My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN050697
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1997
>
CCMIN050697
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/26/2010 10:53:36 AM
Creation date
5/10/1999 5:36:04 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
5/6/1997
DESTRUCT DATE
PERMANENT
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
25
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
Ms. Michelotti said the premise of the Tri-Valley subregional development fee was for <br />a developer to pay a uniform fee no matter what jurisdiction it developed in. <br /> <br /> Ms. Ayala asked staff to comment on State Route 84, on the possibility of it becoming <br />a toll road and how much money it would save. <br /> <br /> Mr. van Gelder commented there has not been any firm proposal made. The toll road <br />company has informally suggested a public/private toll road might be more feasible. If this were <br />done, the Livermore and Tri-Valley residents could be made exempt. This would catch the cut- <br />through traffic coming over the pass. If this were the case, a pro rata share would need to be <br />figured in as to how much traffic with non-local versus local. He did not believe there would <br />be a substantial savings. If it was a private toll road, the City of Pleasanton would save money. <br /> <br /> Ms. Ayala asked staff what the pros and cons on a toll road would be? <br /> <br /> Mr. van Gelder said this is an extremely difficult policy question. The City supports <br />Highway 84 because it eliminates cut-through traffic. The City of Livermore residents are <br />opposed to any toll roads because of its high use. The private company doesn't want to pay for <br />public highways. <br /> <br /> Mayor Tarver said Livermore was definitely against toll roads. <br /> <br /> Mr. van Gelder said he believed the City of Pleasanton took a position several years ago <br />that a toll road was the least favorable option for funding. <br /> <br /> Mayor Tarver asked for public comment. <br /> <br /> David Olsen, 7011 Koll Center Parkway, Suite 210, said Parkway Properties, Inc. was <br />very concemed about the fee. He felt it was unfair and that it could render the Bernal Avenue <br />project uncompetitive. He felt it was economically unfeasible and could eventually jeopardize <br />future buildout. There was land remaining that could develop with approximately 1/2 million <br />square feet of space and imposition of the fees as proposed would make this very difficult to do. <br /> <br /> Steve Tanner, 4037 Fernwood Court, Tri-Valley Business Council (TVBC) President, <br />said the TVBC was very concerned about quality of life issues, education, economic vitality, and <br />transportation. Last October a forum was held in Livermore to review the issues of <br />transportation in the Tri-Valley area. 1-680, Hwy 84, 1-580 and the 1-680/580 interchange were <br />problems and there was a need for a second BART station. A recent forum with Ellen Tausher <br />was held and it was discovered the state, county, and cities did not have a considerable amount <br />of money to solve the problems of the federal highways. The TVBC did not feel it was fair to <br />impose a fee on people that were not already here in order to solve the transportation problem. <br />He said significant parts of the problem in the Tri-Valley have nothing to do with the citizens <br />who live in the area. About 25 % of the traffic comes over the Altamont pass. Also over the <br /> <br />Pleasanton City Council 5/06/97 <br />Minutes 16 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.