My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
SU0013380
Environmental Health - Public
>
EHD Program Facility Records by Street Name
>
P
>
PATTERSON PASS
>
0
>
2600 - Land Use Program
>
GP-89-11
>
SU0013380
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/2/2020 4:22:18 PM
Creation date
6/2/2020 4:07:20 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
EHD - Public
ProgramCode
2600 - Land Use Program
RECORD_ID
SU0013380
PE
2600
FACILITY_NAME
GP-89-11
STREET_NUMBER
0
STREET_NAME
PATTERSON PASS
STREET_TYPE
RD
City
TRACY
Zip
95376-
APN
20904003
ENTERED_DATE
5/29/2020 12:00:00 AM
SITE_LOCATION
PATTERSON PASS RD
P_LOCATION
99
P_DISTRICT
005
QC Status
Approved
Scanner
SJGOV\gmartinez
Tags
EHD - Public
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
373
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
this is possible. <br /> • Mitigation measures for transportation impacts should be <br /> required. <br /> • On page 4 . 14-42 the EIR proposes a monitoring program to be <br /> put in place to assure a high rate of internal travel. This <br /> relates to Mitigation Measure 4 . 14-1(g) , which ties traffic <br /> and land use occupancy into the same monitoring program. This <br /> would put the County in the position of denying Phase II of <br /> this project if a certain number of jobs have not been <br /> created. He thought this proposal was unworkable. <br /> • At this hearing it was stated that there is new traffic data <br /> and new layouts and the City would like to review those prior <br /> to the Final EIR. He requested that the current EIR be <br /> recirculated to show that data for his review. <br /> Tracy City Manager Mike Locke made the following points: <br /> • The basic model that was used to analyze fiscal impact, in <br /> terms of the operations' side of this, was the City of Tracy' s <br /> fiscal model. In so doing, however, there were a significant <br /> number of alterations to that model. <br /> • On Table 4 . 9-6, under Fiscal Impacts, (that is page 4 . 9-13 , ) <br /> there is a list of services with costs. This came from their <br /> activity budget format from the City model, which has 64 <br /> items. Some of the costs are offset by "net County costs, " <br /> where revenues are offset by overhead operating costs. He <br /> said that is a valid concept, but the City believes a signifi- <br /> cant number of factors were left out. For example, police <br /> services, youth services, technical services and narcotics <br /> were left out of the model. Police service expenses = $11. 70 <br /> per capita (in table) , but an additional $20. 73 was left out. <br /> • There are three activities under "Administration, " _ $22 . 60 <br /> per capita, but another five activities are left out, _ <br /> $60.26. "Planning/Building Inspections" is considered as "fee <br /> pass-through, " so it is "fee neutral. " He said he would <br /> generally agree with that. "Public Works/Engineering" has <br /> four activity areas. However, he said he believed that there <br /> are four additional activities that are not shown, that are <br /> not "fee neutral. " These include "pavement maintenance, " <br /> "street tree maintenance, " "street sweeping maintenance, " and <br /> "building maintenance. " These equal $27 per capita. <br /> • For "Recreation, " a footnote indicates that a 54% fee-driven <br /> factor is assumed for all parks and recreation services, so <br /> expenses are discounted by that factor. However, three items <br /> are left out, including "aquatics, " "senior citizens, " and <br /> "community facilities. " The Mountain House developer says <br /> that all of these services would be included in the New Town <br /> project. These would equal $6.50 per capita, or double what is <br /> shown. <br /> • If you take all these cumulative costs, it' s $139 . 90 per <br /> capita. He said he believed another $114. 94 per capita is not <br /> shown as expenses. All of these expenses are not assumed in <br /> the County's administrative overhead, that is assumed to be in <br /> PC MINUTES -8- JAN 16 , 1992 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.