01 - Laserfiche WebLink

not have the rest of the regional solutions in place, but leaving it in the plan does not necessarily mean that it has to be built. Mayor Hosterman agreed and said timing was everything. She said the flyover discussed over the last 2.5 years is about a $1.1 billion project. The improvements to SR 84 amount to less than $200 million, so the numbers tell the story. Councilmember Sullivan said he felt there were 3 pieces; the technical piece which is traffic model, the regional piece which is critical to the traffic situation in Pleasanton, and then the political piece. To him, the report tonight is a real mixed bag; there are some improvements which really mean things will not get as bad as they could get over time, there are things really getting bad in other neighborhoods and then there is a mixture of things throughout the town. He thinks the other areas have not weighed in on the conversation. There may also be some unintended consequences of what we do that are not yet fully understood. But unfortunately, the discussion has been reduced to, should we extend one street or not and what we have is a circulation element and plan for Pleasanton that really extends to the region that we should look at. We need to look at this as a system and not as one street. We need to understand how the plan works with the interaction and timing of regional improvements, most of which were listed on the report but also with the addition of SR 84, which he felt was the key to reducing Pleasanton traffic problems and will help the rest of the region, as well. The second piece is the regional piece; we need to be engaged with our neighbors, talking about solutions that will benefit us and the region and we need to be part of that. There is currently difficulty with this now and we need to be part of that if we will all benefit. The third piece is the political piece; the community is split on this question. It is polarized, we have had many issues in town that have split people and created problems and referendums and nastiness, and this is the biggest one he has seen from a community-wide standpoint. Regardless of what decision is made, there would be a referendum, and this will continue the whole community split. Whatever we do, we need to see if there is a way to bring the community together on the issue and he suggested talking about it so the community has time to react to it. He said he has been working on the General Plan from 1999 and this has been a big issue. He suggested that if the extension is left in the General Plan, we make it part of the circulation element system that is contingent on doing several regional improvements first including SR 84 and improvements listed as a pre-requisite in the study to end up with these conditions. Secondly, we should re-engage our regional neighbors, work on these same improvements that need to be made, facilitate them, get them funded and built and move this forward. Lastly, regarding the political question, he feels the plan should be put to the voters as part of the General Plan Update similar to what was done in 1996 with the housing cap and urban growth boundary. He felt voters should ratify the plan and tell us if we have made the right decision. If we do this, at least we are crafting the language in the ballot, it is reflected in the data and studies we have, the referendum will not be tilted one side or the other and will provide a good question to the community. And, if the community agrees this is a good plan, it cannot be changed by three Councilmembers. Councilmember Cook-Kallio said she felt it was interesting we were talking about how many emails we have received and someone asked her if she was tallying them up, and they were overwhelmingly in favor of leaving it in the General Plan. However, she read every one of them and she was most struck that they came from all parts of the City. She went through and tried to Workshop Minutes 23 April 24, 2007