CCMIN022806 - Laserfiche WebLink

aware of those things. The decisions made on land use should include input from the Committee on economic impact. He asked how the Committee felt the General Plan update process was going so far. Was it taking into consideration economic development issues? There was mention of energy sustainability and he noted there is a potential for future discussion of community choice aggregation. He would like to have input from the Committee in terms of economic impact on Pleasanton. Mr. Walden said the Committee used to meet quarterly and is now meeting every other month. He felt the task was to review things as directed by the Council. He suggested more direction from Council with regard to the recommendations of Mr. Thorne. Regarding Ms. McGovern's comments, he felt it was interesting that she and Mr. Brozosky wanted to talk about regional housing, yet don't want to talk about regional transportation. He felt the Stone ridge extension was a regional issue, just as housing is a regional issue. If Dublin is to build housing for the region, Pleasanton could contribute to regional transportation solutions. He felt the Council had put up walls with regard to what it would or would not do with regard to transportation. For instance, he believed the possibility of a Stone ridge extension should remain in the General Plan. Once you shut the door on that possibility, it is lost. Ms. McGovern disagreed and noted the emergency vehicle access (EVA) for the end of Stoneridge Drive. Mayor Hosterman commented there would be many opportunities to discuss that topic in the future. Mr. Walden also referred to Mr. Pico's suggestion that Stone ridge has room for six lanes and suggested having two going back and forth to Livermore and two back and forth for the residents with a sound wall protecting the residents thus allowing a transportation corridor. Matt Sullivan thanked the Committee, consultant and staff for all the work on this project. This is a critical part of the General Plan and it is necessary to understand the economic and fiscal future. At the 1996 General Plan there was a study done called Financing Our Future that reviewed the city's fiscal position at build out. He asked if this Strategic Plan takes the place of that going forward or is that analysis still ongoing? Sue Rossi said there is an ongoing fiscal review. As part of this process, there will be a fiscal impact analysis of the proposed General Plan to determine if it will give the city fiscal sustainability. Staff has done a five-year model of sustainability and will work on a longer-term model as well. Mr. Sullivan believed all this was interconnected: the fiscal picture, economic plan, land use, transportation, environmental quality, social equity, etc. If we are talking about a sustainable city, we must consider how all that connects. In general, this Committee has broken some new ground in discussing that interconnection. He said he agreed with most of what is in the report. Some important policies are Policy 2, to Joint Workshop City Council/Economic Vitality Committee 10 02/28/06