CCMIN052405 - Laserfiche WebLink

4. Next Steps and Matters Initiated by Council or Commission. Mayor Hosterman invited comments from Council and the Planning Commission regarding continuing the constrained gateway approach on future model runs. If there is consensus, the process will move forward, if not that will be put to a vote at a special meeting if necessary. The next item will be to review the five proposed model runs. Again, if there is consensus, the process will move on, or if not, there will be a vote at a special meeting. Mr. Blank supported leaving the flexibility in the model. He was a little concerned about the analysis of the balance and the effects on the residents of the area and of downtown. He believed the judgments can be made with discussion and public input. Ms. Fox believed the constrained gateway approach should be adopted similar to the Livermore General Plan Update and allow some intersections to go down to LOS F. She also preferred that when traffic is exiting the city, that the greatest flexibility in getting traffic onto the freeways as fast as possible be used. Ideally, she would like on ramp metering to be taken away. Mr. Arkin felt constrained gateways should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. What was done on Sunol was interesting, but did not work well. It is unknown what the situation will be in five or ten years, but wanted to preserve the flexibility to deal with it on a case-by-case basis. The General Plan should have a policy that constrained gateways could be used to deal with peak traffic problems in a particular area. Ms. Roberts agreed there should be flexibility to use constrained gateways and to remove them if they don't work. She did not know why the city ever used a demand model. Ms. Maas referred to a newspaper article that indicated the constrained gateways would add some unusual traffic signals. She was concerned that more and more signals and signs are being added. Constraining the gateways makes it more difficult for the residents. She agreed with reviewing each gateway, but was not convinced of the value of constraints. Mr. Brozosky agreed with Ms. Maas about more and more signals. He felt sometimes stop signs would work just as well. He was reluctant to add more signals unless they were closely monitored. He did not like constrained gateways and did not like what happened at Sunol Boulevard. If 40% of the traffic is cut through, then anything done to constrain that would affect the 60% which are Pleasanton residents. He questioned if that was worth it. He was willing to be flexible and review them on a case-by-case basis, but was not convinced they were the right solution. Ms. McGovern indicated she was not available for the July12 meeting. She did not believe in a demand model, but did believe in constrained gateways, depending on what level of constraint is used. She wanted to review each gateway with flexibility on the level of constraint. Joint Workshop City Council and Planning Commission 12 05/24/05