Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Michelotti amended her motion to as follows: <br /> <br /> It was moved by Ms. Michelotti, seconded by Ms. Mohr, to modify Policy 2 on page <br />XI-7, to read as follows: "Actively recruit and attract businesses and industries which are <br />compatible with the General Plan and consistent with the environmental holding capacity <br />of the land and surrounding land uses." <br /> <br />The roll Call vote was as follows: <br />AYES: Councilmembers- Dennis, Michelotti, Mohr, Pico, and Mayor Tarvet <br />NOES: None <br />ABSENT: None <br />ABSTAIN: None <br /> <br />Consideration Of the Final Environmental Impact Report <br /> <br /> Mr. Pico asked staff if the EIR would still be adequate if the West Las Positas <br />interchange were deleted from the General Plan. Was that considered in the EIR analysis? <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush indicated the elimination of that interchange was not considered as part of the <br />EIR. The final recommendation of the General Plan Steering Committee was not to eliminate <br />the interchange, so it was not considered in the EIR. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver felt the Steering Committee felt the issue needed to be reconsidered after all <br />the public testimony and staff comment. <br /> <br /> Mr. Rasmussen indicated the Steering Committee felt it needed more information in order <br />to make a decision one way or another, so instead of making a recommendation regarding the <br />interchange, it was put off until a further study could be done. That is why that was not <br />considered as part of the EIR. It was felt that at the time the question is seriously considered, <br />another environmental document would have to be prepared. <br /> <br /> Ms. Michelotti referred to comments on the adequacy of the statistics regarding traffic <br />on 1-680. Is there more recent data that could be included? <br /> <br /> Mr. van Gelder indicated there is more recent data from the Congestion Management <br />Agency. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush explained that the document was prepared to reflect impacts at a certain point <br />in time. There are statutory periods of time for comment and response. The issue was not <br />raised during the review period. If there is new information, and it is deemed significant for <br />the project under consideration, then there must be a new public comment period. Traffic along <br />1-680 will be part of the subsequent studies concerning the West Las Positas interchange. <br /> <br />08/06/96 -15- <br /> <br /> <br />