CCMIN052405 - Laserfiche WebLink

It was moved by Ms. McGovern, seconded by Mr. Brozosky, to approve models 1 and 2 and have #5 be done as part of the EIR process. Mr. Brozosky suggested that staff look at extension of El Charro, but not connected to Stoneridge Drive to see how that could help regional traffic. Mr. Fialho believed that if model 5 is run, it in essence captures the 1996 General Plan, which includes some roadway extensions not contemplated, such as El Charro to Stanley. He would not want to get to the end of the EIR process and not having a discussion of the pros and cons of the alternatives. He suggested a compromise to have staff do models 1, 2 and 5 and report the findings at the next workshop. A decision can then be made on a suggested circulation element and then start discussions of land use. Mayor Hosterman asked if that would satisfy the regional concerns she had. Mr. Fialho felt it would. Mr. Brozosky was concerned about be boxed into a corner. When the Housing Element was approved, Council was assured it did not commit the City to anything and now he is finding out differently. He did not see the value of spending staff time in looking at models that do not make sense and include assumptions that will be debated at length. He wanted the review of model 5 at the end in the EIR process when it can be shown that the issues were contemplated and there were overriding considerations. There were assumptions made in 1996 that have not occurred and all that can be explained. Ms. McGovern wanted this as part of the EIR process because she believed that when land use is discussed, there would be changes. Since it is legally required, she felt it could be done at the last thing after all other decisions have been made. Mr. Sullivan asked what happens if there continues to be a tie vote? Mr. Roush said with respect to the staff recommendation, a tie vote puts the matter into a holding pattern until there is a fifth councilmember, when the matter will be brought back. In the interim, nothing will go forward until Council gives direction to staff on how to proceed. For example, if there was direction to do models I and 2 and when there is a fifth councilmember, options 3, 4 and 5 would be brought back for discussion and direction. A substitute motion was made by Mr. Sullivan to move forward with Models I and 2 and bring the remainder of the staff recommendations back for decision when a fifth councilmember is elected. Mr. Fialho indicated the goal is to have an updated General Plan by May 2006 and if staff waits to run the models, it will delay that. If you wait until the fifth councilmember is seated, that will be about late June and complete models runs could not be presented by July 12. Pleasanton City Council 2 05/24/05 Special Meeting Minutes