CCMIN050697 - Laserfiche WebLink

next eight or nine years this traffic will increase by 40%. He said members of the TVBC and the community want to pay their fair share, but what is fair? TVBC believes the costs are too high. TVBC said it was not fair San Ramon was not participating. He said the rams will eventually be as high as Santa Clara County and at that point, businesses will no longer want to come to Pleasanton. TVBC wants to be part of the solution. It is unfortunate it has been put in a position of having to solve a problem that has nothing to do with TVBC. There are other alternate ways to fund the costs. TVBC believes a toll road is a very viable option, as well as user tax, HOV lanes, sales tax, and gas tax. He said they would like to work with Tri-Valley Transportation Council on solving this problem. Brad Hirst, 1811 Santa Rita Road, congratulated Mayor Tarver and others on reaching a resolution on LAVWMA. He said the Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors has taken a stand in opposition to the Tri-Valley Subregional Development Fee as it is curren~y proposed. The Chamber believed it addresses the problem, but it did not address a viable solution that will provide a resolution in a reasonable period of time. To rely upon new development to fund 145 million dollars for infrastructure needs was unreasonable. It simply was not going to happen. He said the Chamber sent Council a position paper outlining six possible funding mechanisms, of which a fee for new development was one. He said the proposed Tri-Valley Transportation fee, and the upcoming Pleasanton traffic fee, when lurepeal together would be $6.64 a square foot. It calculates out to be $132,000 in traffic fees for a 28,000 sq.ft. building. This is more than all the other fees combined. The Chamber of Commerce did not believe this would encourage new development. The Chamber of Commerce wants to be pro-active in the solution and would be more than pleased to work with the TVTC. He urged Council to table this item for now. James Pease, 4863 Canary Drive, Chamber of Commerce Vice President for Economic Development, said there is a large regional problem and it was going to continue to get worse. The Chamber applauds TVTC efforts but opposes the Tri-Valley fee as it is currently proposed. The proposed fee is not economical or fair. The problem exists today and current users should have to pay, not new developers. It is not spread equally among the cities and counties in the sub-region. If all the local cities were planning comparable development then the fees would be equally dispersed. But this is not reality. The proposed fee will not provide adequate timing to build these extra projects. He also said the Chamber wants to help reach a solution. Nate Meeks, 6387 Paseo Santa Maria, said the Economic advisory and Development Committee agreed to support a regional traffic fee in concept. This particular fee it could not support. The only way this fee could work is if all jurisdictions worked together. If this fee is passed in its current form it will put Pleasanton at an economic disadvantage. Therefore, the Economic Development Advisory Committee for the City must advise the Council this fee would have an negative impact. Craig Sjoberg, 4713 First, #110, thanked Mayor Tarver for the letter of support for ten years of on-going success as a Pleasanton business. He believed there were considerable amount Pleasanton City Council 5/06/97 Minutes 17