CCMIN050107 - Laserfiche WebLink

maintain flexibility and she does not want to tie the hands of future Councils. She wants to talk about 3 things; Stoneridge Drive, current traffic and safety problems, and the land use issue. Regarding Stoneridge Drive, her objective is to keep Stoneridge Drive in the general plan for two reasons; 1) to see if improvements made to I-580, I-680, and 84 to keep regional traffic on regional roadways works; 2) to see if the traffic model for 2030 is true. Can we keep Stoneridge a local street with minimal cut-through traffic? She feels it takes time to find both of those answers and she wants to make sure the Council does. Also, she felt we needed to start moving and working on this today and one of the things that should be is to ask the community to go on their search, look up Alameda County Congestion Management Agency (ACCMA) and Google it, go to “contact us”, ask representatives to put State Route 84 back on the priority list, and if they want to see the results about whether Stoneridge would be extended or not, they might want to move it up on the priority list from number 7 to number 1. Secondly, she felt we also need to contact the Tri-Valley Transportation Council. We were told in June, there would be a projects study report asked to be funded by them on State Route 84 and this is what we need to get the funding, so we must have this documentation done first. She hoped everyone could also use Google for this agency’s website. These two websites were important in trying to move forward on State Route 84, and she hoped people would take the time to do this. Regarding current traffic and safety, she honestly believes that even while we are waiting to make some decisions on the Stoneridge Drive extension, we need to look at current problems. We need to formulate initiatives and steps that are going to help rectify and mitigate this as much as possible. One thing we need to do is look at safety issues for bicyclists and pedestrians. We must move forward on plans in those areas because it also reduces congestion. We need traffic signalization/synchronization and we should be planning on whether or not we can have a traffic monitor which will help us with actual current time at adjusting signals to reduce queues and get people through the intersections. We should look at reducing noise levels on all heavily traveled streets by using rubberized asphalt or mixed aggregate asphalt, and we need to move on these types of things to build trust with the public as we are hearing what their concerns are. She felt next, we should look at police traffic enforcements on highly traveled streets and ticketing. Lastly, she was still concerned about the downtown delay times. She honestly believes if we get too far where people are waiting too long in the queues, we are going to hurt our downtown. Concerning the land use issue, she was still looking at affordable by design housing, still looking for affordable housing in general, likes the most flexibility possible, and she would support a plan that would provide flexibility. Regarding ratification, she was concerned about having a ratification vote. She questioned what would happen if 51%, 52% or 55% of the people say yes, this is the right direction. That means another whole portion of the community is not supporting that and you have not ratified, so what then? What percentage of a vote would it take to make us feel we really have the public’s support for a plan? What she would like to do is the steps she discussed tonight, see if public trust is built, see if the direction we are going is trying to make the right efforts and at any time, if Stoneridge City Council Minutes 21 May 1, 2007