Laserfiche WebLink
to complete off-site roadway, including locally <br />affected freeway improvements as required, and <br />traffic signal improvements. Condition No. 72 <br />requires Developer to provide a traffic signal <br />master controller system, interconnect system <br />and sufficient expansion of city offices to <br />house the traffic computer. Condition No. 73 <br />requires that public improvements be constructed <br />as a continuous project. The TSM and Transit <br />Conditions will achieve a reduction in projected <br />trips, reducing local and regional traffic <br />volume. <br /> <br />Fact. The Project adds incrementally insig- <br />nificant traffic to non-local streets and <br />freeways. <br /> <br />~. Some of the other mitigation measures <br />identified in the Draft EIR (extension of BART <br />to Tri-Valley, Light Rail Transit and regional <br />transit services) are subject to the jurisdic- <br />tion of other public agencies and can and should <br />be enforced by such agencies. Other mitigation <br />measures affecting local transit are under study <br />by the City. <br /> <br />Fact. BART is subject to the jurisdiction of <br />the MTC; Light Rail Transit is subject to the <br />jurisdiction of MTC; regional freeway improve- <br />ments are subject to the jurisdiction of <br />Caltrans. These regional traffic and transit <br />measures are currently under study. Both BART <br />and 1-680 freeway improvements are projected to <br />be operational prior to year 2005. See, e.g., <br />Livermore-Pleasanton Extension Study, Interim <br />Report No. 1. <br /> <br />Fact. Local transit measures including bus <br />system, Park and Ride Lots, and a City-wide TSM <br />ordinance are currently under study by the City. <br /> <br />Finding. The Reduced Intensity of Development <br />Alternative, No Project Alternative, Increased <br />Residential Capacity Alternative, Partial <br />Approval Alternative or Mixed Use Alternative <br />could partially mitigate the potential signifi- <br />cant traffic effect. However, as described in <br />Section XII, these Alternatives are infeasi- <br />ble. The Alternatives are unnecessary because <br />the mitigation measures which have been <br /> <br /> <br />