CCMIN102197 - Laserfiche WebLink

centers with a high volume of sales volumes per sq.ft. Part of its success is the long term perspective with which the centers are managed. The request before Council tonight for additional square footage is part of the long term perspective. This will help Taubman to remain competitive and successful. She believed all issues have been addressed and were stated in the staff report. In summary, by adding the additional square footage for department stores to the overall buildout of the area, Taubman has increased its funding obligation from $300,000 to one- half million dollars. The percentage increase based upon traffic trip generation goes from 37 % to 50%. In fact, the Stoneridge Mall will be funding Taubman's entire obligation should the revised development agreement be approved. Taubman has also agreed to participate in funding the West Las Positas interchange or alternative mitigations. The Taubman Company asks for Council's support. Matt Sullivan, 4324 Muirwood Drive, was prepared to argue against the expansion of the Mall based on some of the following reasons: Stoneridge Drive is forecast to be the most tongester stretch of roadway in Pleasanton at buildout with level of services D and E between the Mall and Hopyard Road. This route has also been identified as a significant cut-through route by the recently completed analysis. Additional traffic does not need to be added. As the Mall expands and the traffic level of service degrades on Stoneridge and Hopyard, the cut- through traffic will increase on the Muirwood/Springdale corridor, as well as through Vat Vista. The traffic studies totally neglect this neighborhood cut-through traffic even after it has been raised again and again. Approval of this expansion will make it more difficult for the West Las _ Positas Committee to come up with viable alternatives to the interchange and maintain level of service standards. The above issues were very good reasons for not approving the expansion. But he suggested instead of approving the application as it stands, the Council should ask Taubman and City staff to come up with a plan that would allow the expansion with no increase in traffic or better yet a decrease in traffic to and from the Mall. He suggested parking fees at the Mall to encourage transit use, or a reduction in the size of the parking lot to discourage auto use, or discounts at stores for pedestrian and transit users. He said the solution is not to make it easier for cars to get around, but to make it easier to get around without cars. Mayor Tarver asked if the applicant wanted to rebut. Pat Gibson, Cochran Associates, traffic engineer for Taubman, said it is important to recognize the cut-through analysis for Stoneridge Drive. The suggested cut-through analysis was traffic going north on 1-680 and going eastbound on Stoneridge, but the heavy volumes of traffic in the p.m. peak hours are coming from the industrial park headed westbound toward the freeway. So it is the westbound traffic that controls the capacity of the intersection. Even if new studies are done, the answer to the eastbound cut-through traffic would not affect the conclusions that the traffic study has already put together. Therefore the traffic going to the Mall would not have much impact on the Stoneridge corridor. He said it would be hard to impose regulations so people would choose other alternatives to get to the Mall. People would just choose to go somewhere else and the City would lose revenues. In regards to the cut- through traffic on Muirwood, the preliminary studies have suggested there is not a significant Pleasanton City Council 10/21/97 Minutes 17