CCMIN012197 - Laserfiche WebLink

designated Option 5 and tries to identify what a significant impact on the interchange might be, he came to the conclusion that there is only one major project that will have a real significant impact if it were built, and that is the San Francisco project. Almost every other project will not have a significant impact. Those are risks we take and he is committed to helping to find alternatives to the interchange and that the interchange not be built. He does not want to discourage applications, but rather to encourage applicants to respect the concerns of the neighborhoods and to address in any application the mitigation of the impact on the West Las Positas interchange, whether it is built or not. Every proposal that comes forward has to address those issues clearly so that if we do continue to take applications on a first-come/first-served basis, that Council has an adequate opportunity to really review the impacts of the projects on the neighborhood and the interchange. He supports the motion, but would like to clarify that rather than discourage application, that applicants be encouraged to respect the concerns of the neighborhood and to direct staff that every proposal that comes forward would have to have a substantial analysis of the impact of that project on the West Las Positas interchange, so Council can make intelligent case by case decisions. Ms. Dennis asked if the maker of the motion would agree that before final adoption of the new fourth recommendation, that a draft be presented for review that describes specifically what Council has discussed. It would be good to have a concrete policy that shows what Council's expectations are. Otherwise, the applications may not include what Council wants. Ms. Acosta suggested that a decision be made this evening but that particular policy could be brought back by itself for consideration. Ms. Dennis preferred to see the specific language and also felt it was important for the Mayor to see it also. Ms. Michelotti asked if the motion was to adopt recommendations 1, 2 and 3, with 4 to come back. We are, however agreeing in concept with Becky's proposal. Ms. Acosta indicated Council has given direction to staff, which will then draft the policy for final adoption. Ms. Ayala indicated Mr. Pieo's comments echoed those of Ms. Dennis and should be considered when drafting the fourth policy. Ms. Michelotti again asked for clarification that in adopting the staff recommendations, that Council is continuing to accept applications on a case by case basis. Ms. Acosta said that was the staff recommendation and if the motion before you is adopted, that is how staff will proceed. 9 1/21/97