58:43 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
6/2/1998
DESTRUCT DATE
PERMANENT
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
24
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
Ms. Ayala asked if she felt 67 % of the people that do not live within 500 feet of the <br />devices would want to pay into a program. <br /> <br /> Ms. Alpert said no. She felt the area at large is more interested in a traffic calming <br />device than someone who is immediately adjacent to the landscape median. <br /> <br /> Ms. Michelotti said in some cities an assessment of the entire area is done. <br /> <br /> Ms. Alpert said an area wide assessment helps to defray the costs. She thinks it is too <br />divisive for the neighborhood to only have the homes within 500 feet pay. She urged Council <br />to move towards the arterial connections. <br /> <br /> Ms. lVlichelotti said the process is very frustrating. The extension of Stoneridge to E1 <br />Charro, E1 Charro to Stanley Boulevard, Isabell Avenue, and 84 improvements are in the <br />regional plan. <br /> <br /> Charlotte Severin, 4513 Mirador Drive, supported the traffic calming plan and the <br />neighborhoods supported the program until they found out that they would have to pay for the <br />devices and maintain them. She said the stop signs do help on Mirador Drive. She said it was <br />agreed upon that no change would be made to one neighborhood that would impact another <br />neighborhood. She talked about how the opening of Miradot Drive would only create more <br />problems. She felt most of the suggestions made are wonderful. She hoped the funding problem <br />could be solved in an equitable way. She also wanted the city to maintain any traffic circles. <br /> <br /> Mr. Lum said the proposal is that the City would maintain the devices. <br /> <br /> Ms. Dennis asked, if the developer were paying for the traffic impacts, how would the <br />67% be determined? <br /> <br /> Mr. vanGelder said there was a developer who felt it might impact the neighborhoods <br />and agreed to pay for pan of the devices. But some money is better than no money. The same <br />petition process would still be done to get the community's input. <br /> <br /> Mayor Tarver said the process needs to be approved by Council. Does it also have to <br />be rejected by the Council? He would like more flexibility in the decision making process. <br /> <br /> Mr. vanGelder said the intent was to structure a decision making process for the Council. <br />He said guidelines can be determined regarding the 67 %, design, etc., that Council would be <br />comfortable with. <br /> <br /> Ms. Acosta said there is an appeal process included. She said guidelines needed to be <br />established in order for the program to work. <br /> <br />Pleasanton City Council 16 6/2/98 <br />Minutes <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.