CCMIN060496 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Tarver repeated the ballot language presented by Mr. Churlca and indicated he had no objection to that. He was disappointed to see that ISTEA funding to improve the corridor was lost. If the funding is available, he felt we should try to get it. Mr. Churka indicated the PLA has not pursued outside funding as a matter of pride. It has built and operated its system for nine years with no outside support. In addition, when an organization receives outside funding, certain restrictions are imposed and it doesn't want to deal with that. Ms. Michelotti asked how he would address concerns raised at the last hearing about how far the train would come, the impact on senior housing, the crossings of streets beyond Bernal Avenue, parking, etc. There are many issues that need to be discussed in an environmental document. This is more than a question of having funds to build the project. Mr. Churka indicated the Alameda County Planning Department is doing all that and there will be public hearings. Ms. Michelotti asked what the project plan was. Mr. Churka said in the first phase the train will come to Bemal and stop. He felt the merchants downtown will want the train to come further downtown. Right now he just wants to get the train to Bemal and not worry about crossing the street. Ms. Michelotti thought it would be helpful to add to the ballot language of the advisory vote that it included only phase one to Bernal. That would take away the political discussion. Mr. Tarver believed there is a way to explain that in the impartial analysis, which is part of the voter pamphlet, and that this has absolutely nothing to do with the project, the approval of the project, or the granting of a project, since Pleasanton is not the jurisdiction with power of approval. Mr. Roush indicated the arguments can set forth what the advisory measure does or does not do. There will be an impartial analysis to explain the significance of the measure and to explain that the project is being considered by Alameda County and that the environmental analysis is pan of that. Ms. Acosta indicated the impartial analysis could explain all that, but the question that Ms. Michelotti is raising is that a voter could conceivably approve of the train as far as Bernai but not like it if it crosses Bernal. Ms. Michelotti stated that we would know if there was support for the train to come as far as Bernal, then the question of it coming any farther would be another debate. She did not want the question to be fought out in the political arena. She did not know why this needed to 06/04/96 -21-