CCMIN083005 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Iserson agreed that there is a range of benefits and increased use of public transit from 25%-30%. That issue will come up when the Hacienda Specific Plan is discussed. Ms. McGovern asked if the west BART station had been included in the report and was the Stone ridge Mall build out considered? Mr. Iserson believed that both things were included. Ms. McGovern asked if staff had thought about purchasing land from homeowners for the proposed street widenings, especially along Foothill Road? How much will the neighborhoods be affected? Mr. Iserson responded that the widening proposals had not been developed to that degree. Many are only potential mitigations. Others have secured rights of way with development proposals. The city would not want to have to condemn property and he believed the improvements would be done incrementally as the land is available. Ms. McGovern clarified that before Council approved any improvements on Alternative B that it would know exactly what the impact would be on the neighborhoods as a result of any road widening. Finally, she asked if Council approved Alternative A and then after reviewing land uses, it determined that some options in Alternative B could be added to Alternative A, would that be a choice available? Mr. Iserson said yes. Mr. Thorne indicated he was impressed with the staff report and felt it answered many of his questions. He asked for clarification of the process from this point forward. He wanted to make certain that any of the Alternatives could be modified as appropriate after reviewing land uses. Mr. Iserson said that was the purpose of calling them working drafts because staff was certain there would be modifications after the land use is reviewed. Mr. Thorne asked for an explanation of the fifth bullet on page 17 of the staff report, which reads: "Segregate cut-through traffic on routes where regional solutions are not forthcoming so it minimizes interference with local traffic. This could mean create separate "through lane" routes isolated from local traffic via separations, etc. Such options along existing routes likely would be expensive and intrusive." Mr. Knowles cited as an example to take the existing landscaped median on Stoneridge Drive and close all openings. The result would be a two-way frontage road on the south side of the median serving all the residents on the south side of the median. To keep high-speed commuters using the Stoneridge extension from mixing with the pedestrians, bicyclists and local residents on the north side of the median, there could be a 45 mph extension that takes traffic to EI Charro and beyond. That is what staff was trying to describe in the bullet point. He noted there are only a few opportunities to do anything like that. Mr. Thorne asked if cut-through traffic impacts on the Bernal property residents was considered when Valley Avenue was connected with Case Avenue? Joint Workshop City Council/Planning Commission 6 08/30/05