CCMIN010400 - Laserfiche WebLink

the problem that does not affect existing homeowners. Further research is needed on the ten alternatives that did not involve existing housing developments. Phil Richardson, 1222 Hearst Drive, was also disturbed by the proposal and felt PG&E should have consideration for the health and investments of the homeowners in the area. He quoted from the protest that has been filed and indicated PG&E has used the least expense route despite its effects on the housing developments. He asked for the City to work with the residents to oppose this and find a different corridor. Randy Lum indicated staff has been tracking this project. The first public document that staff could comment on was released in November. Staff has asked PG&E to meet to address alternative locations and explain why it chose the proposed route. He stated the CPUC will begin the environmental review process shortly and hearings will be in that next stage. Staff will keep the Council informed. Ms. Ayala felt it was important for meetings regarding the EIR to be in Pleasanton and encouraged further citizen participation. Ms. Michelotti referred to the presentation to Council by PG&E representatives and asked if this alternative was presented at that time. Ms. Acosta indicated PG&E had not identified any alternatives at that time. Mayor Tarver believed that PG&E had indicated it would come back to Council with a proposal before presenting it to the CPUC. Ms. Dennis was very disappointed about this. PG&E is discussing using unproven technology for the undergrounding. She was disappointed there were not more public hearings on this and on the method of public notice during the holidays. Ms. Michelotti requested updates from PG&E on this project. Ms. Acosta indicated staff was well aware of the situation and was planning to have an update for Council. Ms. Ayala wanted to make certain the School District is also aware of this situation. Pleasanton City Council 4 Minutes 01/04/00