CCMIN010797 - Laserfiche WebLink

Ms. Dennis referred to suggestions previously made by Mr. Pico with regard to defining a time period. Mr. Swift briefly reviewed the suggestions in Option 5 presented by Mr. Pico and embodied in a memorandum from the City Attorney. Basically, this modifies the option which requires staff to discourage certain kinds of new applications that would have significant impact on Interstate 680 interchanges. Ms. Michelotti indicated that after public testimony was taken, she wanted staff to comment on how the new scenario relates to the San Francisco property? Mr. Tarver asked how the table in the staff report is affected by Mr. Pico's proposal. Mr. Swift said he had not evaluated that. In addition, a definition of "significant impacts" needs to be established. Mr. Pico pointed out that the staff report recommends taking testimony at this meeting, but continuing Council's decision to the next meeting on 1/21/97. Mr. Tarver agreed with that concept. Ms. Ayala expressed concern about the issue of a possible moratorium. Since it takes a 4/Sths vote, she wanted a decision on that at this meeting. Because moratorium has a negative impact on the economy of the community, she wanted it clear that she was not in support of that. She suggested taking testimony on that first. Ms. Michelotti was also not in favor of a moratorium. Mr. Tarver preferred not to use the word moratorium. However, he felt it takes a tremendous amount of time and money for a project to go through the application process and then not get three affirmative votes. He is not interested in having additional projects come forward that are not included in the General Plan, and that would have a negative effect on the issue the citizens are in the process of studying. He compared the situation to turning the water off after the tub is overflowing. Staff has clearly said that without the West Laa Positas interchange, there will be gridlock at certain intersections. It seems the question is whether to add more traffic to those intersections until a decision is made about building the West Las Positas interchange. Matt Sullivan, 4324 Muirwood Drive, did not want Council to vote on an issue before the public had a chance to comment on it. Ere Semmelmayer, 7429 Aspen Court, indicated many people are spending a lot of time and effort on the citizens committee study. He felt it was not appropriate to accept applications for processing and then, at the end of the study period, find that the interchange is required to 8 1/07/97