CCMIN092496 - Laserfiche WebLink

the purpose of the five year report was to determine how urgently it needed to begin looking at either the West Las Positas interchange or alternatives. The bottomline answer was that the City will have five years to do an adequate study of the situation. If staff is to study the worst case scenarios, the buildout must be considered, not just five years or existing development plus current approvals. Staff can do as many analyses as desired and those should be done in relation to a specific project. With regard to comments about missing data on specific intersections in the neighborhood of the interchange, when the baseline report was started, it consisted of about fifteen intersections in the Business Park. Annually, other intersections have been added to the report and historic comparisons have then been run. Typically, the intersections that are added are signalized. If Council desires adding non-signalized intersections, staff can do that. Mr. van Geltier felt the tool, namely the baseline report, is a continuation of trends that are seen annually. Staff can try to project impacts of BART, increased use of Wheels, etc. but if they are not funded, he was not certain it was desirable to include them in a baseline on which other decisions are made. He further indicated Pleasanton has the best rideshating program in Alameda County to date. He did not know of reliable modeling techniques to do a citywide exercise. Ms. Michelotti indicated the new CMA report included traffic counts taken in the PM periods because that was assumed to be the worst. She indicated CMA had been advised that it should include AM traffic counts for 1-680 south for future reports. Mr. van Gelder agreed with her comments and believed the future CMA reports will be more accurate. He also indicated that in the past, staff has not done any measurements outside the city limits. If Council so desires, staff will expand the studies. Tom Gill again stated his belief that the baseline report was prepared with incorrect and incomplete data. The study of the interchange should not be based on bad data. The freeways are backed up almost to Stoneridge now and if there is an interchange, people will cut through the neighborhoods. There were no further speakers on this item. Mr. Pico suggested staff prepare an amendment to the baseline report to update the information and to include what will happen in the buildout phase of the city, not just in the next five years. He suggested including a buildout scenario that reflects Pleasanton's General Plan, impacts projected for the freeways, and those mitigation measures which can realistically be funded in the buildout period. Ms. Michelotti wanted to reassure the public that when projects are reviewed for traffic impacts, buildout data is always considered. The current baseline report was only done for five years. She asked Mr. van Gelder if there should be a separate report to include the information Mr. Pico requested, or could an amendment to the baseline report include the updated information. 09/24/96 -5-