CCMIN102197 - Laserfiche WebLink

-- Mr. Swift said what is looked at is whether the project will have the potential to create impacts. If, in the analysis, it is determined the project will have impacts, then staff tries to identify what the impact is. Ms. Michelotti asked if decisions would be based on whether home values went up or down, when trying to assess a housing project. Mr. Swift said Council has already been making those kinds of decisions. Mr. Pico said he was comfortable with the motion. Ms. Dennis said she was comfortable with the motion, but staff should look at each individual development and then decide whether a study needed to be done or not. She did not feel every development would require a study. Mr. Swift clarified the motion was for Option 3. He felt the Mayor was saying bring back a General Plan amendment where the language is more constrained. Ms. Michelotti asked if a General Plan amendment were needed. Mr. Swift understood the majority of Council would like the language clearer in the General Plan. Item 6b Ana!vsis of arterial cut-throu~.h traffic. (SR97:313) Randall Lum presented the staff report. Mike Waller, Barton and Aschman, presented a report on how the arterial cut-through traffic study was conducted. Mr. Pico asked what the time frame was for the estimates. Mr. Waller said the estimates covered one hour during the a.m. and p.m. peak travel times. Mayor Tarver referred to the 1990 cut-through traffic analysis for Stanley Boulevard which showed 80 cars in the p.m. and 50 cars in a.m. coming from Livermore to the freeway. Mr. Waller said the findings of the study showed the proportion of cut-through traffic that comprises the total volume on the roadways. Five corridors were picked for the study, with Stanley Boulevard as one with 20% of the cut-through traffic for 1997. Pleasanton City Council 10/21/97 Minutes 8