My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN092496
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1996
>
CCMIN092496
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/26/2010 10:53:55 AM
Creation date
5/13/1999 11:15:47 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DESTRUCT DATE
PERMANENT
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
24
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Mr. Lum said the plan indicates the citizens' committee will make the recommendation <br />to the City Council prior to the preparation of the environmental impact report, so the <br />alternatives to be examined by the EIR will be defined. Council will make that decision. <br /> <br /> Ms. Acosta indicated the citizens' committee would make some recommendations, but <br />there may be City commissions who want to comment and the staff would also make <br />recommendations. Council would ultimately make the decision. <br /> <br /> Mr. Sullivan referred to paragraph VIII and asked if the Council' s preferred alternative <br />could be different than that of the citizens' committee? If that happens, how would Council <br />justify it? Would there have to be another EIR? <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr indicated by the time Council reviews the citizens' recommendation, the staff <br />recommendation, and the Planning Commission recommendation, there may be a blended <br />solution to a problem that comes out of the public heating and all recommendations. There is <br />no way to know that until all the information is in. A new EIR would only be necessary if the <br />Council decision diverged enough to require it. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver believed there would be sufficient rationale for any Council decision and he <br />felt the EIR will cover the alternatives. He felt Council will be responsive to the citizens. <br /> <br /> Mr. Sullivan asked if the plan goes to CalTrans for studies after the Pleasanton process <br />is completed. <br /> <br /> Mr. Lum stated it would go to CalTrans only if the recommendation is for freeway <br />modifications or an interchange. <br /> <br /> Mr. Sullivan than asked if the CalTrans study would be concurrent with the one year <br />period for the citizen initiative. <br /> <br /> Mr. Lum said the CalTrans process takes about twenty months which includes a project <br />study report and a separate state/federal EIR and that could run concurrently. <br /> <br /> Mr. Sullivan hypothesized that the initiative goes to the ballot and the citizens vote down <br />the interchange, can CalTrans say the interchange will go in anyway? <br /> <br /> Mr. Lum said no. The improvements are locally funded. The only reason CalTrans <br />would be involved is because nothing can be done on a freeway without its approval. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr believed that if the West Las Positas interchange does not go in and there is <br />a large volume of traffic that must be accommodated, it may be necessary that Stoneridge or <br />Bernal may have to be expanded, in which case CalTrans would be involved again. <br /> <br /> 09/24/96 <br /> -10- <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.