My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN041806
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
2000-2009
>
2006
>
CCMIN041806
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/17/2007 10:56:44 AM
Creation date
4/13/2006 3:10:00 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
4/18/2006
DOCUMENT NO
CCMIN041806
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
17
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
<br />Mr. Wilson responded that the traffic light at Ruby Hill is currently used to meter traffic <br />into Pleasanton. <br /> <br />Ms. McGovern questioned whether the roundabouts were used to reduce cut-through <br /> <br />traffic. <br /> <br />Mr. Wilson responded that the roundabouts were not installed for the purpose of <br />reducing cut-through traffic. <br /> <br />Ms. McGovern questioned whether the traffic exiting Petronave Lane would be <br />manageable during the project. <br /> <br />Mr. Wilson responded that final design on how that would match has not been <br />completed but he believes the traffic can be managed, as traffic speed will be reduced to 25 <br />mph. Signage will be posted at the entrance to and exit out of the construction area. <br /> <br />Ms. McGovern questioned whether the bid would change on the project if a time line <br />were set to complete the project prior to the new school year. <br /> <br />Mr. Wilson responded if the contractor were given the ability to choose working times it <br />would not change the contract and could give them latitude for crews to move into different <br />locations. He further stated in order for the City to allow the contractor to work on the weekends <br />or outside normal business hours, the specific plan would need to be amended and brought <br />back to Council. <br /> <br />Ms. McGovern stated her concern was that the project needed to be placed out for bid in <br />order for the project to be completed in order to have a minimal effect on school traffic. <br /> <br />Mr. Brozosky indicated that the specific plan would not have to be amended to allow <br />road construction on Saturdays. The specific plan indicates construction of homes could not be <br />done on Saturdays. The plan does allow construction on Vineyard Avenue and the main roads <br />on Saturdays. <br /> <br />Mr. Fialho responded that staff would review the specific plan. <br /> <br />Mr. Sullivan inquired whether the roundabouts were installed for traffic calming and to <br />slow traffic in anticipation of Neal School being built. <br /> <br />Mr. Wilson responded that the primary factor for the roundabouts was the school being <br />built. There was concem of how the intersections would operate during school hours and traffic <br />stacking up on Vineyard turning left into the school property. The roundabouts were installed in <br />lieu of a traffic signal. <br /> <br />Ms. Hosterman noted the importance of informing the community as to why the <br />roundabouts were installed. The idea was to get the infrastructure built in anticipation of the <br />construction of Neal Elementary School, which would have been placed in between the two <br />roundabouts. This would have allowed traffic to ingress and egress from the school property <br />safely, allow traffic to continue to move on Vineyard Avenue and to slow traffic in the area in <br />anticipation of the construction of homes. <br /> <br />Pleasanton City Council <br />Minutes <br /> <br />5 <br /> <br />04/18/06 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.