CCMIN010797 - Laserfiche WebLink

agreements and an approved General Plan. In addition, there is the San Francisco property. Council has been criticized for requiring San Francisco to walt for the General Plan review process and he cannot imagine what the reaction would be to tell San Francisco to walt for the West Las Positas study. That project was discussed thoroughly in the General Plan process. If we are going to change our General Plan, and entitlements and development and traffic related to that plan, then this citizens committee must be involved in saying what they think about it. He realizes Stoneridge Mall is an asset to Pleasanton and it needs to be able to grow in the future and there are valid reasons for this, but we have guaranteed the citizens they could review the West Las Positas interchange. He did not want to exclude anything from that study, however the San Francisco property was thoroughly reviewed in the General Plan. He does not want to change the Prudential Development Agreement or any other existing development agreements, except to say that a decision may be made that affects what the City has committed to do in maintaining traffic levels of service. He believed Mr. Pico had captured the essence of Mr. Tarver's concerns, except in regard to the San Francisco property. Ms. Michelotti wanted to find a solution that is fair and equitable and contributes to the balanced community that we have. Council must review what is best for the entire community. She indicated she had had some concern when reviewing the Stoneridge Mall application for vesting development rights into the future. She agreed that consideration should be given to the amount of cut-through traffic through Hacienda Business Park. She wanted an analysis of traffic. She referred to Mr. Gill's suggestion that mitigation fees be used to solve the regional problems like the gridlock on 1-680. She did not feel it was fair to give an exemption to a new project at the cost of another project that is already included in the General Plan. Mr. Pico indicated he had presented Option 5 for consideration. He did not propose a moratorium but did not rule that out in the future. His proposal addresses continuing to process development applications with new conditions related to levels of service and mitigations. He also wants to discourage any new applications that would have significant impacts on the need for the interchange. Pan of Option 5 attempts to clarify what a new application is. He also has tried to clarify what a significant impact is. The intent is to discourage where possible the wasting of time on applications that will have a significant impact on the West Las Positas interchange. He understands this allows for small projects to proceed which in the aggregate could be significant, but he is willing to make that compromise at this time. He urged Council and the community to review his Option 5. It is not his intent to stop the processing of the San Francisco Bernal Avenue property application. The City should continue to negotiate in good faith. Option 5 could be modified, but he felt it was supportable by all and is fair to all. Mr. Tarver liked the proposed Option 5 with the exception about San Francisco. There is also a provision that defines use permits, variances, and other administrative decisions where a public hearing is required as new applications. He did not consider those new applications. He also requested staff to include discussion about the effects of Proposition 218 in the next staff report. Ms. Michelotti agreed the interchange study timeline needs to be revised. 13 1/07/97