CCMIN071596 - Laserfiche WebLink

everything necessary to make the General Plan internally consistent; or the citizens' initiative to be relatively simple and the City could do what was necessary once the initiative passes. Mr. Roush preferred the former recommendation to assist the citizens to make sure the initiative measure renders the Plan internally consistent. Ms. Dennis indicated she preferred the initiative process because the time frame for the process is much longer than for a referendum. Ms. Michelotti felt the objective of all of this according to the Steering Committee was to get some analysis in place before action was taken. We are recommending that appointing a citizens committee be deleted. Ms. Michelotti felt the objective is to get all the analysis necessary for what must be done and alternatives available. Mr. Roush felt the analysis would already be done in terms of coming up with options for Council if it wanted to delete the program. Ms. Dennis wanted that to be part of the program so citizens could pick up a packet of various ways to write the initiative and suggestions for other changes that need to be made in the General Plan to keep it internally consistent. The arguments would then be about what circumstances to live with, not whether the General Plan was consistent. Ms. Mohr indicated that it appears to be ten to fifteen years in the future. Mr. Swift thought that the interchange might be needed in only five years. It is staffs best guess that it will be five years for the long process of creating a design satisfactory to the neighborhood, one that CalTrans will approve, creating a financing program that is feasible, and finally actually constructing the interchange. That whole process takes a minimum of five years. The time frame between when that design process starts and when the interchange is needed, given today's estimates, is the same because of the long lead time needed. It will take about a year to build it, not counting the design. Whether this interchange is necessary depends on the buildout of Hacienda Business Park and other business parks in the North Pleasanton area. Right now there are development plans for more than three-fourths of the vacant lots in Hacienda Business Park. If those plans come to fruition, then the traffic volumes at peak hours at major intersections will rapidly reach the point where the West Las Positas interchange is necessary. The EIR looked at different options than putting in the West Las Positas interchange and it could not find feasible traffic mitigations without the interchange. To answer the question of what needs to be done to make the General Plan internally consistent, since there is no other location where you could put an interchange on 1-680 or 1-580 to serve this area, the only option is to modify the City's policy with respect to level of service. What will happen if you don't build the West Las Positas interchange and we get development as curren~y projected, is you will have to modify the policy to identify intersections that will be excluded or delete the policy altogether. It is very complex if Council wants to keep the standard and do other traffic 07/15/96 - 5 -