Laserfiche WebLink
Discussion followed and Council and Commissioners commented regarding <br /> whether establishment of a set policy by Council would be possible or <br /> practical; justification for expecting participation by a developer for <br /> installations two or three blocks away; the fact that the Commission must <br /> consider each case as it comes, each with a separate set of conditions, and <br /> based on reports and recommendations of staff, makes its findings and then <br /> makes a recommendation to Council, and that therefore a firm policy might <br /> not have the necessary flexibility. It was generally agreed that the <br /> current policy is adequate, but that staff should be given direction. <br /> Discussion continued with Director of Public Works Addiego and Traffic <br /> Engineer Gee commenting and responding to questions regarding application of <br /> varying criteria depending upon location, expected hours of operation, trip <br /> generation, and other factors; the fact that it is impossible to determine <br /> total impact on the rest of the City of a particular development, without <br /> the aid of a computer such as used by the State and some cities; the fact <br /> that some developments, such as Gemco, consider traffic controls an asset to <br /> their business and request that they be installed; that the objective in <br /> charging an assessment is to maintain a smooth flow of traffic; that <br /> valuable information has been obtained from trip end studies by the State <br /> and by the National Institute of Traffic Engineers, in addition to those <br /> done by the City. <br /> Further discussion related to the beneficial impact on the City when a <br /> desirable development or new business chooses to locate here; a suggestion <br /> for establishment of a policy to determine the equitable share of costs to <br /> be borne by the developer and the taxpayer; the fact that a current <br /> development in the vicinity of Main and Middlefield is sharing in costs to <br /> modify existing fixed time signals which are adequate under present <br /> conditions, but will require upgrading to accommodate the projected volume <br /> of traffic expected to result from the development; that it is impractical <br /> or impossible to try to go back to long established businesses; that Public <br /> Works has been applying the charge to the subdivisions, parcel maps, and <br /> planned developments, but not on building permits or use permits. <br /> Pool <br /> Mr. Addiego suggested that if Council so desired, his department could <br /> develop a program for traffic signals, laying out the City and deciding at <br /> which intersections traffic signals ultimately should be installed, then to <br /> determine estimated costs and develop a mechanism for collecting money for <br /> the signals from those who create the need, and with that data, come up with <br /> a reasonable charge which could be based on acreage or trip ends, and then <br /> when a building permit is issued, a fee to cover a share of traffic signals <br /> might be collected. <br /> Mayor Biagi requested the Public Works Director to provide information on <br /> alternatives and fair share payment formulas for submittal to the Planning <br /> Commission for review and refinement, then referral to the Council. <br /> (Memo 11/25/81) <br /> (The Council and Planning Commission recessed from 8:40 to 8:50 p.m.) <br /> Planning Commission role in formulation of the area of Port <br /> jurisdiction, and in land use planning within that area <br /> Mayor Biagi referred to the memorandum of September 15, 1981 from Richard <br /> Claire, Chairman of the Planning Commission, to Council, and response to the <br /> Commission of September 28, 1981 from City Attorney Schricker, relating to <br /> Planning Commission request for representation on the Council/Board of Port <br /> Commissioners Joint Committee for the Port area. <br /> City Attorney Schricker elaborated on the information provided in his <br /> letter, noting that the issue involved is highly legalistic in the sense <br /> that the Joint Committee on Jurisdiction is dealing with matters involving <br /> several sections in the Charter, and his letter attempted to discuss those <br /> sections with cross references to the appropriate portions of the Charter. <br /> This was done in an attempt to be instructive with respect to the <br /> complexities involved in the relationship between the Port's and City's <br /> exercise of jurisdiction. He advised that the purpose for establishing the <br /> Joint Committee on Jurisdiction was not to launch a planning effort for the <br /> Port area, but first, to attempt to define what the location of the "Port <br /> area" is, because some portions of the Charter with respect to definition of <br /> Jnt.Mtg. <br /> Council/Ping. <br /> 11/24/81 <br /> Page 2 <br />