My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN050702
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
2000-2009
>
2002
>
CCMIN050702
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/17/2007 10:56:35 AM
Creation date
8/8/2002 8:07:04 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
5/7/2002
DOCUMENT NO
CCMIN050702
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
27
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
Mr. Homolka said no. The Stoneridge and the Hacienda interchanges were not included. <br />Stoneridge became a reality during the CEQA process for the North Pleasanton development. <br />(He continued with the report.) <br /> <br />Ms. Dennis asked if a no project alternative would be prepared also? <br /> <br />Mr. Homolka said it would. That is a requirement. <br /> <br />He continued with the report. <br /> <br />Ms. Ayala asked if the committee looked at the funding that exists for these projects? <br /> <br /> Mr. Homolka said he reviewed the development agreements and reported back to the <br />committee. There was not as much as he had hoped. There is reference in the report about the <br />available funding from the agreements and other funding sources. He said there could be as <br />much as $20 million. The cost of improvements under each recommended plan is $60 to $100 <br />million over the next twenty years. <br /> <br /> Ms. Michelotti referred to the funding for the West Las Positas interchange and felt those <br />were set. However, if the plan shifts to Stoneridge improvements, what is the case with that? <br /> <br /> Mr. Homolka said that is problematic. He believed that there would be a negotiation <br />process with the developers. <br /> <br /> Ms. McKeehan clarified that the developments agreements say the developers cannot <br />protest the formation of an assessment district, but does not say they can't protest the amount of <br />money they are being asked to spend. <br /> <br /> Mayor Pico indicated none of this is in the Regional Transportation Improvement Plan <br />for the next 25 years. It will be extremely competitive to get funding through that program. The <br />biggest challenge is to get into that program. The city had trouble getting funds for the <br />1-580/I-680 flyover. <br /> <br /> Mr. Homolka said fi.om his experience there are times to ask for money and times not to. <br />Two years ago, there was a chance, but today he is not so optimistic. Five years fi.om now may <br />be another story. It looks impossible, but the City of Pleasanton has raised over $100 million to <br />do interchanges before. <br /> <br /> Ms. Michelotti asked how much discussion had taken place regarding regional <br />improvements such as Highway 84 and the traffic improvements to the community if that were <br />constructed? She believed that would improve the cut-through traffic situation in Pleasanton as <br />well as many other things. <br /> <br /> Mr. Homolka said when the 20-year model was devised, the committee had to make <br />some assumptions on what would be built and it included everything in the Regional <br /> <br />Pleasanton City Council 18 05/07/02 <br />Minutes <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.