PC 02/12/86 - Laserfiche WebLink

Minutes Planning Commission 2/12/86 1987. It is anticipated that Stoneridge and Hacienda Intersections can be considered as one project. It is felt Stoneridge will be first and Hacienda second. Completion is expected in the winter of 1989. Commissioner Michelotti had a question concerning the EIS. Mr. Flynn hoped that the environmental document would be prepared as a F.O.N.S.I. which is equivalent to a negative declaration. Commissioner Lindsey asked Mr. Flynn if it is possible to determine a nine month completion time. Mr Flynn said it can be done. Mr. Flynn indicated that the Federal Highway Administration has expressed concern that the proposed interchanges will be too close to each other and the I-580/I-680 interchange. Caltrans' concern is one of process. It is believed that these issues can be overcome as the comment made by the Federal Government was a comment made at a local staff level only. Commissioner Wellman asked why the Hopyard Road interchange has been so delayed. Mr. Flynn explained that the Hopyard Road interchange was a learning experience and the very first project like this to be done. Chairman Wilson asked the Commission how many would be in favor of a revised Condition 16a or 33 to just put in Hacienda overpass and not Stoneridge Drive (4 Planning Commissioners held up their hands). Commissioner Inner wanted to make sure the City doesn't approve buildings and then have a two year delay in the Hacienda Interchange. He would accept any wording which says they have to get final approval of the interchange prior to approving buildings. Chairman Wilson indicated that the sq. ft. over what was approved over Phase I can't go until the construction of the Hacienda Interchange, but if they reach LOS D prior to the 4,000,000, they will be stopped anyway. Commissioner Inner indicated he would be willing to take out the nine month restriction he recommended earlier but would want to leave all appropriate state and local approvals have been received". The other Commissioners indicated they were in accord. Mr. Swift stated existing conditions in Hacienda Phase I and other North Pleasanton developments do not have "that it shall impose traffic mitigation measures made necessary by the cumulative impact of the north Pleasanton development on a pro-rata basis for North Pleasanton properties" as a condition. This is intended to come in to play if mitigation is necessary to avoid a LOS E condition. This is to allow the City the ability to assess on a pro-rata basis for improvements such as West Las Positas interchange or other major improvements as necessary for all of north Pleasanton to avoid LOS E. Items 2f and 28 are the only other two items in which applicant and staff do not agree. Commissioner Lindsey indicated that concerning 2f the applicant wants to approach this on an application by application basis based upon marketing. Mr. Swift indicated that relating to 2f, the staff only applied the proposed condition to the OMPD Districts to structures four - 8 - __ _ r~