SR 06:204 - Laserfiche WebLink

City of Pleasanton, CA - City Council Page 8 of 12 Mayor Hosterman said this process started several months ago. There is a lot of good information to be shared with the public. She wanted to get through the next five or six workshops in order to get some work done. She wanted to continue the process as begun. Mr. Brozosky said the process was set by staff because if felt that was the best way to accomplish this. There are some advantages to Mr. Arkin's plan, but at this point the idea is to review the model and how it works. At a certain point, maybe we could flip things around and work with what we have today and move forward. Mr. Sullivan expressed his concern that whatever process is followed that an environmental impact report could be prepared that will not be challenged because of the process used or not used. It does make some sense to add things in rather than take things out. Although there has been a lot of focus on cut through traffic, it is also important to understand the number of cars commuting into Pleasanton from somewhere else, that is not classified as cut through traffic but has much the same impact to the community. He also wanted to understand the number of Pleasanton residents who are commuting out of Pleasanton and have the same impact as cut through traffic. If we are trying to get to solutions for these commute, work-related trips, what do we do to address them other than widening roads and building more interchanges. There must be other options to be reviewed. Mr. Knowles indicated that when the models were calibrated five residential areas in each of the quadrants were selected to review the various travel patterns. Staff wanted to make certain Ruby Hill traffic was not being shown working in Tracy simply because it was closer to Tracy than those near Foothill. Sample locations can be studied to see how traffic is going to or coming from them. It is difficult to do that on a citywide basis. Ms. Roberts asked staff to indicate in these demonstrations how it is trying to minimize traffic rather than accommodate traffic when it is discussing the street widenings. Mr. Knowles comment that we need to define what cut through traffic means. When looking at the traffic model and traffic flow, there is a difference between using a phrase like cut through traffic and talking about the number of cut through vehicles. Does the public at large see traffic as the number of cars or congestion delay and how long it takes to get to a destination? There are examples where a roadway capacity could be increased by 50% and volume goes up by 20%. That means there are more cars but the delays just decreased. It is important to understand how local drivers are impacted when using these roadways. Ms. McGovern indicated she was a little overwhelmed by all the information, especially since the discussions were jumping from one topic to the next and in the process the assumptions were changing. She suggesting dividing the city into quadrants (north, south, east and west) and taking one quadrant at a time to review in accordance with the 1996 General Plan and then apply the new assumptions. ln that way, it would be easier for her to determine what new development is acceptable, what roads need to be improved, etc. For example, there was just discussion about Foothill Road and Dublin Canyon Road and the fact that it will be LOS F. She did not see how it could reach that level. She was overwhelmed. Ms. Fox said she agreed with Mr. Arkin's approach. We know the 1996 General Plan does not work and the levels of service listed do not reflect reality. She was surprised about discussing widening streets at this point. She felt that decision was far down the line after a http://www.ci.pleasanton.ca.us/archive/ccwsminutes050111.html 8/22/2006