CCMIN083005 - Laserfiche WebLink

versus local, is the same or not. The examples about Stoneridge Mall and the Fairlands trips were not good examples of local cut-through. She felt it applied more to people who work in Pleasanton but do not live in Pleasanton and use circuitous routes to get through the city. She also believed there were more issues than the 1-580/680 interchange and felt part of the problem was that 1-580 does not have enough capacity in terms of lanes leading to the San Joaquin Valley. Mayor Hosterman suggested staff look at definitions in Dublin as well as Livermore. She felt it would be useful if all three cities used the same definitions, which could improve communications. Ms. Fox agreed with that. At this point, due to conflicts, she recused herself from the remainder of the discussions. Commissioner Blank supported standardizing definitions regionally but was not sure about combining the arterial and neighborhood definitions. He commented that traffic increases at the intersection of Touriga and Concord, when there is a traffic back up at Hearst and Bernal. He felt that was neighborhood, but also arterial based cut-through. He wanted a further refinement of those definitions. Otherwise, he felt staff did a great job on the definitions. He then indicated he preferred Alternative B with some conditions. He was sensitive to the issues of the West Las Positas interchange and the Stoneridge Drive extension, and felt it should be taken out of the General Plan at this time. Perhaps ten years in the future, if needed, it can be put back into the General Plan. He also felt there needed to be a way of interacting with Alternative B as a model. He counted 19 variations of street widenings in Alternative B. He wanted a way to compare a baseline with various alternatives to see what they would look like at a meeting. For instance, when looking at a particular land use, could the model show what happens with options 1, 3, 5, 7 and 9? If you don't like 9, take it out and see what happens. He wanted a way to work interactively and change data on the fly. Commissioner Roberts believed that cut-through traffic was people avoiding 1-580 or 1-680. She refused to be considered cut-through because she drives through the city to get to various locations. She felt the process would be mired if the definition were not limited. She preferred Alternative Band saw no justification to do Alternative C. She was sensitive to Mr. Pico's comment about the political implications of taking this out, but that will have to be worked with. There was a meeting with the Alameda County a year ago about a suggested assisted living facility with Stoneridge extended to it, and with emergency vehicle access to EI Charro. Livermore requested the ability to get emergency equipment to the hospital and across EI Charro. She wanted to keep EI Charro in the plan so there would be another way to get to North Livermore without going onto the freeway. In the staff report, a statement was made that when there is an alternate route or other mitigation, it can be designed so as not to be attractive to cut-through traffic. She felt EI Charro can be designed so it is not attractive. The problem is there are too many people and we don't like to be crowded. She thanked staff for including regional build out figures, although that continues to change. She reiterated Alternative B provides more options. She wanted more attention give to 1-580/680 cut-through traffic. Commissioner Arkin felt two definitions of cut-through traffic were appropriate. One would be regional. As far as local cut-through, he cited the example of a person who nomnally goes through town on First Street, but when it backs up, he takes Second Street. That is not normal traffic for Second Street and would therefore be considered cut-through and he felt that needed to be quantified somehow. He believed it was useful to see how other Tri-Valley communities define cut-through traffic, but he did not want to automatically adopt their definitions. He was not in favor of keeping every option open. He felt it made sense to remove options that do not make sense, so when reviewing land uses that is a starting point. He did not want all three options available and preferred Alternative B or a Joint Workshop City Council/Planning Commission 13 08/30/05