SUPPLEMENTAL - Laserfiche WebLink

SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL 2 Agenda Item #23 1. Request for Traffic Analysis. A. A supplemental memo from the City Traffic Engineer will be available as supplemental material, providing additional analysis of driver safety accessing Foothill Drive, particularly for drivers making left turns. The analysis concludes there would be no safety issues, since adequate sight distances would exist to allow safe turning movements – the analysis considered actual traffic volumes, speeds, and accident data for this segment of Foothill, as well as factoring in driver behavior for senior drivers specifically. However, the analysis acknowledges that senior drivers may seek a higher level of comfort than younger drivers when waiting for an appropriate gap to make turns, which could cause them to wait longer to turn left. The analysis recommends the following condition of approval be added: 1) Require the applicant to install speed radar signs on Foothill to help control speeds and 2) Once the project is constructed, City to conduct monitoring of driver turn delays, and if that delay is excessive, at the discretion of the City, use Traffic Impact Fees to install a traffic signal at Muirwood/Foothill. [Note that this location is recommended to both benefit the higher volume of side-street traffic turning on to Foothill, and provide an alternative for project traffic to detour via Muirwood to take advantage of the signal to make a protected turn. The memo does not recommend installation of the signal at the project entry, because the low number of left turns (approximately 14 left turns in the peak hour) does not warrant installation of a signal.] 2. Request for information regarding RHNA credits and why approval of application is before confirmation of receiving full RHNA credit. A. The Council’s action is to authorize the submittal of an annexation request to LAFCO (rather than approval of the annexation, which is an action of the LAFCO Board). The annexation proceedings are the formal process through which negotiations around tax sharing and the RHNA apportionment will occur. Ultimately, the Council will need to review and approve the tax sharing and RHNA apportionment proposals, as will the County Board of Supervisors. Based on conversations with County staff, there is no reason to believe the County will seek to claim substantial, if any, RHNA credit for this site. Without annexation, and particularly without the ability to connect to City utilities, the development capacity of this site within the County is extremely low. The County has not in the past “counted” this site in its RHNA inventory, and it does not appear in the June 2024 Alameda County Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element. While staff is confident a suitable agreement will be reached, per the procedures outlined in the Government Code, if the County and City cannot