PC 022515 - Laserfiche WebLink

whole corner. He noted that, as was brought up by one of the speakers, if the loop road were connected there, there would be additional cut - through traffic, although the numbers in the increase in traffic may not be accurate. He added that this would be the case as well on connecting the loop with Lund Ranch Road to Sunset Creek Lane or to Sycamore Creek Way. He explained that there was supposed to be a golf course connector road that is not Sycamore Road; it was supposed to come through Sycamore Creek Way. He stated that a connection there would be a nice alternate route to avoid Sunol Boulevard to get down and go straight to the golf course; it would be Independence Drive through the new Lund Ranch, through Lund Ranch Road and down to the new road through Sunset Creek Lane. He noted that there is a lot of cut - through on Sunol Boulevard in general, particularly for people trying to get on Sunol Boulevard /1 -680 southbound, by driving up over Riddell Street. He indicated that people will find the most convenient way, and if a way that connects is provided, people will take it, and some people drive ten minutes longer because they are moving. Mr. Tassano stated that cut - through is a real issue, and he did not wish to project what that amount of cut - through is because the increase in traffic when connecting a loop road is kind of equivalent on both sides, and from a resident perspective, no one is going to be happy. He confirmed that Junipero Street would provide a shorter alternative in some cases. Commissioner Balch stated that he recalls from the EIR that the first failure with respect to increased traffic is at 1 -680 and inquired if that was correct. Mr. Tassano said yes, but clarified that it would not be as a result of this project. Chair Allen inquired if he meant that it appears on the report that the on -ramps are the worst -case issue to which this project contributes, but that is not the case. Mr. Tassano said yes. He explained that that is the lowest level -of- service location and probably in the greatest need of some sort of mitigation, a traffic signal that staff plans to design in the next couple of years for Sunol Boulevard regardless of this project. He noted that the contribution of 60 peak -hour trips at that location does not sway the numbers; two vehicles per traffic signal cycle is kind of a generalized fluctuation. Commissioner Balch inquired if the two- cars - per -light metering is by Caltrans and not the City. Mr. Tassano said yes. He explained that because the Sunol Boulevard southbound on ramp onto 1 -680 is only a single lane, the metering condition has to go two- cars - per -green in order to get enough vehicles through that location. He stated that it is not a completely efficient use because a lot of people do not use the two - cars - per - green, so not enough vehicles get through that location as desired. He indicated that the alternative is to build a second bridge structure to get two lanes to get on and then switch to one - car - per -green at that location. He reiterated that this is a future project that the City is going to start to design, but it is not really connected with this project. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, February 25, 2015 Page 32 of 46