01 (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

projects come on board staff puts them into the traffic model to accurately reflect changes. California Splash was getting talked about and approved about the same time they had their last significant model update, and they do not have a lot of AM and PM peak trips, so it was not included in the model update process, but would be in their next major update. Councilmember Sullivan said the staff report states no weekend traffic was analyzed and that is when California Splash and Home Depot would have most of its traffic. He questioned if this was looked at. Mr. Tassano said that it was not analyzed. Mr. Tassano said from a traffic circulation and safety standpoint, the volume of vehicles on the roadway on the weekend is a lot less than during the week at the AM and PM peak periods. He indicated staff could study it. Councilmember McGovern referred to intersections that are going to be impacted by the project and asked if there was going to be much change. Mr. Tassano said the number of trips for AM and PM peak periods for Santa Rita and Valley are evenly dispersed on each leg. For Bernal/Valley/Stanley intersection, the eastbound through is being widened to a third lane to improve the level of service, as well as a westbound to northbound free right turn. She questioned the impacts to the Bernal/Valley intersection closest to the Bernal property. Mr. Tassano said it was less than a 1% increase. She also questioned whether truck traffic included all trucks going in one direction, and Mr. Knoedler said they were addressing all of the truck traffic generated by the entire shopping center. She asked if the study evaluated all of the traffic now that the condition was changed, and Mr. Tassano said no, staff did not make a specific condition that forced an extra 20 vehicles away from wherever their closest destination would be and thought that an extra 4-5 vehicles would be an almost negligible factor. Councilmember Sullivan referred to the intersection of El Charro and Stanley and asked if this would not be looked at until the East Pleasanton plan was done. Mr. Iserson said the intersection would be part of the development plan, staff would contemplate that roadway in conjunction with the plan for the entire area, and the funding of it would come from the East Pleasanton Specific Plan which comes up in the near future. He said they were relying on the developers of that area to provide their uses, amounts of traffic and funding. Councilmember Thorne felt the sound reduction would be significant using the sound- attenuating asphalt improvements. Councilmember Sullivan questioned whether a combination of a conditional use permit and a PUD major modification was required to allow the Home Depot use at the site. Mr. Iserson said the PUD modification encompasses all uses on the property. The CUP is with respect to Home Depot because of the building and garden center. He confirmed with staff that if the public did not like the Council’s decision, it could be subject to a referendum. He referred to the traffic fees on page 11 to construct improvements at specific intersections, questioned the breakdown of the Tri-Valley Transportation Council fees and City traffic mitigation fees and asked if any of those project funds would affect this development. Mr. Tassano said the Tri-Valley Transportation fee assessed is 25% of total fees or around $500,000 goes into a pool or bank account. The City has 11 projects identified through the Tri-Valley Transportation Commission which include the 580/680 interchange, 580/eastbound HOV lanes, State Route 84, and others. When the projects become ready, the project sponsor requests to use those funds from the Commission and City Council Minutes 7 May 15, 2007