01 - Laserfiche WebLink

identify each emailer’s interests and found that it represented in the entire community. She was concerned about “referendizing” things because she felt it was very easy to stand in front of Safeway and pose questions in an emotional way. She felt community input was important, but elected Councilmembers are in place to make decisions and after the discussion, review of data review, she will have and ask additional questions. Councilmember Cook-Kallio said she was first and foremost concerned about tying the leaving of Stoneridge in the General Plan to something we have no control over like regional improvements. Leaving it in the General Plan does not mean we are going to build it. What it means is that the Council who must wrestle with it will look at regional improvements, will make decisions based on funding, will make decisions again based on input and emails from residents, but to make it contingent upon things over which we have no control like state funding puts future Councils in a corner that we should not do. She also has questions and thoughts that she will contemplate over the next week, as well. Councilmember McGovern said when she looks at the issue and tries to look at it from a compromise or broad base, she honestly believes most people in Pleasanton would not object to Stoneridge Drive going through if it were truly a local street. If it were a local street, most people would say to put it through, but they are worried that until certain things happen, the chance of this is probably nil. So, she questioned how to make a compromise situation such that in the future, this can be reviewed. The traffic study is a 23 year report and most could say that the model is wrong because of so many variables. If we say this and try and keep Stoneridge Drive in the General Plan, we should look at what are the criteria by which we would review it in the future, identify what regional things are paid for and are to be built and re-look at growth in other areas to see if their general plans changes or stayed the same. She does not want to have something that is not buildable because you don’t have the money, so the City needs to figure out a way to garner the funds such that if it is a local street, it could be built. Councilmember McGovern left the meeting at 11:11 p.m. Councilmember Thorne said he does not disagree with a lot of the things he has heard, felt we should not put contingencies in about what must come first or second, said he does not want to make commitments tonight but come back on Tuesday night, but his inclination is that we need all options available to us we can get. He felt SR 84 was the most important, he was distressed the regional partners have decided not to include this in the Triangle study and recommendations to MTC, he hoped they will come back and reconsider this, but in terms of using a general plan to outline things that must happen before doing or not doing Stoneridge is not appropriate. He would rather leave it in or just take it out and either one will most likely be a referended by the community. He said it was getting late, wanted to mull over what was said tonight, and felt the Council should not provide too much of an indication what it will do. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Karen Diaz City Clerk Workshop Minutes 24 April 24, 2007