PC 07/07/99 - Laserfiche WebLink

14. recognizes the future trip distribution can change to worsen traffic on Bernal Avenue; the West Las Positas interchange, which helps distribute traffic off Bernal Avenue, may not be built; and future uses at the Fairgrounds may bring additional dally traffic. The latest traffic build-out scenario -- 1998 Baseline -- continues to show Bemal Avenue intersections operating at adequate levels of service, as do most City intersections, at build-out. This projection would not lead one to forecast significantly-redistributed traffic along Bemal Avenue to avoid adverse levels of service (e.g., downtown). While staff would always prefer taking an incremental approach to approvals, staff recognizes San Francisco's need to assure full development of its project if it is to "front" the significant cost of the interchange improvements and contribute its amenity package (almost all of which occurs "up-front"). Principles of Agreement: Street widths, street courts, and round-abouts are not specifically addressed. Specifies that project's obligation to maintain LOS D is satisfied when specified improvements are completed. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends: (i) widening connector streets by two feet; (ii) leaving collector streets (defined as those carrying greater than 2,000 ADT) at 36 feet; (iii) leaving the optional 28, 30, 32 feet for local streets; (iv) leaving round-abouts as proposed except Case Avenue- Jnnipero Drive where a traffic signal should be installed; (v) allowing short courts as proposed; (vi) reviewing Bemal Avenue traffic LOS as part of a staged review of project impacts/mitigations (see #27, below). Staff recognizes that the latter recommendation was unable to be incorporated into the draft proposal due to the City's negotiating position coupled with San Francisco's distrust of the City's future good faith in dealing with its project. Should San Francisco have gained any level of comfort with Pleasanton's development review process in the intervening years, perhaps it can agree to such a review as described in #27 below. Paths/Trails Issue: The project does not construct the planned Arroyo de la Laguna trail, and a fully-separated pedestrian-bike trail should run along the commtmity park. Proposed Project: The arroyo trail is located within a reserve but would not be built by the project. The community park frontage of Pleasanton Avenue has on-street bike lanes, on-street parking, and a separated sidewalk. Alternatives: Require construction of arroyo trails. Substantive Issues/Alternatives Page 17 June 9, 1999