04 ATTACHMENT 4 - Laserfiche WebLink

Ms. Stern noted that alternative transportation modes were discussed briefly and that there was a significant amount of new information, policies, and programs in that section. She added that that section related to the City's interest in sustainable development. She noted that staff requested the Planning Commission's comments that could be passed onto the City Council. Commissioner O'Connor requested clarification regarding buildout and volumes with respect to Table 3-6 and inquired whether it reflected a specific amount of time per hour and whether it reflected a daily total of volume. Ms. Stern replied that it did not reflect the daily total of trips and noted that it discussed a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Mr. Tassano noted that the volumes can last for over an hour in some instances and that this was a peak one-hour period. He noted that the peak level of congestion could extend beyond an hour but that the peak hour reflected the highest activity. He added that peak hour normally reflected 10 percent of the total daily traffic. Commissioner Olson noted that the "Table of Contents" contained a section that had been eliminated, entitled "Proposed Funding Mechanisms" and added that the staff presentation referred to funding mechanisms. He inquired whether that area was included in other sections. Ms. Stern replied that it appeared under "Local Roadway Network" and after "Regional Roadway Network." THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Linda Garbarino noted that she had been a past member of one of the General Plan Circulation subcommittees. She expressed concern about the critical safety issues on her segment of Division Street near St. Mary Street and added that her street had been reclassified from a collector street to an arterial. She noted that she and her neighbors objected to that reclassification and that the width of her segment of Division Street was 30 feet. She noted that a 30-foot-wide street was defined as an alley in the staff report and added that about 9,000 cars traveled her street daily, going both north and south. She noted that their traffic options had been severely limited. She was dismayed to hear that the Rose Avenue to Valley Avenue piece had been removed from the plan as well as the West Las Positas Boulevard interchange. She believed that Del Valle Parkway should be treated as a parkway and that it did not become a parkway because the orientation of the houses had been flipped to protect the arroyo. She noted that there had been a massive elimination of north-south options, and she was very concerned that it would become unwieldy upon buildout. She believed that the truck routes had been hugely misinterpreted in terms of the Municipal Code and the California Vehicle Code and should be revisited with respect to how trucks can use streets such as hers. She noted that they had a large number of heritage houses on their street, and they wished to protect it. She requested that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that all of those options and routes be kept open. Cyril Bonnano agreed with Ms. Garbarino's statements and noted that the last traffic count they received from the Traffic Department was 9,000 cars a day. He did not expect the General Plan Update to rid St. Mary Street of the cars but he requested that it be balanced. He believed it was EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, October 24, 2007 Page 3 of 15