SR 05:070 - Laserfiche WebLink

while allowing uncongested flows in other movements. Measures can be taken to reduce peak-hour traffic through peak-hour spreading, bus, ride-share, bike, and other traffic management programs. And, for some intersections, no mitigation may be the appropriate resolution. For the "Existing Plus Approved" scenario, land use changes are not a practical option, but they are for "Buildout" scenarios. Typically, traffic "mitigations" come with other effects which the Council must ultimately weigh when determining the final circulation network and policies. These can include safety, neighborhood compatibility, cost, aesthetics, noise, air pollution, regional mobility, economic development, and a host of other effects. NEXT STEPS Staff anticipates slowly moving through the information included in this report. Staff believes that the decision-makers and public fully understand the level-of-service concept and the starting point for any possible circulation changes. Staff anticipates this will require both the March 8, 2005 and March 22, 2005 workshops. The Option B process described in the February 8, 2005 staff report indicated that the street network would be explored next, using the "Existing Plus Approved" land use base. Staff suggests that this be done by identifying possible traffic network-based solutions to the "Existing Plus Approved" land use base, with changes ranging from minimal ones to current General Plan circulation system options. In this manner, the mitigation would start small and then possibly "grow" as land uses are added/changed. This approach can be identified as Option B-1. However, at the conclusion of the February 8, 2005 workshop, it appeared that Council's preference was to first add/change land uses and then determine traffic network results. For example, a "low intensity" General Plan land use scenario could be developed to explore circulation system solutions. This option can be referred to as Option B-2. In further considering these two approaches, staff believes that it would be preferable to proceed as described in Option B-l: first considering potential circulation system options to "Existing Plus Approved" land uses, then adding/changing land uses. Staff believes that this approach would be consistent with the purpose of Option B: making street network changes based on land uses which are more familiar and understandable to Pleasanton residents. Then, after possible street network mitigations are considered for this more realistic and understandable land use base, land uses can be added/changed, traffic impacts would be identified, and corresponding street network changes would be developed to mitigate resulting traffic impacts. The other traffic "mitigation" measures would be explored as well, with all those deemed most promising then incorporated into the first of alternative, comprehensive land use/circulation options. SR 05:070 Page 10