01 - Laserfiche WebLink

Councilmember Sullivan asked about sensitivity analysis for an economic study or a traffic study. He said there are some assumptions based on the effectiveness of regional improvements, such as doing things to I-580, but 10 years ago, no one envisioned what is happening on I-580. So for us to forecast 20 years and use a model to say this is what traffic is going to be like he felt were a guess and felt there should be some plus or minus factor on the models or a percentage. Ms. Sterner said, for example, the HOV lane to be added eastbound, they assume somewhere between 1,500 and 1,800 vehicles could use that during a peak hour. So they could actually get into the city and cut-through the city, this is your maximum number that would bounce from the freeway going back into the city. She would caution him because the city is at capacity getting in and out of the city, so they wouldn’t necessarily happen during the peak hour; you would have people changing their travel patterns overall. Councilmember Sullivan said his point is that this is just a model or forecast based on a set of assumptions, and Ms. Sterner said there is a lot of delay assumed in the model in the future. There are many improvements at intersections to address the amount of delay. When you look at with and without Stoneridge, you are looking at changes in travel patterns, but we are not looking at huge amounts of change in delay overall, but looking at where it was delayed at Valley and Stanley and where it might be delayed somewhere else. City Manager Fialho said also what is not contemplated in the model are improvements we know that are in the regional system that have been tentatively approved by the Triangle group that includes I-580, the flyover at I-580/I-680, SR 84 and improvements on I-680. Worst case/base case scenario here is that anything that happens regionally in the future will benefit Pleasanton and alleviate cut-through and internal traffic. Councilmember Thorne referred to the land use plan and said when Council looks at it at the next meeting; Council will select one of the land use scenarios to put in the General Plan. None of them actually include some of the potential in-fill projects we have around the City. He wants to make sure we do not take away our ability to actually use these in-fill projects at a later date if we have them under the housing cap. Some of the projects in the works may not use all of their allotted houses, and we can re-distribute these into other in-fill projects. He said there is currently land on Stanley Boulevard that is not zoned for housing but it could be and there might be some interest by the owner in looking at this. The San Francisco Water District property was not included in the plan and he questioned the Vineyard Shopping Center as to whether it would come up as a potential housing location or not. He wants to make sure that when Council looks at this, it will not destroy our ability to go back and redistribute some of these numbers. City Manager Fialho said you have not and the reason is that regarding the three sites mentioned, under the consensus preferred plan option, we have a line item of a 200-unit placeholder that can be dispersed as the Council decides they want or wish to do in-fill development. Also, as development projects come forward and we do not hit the match for that particular site, such as Oak Grove’s difference in the number of units, that difference would get deposited into the reserve and applied accordingly per Council’s preference from a policy perspective. Councilmember Thorne said when the Triangle study was completed, were any of the other internal streets within the tri-valley included in the discussion? City Manager Fialho said yes, for Dublin and Livermore we modeled their general plan for Triangle traffic modeling purposes and that included Dublin Boulevard, Jack London and Airway Boulevard. It did not include Stoneridge Drive and West Las Positas Interchange. They made a case at the beginning of the Workshop Minutes 12 April 24, 2007