Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Lum said that was correct. The study would determine the impacts and necessary <br />mitigations. <br /> <br /> Ms. Michelotti asked if he would be working with the citizens groups to consider all <br />possible alternatives. <br /> <br /> Mr. Lum explained that there is a period within the timeline for the neighborhood to <br />present its issues and concerns in order to decide upon the scope of engineering and economic <br />study. The study would then provide an opportunity to have the concerns evaluated and then <br />the alternatives would be narrowed down to what will be included in the EIR, which then <br />examines the impacts of the alternatives. <br /> <br /> Ms. Michelotti asked about the timing of this process. <br /> <br /> Mr. Lum stated it was a long process. However, the process to determine whether or <br />not the interchange is retained will take about 17 months. Beyond that, the processes are State <br />functions. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver felt it was important for the citizens to understand the length of time they will <br />be committing to when they become involved. He wanted the citizens group to come together <br />quickly and be educated through the staff process. He did not want to wait six months for staff <br />to complete its work before calling the citizens group together. <br /> <br /> Ms. Dennis asked if there were any preliminary plans from the State regarding the <br />flyover at Stoneridge Drive. <br /> <br /> Bill van Gelder indicated there were plans available on a large scale. The first proposal <br />indicates there will be no access to 1-680 from Stoneridge. He wanted to make it clear there is <br />no funded project and it is not shown in any regional plan until well beyond 2010. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarvet asked if there was a freeway agreement for the flyover. <br /> <br /> Mr. van Gelder indicated a new freeway agreement is being drafted for the current <br />southeast flyover. In ten to twenty years, when the north to west flyover is proposed, a new <br />freeway agreement would be drafted after completion of an environmental report. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver thought there was a freeway agreement for that. <br /> <br /> Mr. Lum said there is language in a previous freeway agreement that acknowledges the <br />loss of Stoneridge access when the other fiyovers are constructed. Staff proposes that the <br />proposed freeway agreement be modified to address the loss of the Stoneridge access. <br /> <br /> 09/17/96 <br /> -22- <br /> <br /> <br />