Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Tarver referred to the maps that show levels of service at various intersections <br /> and asked for further explanation. <br /> <br /> Mr. van Gelder explained the maps show worst case scenarios, but there are <br /> mitigations. He explained what level of service is allowed by the General Plan. There <br /> are only three locations where staff has not developed adequate mitigations <br /> (Hopyard/Owens, Santa RitaJStoneridge, and eastbound off-ramp on Hopyard). <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver felt the model continued to reflect "existing plus approved" <br /> development. He felt it was critical to make those levels of service designations go <br /> down. He clarified that the intent is to continue to work on mitigations until the build out <br /> chart looks like the existing plus approved chart. <br /> <br /> Mr. van Gelder agreed. He described possible solutions to various intersections. <br /> <br /> Mr. Pico felt that if the last baseline report had included similar maps to what is in <br /> the current report, there would have been only one intersection at level of service F. He <br /> believed there was a significant increase in impacted intersections that exceed the <br /> General Plan limitations. Was this because of technical improvements and increased <br /> sophistication in modeling? <br /> <br />.- Mr. van Gelder believed that was true. <br /> <br /> Ms. Michelotti believed the previous model did not reflect the reality that is <br /> apparent in the present model. She would like to have a simulation that shows the <br /> changes that will result from the various mitigation measures. <br /> <br /> Mr. Pico said the General Plan requires a level of service D or better at all <br /> intersections except some downtown. What is being shown on the current maps is a <br /> warning sign that that will not happen. That is a real concern of his. The purpose of the <br /> model is to alert Council that there is a problem and action needs to be taken to prevent <br /> the situation. <br /> <br /> Mr. van Gelder agreed land use was a major part of the model. However, when a <br /> model is run with zero growth in the Tri-Valley, there is still freeway congestion <br /> problems. If CalTrans cannot keep up with freeway demands, there is an impact on the <br /> City of Pleasanton. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver understood that the mitigations would reduce the levels of service at <br /> various intersections. <br /> <br /> Mr. van Gelder said that is the plan. Staff will bring back engineering solutions <br /> and also land use and freeway delivery concerns, along with recommendations best for <br /> each situation. <br /> <br /> Pleasanton City Council 11 07/20/99 <br /> <br /> <br />