PC 071206 - Laserfiche WebLink

d. General Plan Circulation Network Consider refinements to the "working draft" General Plan circulation (roadway) network and provide comment prior to consideration of the draft General Plan circulation network by the City Council. Ms. Stern summarized the staff report, and described the history and scope of this document. She noted that on August 20, 2005, the City Council selected the "working draft" circulation network described in Alternative B of the staff report. Alternative B consists of the circulation system assumed at the buildout of the 1996 General Plan, without the West Las Positas Boulevazd interchange and the Stoneridge Drive extension to El Charro Road. Staff recommended the following refinements: 1. Staff s understanding of the desired community chazacter where the network change would provide only minimal traffic flow improvement; 2. Comments and decisions made by the City Council regazding specific roadway extensions and widenings; and 3. Updated information regazding regional plans and recognition of the improvements listed that are not within the City's jurisdiction. Staff requested that the Commission focus its feedback primazily on roadway extensions and widenings; traffic signal locations and changes to intersection geometrics may be important locally. Staff recommended the following changes in Attachment 1: 1. Changes related to a revision of CalTrans plans for I-680 and I-580, consisting mainly of a change in the location of a High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lane on I-580 and the addition of an HOV lane northbound on I-680; 2. The deletion of planned traffic signals on Valley Avenue; while they improve the traffic flow, they also change the character of that residential azea; 3. The deletion of a change to one-way traffic on Spring Street. This had been considered as a way to increase pazking capacity in the Downtown azea, but other strategies aze currently being considered. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Fox regazding the difference between Alternatives A and B, Ms. Stem replied that there were three sets of improvements in Attachment 1. The first set of improvements was Alternative A: Pleasanton intersection capacity enhancements - Existing and approved Pleasanton Land Development, plus regional 2025 development with buildout of the Livermore and Dublin General Plans). Alternative B added the buildout of the Livermore and Dublin General Plans and addressed would what be needed to efficiently deal with that land use. Alternative B consisted of all the improvements on the sheets (Alternatives A and B). She detailed the various deletions and changes contained in Alternative B. Staff requested that the Planning Commission review and consider the recommended refinements to the working draft circulation network and to provide input prior to City Council review. Staff would model the preferred land use plan on this network, and the results should be available in October; staff will return to the Planning Commission with those results. 27