CCMIN050200 - Laserfiche WebLink

Lehman property. She is concerned Council is taking away something that existed before. There were no signs posted for no parking before, whether there was a formal policy or not. When the road was widening she is concerned a new rule was made that did not exist bcfore and people have lost something they once had. Mayor Tarver has been aware of this issue for a long time and remembered past public hearings where residents expressed a strong desire to keep the area rural in nature with no sidewalks and did not want the full width of a standard street, etc. Parking was not included. When people say what they want, they ought to stick with it and not change their minds. It is also not fair to say let's have a sidewalk and the guy across the street can pay for it when he annexes to the City. Ms. Michelotti also recalled there was never parking on that street and asked staff to clarify that. If parking were allowed and the street was then widened, then the argument to allow parking now would be more solid. However, she did not recall that parking had ever been allowed. Mr. van Gelder did not know what was allowed when it was a narrow private road. When the twenty foot half street was put in, the plans showed no parking signs installed on the south side. So every 100 feet there was a no parking sign. Twenty feet of pavement went right to the edge of the property line. Most municipal codes do not allow parking in a traveled way. if there is twenty feet of pavement, any parking on either side would be within the traveled way. In California, that means a parking ticket could not be issued, but the car can be towed away. In his opinion, there was never legal parking on Cameron Avenue. If there was parking on Mr. Lehman's private property, there were not any "no parking" signs because there was no public tight of way in which to install the signs. When the hearing was held because of the demand for space to walk, approval was given to widen the street by eight feet and there were "no parking" signs on the fcncc every 100 feet. Discussions at that time suggested painting a line in the street designating a four-foot pedestrian way. People objected to that and it was not done. Had it been done, tl~en it would have been obvious there ~vas no place in the travel way to park. If the walkway is not painted, if the road has very narrow lanes, parking would be allowable, but there would be no place to walk. He thought the reason for the read widening was for pedestrian purposes, not the convenience of the neighbors. Ms. Michelotti understood where the residents were coming from, but she also remembered when this PUD was first approved. She asked if the exma five feet could be obtained for a sidewalk so both pedestrians and parking could be accommodated. Mr. van Gelder agreed that would be the best answer. The city policy has been that when a property develops, the developer pays for improvements. A decision would have to be made by Council in this case regarding whether Mr. Lehman or the City pays for the improvements. The City did pay for the street widening. Ms. Michelotti did not believe there was a lot of room for cars on this street and she was concerned about the safety issues. She would like to provide parking for the Pleasanton City Council 21 05/02/00 Minutes