CCMIN091592 - Laserfiche WebLink

40 Mr. Tarver indicated there was disagreement about funding and allocation of matching share. Most items were agreed upon except ' where to find money. Mr. Mercer asked if a local share was required for 580/680 improvements and if Dublin, Livermore, Pleasanton and San Ramon could develop a formula to determine the local share. Pleasanton and BART will have to come up with a substantial amount of money. It was hoped that when the Tri-Valley Council was formed that something could be done to get all seven agencies to participate. After discussion, it was agreed Mr. Mercer would attend the next meeting of the Tri-Valley Transportation Council. Ms. Acosta indicated that A1 Guilardo, President of Alameda County Transportation Authority, had suggested that we not immediately pursue that until after the November election because of an election in Hayward. She requested a delay for two months. 10. MATTERS CONTINUED FOR DECISION There were none. 11. LEGISLATIVE UPDATE REPORTS There were none. _I 12. REPORTS OF THE CITY MANAGER Item 12a(1) Review of Riqht of Way Use Options for Montevino Drive (SR92:373) Item 12a(2) Review of Surplus Right of Way on Montevino Drive (IR92:70) Mr. Don Perry indicated he was speaking on behalf of the owners of the Hatsushi property. He felt that Alternative 1 was a good plan for the Hatsushi property and for the neighborhood if done properly. He indicated a desire to cooperate and realized the property could be sold to maintain or upgrade the community. He agreed it did not look good as it was. He wanted to see the future road right of way maintained in order that a portion of the property could be developed. Coming in from Vineyard only is not a good way because it doesn't work for developing the upper portion of the property. He would cooperate with Mr. Partridge if he wants to purchase part of the property or participate in upgrading the property. 9/15/92 14