SR 06:204 - Laserfiche WebLink

DRAFT Commissioner Pearce stated that she believed the level of detail that appears in Attachment I should not be in the General Plan. She indicated that she appreciated the detailed work being done for the traffic model but that she does not want to have to go back and amend the General Plan should the traffic engineer need to make future changes. She added that she would prefer to discuss levels of service and preferred levels of service rather than specific numbers of lanes and detailed changes. Commissioner Olson agreed with Commissioners Blank and Pearce that this level of detail should not be addressed in the General Plan. He requested clarification on whether the models will be run on these three alternatives. Chairperson Arkin indicated that the City Council has already made its decision on this matter, and Ms. Stern confirmed that the preferred network the Council chose included improvements in both Alternatives A and B, without Alternative C. Commissioner Olson stated that it was his understanding that the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the General Plan would include the Stoneridge Drive extension and the West Las Positas Boulevard interchange. He indicated that he was pleased to see them in Alternative C as part of the General Plan and inquired why it was not included in the preferred draft. Ms. Stern replied that the EIR is required to analyze the existing General Plan, which includes items in Alternative C; however, the preliminary analysis on the network selected by the Council did not include the improvements in Alternative C. She added that if the Commission so desired, it could make a recommendation to the Council to include those items. Commissioner Olson expressed concern regarding why those improvements are excluded when the models indicate that the City's traffic conditions in general will improve with those specific improvements. Chairperson Arkin clarified that the process does not define absolutely or theoretically that the best circulation network will be acceptable to the community. He added that the Council has already weighed on this and that compromises have to be made. Commissioner Olson noted that some of the emails he has received from the community refer to those specific improvements and expressed concern that they were not included in the analysis. Ms. Stern reiterated that this can be recommended to the Council, and Council can consider the recommendation. Chairperson Arkin stated that every individual Commissioner's comment and concerns will be consolidated into a staffreport and presented to the Council. Commissioner Olson concurred with Commissioner Blank that this level of detail should not be in the General Plan so the Traffic Engineers can make changes as necessary. DRAFT EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, July 26, 2006 Page 3 of8