My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN090192
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1992
>
CCMIN090192
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/26/2010 10:55:02 AM
Creation date
10/28/1999 11:21:46 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.
/
28
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
the EIR Scope of Work and Ca1 Trans will review this in December. <br />Hopefully, the draft EIR will be ready to be given to Council for <br />review and input. <br /> <br /> Mr. Parker then introduced Paul Helmsley, Deputy Director for <br />Caltrans, District 4, and stated that he was available to answer <br />any questions. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver asked that Mr. Parker reiterate the reasons of <br />opposition he had listed in a recent letter hewrote responding to <br />the resolution adopted by Livermore. <br /> <br /> Mr. Parker explained that the Toll Company had advised the <br />City of Livermore that no Measure B funds would be requested for <br />the project. The area that the City of Livermore addressed was the <br />commercial development of the 250 foot Corridor and the kinds of <br />uses that might occur, for example a gas station or fast food <br />restaurant. These kinds of uses could only be possible on land <br />that is sold to the Company, not from land condemned. The Toll <br />Company is an agent of the State of California and has the same <br />rights that the state has. <br /> <br /> Mayor Mercer asked if Mr. Helmsley felt that there was a <br />conflict of interest between CalTrans and the Toll Road Company. <br /> <br /> Mr. Helmsley answered no. He stated that over the years the <br />Company had entered into various public and private partnerships, <br />although this project is one of the largest. <br /> <br /> Mayor Mercer asked if Measure B did not have the money for <br />Route 84 from Ruby Hill to Sunol, would CalTrans have the money to <br />build it. <br /> <br /> Mr. Helmsley stated that there was nothing in the State's <br />plans. Over the last years, there had been a change in the way <br />projects are prioritized and funded in California. The funding <br />would come from Alameda County, Congestion Management Agency, and <br />MTC. <br /> <br /> Mayor Mercer asked if Mr. Helmsley agreed that Route 84 would <br />cost between $55-$60 million to build. <br /> <br /> Mr. Helmsley said that the section between Vallecitos Road to <br />1-580 would be $57-$60 million. The reason why the Caltrans asked <br />the City of Livermore to be the lead agency was because there was <br />only $20 million available. Essentially this would only be local <br />improvements in an identified State highway corridor and they did <br />not feel that the State should be the lead for this type of <br />improvement. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver asked if this would create a conflict between the <br />Caltrans and the toll roads in the agreement already entered into. <br /> <br />9/1/92 15 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.