My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN051992
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1992
>
CCMIN051992
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/26/2010 10:55:02 AM
Creation date
10/28/1999 11:47:34 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DESTRUCT DATE
PERMANENT
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
22
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
47 <br /> <br />advantage in going on this way with uncertainty on a project by <br />project basis. From a business standpoint it has been a disaster. <br />Hacienda has done its fair share and should be exempt from this <br />"traffic race" situation. Residential projects, until very <br />recently, have never had to submit traffic reports. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver asked if this were a short-term problem, a long- <br />termproblem or both. If you had short-termrelief, could you wait <br />until the General Plan was done to get long-term relief. <br /> <br /> Mr. Owens indicated it would not solve the problem. There is <br />nothing that can happen that can guarantee that the same external <br />traffic generators, which Pleasanton cannot control, will not keep <br />Hacienda at risk. There is no benefit to waiting. <br /> <br /> Mr. Butler said of that not all ways of approaching the <br />problem involve the General Plan. There are some potential <br />solutions that don't require General Plan impact at all. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr asked staff if Option 2 were considered with approval <br />of a PUD condition or development agreement modification, would <br />that apply as well to the reduction of the million square feet? <br />Mr. Swift indicated that is how the million square feet would be <br />addressed by changing the PUD condition. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr then asked if removing the Valley/Santa Rita <br />intersection could be included in the Option 2 choice. Mr. Swift <br />replied that if Option 2 were approved, it would not be necessary <br />to do that. <br /> <br /> Mr. Butler wanted to be sure the analysis for Option 2 <br />indicates it is all right. Mr. Swift said if an analysis showed <br />that the Valley/Santa Rita intersection was still not working, then <br />it could be removed. <br /> <br /> Mayor Mercer indicated it seems that the NPID owners that are <br />left are being held accountable for something that is not their <br />responsibility. In view of the fact that they are willing to <br />reduce the size of their project to make it even better, it seems <br />only fair to allow them out. <br /> <br /> Mr. Butler asked if there were any developments or improvement <br />plans pending at Valley and Santa Rita that might improve it. <br /> <br /> Mr. van Gelder indicated that there are mitigation measures <br />required, such as triple left turn lane, a double left turn lane, <br />and widening for northbound traffic. After all that is done, the <br />intersection will be satisfactory. <br /> <br /> Mr. Mercer wanted to be sure the impact of the Auf der Maur <br />project, if it were rezoned, was considered. He would prefer that <br />it be residential which generates far less traffic than commercial. <br /> <br />5/19/92 15 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.