CCMIN071596 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Rasmussen indicated one action could approve the straw votes. Council made approximately fifty changes to the prior list provided to it. Mr. Tarver asked how notice was given for this meeting. Mr. Rasmussen indicated it was a continuation of the prior meeting and staff reports have been available since Friday afternoon. Ms. Michelotti indicated the public or Councilmembers would need to cross-reference the straw votes in the Minutes for the July 1, July 2, and July 9 meetings. We do not have the Minutes for hly 9. Mr. Tarvet did not think it necessary to go through every straw vote, because a lot of them were unanimous. He suggested that if Council had concerns about being on record as voting against any of the recommendations, that those items be discussed and voted on individually. Any item raised by the public tonight could also be taken out. NIx. Roush indicated that the General Plan Steering Committee had recommended that a committee be formed to review whether the West Las Positas Boulevard/I-680 interchange should be constructed. The Planning Commission recommended that provision be deleted based on the fact that when the time comes for Council to consider implementation of that interchange, there would be opportunity for public input and full public discussion. Councilmember Dennis raised the question of what recourse voters might have if Council decided to go ahead with the proposed interchange. Mr. Roush believed that implementation of the interchange would be an administrative decision as opposed to a legislative decision and would therefore not be subject to referendum. Ms. Dennis asked if something could be included in the General Plan that would give the voters an opportunity to do something should the Council decide to go ahead with the interchange. Mr. Roush suggested a new program under the Circulation Element, Goal 2, Policy 1, that would defer action on any decision for about a year to allow the voters to have an opportunity to circulate an initiative petition to amend the General Plan to delete that interchange from the General Plan. It is not as simple as amending the General Plan in one section, however, because at this point this interchange also has an effect on levels of service at various intersections throughout North Pleasanton; so other changes to the General Plan might have to be made if the interchange were deleted. In addition, Council could author an initiative to remove the interchange as well. To do that would require some environmental analysis as well as making sure the General Plan is otherwise consistent internally. He pointed out that according to figures in the General Plan, it is not contemplated that the interchange would be constructed until somewhere between 2005 and 2010. Ms. Mohr asked if the Council action could be structured so that it was legislative. She felt it was much easier for citizens to do a referendum than an initiative. 07/15/96 - 3 -