My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 072606
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2000-2009
>
2006
>
PC 072606
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/5/2017 3:24:49 PM
Creation date
7/12/2007 9:49:54 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
7/26/2006
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 072606
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
24
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
back and amend the General Plan should the traffic engineer need to make future <br />changes. She added that she would prefer to discuss levels of service and preferred levels <br />of service rather than specific numbers of lanes and detailed changes. <br />Commissioner Olson agreed with Commissioners Blank and Peazce that this level of <br />detail should not be addressed in the General Plan. He requested clazification on whether <br />the models will be run on these three alternatives. <br />Chairperson Arkin indicated that the City Council has already made its decision on this <br />matter, and Ms. Stern confirmed that the preferred network the Council chose included <br />improvements in both Alternatives A and B, without Alternative C. <br />Commissioner Olson stated that it was his understanding that the Environmental Impact <br />Report (EIR) for the General Plan would include the Stoneridge Drive extension and the <br />West Las Positas Boulevazd interchange. He indicated that he was pleased to see them in <br />Alternative C as part of the General Plan and inquired why it was not included in the <br />preferred draft. <br />Ms. Stern replied that the EIR is required to analyze the existing General Plan, which <br />includes items in Alternative C; however, the preliminary analysis on the network <br />selected by the Council did not include the improvements in Alternative C. She added <br />that if the Commission so desired, it could make a recommendation to the Council to <br />~ include those items. <br />Commissioner Olson expressed concern regarding why those improvements aze excluded <br />when the models indicate that the City's traffic conditions in general will improve with <br />those specific improvements. <br />Chairperson Arkin clarified that the process does not define absolutely or theoretically <br />that the best circulation network will be acceptable to the community. He added that the <br />Council has already weighed on this and that compromises have to be made. <br />Commissioner Olson noted that some of the emails he has received from the community <br />refer to those specific improvements and expressed concern that they were not included <br />in the analysis. <br />Ms. Stern reiterated that this can be recommended to the Council, and Council can <br />consider the recommendation. <br />Chairperson Arkin stated that every individual Commissioner's comment and concerns <br />will be consolidated into a staff report and presented to the Council. <br />Commissioner Olson concurred with Commissioner Blank that this level of detail should <br />not be in the General Plan so the Traffic Engineers can make changes as necessary. <br />T' <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, July 26, 2006 Page 5 of 24 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.