My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN091995
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1995
>
CCMIN091995
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/26/2010 10:54:18 AM
Creation date
5/20/1999 11:35:42 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.
/
28
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. Pico stated that it doesn't generate cash for the actual construction. The Tri-Valley <br />Transportation Council did address this issue but there is still considerable disagreement over <br />how the costs get apportioned between entities if the City doesn't pay for this with money <br />coming out of the Tri-Valley transportation fee. To expect that the Tri-Valley Transportation <br />Council might reach some consensus on how this matching money is going to be realized by the <br />end of the year is unrealistic. <br /> <br /> Mr. Lum agreed that credits do not generate actual cash. <br /> <br /> Mr. Pico was confused about the negative declaration. The staff report stated a negative <br />declaration is sufficient to clear the project and yet all other discussions talk about an <br />environmental document that is coming. He asked if there are two separate issues? <br /> <br /> Mr. Lum stated that there is a draft environmental document that will be available for <br />public review. He believed it to be one document only. <br /> <br /> Tom Wintch, Project Manager from Greiner, stated that there is only one document. The <br />terms environmental document and negative declaration have been used interchangeably. The <br />feeling is the environmental impact of the project is such that the appropriate document would <br />be a negative declaration with a finding of no significant impact. All the studies to date have <br />shown that a negative declaration is appropriate. There have been no impacts that are <br />considered significant or adverse that could not be mitigated. If the negative declaration is <br />inappropriate based on comments, then a more in depth document would be required. <br /> <br /> Mr. Pico asked what would happen to the time frame in the process. <br /> <br /> Mr. Wintch replied that if a full EIS was required, two additional years would be added <br />to the project. <br /> <br /> Ms. Dennis asked who is paying for DSRSD's digestors and is this paid for locally? <br /> <br /> Mr. Lum replied it will come out of Measure B project funds as part of the overall <br />project cost. <br /> <br /> Vince Harris, Transportation Authority, stated that he is committed to funding the <br />digestor. The actual cost will not be known until it is in the additional phase of design. He has <br />worked with DSRSD and recognizes that it views this as a reasonable mitigation for the loss of <br />those lands. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr asked how a negative declaration dealt with the threat of earthquake and the <br />potential relative stability of a high rise facility. <br /> <br /> Mr. Harris replied that it is taken into account in a normal manner when these facilities <br />are designed. He was using Cal Trans standards for design for this facility using current <br /> <br />09/19/95 -12- <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.