CCMIN011105 - Laserfiche WebLink

Vanessa Kawaihau, 871 Sycamore Road, thanked staff for answering her emails and explaining what street extensions are. She considered the 1998 amendment to the General Plan regarding the bypass road as an extension between Sycamore Creek Way and CJubhouse Drive, even though the terminus is a dead-end at the clubhouse. That extension is not in the current staff report. She noted that the baseline report is not available on the city's website archives, She liked the suggestion of no development if there is no bypass road. She also agreed with the suggestion of one page listing the assumptions. Mayor Tom Pico, 795 Neal Place, urged the Council and Commission to follow the plan set forth in the staff report on pages 4 and 5. Everyone wants to see the presentation of the combined land use, network and policy scenarios, so we can get closer to reality. The process will get us there even if it is slower than some would like. This workshop was to look at the model and assumptions and to see if we are in concurrence with them since that will be the basis for future options. Pursuant to the staff outline, in a couple of weeks there will be a presentation on network options and then land use alternatives. Staff will get directions on what combinations to use for the model runs. Finally, the results will be presented and that is when the tough decisions will be made. He was concerned with the Table 1 Level of Service chart. It is difficult to define delay. He was more interested in seeing the worst case option, which turn movements are the worst and what is more acceptable. He thought it would be necessary to modify the level of service standards. He noted that in the morning it takes 120 seconds for him to cross First Street at Neal. That is acceptable for some. He felt that should be the minimum traffic signal time for LOS F designation. If that were adopted, then 14 of the 27 LOS F intersections would disappear. There is a way to redefine what is really acceptable to have. In terms of the model assumptions, Figure 2 on page 11 shows increase in growth in Dublin, but he did not think staff was adequately addressing what is happening in Pleasanton in terms of Dublin traffic. The traffic from the El Charro interchange is not reflected and he felt that will be significant in the future. He wanted the assumptions for the City of Dublin as shown on page 12-13, Figures 3 and 4, to be increased to show people living in Dublin and working in Pleasanton. He also referred to the numbers used for the Stoneridge Mall area and felt those same numbers should be used for those working in Pleasanton. He wanted to have more realistic assumptions for those living in Pleasanton and working in the Hacienda Business Park. The model needs to be refined with respect to East Dublin and the areas he mentioned. He urged people to be patient and felt all the data necessary would be provided. He felt there were about three meetings necessary before significant discussions could be held. Becky Dennis, 838 Gray Fox Circle, said she was representing Pat Belding and Citizens for a Caring Community. She said as Pleasanton approaches build out there was great concern that there be the potential to meet affordable housing needs. In spite of the fact that some of the intersections don't work as well as some would like, there are growth controls, an urban growth boundary, and a voter approved housing cap. We have those because the citizens have agreed to embrace the obligations that come with planning in the city, such as state housing mandate numbers, in order to maintain the legal integrity of the growth constraints. She wanted to plan a circulation system that will serve the fixed housing cap of 29,000 units. There is no fixed number for jobs or commercial/retail development, which generates more traffic than residential units. It seems all assumptions are related to that 29,000 number. When she was on Council, the city fee system was redone to pay for the street improvements based on that