CCMIN021505 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Wilson said that the traffic model and data is a ioint product and the Cities of Dublin, Livermore and Pieasanton will benefit from it. The City of Pleasanton will be able to use this traffic model as part of its traffic model. Mr. Brozosky asked if this traffic study considered a bypass road around the Valley? Mr. Wilson said that this traffic study does consider this option. Ms. McGovern pointed out that the staff report indicates that CCTA's travel demand and forecasting model will refine the Tri-Valley land use to be consistent with each City's General Plan. The staff report also mentions refining the roadway network to add Tri-Valley arterials and other significant roadways. She asked if Council had any control over what types of assumptions would be included as part of Pleasanton's model, particularly the removal of the West Las Positas Interchange. Mr. Wilson said yes. The travel demand and forecasting model begins with each City's General Plan, which is the basis for it. There are eight model runs and each City has the ability to add in different alternatives in terms of what it would be looking for. Ms. McGovern said she is trying to understand the timeline of this model going through and how the City's new General Plan update will tie into this study. She asked how Council would be assured that it had control over what assumptions are put into the model? Mr. Wilson said the traffic study would start with the existing General Plan as a basis. He pointed out that this study focuses more on regional improvements than specific City improvements. The primary reason for this traffic study is to refine planned improvements and to identify the best sequence to construct these improvements that impact the 1-580, 1-680 and Route 84 corridors. The City is able to provide the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency (CMA) parameters of what to focus on, some of which he would assume would not include the West Las Positas Interchange or the extension of Stoneridge Drive. He pointed out that there is a timing issue in terms of the General Plan being currently under way. Staff would like to look at several alternatives so that Council can discuss what the improvements to the 1-580, 1-680 and Route 84 corridors do to the City's traffic model. Ms. McGovern asked for the minutes to reflect that Council has the right to talk about the assumptions that it would like to see put into the model, as well as the ability to have some control. Mr. Fialho believed Council would have the opportunity to do so as Mayor Hosterman and Ms. McGovern are the City's representatives to the Tri-Valley Transportation Triangle Policy Advisory Committee. Ms. McGoven noted that the City of Livermore has indicated that it will fund up to $58,000 towards the Tri-Valley Triangle Study and will hold back additional funds for its _. discretion. She would like for Council to consider taking the same approach where it will allow up to $58,000 to help fund the Tri-Valley Triangle Traffic Study and allocate an additional $17,000 for the City of Pleasanton to conduct additional studies if needed. Pleasanton City Council 17 02115/05 Minutes