CCMIN051705 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Sullivan restated that the baseline traffic model that is being used regi0nally by the Tri-Valley Transportation Triangle Policy Advisory Committee and CMA will not include the West Las Positas Interchange at 1-680 or the Stoneridge Drive extension, and essentially, will not be used to funnel regional traffic through the City of Pleasanton. He believed the regional traffic model would be looking at regional transportation solutions to regional transportation problems, which was his understanding of the original goal. Mr. Fialho believed the Region is interested in tackling this without the extension of Stoneridge Drive and the West Las Positas Interchange. The cities of Pleasanton, Livermore and Dublin have recognized that there are traffic impacts internally that affect each other and the goal is to work together to move traffic in and out of our communities as quickly as possible. Mr. Sullivan recognized that a majority of the traffic that is generated in and out of Pleasanton comes and goes someplace else. The policy agreement between the cities of Pleasanton, Livermore, and Dublin and the CMA are significant. He believed the Committee needed to look at regional solutions to regional problems and let individual cities decide from a General Plan standpoint, what it wants to do as long as there is some agreement that they will work on internal problems, which are affecting each other. Mr. Brozosky acknowledged that there is some traffic in Pleasanton and the majority of the traffic is internal and regional, which is of significant concern to the cities of Dublin and Livermore. He believed the cities of Livermore and Dublin were willing to work with Pleasanton to provide regional support. He asked if the Tri-Valley Transportation Triangle Policy Advisory Committee was subject to the Brown Act? Mr. Roush believed the Committee has observed the Brown Act. His understanding is that this Committee does not constitute a majority of any of the particular bodies of members, but typically with these types of Tri-Valley Councils, the tenure of the Brown Act is observed. Mr. Brozosky asked if a majority of the Committee made the decision to revisit this vote? Mr. Fialho said yes. The decision to revisit the vote was made by the Mayors of Pleasanton, Livermore and Dublin. Mr. Brozosky asked if CMA was a voting member of this Committee? Mr. Fialho said CMA as an agency, is not a voting member. Supervisor Haggerty is the voting member representing the County. The cities of Pleasanton, Dublin and Livermore each have two voting members. Mr. Brozosky believed there was a commitment from the cities of Dublin and Livermore, but pointed out that because a majority of the Committee was not present to make the decision to revisit this vote there is a potential, although it is not likely, for this vote to be held up. Mr. Fialho said that was accurate. Ms. McGovern believed all of the councilmembers needed to weigh in on this matter, as it is critical. She believed Council might need to consider an alternative if a majority of the Committee does not vote to eliminate the Stoneridge Drive extension to El Charro Road and the West Las Positas Interchange from the regional modeling effort. She was hopeful that the Committee went back to the idea of prioritizing regional projects in order to secure state and federal funding. She asked if HOV lanes were planned for Interstate 580? Pleasanton City Council 24 05/17/05 Minutes