CCMIN041597 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Pico asked Mr. Kinzel to clarify the comparative travel times and if it determined the Tri-Valley area as built out or was it using present time. He asked if an allowance was given for the 11,000 residential units in Dougherty Valley, the proposed 6200 in Tassajara Valley, the 12,500 in north Livemore, and the increased volume of traffic on the freeway from the development in San Joaquin County? He believed the travel times did not show what the congestion would be 15-20 years from now and also did not provide a report on the cut-through traffic from East Dublin. Mr. Kinzel said the information on the slides showed travel time for the present but also used the Tri-Valley model as part of the cut-through analysis of all the different routes. Stoneridge Drive is one of the key ones. He said the model was used in reducing the cut through traffic. Mr. Pico said the last model he saw projected the 1-580/I-680 corridor having approximately eight hours a day of heavy congestion. Did the model still show it this way? Mr. Kinzel said the model showed two to three hours congestion when at capacity. Mr. Pico said he noticed in the report another cut through route was omitted from the analysis and that is traffic cutting through at E1 Charro and Stoneridge and taking West Las Positas to 1-680. If the interchange were built at West Las Positas it would probably be a straight route and the impact was not taken into consideration. Mr. Kinzel said because the interchange was not built it was not taken into consideration, but that yes the impacts would have to be studied. Robert Freed, executive vice-president for Kaufman and Broad, said when Kaufman and Broad commenced the proposal to amend the Specific Plan, it realized that to obtain support from the community and Council it would have to submit a high quality design package. Kaufman and Broad reviewed the existing General Plan which had millions of dollars of infrastructure of which Kaufman and Broad had the financial stability to handle. He stated that Kaufman and Broad was not causing Stoneridge Drive to be connected but it was simply providing the mechanism for this to occur and be funded. The proposal reduced traffic counts that would otherwise exist if the development were commercial or industrial. The proposed project of eighty affordable for-sale homes afforded the City an opportunity to meet its stated goals in the General Plan. He said Kaufman and Broad had gone out of its way to work with the community, the quarry, and Council. He believed that Kaufman and Broad would be a good neighbor. In regards to the regional traffic fees and capital facility fees he felt the fees should not be imposed on this project. Ms. Michelotti asked Mr. Freed to show renderings of the layout so the audience at home could see. Pleasanton City Council 04/15/97 Minutes 10