CCMIN081595 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Van Gelder stated the regional model is not as finite as our Pleasanton model. When the regional model indicates 9.3, Pleasanton staff has to be sure that actually is going to happen. Several things might relate to this, like actions that the Council might have taken in reducing the size of the Hacienda Business Park from the time the model was constructed. The half million square footage reduction in office space that was approved by Council is not in that model. This list states the intersections that might be problems and that need further attention. Mayor Tarver stated that any development reduction should be considered for the equitable effect on the particular jurisdiction. He asked if the reduction of the Hacienda Business Park counted or was that already included. Mr. Van Gelder stated equitable reductions comes from Dougherty Valley, Contra Costa and/or a bit of Dublin, where the most growth is left to do. Neither the staff nor the Tri-Valley Representative, Mr. Pico, had given anything away. The City still has the ability to reduce and compromise our land use and will do what the General Plan provides. Mayor Tarver asked what the ultimate goal of the regional plan is in terms of service levels. He wanted the public to understand that the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan is to get routes of regional significance operating at a certain level and to hold the standards as the Valley develops. Mr. Van Gelder stated the plan establishes acceptable levels of service on these routes and the routes selected were major arterials that run between the jurisdictions and the freeway system. He explained various levels of service and indicated this plan asks what can be done to keep within the standards. Mayor Tarver asked if there would be a study to get the economics of this plan accomplished. He stated we collect fees and adjust them as we move on, but there is no way to go back and collect for what has already been approved and is responsible for pan of the impact. A Tri-Valley traffic impact fee is proposed but if it is insufficient to pay for the necessary improvements, will cities be assessed to make up the difference? Mr. Van Gelder stated the intent of the fee study has probably several major factors: can you legally come up with a fee to accomplish your goal in the plans; if that doesn't produce enough money to build the transportation improvement, then do you go ahead and the fee based on some process that says the remainder of the funds can be gamered through reenactment of measure E or increased sales tax; if existing improvements are already in place, is each jurisdiction interested in creating an improvement district that includes existing properties to accomplish that. The fee study should come back with how much can be expected from each source and what the alternatives are. Once all the information was received a decision could be made by Council. The tradeoff is to reach agreement to manage growth in such a way that improvements aren't needed. 08/15/95 -12-