CCMIN082096 - Laserfiche WebLink

remembers back in 1982 being advised that this interchange would have gridlock, and it is not the local traffic causing the problems. We need to lobby for all the federal money we can get. As far as a benefit to Pleasanton, anything that keeps the traffic moving through the interchange is a benefit to the City. She supported going forward with the flyover project. Regarding the priority of the west BART station, she has had people question her whether it is really needed. It has never been asked of Pleasanton citizens whether they want a Stoneridge Mall BART station. We must get that identified soon. She supported scheduling this public hearing as soon as possible. Ms. Michelotti stated that at the same time the regional concerns of San Ramon and Danville should probably be discussed. Mr. Tarver stated that before committing to the project, he wanted to work out the issues of the credits, to know that the Negative Declaration is certified, and what will be in the TVTC agreement. Other Council members may want to revisit all the transportation issues in the TVTC model--the model cannot be revised and changed without affecting the entire model results. He is not prepared to commit to the local match at this time because he felt it needs more work and there is a need for a public hearing. Ms. Michelotti felt differently in that there are millions of dollars at risk if the Council does not make the commitment time line. She would like to move forward with the commitment that we will come up with the project money minus credits, and go forward identifying all three projects and get feedback from TVTC as to where it sees the priorities. Ms. Michelotti made a motion to (1) approve the commitment of Pleasanton's share of the remaining local match for the Flyover Project minus the potential credits; (2) direct staff to continue discussions with the Alameda County Transportation Authority regarding potential local match credits, and to authorize staff to develop a payment schedule with ACTA which satisfies overall project needs and funding availability; and (3) confirm the three priority projects (with the 1-580/680 Flyover as the No. 1 priority) as top priorities for Tri-Valley funding. Ms. Mohr inquired if the motion could approve staff recommendations 1 and 2 but continue recommendation 3 to a later date. Ms. Acosta stated that would be acceptable to staff. Ms. Michelotti mended her motion, seconded by/Ms. Mohr, to (1) approve the commitment of Pleasanton's share of the remaining local match for the Flyover Project minus the potential credits; and (2) direct staff to continue discussions with the Alameda County Transportation Authority regarding potential local match credits, and authorize staff to develop a payment schedule with ACTA which satisfies overall project needs and funding availability. 08/20/96 -10-