CCMIN012197 - Laserfiche WebLink

this economic viability in Pleasanton and it is clear that the majority of future traffic will come from already approved projects. It was moved by Ms. Ayala, seconded by Ms. Miehelotti, to approve staff recommendations 1, 2 and 3 and to add language to encourage applicants to include in their applications ways that a project will reduce impacts on the interchange. Ms. Michelotti wanted clarification of recommendation #2. There should be an understanding that in order make any change as to the levels of service, it will take a General Plan amendment. Ms. Dennis also wanted clarification on the idea of adding conditions and whether that was a more viable approach if we are going to accept applications. We can judge those applications on how they help us with the particular problem that we have right now and to decide whether an application is adequate based on what program is put forward to mitigate the traffic impacts. Mr. Swift indicated that can be done on a case by case basis. There are several ways to address the situation. One is to compare what a project is proposing on a particular parcel compared to what the General Plan traffic buildout model assumed for that piece of property. Will the application generate more or less traffic? Another method would be to encourage traffic reduction in peak hours as set forth in the City's transportation systems management program. Mr. Pico stated he was encouraged by discussions in the Economic Development Advisory Committee and among the neighbors directly affected, like the Citizens for Interchange Alternatives. His sense was that opening this discussion via the challenge to the Taubman application has given a broader understanding of the impact of cut-through traffic. He felt the community was close to a consensus that the West Las Positas interchange is going to adversely affect the community rather than positively impact it. He has not seen any organized effort in support of the interchange. During the General Plan discussions, there were major clashes on whether the interchange should be built. The real positive from these discussions was the realization of the flaws of the traffic modeling system. This process has not divided us, but has brought the various elements of the community together with a central focus on looking for and emphasizing the alternatives rather than the need for the interchange. He encouraged the community to use its opportunity this coming Thursday to attend the next citizens study session on the West Las Positas interchange and attempt to influence the direction of the study. He felt Council would be receptive to look at a shift in focus, to do a little more of what the Economic Development Advisory Committee recommended, which is to look at the alternatives, not the need. If we do that in a united way, this whole discussion about discouraging applications becomes moot. Mr. Pico continued, the reality is that we are looking for a study of the traffic impacts on this interchange and altematives that reflect a buildout scenario for the City of Pleasanton, not the scenario that reflects where we are this minute today. As he considers his proposal 8 1/21/97