CCMIN041696 - Laserfiche WebLink

consider the effects of the current school on Case Avenue and the proposed assisted care facility. He felt is was best to have San Francisco develop a specific plan. Mr. Tarver suggested staff bring back the revised Calthorpe plan and prepare a report on the major issues of concern such as location of the Valley Avenue overpass, traffic circulation, need for street widths, and other fundamental pieces of the project where there may be disagreement. Also discuss what the next step of the process should be; e.g., the ErR, next level of design, etc., as well as those items that don't need to be dealt with yet. Describe what is meant by neo-traditional so Council and the community can agree or disagree. Ms. Michelotti asked about the development agreement, growth management, etc.? Mr. Tarvet felt that would not be done at that time. First you have to deal with the EIR and define the project. The preannexation agreement, development agreement, growth management, etc. are major issues to be resolved, but not before the EIR is started. Mr. Pico was concerned with trying to do too much at one meeting. He preferred to review the final Calthorpe plan, have a presentation on neo-tradifionaYnew urbanism and have discussion of that plan as submitted. Staff would have an outline of the process to follow and a timetable worked out with San Francisco. Mr. Tarver agreed with that approach. It would give time to think about everything and then come back to another meeting to talk about the design. There was a break at 9:12 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:21 p.m. Item 6h ReVieW Livermore Amador Valley Wastewater Management A~ency (LAVWMA} and East Bay DiSChar~ers (ERDA) proposals for increased sewer export caoacity. (SR96: 122) Randall Lure presented the staff report. Mr. Tarver referred to the twocolumn comparison between the EBDA proposal and the Livermore response, which was very helpful. He also noted that the paragraph showing the payment due on July 1, 1996, which cannot be met by either Livenore or Pleasanton until there is an election, has been struck. He felt the response was consistent with the EBDA offer. EBDA has urged LAVWMA not to make substantial changes to its offer because it would have to go back to all its agencies for ratification. EBDA has never proposed to control the size of the pipe. It was important that there be a resolution to provide clear direction to Pleasanton's representatives for the next LAVWMA meeting because there are two proposals which are inconsistent. The last JPA modification provides that a member agency can proceed alone, but 04/16/96 -17-