4 - Laserfiche WebLink

out" traffic volumes based on travel times. Using the land development present in Pleasanton in 2006, the model was calibrated such that the model's traffic volumes and distribution projections for the "existing" conditions closely matched the actual traffic counts collected in the Spring of 2006. Based on the assumption that the model then closely reflects the City's real-life roadway network, traffic controls, and local and regional traffic origins and destinations, the model is able to simulate changing traffic conditions and travel patterns as land development adds additional traffic to the roadway network and various network improvements are made to the transportation infrastructure. A detailed description of the modeling process, the traffic network, traffic generation rates, and the land use inputs is included as Attachment 4. Land Use Alternatives and Discussion with Pleasanton Unified School District: As directed by the City Council, staff presented the Consensus Preferred Plan and the other two land use options shown in Attachment 2 to the Pleasanton Unified School District and asked for feedback regarding the District's ability to accommodate and serve those plan alternatives. Minutes from the October 10th and October 24th, 2006 PUSD Board meetings are attached as Attachment 11. The Board's conclusion was that the District can accommodate all three alternatives but that it preferred the City Consensus Preferred Plan or the Dispersed Growth Option because it was important that affordable housing be equally dispersed throughout the community and among schools to ensure the District schools are equitable. The Board also recommended some changes to policies related to schools in the Draft Public Facilities and Community Programs Element. These changes will be reflected in this draft element when the City Council next reviews it. Modeling Results: The model was run with the Preferred Land Use Plan build-out and the "working draft" circulation network agreed to by the City Council on August 29, 2006. The results of this model run are shown in Attachment 6. This attachment also includes data for existing conditions in the columns labeled "Existing." This existing conditions data is based on traffic counts taken in Spring 2006, which includes all occupied construction to that date, and therefore may differ slightly from the "existing" conditions discussed in the March 22,2005 report (Attachment 5). Note that staff did not optimize the "Existing" A, Band C level of service intersections and because of this, some of these A, Band C intersections appear to improve at build-out, since they are actually optimized for the build-out volumes but not the existing volumes. Intersections with an LOS of E or F are highlighted, indicating intersections that do not meet the existing General Plan standard of LOS D or better. The columns labeled "Build out Working Draft" show level of service at build out with the "working draft" circulation network improvements. Compared to existing conditions (2006) when a total of 12 intersections were at LOS E or F, the preferred plan shows that 18 intersections perform at LOS E or F at built out. Excluding Downtown intersections, the numbers drop to 8 intersections with an unacceptable level of service under existing conditions, and 9 intersections at build out. Attachments 7 and 8 are Page 3 of 6