CCMIN083005 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Knowles further clarified that Alternative C includes everything assumed in B and adds the Stoneridge extension and West Las Positas interchange. The widening on Bernal and Foothill would be the same as on Alternative B. Mr. Swift indicated Alternative A has EI Charro as a six-lane road from the freeway to Jack London. South of there, it is a private street that does not connect to Busch or Stanley. In Alternative B, south of Jack London, it is a four-lane road with connection to Busch and Stanley. Alternative C leaves EI Charro exactly the same but has a connection at Stoneridge. He described the proposed traffic patterns on all the alternatives. Ms. Roberts referred to the connection at EI Charro and Busch and referred to a plan to split the industrial traffic to EI Charro and the residential traffic to Valley. Mr. Swift said that was not modeled because there is no land use in that area yet. The model is of the General Plan network minus EI Charro and Stoneridge. When land use is added, it changes the traffic patterns, volumes and networks. Mr. Blank asked about the funding for the Isabel on-ramp. Mr. Knowles said it is funded enough to commence construction and other funding will be acquired through grants, etc. as the project moves along. It is fully expected to go forward. He then showed illustrations of traffic around EI Charro and noted this will change as land uses are discussed for the area. Mr. Brozosky noted the staff report requested decisions on policies for cut-through traffic. He asked if the discussion at this meeting was to be on policies or the definition of cut-through? Mr. Iserson wanted direction on the circulation network and the definition of cut-through. If there are policies to have staff investigate further or to include later on, those could be raised. Mr. Brozosky wanted the public to understand that the 1996 General Plan did not take into account any regional traffic. This update will be the first general plan to look at the impacts of regional traffic. It is significant that regional traffic has greatly impacted the internal network. He reviewed the calculations for decrease in congestion between Alternatives Band C. He calculated a 4% difference rather than 10% as set forth in the report. Mr. Iserson said there are different measures of delay and referred to Table 6 on page 23, which has average seconds per vehicle of delay and total hours of delay at studied intersections. It is possible that the figures were mixed. Mr. Brozosky noted that there is only a 4% difference in the AM between Alternative C and B and a 6% difference in the PM. The only difference in these alternatives is the Stoneridge extension and West Las Positas interchange. Those projects are quite costly and would not give that much improvement. Mr. Iserson agreed there is not a huge benefit to Alternatives C with those projects as compared to some other alternatives. Joint Workshop City Council/Planning Commission 3 08/30/05