SR 06:204 - Laserfiche WebLink

City of Pleasanton, CA - City Council PagelOofl2 everything else is equal, including Rose A venue, traffic changes on Hopyard and various other streets. That gives an idea of where traffic would go with other improvements already there. If you start taking away more than one thing, then traffic is going to shift again, but at least you will have some idea of where the origins and destinations are, which is the first thing shown, and what routes may be available to accommodate that. Mr. Brozosky said there is a General Plan that we know does not work. He did not want to be consistent with it. He could see the reason for showing how things are removed from the 1996 Plan and making certain the EIR process is correct. Mr. Sullivan clarified that he wanted to make certain the EIR is not challenged legally by taking something out before the plan is reviewed with it included. He believed that was required for the EIR process. Mr. Brozosky suggested selecting one area, such as an intersection with Santa Rita, and really go into detail about the traffic and how staff determines where it comes from and where it is going and what is cut through. He would like one sheet of paper listing all the assumptions used in the model: the expected growth, the roads around the city, Vallecitos Road, 580 HOT lanes, etc. He would like something that looks at a large segment of road rather than an intersection, for example how long does it take to get from one part of Santa Rita to another part. He would not mind a level of service F at one intersection if he know the rest of the route would be much faster. He felt people were more concemed about how long it takes to get from point A to point B in the city. Mayor Hosterman commented that staff has heard comments from people who are concerned that the General Plan update is done right and that traffic is thoroughly addressed. There needs to be a thorough understanding of the implications of the ErR and there are some concerns about the process. She asked staff to review other options. She was comfortable with the methodology presented. She referred to the request to get all assumptions on one page and felt that was possible in the future, but maybe not by the next workshop. She felt it was important to allow staff to go through the staff reports at the workshops to help inform the entire community. She then invited public comment. Vanessa Kawaihau, 871 Sycamore Road, thanked staff for answering her emails and explaining what street extensions are. She considered the 1998 amendment to the General Plan regarding the bypass road as an extension between Sycamore Creek Way and Clubhouse Drive, even though the terminus is a dead-end at the clubhouse. That extension is not in the current staff report. She noted that the baseline report is not available on the city's website archives. She liked the suggestion of no development if there is no bypass road. She also agreed with the suggestion of one page listing the assumptions. Tom Pico, 795 Neal Place, urged the Council and Commission to follow the plan set forth in the staff report on pages 4 and 5. Everyone wants to see the presentation of the combined land use, network and policy scenarios, so we can get closer to reality. The process will get us there even if it is slower than some would like. This workshop was to look at the model and assumptions and to see if we are in concurrence with them since that will be the basis for future options. Pursuant to the staff outline, in a couple of weeks there will be a presentation on network options and then land use alternatives. Staff will get directions on what combinations to use for the model runs. Finally, the results will be presented and that is when the tough decisions will be made. He was concerned with the Table I Level of http://www.ci.pleasanton.ca.us/archive/ccwsminutes0501 I I.html 8/22/2006