Laserfiche WebLink
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. <br />John Carroll stated that his main concern was the increase in miles driven within the <br />City which is up by 46 percent. He noted that the City already has a lot of traffic and <br />that this will be a dramatic increase. He added that the major driver of the increase <br />will be the commercial development for the Hacienda Business Park. He stated that <br />he felt people's air quality was not the greatest already and that he would like to <br />come up with a plan to encourage businesses or get BART to Livermore, install <br />more bike paths, or get some way to dramatically reduce the miles anticipated to be <br />driven. He suggested providing carrots as incentives such as installing bike racks, <br />hiring local workers, and other things to bring about decrease in miles driven. With <br />respect to CEQA, he stated that it has been mentioned there may not be the need <br />for additional study. He then inquired if the extension of Stoneridge Drive was <br />looked at not only as part of the EIR but as a thoroughfare as well and if a traffic <br />study was included. He further inquired if an additional study would be required if <br />Stoneridge Drive were to go through. <br />Nancy Allen noted that she had submitted some questions in writing to Ms. Stern <br />and requested confirmation that these questions would be answered. Ms. Stern <br />replied that they would be addressed in the Final EIR. Ms. Allen voiced similar <br />concerns as Mr. Carroll regarding the 46-percent increase. She added that the City <br />is out of compliance with the air quality plan, which might be a technicality. She <br />inquired what the break-even point might be for the City to be in compliance. She <br />further inquired what the impact would be with respect to Downtown versus East <br />Pleasanton and other areas, and if one area would be more impacted than others. <br />She noted that a better understanding of the real impacts is necessary before any <br />final decisions are made. <br />Ms. Allen inquired what would happen should the 46-percent increase be found to <br />be unacceptable. She stated that she felt it might mean reducing the source, which <br />are parking spots for cars. She suggested that there should be only one parking <br />spot for every one or two new jobs created. She noted that this might mean that <br />businesses get more creative in telecommuting alternatives and that this might also <br />cause creative things like parking lots right outside the freeway with bus service <br />between buildings. She added that bike lanes and car pools are great but do not <br />change behavior. She indicated that she now takes the bus to the BART station <br />when she goes to work because it is more convenient and does not require a <br />parking space. She stated that she felt a real cost should be assessed or have less <br />parking to really provide an incentive for people to change their behavior. She <br />encouraged the City to place a stake in the ground, put something more aggressive <br />in place, and partner with businesses. <br />Chair Blank stated that he felt 46 percent was an attention-getting number and that <br />he hoped the public will weigh in and let everyone know their feelings. He then <br />thanked the speakers for their comments. <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, October 15, 2008 Page 8 of 15 <br />