Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Ayala supported this at the priority workshop and felt it was a safety factor in <br />that area. <br /> <br /> Mr. Lum said staff could bring this issue back to Council for further discussion <br />and the report would deal with the tuming radius and safety issues. <br /> <br /> Ms. Dennis referred to the memo on the Foothill Road issue and discovered <br />significant information on other intersections as well. She was concerned that all the <br />intersections needing improvement would not be improved given the conservative <br />budget. Should staff use criteria based on accident rates or traffic volumes to allocate <br />funds to fix these intersections? The City may be the only source of funding available for <br />the improvements. <br /> <br /> Mr. Lum indicated staff performs an assessment of the entire City to prioritize <br />where street improvements will be recommended to Council. Then staff will consider <br />funding sources, whether direct developer contributions or other sources. <br /> <br /> Ms. Dennis felt there may not be any traffic fees or developer contributions and <br />she would like to review the list again to determine if there should be a change in the <br />priorities. <br /> <br /> Ms. Ayala wanted to be sure all the streets would be considered at the same time, <br />not just Foothill Road. <br /> <br /> Mr. Lum said that would be done. Staff reviews the streets based on safety <br />considerations, traffic volumes, etc. <br /> <br /> Mr. Pico believed that most of Foothill Road was in Alameda County. He asked <br />if staff was asking the County to remedy the situation. <br /> <br /> Mr. Lum said there was a portion of Foothill Road in from of the Merritt property <br />that was in the County. Staff believes that roadway is safe, however, over the long-term, <br />if volumes were to increase and there were no improvements, there would be greater <br />concem. If staff approached the County at this time, he believed the response would be <br />similar to staff' s. <br /> <br /> Mr. Pico referred to the City Attorney's impartial analysis of Measure P and <br />statements that it was addressing safety issues. <br /> <br /> Mr. Lum did not believe the analysis contained statements relative to the safety of <br />the roadway. The comments were that the improvements were desirable. The <br />improvements that were contemplated would be an enhancement to the roadway, but are <br />not absolutely necessary in terms of safety. The biggest concern is at the intersection of <br />Muirwood and Foothill. The widening would have provided a left turn refuge and the <br />signal would have provided traffic control. That intersection currently meets peak hour <br />warrants and staff feels it operates safely. The accident record for that section of Foothill <br /> <br />Pleasanton City Council 4 06/22/99 <br />Minutes <br /> <br /> <br />