Laserfiche WebLink
City of Pleasanton, CA - City Council Minutes Page 3 of 5 <br /> <br />as depicted in Options A and D. <br /> <br />The roll call vote was taken was follows: <br />AYES: Councilmembers -McGovern, Sullivan, and Mayor Hosterman <br />NOES: Councilmember Brozosky <br />ABSENT: None <br />ABSTAIN: None <br /> <br />It was moved by Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Ms. McGovern, to eliminate the ACE <br />Train Station from being part of the preferred plan while recognizing that it would be <br />an alternative in the EIR analysis. <br /> <br />Mr. Brozosky believed the inclusion of the ACE Train Station did not need to be included in <br />the EIR process. He asked staff for clarification. <br /> <br />Mr. Roush said the tax sharing agreement between the County and the City requires the City <br />to seriously consider the placement of the ACE Train Station on the Bemal property. He <br />noted that the inclusion of the ACE Train Station is not a required use within the EIR <br />process. The City needs to recognize that there is some commitment to seriously consider <br />the location of the Train Station on the Bemal property, which is subject to Council <br />discretion. <br /> <br />In response to an inquiry by Mr. Brozosky, Mr. Roush recommended including the ACE <br />Train Station as one of the alternatives in the EIR analysis. This would demonstrate the <br />City's serious consideration. Council could ultimately evaluate whether it makes sense to <br />have the ACE Train Station on the Bernal property. He noted that there is no legal <br />requirement to include this as an alternative in the EIR process. <br /> <br />Mr. Brozosky asked staff if a complete EIR was required, or was a Negative Declaration <br />sufficient based on what has already been studied for the Bernal property? <br /> <br />Mr. Roush said staff would recommend conducting a full EIR analysis, as there are <br />sufficient environmental issues that need to be addressed. <br /> <br />Mr. Brozosky recalled that the Task Force recommended conducting a Negative <br />Declaration. <br /> <br />Mayor Hosterman believed it was important to be in compliance with the terms and <br />conditions of the tax sharing agreement between the County and the City. She preferred to <br />retain the ACE Train Station on the Bemal property and include it as one of the alternatives <br />in the EIR analysis. <br /> <br />Ms. McGovern did not support retaining the ACE Train Station in the preferred plan. <br /> <br />Mr. Fialho recommended that Council defer making a decision on the ACE Train Station <br />until its June 21 meeting. This would give staff sufficient time to review the various issues <br />associated with this site. <br /> <br />Ms. McGovern reiterated that she did not support retaining the ACE Train Station in the <br />preferred plan. She was willing to work with Alameda County to make the current location <br /> <br />http://www.ci.pleasanton.ca.us/archive/ccminutes050512.html 6/9/2005 <br /> <br /> <br />