My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN032205
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
2000-2009
>
2005
>
CCMIN032205
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/17/2007 10:56:41 AM
Creation date
5/3/2005 11:32:05 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
3/22/2005
DOCUMENT NO
CCMIN032205
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
14
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. Iserson said staff would bring back vadous scenarios on land use changes based <br /> on the past workshops with Council and the Planning Commission. With Option B-2, he <br /> felt one would be jumping forward to land uses without having the benefit of what traffic <br /> mitigations may be doing to it. If one starts with existing plus approved and know what <br /> mitigations will do to that, then it is possible to build on land use changes and know <br /> what effect the mitigations will have on traffic. <br /> <br /> Mr. Arkin asked if the list of approved projects could be amended to delete those <br /> projects that have little chance of being built. One example is the senior facility at the <br /> corner of Foothill and Stoneridge. There are also planned unit developments (PUDs) <br /> whose approvals have expired. <br /> <br /> Mr. Iserson said most PUDs have not expired and it is risky to make arbitrary <br /> decisions on which projects may not get built. <br /> <br /> Ms. McGovern asked if a firm definition for cut through traffic had been <br /> developed? <br /> <br /> Mr. Iserson said staff had not done that yet. He believed it would occur soon, <br /> especially if Option B-1 is selected. <br /> <br /> Ms. McGovem referred to the Ponderosa Homes Busch property with 145 single- <br />-- family units. Table 10 shows 191 units. She asked if that was because additional units <br /> were added for the School District property? <br /> <br /> Mr. Iserson said 191 units was the correct figure. <br /> <br /> Ms. McGovem then referred to the statement that LOS D could be defined in any <br /> way so long as it was within the parameters of what the 200 Highway Capacity Manual <br /> Methodology says Level D is supposed to be. <br /> <br /> Mr, Iserson said there is a standard definition of what Level of Service D means, <br /> but from a policy point of view, changes can be made to use a mid-point for LOS D and <br /> certain intersections could be accepted at worse than LOS D. The actual definition is <br /> standardized. <br /> <br /> Ms. McGovern asked what the General Plan currently requires for LOS D. Is it <br /> the high point, mid point or Iow? <br /> <br /> Mr. Iserson responded that it goes to the lowest level. If one more trip were <br /> added to LOS D, it would go over to LOS E. <br /> <br /> Joint Workshop <br /> City Council and <br /> Planning Commission 5 03/22/05 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.