CCMIN092496 - Laserfiche WebLink

Tom Gill reiterated his point that more information needs to be gathered before any money is spent on these studies. He suggested getting information from cities such as Walnut Creek and Milpitas regarding how they deal with cut through traffic. He referred to various portions of the General Plan regarding the citizens' committee and the timing. He believed that planning for the interchange should cease pending the outcome of the citizens' committee study. He did not believe planning should be concurrent with the citizens' committee and the one year delay for the initiative process. He objected to Figures 19 and 21 in the baseline report. He felt all this was spending tax dollars needlessly. Gary Schwagearle, 189 West Angela Street, pointed out the residents of the Valencia development in Hacienda Business Park could be affected by cut through traffic if the West Las Positas interchange is not constructed. Bill Melton, 7580 Driftwood Way, indicated he was at the neighborhood meeting and Mr. Pico did not suggest going to the ballot. He merely raised the possibility. He gave good information to help the citizens address Council and work with staff. Pamela Showard, 7432 Highland Oaks Drive, asked about the proposed middle school in Hacienda Business Park on West Las Positas. Is that a factor Council will consider when it looks at traffic in the next five years on West Las Positas? On a rainy day the traffic at Case and Bernal is very bad. Mr. van Gelder indicated that factor is part of the plan. Chris Kinzel, 7741 Oak Creek Court, indicated when he moved to town 25 years ago, he did check the General Plan and found the West Las Positas interchange. He has been eagerly awaiting that all these years. All the traffic and transportation planning for the last 30 years in Pleasanton has been based on the assumption that the West Las Positas interchange would be built. He encouraged Council to adopt the staff recommendation. There were no further speakers on this item. Ms. Dennis referred to the graph for the timeline. She believed the study would be submitted to CalTrans for review concurrent with the one year period for the citizen initiative process. She believed there are several benchmarks that would have to be achieved in order to proceed to the ballot. She felt the timeline could be made clearer, that the plan would not be forwarded to CalTrans until there was some failure to attain a benchmark necessary for the initiative process to proceed. She believed the citizens have seen the Council working to involve them and they will benefit more in any argument over a subsequent decision by participating and gaining information. People can put something on the ballot whenever they want, but it is better to participate in the process and gain information. 09/24/96 -11-