CCMIN012197 - Laserfiche WebLink

Robert Gibney, 333 Bush Street, San Francisco, representing the Taubman Company, felt that the Mail has been unfairly characterized. Growth at Stoneridge Mail is quite different than other kinds of business growth and does not generate the same level of traffic. Taubman intends to return with its application, but not without thorough discussion of traffic impacts and meetings with the residents to explain what the Mall expansion is all about. The Taubman Company has been a responsible citizen in Pleasanton for over twenty years and intends to continue that relationship. It is critical to the future of Stoneridge Mail that existing stores have the ability to expand if necessary and to ailow the addition of a first quaiity retailer, such as a Nordstrom or Sears. Mr. Gibney believed that traffic generated by the Stoneridge Mail is quite different than that generated by office development and does not occur during peak hours. This will be discussed in the future. Taubman supports the recommendation that Council continue to review applications on a case by case basis. David Jones, 1605 Rose Avenue, agreed with Mr. Meeks about the timeliness of development in Pleasanton, the need for this interchange, and continuing the application process. He owned property on Donnan Road and referred to the problems of cut-through traffic from West Las Positas to Stoneridge Drive. He felt the interchange would relieve that cut-through traffic problem, especiaily when school gets out. He believed consideration of this neighborhood has been neglected. Joe Callahan, 5674 Stoneridge Drive, felt this situation was an opportunity. When the City adopted the North Pleasanton Improvement District, there were many meetings to discuss mitigations for the development of North Pleasanton. There was developed a private financing program that has constructed over $100 million worth of off-site infrastructure for the community. Now we need to discuss how we can mitigate the impacts of cut-through traffic. He does not support the West Las Positas interchange, and feels the focus of the study should be the best solution to the completion of the circulation element for the City for the next fifty years. He strongly urged Council to assemble the property owners with existing mitigation conditions on their properties to be involved in discussions about how to solve this problem. He did not recommend a committee of a few neighbors or businessmen and a traffic engineer. This is a bigger issue and the solution is simpler than assumed. We can ail work together for a positive solution. There should be no concern about applications. The City has a good system for evaiuating impacts of projects and he feels it is possible to caiculate a proportionai share of the necessary mitigations when the time comes. Donaid Shaw, 5918 Stoneridge Mail Road, represents Safeway, which has purchased property to house its corporate operations in Pleasanton but still needs more space to include more employees from other locations. He urged Council not to discourage applications. From a real estate point of view, eighteen months is a very long time and would be very disheartening to its plans for new facilities. Safeway is prepared to pay its proportionate share of mitigation and believed its proposed project would be very good for Pleasanton. Safeway is very anxious to bring ail of its employees together in one facility. He asked Council to continue to review applications on a first-come/first-served basis. 6 1/21/97