My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN020696
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1996
>
CCMIN020696
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/26/2010 10:53:45 AM
Creation date
5/13/1999 9:58:28 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
2/6/1996
DESTRUCT DATE
PERMANENT
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
20
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
There was discussion about neo-traditional design elements and-the various interpretations <br />of what is neo-traditional. There will be a number of plans from various sources for the <br />community to review. <br /> <br /> Ms. Micheloff was not in support of spending the money for the consultant. She is <br />trying to work on a plan by walking the property and working with individuals. <br /> <br /> Ms. Dennis commended her for the work but felt it was appropriate to also hire an expert <br />to assist. <br /> <br /> It was moved by Mr. Tarver, seconded by Ms. Dennis, to approve the staff <br />recommendation to hire Calthorpe and Associates and to include the streetscape Task 6. <br />Th~ roll Call vO~¢ was as follows: <br />AYES: Councilmembers - Dennis, Pico and Mayor Tarver <br />NOES: Councilmember Micheloff <br />ABSENT: Councilmember Mohr <br />ABSTAIN: None <br /> <br />San Joaa_uin Rail <br /> <br /> Ms. Michelotti indicated she had attended a San Joaquin Rail Commission hearing which <br />was very exciting. She described the proposed plan and the estimated cost of $12 million and <br />the fact that it could be done within one year. She wanted to request a report from staff and <br />Council discussion regarding the funding for this project. <br /> <br /> Mr. Pieo felt it more appropriate to direct the Congestion Management Agency <br />representatives to continue to pursue this for funding on a county-wide basis. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver indicated this was discussed at the end of the last cycle of funding for the <br />county transportation plan. One of the objections at the time was the way this came up at the <br />last minute. CMA said it would consider it the next time and weigh it against other alternatives. <br />There are other major projects competing for funds: 580/680 flyover, Highway 84, West <br />DubllrdPleasanton BART station, etc. The question is what must be given up to establish the <br />rail project. There are many issues such as, frequency of service, will it be used, a <br />demonstration project. He agreed these issues will come to Council through its representative <br />to CMA. tie also indicated there are no CMA funds left and the questions are where do new <br />funds come from, when are priorities set, etc. He believed the CMA should address the issues. <br /> <br /> Ms. Dennis indicated there had been a long unpl~_~nt discussion about how the money <br />would be spent because there was not enough. If Council asks CMA to change the previous <br />priorities, there should be a discussion. <br /> <br />02/06/96 18 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.