CCMIN031803 - Laserfiche WebLink

Carl Pretzel, 3633 Glacier Court, indicated that the West Las Positas Committee found that the interchange alone would not solve all the traffic problems, merely delay them. The Stoneridge braided on ramp would have to be constructed anyway. There was some question in the staff report whether that would be accepted by CalTrans. He said that is wholly consistent with the ultimate 580/680 interchange. In terms of design, there is no doubt that is needed and in the future that would be approved. The other thing not mentioned in the staff report is that the General Plan can be made consistent with just a policy change. There are exceptions in the General Plan to the LOS D standard and the model shows that close to downtown, intersections are going to be LOS F. The new traffic model indicates there are many problems without the West Las Positas interchange. It does not reduce the problems if it is installed. The old model showed no effect at Sunol and a very small effect at Bemal. That was with the original San Francisco plan including 1900 homes, not the 540 homes now approved. There should actually be some relief there. The only area that is negatively affected is Stoneridge, which would have about 28% more traffic without the West Las Positas interchange. On the other hand, the traffic levels on West Las Positas will increase dramatically and he believed the sum total would just be more traffic. It is clear to him that it is in the City's interest to remove the interchange. The question is how to do it. He was disappointed to hear a General Plan update will take three years. That is too long. He would prefer a process that takes about a year and a half. He believed a Council directed initiative or other action should take place. He referred to the staff recommendation to continue with studies. He did not want to take any action that would be a step toward approving the interchange. He indicated removing the interchange from the General Plan would also remove it from a list of projects maintained by CalTrans. Once an item is off that list, it is very difficult to get back on. He did not know the name of that list. He asked if Caltrans could be requested to take the interchange off the list without a General Plan change. There was discussion about an initiative to remove funding for the interchange, but he felt you might just as well remove the interchange. If the object is to gauge the feeling of the people, then the measure should state what you really want to do. He again stated there are intersections downtown that are greater than LOS D. Ms. McKeehan indicated some of those are intersections are greater than LOS D on purpose. The purpose was to make the downtown more pedestrian friendly and the tradeoff for the intersections was found to be acceptable. Phil SaFe, 3644 Glacier Court, said he did not want the West Las Positas interchange to be built. He believed it was a matter of safety for the school children. He said he served on the West Las Positas Committee and it reviewed a lot of information before reaching its conclusion. He signed the minority report because he preferred to do nothing that would facilitate getting the interchange built. He believed the interchange would put freeway traffic into four residential neighborhoods. Traffic would cut through them to get to the businesses. He reiterated this would be unsafe for the school children. He noted the speed limits at various locations from Foothill Boulevard to Hopyard Road along with the blind curve near the Department of Motor Vehicles office on West Las Positas. He related the issues reviewed by the Committee with regard to the braided ramps at Stoneridge, Highway 84 improvements, etc. He referred to the proposal of Mr. Kummer for a park and expressed his support of that. There were no further speakers on this item. Pleasanton City Council 25 03/18/03 Minutes