CCMIN083005 - Laserfiche WebLink

The policies addressing traffic behaviors to be discouraged is what the goal is, whether it is regional cut-through or residents taking short cuts through collector streets. If a policy were adopted that says "minimize traffic on local thoroughfares and neighborhood collector streets" that would justify building the West Las Positas interchange and that is not something that is desired as part of this process. It is necessary to have an idea of what the policies will be, what the definitions will be, who and what kind of traffic is to be addressed. If it is neighborhood traffic that starts in one part of Highland Oaks and goes to the Mall and back, that may be fine for local collector streets rather than on the freeway or Foothill Road. One must think about where you are heading with various classifications of trips. Staff tried to build a hierarchy of classifications on which to build policies. Ms. McGovern did not understand why people who get off BART and use Pleasanton streets rather than freeways are not considered cut-through traffic. Mr. Swift said if a car parks in the Dublin parking lot then they are regional cut-through traffic, but if they park on the Pleasanton side then they are not because BART is the destination ending in Pleasanton. If the desire is to discourage the traffic to the business park from using any streets other than streets leading to freeways, then there are policies that could be adopted and the traffic signals could also be adjusted to favor north/south routes to the freeways and make it difficult to go east/west across the city. That would be a great way to minimize traffic heading for Stanley Boulevard because we meter traffic going onto 580. Unfortunately, that would mean the traffic moved to Dublin Boulevard or some place else to the north. Ms. McGovern agreed with the definition of regional traffic that it is basically traffic on a street it should not be using. As far as the other two definitions, she felt if staff needed to use them for traffic modeling or if they should be combined she did not care. She felt if anyone lived in Pleasanton, then all the streets were theirs to use. She then considered the three Alternatives. She made a chart comparing them and felt there were minimal differences. She wanted to take Alternative A, add the land uses that have not been added as yet. Then look at Alternative B and see what could be taken from Alternative B to deal with the additional land uses. She wanted to have a starting point and build on it rather than take away from something. She believed it was possible to monitor every traffic signal and change them at any given time. She asked why that was not being done. That could affect traffic in Pleasanton. Mr. Knowles said it would be a full time job to monitor like that. Ms. McGovern said a person could be hired for about $60,000 a year and it would be worth it compared to the cost of all the road widenings and additional traffic signals. Councilmember Thorne agreed it would be a good idea to review regional definitions of cut- through traffic and to have some consistency. He was really only concerned with regional cut-through traffic because that is what really impacts the city. People who live and/or work here have a right to use the streets any way they want to. He supported Alternative B, but made it clear that at this meeting an option is not being selected and put in concrete. He felt people were looking at details and trying to adjust them too early. Land use should be reviewed and then select the Alternative that gives the most ability to move around. He did not like the Rose Avenue extension, but felt Alternative B was a good starting point. Councilmember Sullivan was comfortable with the definitions presented by staff. It is a tool to understand what is going on. He had no problem talking to other cities about their definitions, but he Joint Workshop City CounciVPlanning Commission 15 08/30/05