CCMIN012781 - Laserfiche WebLink

of other agency. And fourth, by saying in essence that the beneficial impacts to Pleasanton override the adverse impacts to the various other local agencies and private companies (no project alternative). Mayor Turner stated the preceding analysis is unfair because: (1) some of the proposed mitigation measures will not mitigate the adverse impacts; (2) the responsibility for mitigating an adverse impact cannot truly belong to another agency if the proposed mitigation measure will not mitigate the adverse impact; (3) while it is possible that Pleasanton's beneficial impacts may be greater than any one public agency's or private company's detrimental impact, it is not possible, and has not yet been addressed in the re- cord, that Pleasanton's beneficial impacts outweight the cumulative detrimental impacts of the various public agencies and private companies. Mayor Turner further stated that Livemore City Council feels Pleasanton has 'a responsibilityto consider the regional impact of this proposed action~ ~nd that in doing so the beneficial im- pacts would no longer override the cumulative adverse impacts. They also felt that failing to do so takes a very narrow view. Mayor Turner stated that the adoption of this ordinance will have an impact on Livemore and he is requesting a short continuance to allow the City of Livemore to consider what action might be necessary to protect that City. Councilmember Kephart stated he felt this ordinance will have an impact on the City of Livemore but did not want any further delay of the matter. He stated that Councilts first obligation is to the citizens of Pleasanton. Councilmember Mohr stated that this matter had been under consideration for almost a year with many public hearings held, and that the City of Livemore had every opportunity to respond before this time. Mayor Mercer stated he had been contacted by Supervisor Excell in a last minute attempt to reach some kind of agreement with the gravel companies. Mayor Mercer stated that Supervisor Excell was to contact him before 5:00 P.M., today if there was any indication that further discussion between Supervisor Excell, the gravel companies, and the City might prove beneficial, but that he had not heard anything from Supervisor Excell by 5:00 P.M., on this matter, therefore he assumed nothing more would be accomplished by further negotiations. Mayor Turner stated he felt some of the concerns could be mitigated through cooperation by the Cities of Livemore and Pleasanton and the gravel companies. He stated that the City of Livemore had supported the City of Pleasanton in its recent opposition to the proposed Woments Correctional facility at Santa Rita, and he did not feel it unreasonable for Pleasanton to honor his request for a short continuance of this item. Ms. Wendy Winsted, 4312 First Street, stated she wanted this ordinance adopted as soon as possible, stating that the City of Livemore has had ample opportunity to review this matter and that a 30-day delay would not make that much difference to them. Ms. Judy Mayhew, representing Mission Park Homeowners Association, stated that all documents relative to this issue have been made public for many months, that a 30-day delay would not benefit the City of Livemore, and she felt the residents of Pleasanton should not have to suffer any longer and that the ordinance should be adopted now. 6. 1/27/81