CCMIN031604 - Laserfiche WebLink

She asked if this would have a significant impact? She referred to the 86 vehicles per hour figure, which breaks down to about one and a half vehicles per minute, which might not seem significant until the LOS levels are considered. She noted that LOS D allows for three vehicles per minute, and if one and a half vehicles per minute are added, it increased by 50 percent. LOS E is four vehicles per minute and if one and half cars were added to that it would be 37 and a half percent, which is significant. LOS F without the additional traffic from the water park shows a delay of 80 seconds, and drivers have to wait for multiple green lights. She asked how the City would take these additional traffic levels when the traffic levels are already at LOS F? She reviewed the 2003 Baseline Traffic Report and analyzed the figures for the LOS at Stanley Boulevard, Bernal Avenue and Valley Avenue. In 2003, the traffic levels are at LOS F for both northbound and southbound traffic. In 2010, the traffic level is projected to be an average of LOS E, and in 2025 to build out, it averages at LOS E and F in all directions. She pointed out that there is no reverse commute on Stanley Boulevard. The commute flows in both directions. She found the same traffic projections to be tree of Santa Rita Road and Valley Avenue. She pointed out that the Planning Commission documents state that the 20 percent of the traffic is drop offtraffic. She was unclear whether this statement was included in the traffic figures. If20 percent of the traffic is dropping off, then 20 percent of the traffic is leaving and 20 percent is going back again. The traffic report states that "as long as City policy is to limit regional cut-through traffic within Pleasanton and provide a LOS D or better conditions within Pleasanton, staff recommends that further capacity increase in projects not be constructed at the intersection of Stanley Boulevard at Bemal and Valley Avenues." She was trying to understand why this project was even being considered, as the traffic levels are high without the additional traffic. She believed that the weekend traffic figures of 50 percent were also going to be peak traffic figures for people going to Ikea in Dublin. She did not believe people would wait on 1-580 going eastbound to exit on Airway Boulevard if drivers knew they could get off and drive through Pleasanton at Hacienda Drive, Hopyard Road and Santa Rita Road. She urged Council to take these issues into consideration. She noted that many of the reports assume that E1 Charro Road will be built which will alleviate traffic. She has heard differently from several councilmembers that this is unlikely to happen within the next 10 years. She did not believe the traffic figures were adequate for Council to make any decision. The traffic figures are hazy and the impact on traffic already exists. She strongly urged Council to uphold the Planning Commission's decision. Mindy Kane, 3679 Canelli Court, a member of the No Water Park.com organization, spoke about the water park and its compatibility with the General Plan. She believed there were a number of topics that make the expansion of the water park inconsistent with the General Plan. She noted that the E1 Charro Road expansion to Stanley Boulevard is cited a number of times in the traffic study performed by TJKM Transportation Consultants, and in a letter to the applicant dated June 13, 2003. The traffic study states that the opening of E1 Charro Road will draw traffic away from the Santa Rita corridor and will relieve traffic at the Bemal Avenue, Stanley Boulevard and Valley Avenue intersection. She concluded that Council could not give the approval for the expansion of water park if this project was relying on items in the General Plan to be completed in the future. In addition, the circulation element of the 2003 Baseline Traffic Pleasanton City Council 32 03/16/04 Minutes