My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN082202SP
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
2000-2009
>
2002
>
CCMIN082202SP
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/17/2007 10:56:35 AM
Creation date
10/2/2002 4:25:34 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
8/22/2002
DOCUMENT NO
CCMIN082202SP
DOCUMENT NAME
TRAFFIC
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
18
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).
View images
View plain text
Mr. Roush indicated the City Clerk had not received any changes to any of the ballot <br />arguments as of this date. There may be a letter with changes tomorrow. If no changes come in, <br />then there is a time period within which a Petition for Writ of Mandate can be filed seeking a <br />change in the ballot argument. He asked the committee against the measure to consider the <br />portion dealing with state imposed fines. Currently there is not a state law that provides for state <br />imposed fines ifa city has difficulties with its land use policies and/or housing element. Given <br />the state of the law, he wanted the opponents of Measure V to revisit that issue and perhaps <br />propose different language that might not make the statement so emphatic. <br /> <br />Mr. Campbell asked if that was the only part of the argument in question? <br /> <br />Mr. Roush felt the rest of the argument was just argument. <br /> <br />2. REVIEW OF NEW CITY TRAFFIC MODEL <br /> <br />Jeff Knowles presented the staff report. <br /> <br /> Mayor Pico said this is a brand new, state of the art, way of analyzing traffic within the <br />city and region. Pleasanton is the only city to have this and it is an incredible tool. The traffic <br />metering project was a test to measure the validity of the model. <br /> <br /> Mr. Knowles explained there are two traffic models. The one shown at this meeting <br />generates future forecasts based on certain data. The simulation model tells what the resulting <br />levels of services would be. If staff receives a direction that metering is to be an option in the <br />future, staff would incorporate that into various scenarios. He indicated the metering project <br />caused traffic to react exactly as predicted. He was very comfortable that the models related to <br />real life conditions. <br /> <br /> A speaker asked where the data came from on which the model was based and has that <br />data been validated? <br /> <br /> Mr. Knowles said the city is divided into traffic zones based on homes and type of <br />business use and that generates traffic based on trip generation studies. Outside of the city, land <br />use data compiled for the Th-Valley model, including Livermore and Dublin in 2005 and 2025 <br />was added into the model, along with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission land use data <br />for the other nine Bay Area counties. There is no land use information from the San Joaquin <br />Valley, so traffic volume projection from other regional models are used as a substitute. For <br />example, staff does not know exactly how many cars come from what area of Tracy, but we <br />know how many cars are coming over the Altamont Pass. <br /> <br /> Cindy McGovem referred to the fact that we are trying to work regionally with <br />Livermore, Dublin and San Ramon and asked if those cities think this model is valid and would <br />be accepted by most cities in the Valley. If we all use it, we could resolve issues regionally. <br /> <br />Pleasanton City Council <br />Special Meeting Minutes <br /> <br />2 08/22/02 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.