CCMIN010901 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Campbell asked why the City staff did not prepare the EIR. Ms. McKeehan indicated it was sometimes better for public perception to have an independent consultant prepare the report. It is possible to do EIRs internally, but ultimately the cost of adding staff to do the number of EIRs required annually would cost more than hiring a consultant. For many projects, the City does not pay for the EIR, the developers do. Ms. Dennis inquired about a previous requirement for the historic train project to prepare its own environmental study and pay for it. If that project moves forward, could the City get reimbursement for that portion of the EIR? Mr. Roush clarified that if the extension of the rail lines to bring the trains downtown was taking place on its own, then the railroad association would have to bear the cost of the environmental study. In this situation, the Downtown Specific Plan Committee has asked that to be included as part of the larger package, so it would be difficult to go back to the railroad association to ask for reimbursement. Ms. Dennis surmised that if the railroad project goes forward, there might be further environmental study with regard to noise, etc. Mr. Swift pointed out that there is a different scope of work with respect to this project. The downtown study will stop at Bernal Avenue and not consider what would happen beyond that line. There are issues throughout the length of the train corridor that require environmental assessment. In addition Alameda County would have to grant a lease in order to allow the railroad association to operate the train and there are CEQA requirements to be met for that. The proposed EIR will not address the issues of noise near the senior center or housing project, etc. Ms. Dennis concluded those issues would have to addressed in a separate study and acknowledged there are still questions to be resolved. Ms. McKeehan pointed out that despite the amount of support to bring the train to downtown, there is still opposition from residents of Ridge View Commons, as evidenced by the petition presented to Council this evening. Mr. Campbell asked if the options presented in the EIR are binding, or could Council do something else and, would that require another EIR. Mr. Roush said it depends how different the new alternative is. If it is merely a variation of the alternatives already analyzed, then no new EIR would be necessary. Mr. Swirl suggested that if Council had other options in mind, that they relate those to the consultant or to staff for inclusion in the study. Pleasanton City Council 8 01/09/01 Minutes