CCMIN033004 - Laserfiche WebLink

project to other projects in the community. He was satisfied with the data that has been provided. He noted that there is a certain amount ofgnessing as it relates to how traffic will impact the community for any type of project. He believed the traffic consultant provided more traffic figures than what will actually be realized. The consultant did not show any traffic coming offof the freeway at Airway Boulevard, which is near Highway g4 and connects to Stanley Boulevard. He believed that with proper signage and changes to the online map services, this would be the preferred route. Ms. Hosterman believed Council was policy makers and not designers. As policy makers, it is more important for Council to talk in terms as to whether or not this particular project is a good fit with this community, which she did not believe it was. Ms. Ayala pointed out that Council is not redesigning the addition of the four additional water slides with the renovation of the four existing water slides on the same hill. What has been suggested is the elimination of the second story addition. The other activities will be ground level and, in her estimation, it would be something that would appeal to the community. As the City approaches build out, she does not go anywhere in town where someone stops her regarding overall traffic in Pleasanton. She was not considering anything other than keeping the same design for this project, but she wanted it scaled down. If Council starts to go in the direction that it denies a scaled down project because of traffic, she is ready to deny every project. She believes citizens of this community are at their wits end with traffic in town, and Council needs to start carefully looking at every single project that comes before it. While she was not disagreeing with the traffic component of this project, she was just stating that if Council starts to go down that road with the General Plan, it would need to continue going down that road. Mr. Brozosky concurred with a portion of Ms. Hosterman's comments. He did not disagree with the portion in the traffic report that states this project will create more traffic. Where he and Ms. Hosterman disagree is on the validity of the traffic report. The additional traffic that this project will create concerned him, which is the number one issue that affects people in this community. Council needs to be consistent when it considers projects that will generate traffic, as there are other projects in the community that will probably generate the same amount if not more traffic. Ms. Hosterman pointed out that the consultant's traffic report dated June 16, 2003 indicates that it used the most current traffic report, but then it makes reference to a new traffic model that the City is involved in putting together. It was clear to her that the traffic consultant did not take advantage of the 2003 Baseline Traffic Report when it put the traffic numbers together. She informed Council of a Congestion Management Agency Planning Area Board meeting this afternoon and the big news is regional traffic issues that need to be resolved: congestion management of 1-580, the HOV and Livermore rail, BART issues, 1-580 Isabel Interchange at Highway 84, Highway 84, 1- 580 to 1-680, ACE Train, 1-680 Smart Cat-pool, northbound 1-680 Smart Carpool, and Sunol Grade. As of today in planning for the next 25 years, the cost is $13.6 billion dollars. From a regional perspective, Council needs to be extremely careful with where it is going in the immediate future until the economy tums around, until it is made clear as Pleasanton City Council 7 03/30/04 Minutes