CCMIN012197 - Laserfiche WebLink

Matt Sullivan, 4324 Muirwood Drive, endorsed some of the suggestions of the business community to get past the interchange and move on to study alternatives. He believed the question was how to do a study in a fair and adequate manner so the process has integrity and the study results are valid. Traffic generated by future development already in the General Plan can be quantified and evaluated in the study. But new development approvals granted during the study period could invalidate any assumptions, analysis or conclusions made by the committee. He recommended the City Council adopt staff recommendations and discourage new applications or major modifications to existing approvals which would have a significant impact to traffic related to the interchange. Any agreement made with San Francisco should include traffic mitigations necessary assuming the West Las Positas interchange is not built. Since this questions is so important, he was concerned that the Mayor is not here to vote. There being no further testimony, the public hearing was closed. Ms. Dennis expressed concern about discouraging business. She applauded the efforts to change the focus of the study to mitigation alternatives instead of whether or not the interchange will be constructed. In terms of evaluating development applications, she suggested establishing a policy to ask applicants to include in their applications ways the project would reduce anticipated impacts of traffic on the interchanges that we have. Rather than discouraging applications, Council would be encouraging applications that demonstrate ways to achieve the goals. She agreed the study should emphasize alternatives and liked the idea of involving businesses in creating ways to mitigate impacts. Ms. Michelotti referred to her participation on the General Plan review committee in 1983 which established the current levels of service for Pleasanton. The current General Plan establishes LOS D and requires that to be maintained. It troubles her that the staff recommendations seem to indicate the City is willing to have unacceptable levels of traffic. The City has built a wonderful infrastructure but conditions have changed because the residents of surrounding communities are now using our local streets. Since an exemption is proposed for the development on the San Francisco Bernal Avenue property and other properties are not affected because of previously approved development agreements, she questioned what property was left on which to discourage applications. She did not feel it appropriate to send shockwaves throughout the business community. She felt the staff recommendations were acceptable. She did not want any language that was discouraging. As projects are reviewed on a case by case basis, they should be conditioned for necessary traffic mitigations. She agreed the West Las Positas group should be focused on a solution. The business and residential communities should work together. She felt projects will pay a fair share of traffic mitigations. The Economic Development Advisory Committee offered the suggestion that we proceed with the assumption that the interchange will not be built and to find out what can be done. She concurred with the staff recommendation and to continue on a case by case basis. Ms. Ayala indicated Pleasanton has attracted high profile, leading edge companies, as indicated in the January Forbes magazine. She is strongly in favor of anything that will continue 7 1/21/97