My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN041895
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1995
>
CCMIN041895
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/26/2010 10:54:18 AM
Creation date
5/20/1999 11:10:29 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DESTRUCT DATE
PERMANENT
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
23
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
A motion was made by Ms. Mohr, seconded by Ms. Michelotti, accepting staffs <br />recommendation. <br /> <br />The roll call vote was as follows: <br />AYES: Councilmembers - Michelotti, Mohr, and Pico <br />NOES: Councilmember Dennis and Mayor Tarver <br />ABSENT: None <br />ABSTAIN: None <br /> <br />Item 6i <br />AB 1019. RaineV. Public Toll Road Enabling Le~,islation (SR 95: 120) <br /> <br /> Randall Lum presented the staff report. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarvet inquired if there is any requirement that the affected jurisdictions have to <br />agree, or is it possible for Alameda and Contra Costa counties to form a JPA to build a toll road <br />and not have Pleasanton's or Livermore's concurrence. Mr. van Gelder could not respond to <br />that question. Mr. Tarvet advised he could support the legislation if there is an amendment that <br />the jurisdictions bordering the road agree with the JPA. He is sympathetic to Livermore's issues <br />of local road use for their local residents. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr inquired if any information is available if the toll road is constructed, would <br />the existing Highway 84 cease to exist. Mr. van Gelder knows of none. He feels there is a <br />need for a parallel free facility. Mr. Tarver feels 680 would be the parallel free facility. Ms. <br />Mohr's support is based on the premise that the existing Highway 84 would remain and the toll <br />road being an option. <br /> <br /> General discussion ensued regarding the safety aspects of the free parallel facilities. <br /> <br /> A motion was made by Mr. Tarver supporting the legislation if it is modified to obtain <br />the local jurisdiction' s agreement. <br /> <br /> Ms. Michelotti is uncomfortable giving a veto power to one jurisdiction. <br /> <br /> Ms. Dennis is uncomfortable that Livermore has not taken a position and with a highway <br />toll road throughout eastern Contra Costa County. She cannot support this legislation because <br />it does not give any latitude to avoid the eastern Contra Costa road from developing. Ms. <br />Dennis fears the toll road will promote development in eastern Contra Costa County, and <br />consequently the toll road will be congested with traffic before it gets to Livermore-Pleasanton. <br />She will not support this legislation. <br /> <br />04/18/95 - 19- <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.