CCMIN071602 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. O'Callaghan felt this should be an information report and did not understand what Council was approving. He stressed his desire for a small town atmosphere and did not want traffic signals on every comer. Mayor Pico said what is being approved is the baseline traffic report and the model. The report is a critical part of our analysis of traffic in an on-going basis, which is a critical part of development project approval. The second recommendation is authorization of a test of the model and traffic metering. That will adjust the timing of a traffic to find the best way to allow traffic to flow as freely as possible and encourage people to stay on the freeway if possible. He encouraged public comment as this process goes on. Matt Sullivan, 7882 Flagstone Drive, said the traffic model is a much improved tool for evaluation of traffic impacts. This shows that traffic will be much worse at buildout than we have previously been able to forecast. He had questions about the assumptions being used including the following: Will Highway 84 be four lanes or two? Do we have the right volume numbers for the Altamont/San Joaquin traffic? Do we really want thirteen or more additional traffic lights? He also had questions about the goals: Do we want more traffic capacity or are we more interested in livability and pedestrian safety? What price are we willing to pay for the building of the West Las Positas interchange and Stoneridge Drive extension? He felt that was money that would be better spent elsewhere. He believed those two improvements would open the flood gates of traffic from 1-580 and 1-680 into Pleasanton resulting in more traffic, pedestrian impacts, and hazards to school children. He wanted the traffic model to be rerun without the West Las Positas interchange and the Stoneridge Drive extension to determine what the results were. He felt it may find that the same metering concept proposed for Sunol could keep traffic out of the city. He believed that if Council does not take these two elements out of the General Plan, there may be citizen actions in the form of referendum or initiative to do so in the future. He believed there were other actions that could be taken to minimize the impacts on Stoneridge Drive and 1-680. He believed there should be discussion about what the City of Pleasanton can or cannot control, such as regional growth and traffic, level of service standards, amount of traffic let into Pleasanton, or ultimate level of development in Pleasanton. He believed that development in Pleasanton was probably the only thing it could really control. Steve Brozosky, 1700 Vineyard Avenue, commended staff on an excellent job. He acknowledged traffic is probably one of the biggest problems in Pleasanton and felt this model will help in finding solutions. He believed there were two big areas of concern: cut-through traffic and traffic flow within the city. He felt the metering proposal was a good thing to try, but felt it should be done more than two weeks. He thought a signal at Arlington is a great idea. Even though it would not help people in the city, it is a free way to try the metering concept and if it works, then the metered light could be added at the exit ramp at Sunol Boulevard. Another place this could be tried is on Stanley Boulevard. He noted 95% of the morning traffic on Stanley is cut-through traffic and he felt keeping the light on at Valley/Bemal/Stanley and a no right turn onto Vineyard from Isabel might also be tried. For general circulation, he believed that was a matter of quality of life. We have all had the experience of driving down a street and encountering one traffic light after another. You don't care if one intersection is at LOS C and another is D or B, if you hit four of those. He preferred to have one intersection at D or E and know he would make every other light in town. He hoped this model will tell how we can keep Pleasanton City Council 8 07/16/02 Minutes