My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN083005
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
2000-2009
>
2005
>
CCMIN083005
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/17/2007 10:56:42 AM
Creation date
8/23/2005 4:06:40 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
8/30/2005
DOCUMENT NO
CCMIN083005
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
20
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br /> The roll call vote was as follows: <br /> AYES: Council members McGovern, Sullivan, Thorne, and Mayor Hosterman <br /> NOES: Councilmember Brozosky <br /> ABSENT: None <br /> ABSTAIN: None <br /> Mr. Thorne said he could accept the definitions as a working draft so long as it is clear <br /> the citizens of Pleasanton are not being classified as cut-through. <br /> Ms. McGovern accepted the working draft but reiterated her desire to have some <br /> changes. <br /> It was moved by Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Thorne, to adopt Alternative B as a <br /> working draft, subject to modification as part of the future land use and traffic circulation <br /> element workshops to occur in the future. <br /> The roll call vote was as follows: <br /> AYES: Council members Sullivan, Thorne and Mayor Hosterman <br /> NOES: Council members Brozosky and McGovern <br /> ABSENT: None <br /> ABSTAIN: None <br /> Ms. McGovern did not support the motion because she preferred Alternative A with the <br /> addition of some things from B. She did not want to run traffic models, which include things like <br /> Rose Avenue that will not be constructed. She believed all the traffic models shown at the <br /> meeting dealt with Alternative A and not B. <br /> Mr. Brozosky agreed all the modeling was for Alternative A and he did not have enough <br /> information. Staff presented many options and he would like to start with A, discuss land use <br /> and then see what other options can be applied to mitigate impacts. He felt it was harder to get <br /> rid of things than to add things. <br /> Ms. Hosterman supported the motion because it is the best opportunity to put everything <br /> on the table and thoroughly understand options before removing anything. She acknowledged <br /> there are improvements that will never happen like the Rose Avenue extension. <br /> Mr. Brozosky asked why she did not support Alternative C, since she wanted everything <br /> on the table? <br /> Mr. Hosterman replied that it was important to understand the Stoneridge Drive <br /> extension and West Las Positas interchange, and to share that information with the neighboring <br /> cities. In the spring, when it is known those projects will have an impact, discussions can then <br /> be had with regard to mitigations. <br /> Ms. McGovern pointed out that Alternative B did not include the Stone ridge Drive <br /> extension and West Las Positas interchange. <br /> Mr. Fialho assumed the Mayor was talking about modeling the 1996 General Plan. <br /> Council selected a working draft tonight and at the end of the process it would be compared to <br /> the 1996 General Plan in order to make an informed decision. <br /> Pleasanton City Council <br /> Special Meeting 2 08/30/05 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.