CCMIN010797 - Laserfiche WebLink

Brad Hirst, 1811 Santa Rita Road #128, pointed out that there is a traffic plan with a set amount of holding capacity to serve Pleasanton as it is planned. If you reduce that holding capacity, the traffic congestion will worsen. He encouraged to keep that holding capacity in mind when considering traffic alternatives. He then referred to the three recommendations in the staff report. The fffst required developers to pay a "fair share" to mitigate traffic and he indicated many projects have already been approved with a similar condition. If additional mitigations are to be asked for, he felt Council should consider the effects of Proposition 218. He did not think recommendations two or three of the staff report could be implemented because of the General Plan. If the City tried to relieve itself of the requirement to maintain LOS D, then some compensation should be given to property owners and business operators. He was strongly opposed to a moratorium or discouragement of development. However, if Council chooses to take that route, then public projects, such as parks, schools, sanitary sewer plants, etc. should also be included. Jim Pease, 4863 Canary Drive, commended Council for its action in forming a citizens committee to study the West Las Positas interchange. At the same time, it is important that no de facto moratorium be imposed on development in north Pleasanton. He felt this would be a lose/lose situation for the City and business. He believed development applications should continue to be processed on a first-come/first-served basis without the stated conditions. Tim Correia, 4679 Sierrawood Lane, asked why these options have been put forth so late in the process. He did not think people concerned about the interchange are against growth. He believes those involved in the committee will work with the Chamber of Commerce, developers, the Downtown Association and other neighborhoods. Tom Gill, 4540 Muirwood Drive, indicated he was not against growth, but opposed cut- through traffic. He appreciated the formation of the citizens' committee. He believed that the Pleasanton traffic model does not include information regarding traffic trips originating and ending outside of Pleasanton, i.e. cut-through traffic. The Tri-Valley Transportation Plan is inaccurate because it fails to consider the job growth in the Silicon Valley, the severe jobs to housing imbaiance and the fact that the Tri-Valley area is an affordable and desirable place for the high tech employees to locate their families. He set forth his reasons for believing Pleasanton is uniquely situated to be the victim of "cut-through" traffic as the freeways slow to gridlock. Rather than help Pleasanton, the West Las Positas interchange will make traffic worse in Pleasanton as cars leave the clogged freeways. He believed funding should be made available for HOV lanes on 1-680 over the Sunol Grade rather than the interchange. He believed more concern should be addressed to the poor freeway traffic flow. He objected to metering devices and felt that would restrict Pleasanton residents from getting onto the freeways. He referred to the recommendations on page 13 of the staff report and suggested (1) an addition to 2a to include mitigations of regional significance, including freeway improvements; (2) City staff to renegotiate existing traffic mitigation agreements; (3) adopt recommendation 3; (4) direct staff to include cut-through traffic in its calculations; and (5) make sure the "cut-through" traffic analysis will be sufficient to withstand legal challenges to the EIR if the West Las Positas 10 1/07/97