My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
8D Consent 2016 0705
CityHall
>
City Clerk
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
2016
>
Packet 2016 0705
>
8D Consent 2016 0705
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/28/2016 12:15:46 PM
Creation date
6/28/2016 11:47:06 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CM City Clerk-City Council
CM City Clerk-City Council - Document Type
Committee Highlights
Document Date (6)
7/5/2016
Retention
PERM
Document Relationships
_CC Agenda 2016 0705 CS + RG
(Reference)
Path:
\City Clerk\City Council\Agenda Packets\2016\Packet 2016 0705
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
7
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).
Download electronic document
View images
View plain text
File Number: 16-274 <br />For design, cost is also a primary consideration - where possible, parklets can be done in <br />conjunction with a streetscape project. Ideally business or building owners’ requests drive <br />creation of parklets and those owners take the initiative to make it happen. <br />The review and permitting of possible and planned parklets will most likely be kept with E&T. <br />CD, BD and PW will need to be involved in review process (PW for maintenance, drainage). <br />Parklet requirements should be: 6 ft. wide, inside parking tees, approximately 2 parking <br />spaces long, no fire hydrants, bus stops and other obstruction located nearby. Traffic safety <br />will be a major concern for parklets. Application process could require application fee or other <br />fee to offset loss of parking revenue. <br />Liability insurance is required by both SF and Oakland. Additionally, public noticing, outreach <br />to neighbors would be required as well as agreements on who will be responsible for <br />maintenance. Parklet would have to adhere to planning review, zoning and building codes, <br />and other City review as necessary. <br />Councilmember Lopez: Agrees on strategy to start off small and see how it goes before doing <br />an ordinance. Identify funding source. Maintenance? <br />Vice Mayor Reed: Who bears the financial responsibility for installation and maintenance - <br />proponent or City? <br />K. Cooke: Parklets (cost) and maintenance thereof becomes the responsibility of the <br />proponent and not the City. City’s responsibility is to review request (ADA, drainage, flooring) <br />and approving of parklets. <br />Vice Mayor Reed: Has anyone asked for it? <br />K. Cooke: Yes, near Zocalo Coffee on Bancroft. A worry is the excessive speeds of traffic <br />near that location as Bancroft speed limit is 35 MPH. Additional discussion regarding the <br />need for outreach to adjoining business. Business or property owners should be main <br />proponents for these projects. <br />Councilmember Lopez: Pilot program will go by posted speed limit or with speed limit at 85th <br />percentile? <br />K. Cooke: Most programs say 25MPH, while some locations at higher speeds probably will <br />look at individual location basis. <br />Councilmember Lopez: Liability will be held by proponent. Who’s responsible in excess of the <br />basic $1M? <br />J. Kay: Liability in excess of $1M would lie with City. Should have City Attorney and Risk <br />Management review liability. <br />Councilmember Lopez: Before proceeding with drafting ordinance, need to iron out liability <br />issue and consider if City should raise liability limits. Also how to address issue of design <br />standard and compatibility with neighborhood? Design standards will need to be addressed <br />Page 4 City of San Leandro Printed on 6/28/2016
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.