Laserfiche WebLink
recommends a letter be sent to the CMA, with forwards to both the Plans and Program <br />Committee and the Board, highlighting the following points: <br />1) The Study is not a consensus document as stated in the Study purpose. All PAC <br />members have unanimously supported the consensus concept and deviating <br />from this purpose at this time is counterproductive to addressing regional traffic <br />issues. <br />2) The City will request that all future traffic modeling include both "with" and <br />"without" State Route 84 improvements, in order to determine the level of impact <br />of the projects on the City of Pleasanton's local traffic. <br />3) The City will need to more closely scrutinize all regional development projects <br />which are planned without State Route 84 improvements. <br />4) Without a plan for State Route 84 improvements, the City will proceed with <br />pending litigation regarding the I-680 northbound HOV lane project, since it will <br />bring additional traffic to the I-680/1-580 project and result in additional cut <br />through traffic in Pleasanton. <br />S 'tted by~ Approved by: <br />Lif ' l <br />~'p(~- Rob Wilson Nelson Fialho <br />Public Works Director City Manager <br />Attachments: <br />1. Hybrid alternative 1 <br />2. Hybrid alternative 1A <br />Page 3 of 3 <br />