Laserfiche WebLink
of the report. He suggested adding another program outlining Ms. Dennis's concerns about the <br />ability of citizens to prepare an initiative. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift indicated that was satisfactory to staff and keeps the General Plan consistent <br />until all this comes to a head. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush suggested adding language on page III-6, second paragraph, that talks about <br />the General Plan Steering committee recommendation. If that recommendation doesn't get <br />adopted, the language should be added to the text that reflects these two new programs, to make <br />sure it is consistent with the programs. <br /> <br /> Ms. Dennis wanted the language to be clear so people understand they have to do <br />something within certain time periods and what the time line is. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush indicated that was why one year was selected. If the Notice of Intention to <br />Circulate a Petition is not filed or the signatures are not gathered, then the project could move <br />ahead; on the other hand, if those steps are taken, there needs to be time for an election to <br />occur. That time period can reduced if certain things don't come to pass. He agreed it would <br />be useful to include a couple more steps in terms of what has to be done. Program 1.6 will <br />include the things the mayor talked about, there would be a new 1.7 and the existing 1.7 will <br />be renumbered to 1.8. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver felt there was consensus on this. At the time of final votes, it can be further <br />refined if necessary. <br /> <br /> Mayor Tarver asked for public comment on the Final EIR and Update. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver summarized the prior discussion which indicated the Steering Committee <br />recommended appointing a citizens advisory committee, the Planning Commission recommended <br />the deletion of that program. Council agrees with the Planning Commission but Council would <br />like staff to work with citizens on gathering information regarding alternatives, fiscal impacts, <br />neighborhood impacts. If a satisfactory resolution is not reached, citizens would have the <br />opportunity to initiate an action that would delete the interchange from the General Plan. <br />Council's position fight now is that there is no way to balance levels of service with the <br />elimination of that interchange but we would like to see if there is a way to design the <br />interchange to satisfy the residents. <br /> <br /> Rick DeSimone, 7720 Oak Creek Court, felt that most of the citizens don't know what <br />the plan for the interchange is. He indicated there is a major intersection and crosswalk used <br />by children going to Lydiksen School. Will there be a pedestrian bridge for the students? He <br />felt the Bernal Avenue and Stoneridge Drive interchanges were only one lane north and south <br />and suggested modifications to them to handle more traffic. He appreciated the fact that Council <br />and staff will be working with the residents on this. <br /> <br />07/15/96 <br /> - 8 - <br /> <br /> <br />