CCMIN040604 - Laserfiche WebLink

wanted to further protest or take action to stop any or all of the particular expansion elements of this plan? Mr. Roush said that if the Council feels that the EIR would be a more appropriate document in which to evaluate the impacts of the project, it could be the main point to address with the Livermore City Council. If the Livermore City Council decided that it would approve the project without an EIR, then the City of Pleasanton and others would have the opportunity to challenge the decision and file a lawsuit arguing that an EIR should be prepared in lieu of adopting the Negative Declaration. If Council directed, staff could challenge the project on the grounds that the E1R review had not been adequate, even with the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Mayor Pico asked if Council needed to be clear in its response to the City of Livermore with its concerns in order to take future potential legal action in the event that the City of Pleasanton continues to be ignored? Mr. Roush indicated that the letter should identify the issues which Council believes have not been adequately addressed. Council should clearly express in its letter that an EIR must be prepared in connection with the project. Ms. McKeehan mentioned that the Livermore Planning Commission would be holding two meetings. The first meeting will be held on May 10 and at that point it time, the Planning Commission will make its decision, and then forward the matter to Council. She noted that all written comments must be provided to the City of Livermore within the allotted time frame. Staffis trying to arrange for a liaison committee meeting before the final decision is made. Mayor Pico appreciated the good relationship between the City of Pleasanton and the City of Livermore. He believed the response letter to the City of Livermore needed to be strengthened. At the beginning of the letter, he believes Council needs to state that the City of Pleasanton wishes to express its grave concerns regarding the impacts of the airport expansion on the City of Pleasanton. To follow that statement, the letter should indicate that Council wants to express its extreme frustration that none of its recommendations and concerns have been implemented, and that it is our strong recommendation that a meaningful dialogue occur regarding the discussion of our issues in order to maintain the current good relationship that exists between our communities, and in order to avoid litigation. He did not believe the City of Livermore realized how serious the people of Pleasanton are about the impacts that the expansion of the airport will have on the City of Pleasanton. He was frustrated that Council had been denied an advisory role on the Airport Commission and that its issues and concerns to this point in time have appeared to have been dismissed. He believed it was appropriate for Pleasanton's response to contain strong wording. He was prepared to commit the full assets and resources of the City of Pleasanton to modify the airport plan and to eliminate and/or mitigate the impacts if the City of Livermore is not willing to consider addressing Pleasanton's concerns. Pleasanton City Council 13 04/06/04 Minutes