CCMIN031803 - Laserfiche WebLink

Ms. McKeehan indicated this information has been available for a long time. Staff is not recommending that the policy be changed to take all intersections to LOS F. That is an option to make the General Plan consistent, or Council could seek alternatives that deal with improvements at certain intersections, or consider metering, or some combination of all of those. What is at issue for this meeting is a discussion of the process. Mr. Brozosky asked what CalTrans process was necessary if the interchange is not to be built? Mr. Swift said it is not necessary so long as none of the freeway interchanges are modified. However, the West Las Positas Committee recommended, in addition to eliminating the West Las Positas interchange, making changes to the Stoneridge interchange, plus studying the West Las Positas interchange and then comparing the benefits of those two things, along with modifications to the Bernal interchange. The key issue of the Committee was that it was not obvious what CalTrans would approve. What was proposed as potential mitigations are non- traditional interchange configurations. CalTrans will only officially comment on a plan if there is a full PSR process. That process is much more expensive and time consuming and also triggers the need for environmental impact reports because this is a federal highway facility. Ms. McKeehan said this is the classic General Plan issue, in that if you make the decision to have the West Las Positas interchange, there are certain consequences; if you take it out, there are also consequences. You must decide what tradeoffs you are willing to accept. Mr. Swirl said one of the things the Committee suggested for the West Las Positas interchange was an HOV lane only on and offramp. That is rarely done in California, but is the kind of thing CalTrans will not give an opinion on without going through the PSR process. Mr. Brozosky asked for clarification that a citizens' initiative does not require an EIR. If signatures are gathered and Council adopts the measure without going to an election, does that still apply? Mr. Roush said there are two parts to that scenario. The courts have not expressly held in that scenario that an EIR is not required. A case like that has never come before an appellate court or the Supreme Court of California. What the courts have held is that in the context of a citizens' initiative that was put on a ballot, that did not need an EIR, where conversely a Council sponsored initiative did require an EIR. Presumably, a Council adoption of a citizens' initiative would not need an EIR, but that has not definitively been decided. The other part of the citizens' initiative is the concern about those changes keeping a General Plan internally consistent. If it did not, it would be subject to challenge. Mr. Brozosky said the initiative could be written to say it removes the West Las Positas interchange, accepts LOS F until the next General Plan update, and that would make it consistent. Mr. Roush said presumably that would take care of the issue. Pleasanton City Council 20 03/18/03 Minutes