CCMIN050107 - Laserfiche WebLink

Council is articulating concerns, but cannot control time, funding, or what our regional partners will say or do. Councilmember Sullivan felt another approach to having staff return, is to adopt that broad policy tonight which will evolve over time once we re-engage with the region. We have some time to refine the approach and firm it up, and see if this is heading in the direction the Council can all support. A final decision is not set tonight, but setting a general direction with staff, and a final vote hopefully in January would be made on the General Plan and this is where the Council will make its final decision. City Manager Fialho felt the Council was all saying generally the same thing. There is a parallel track and the parallel track is based on the policy statement that he discussed previously which allows staff to spend some time collectively and individually with the Council and the region, both at the elected and appointed level, to come together on this roadmap for the future. Councilmember McGovern definitely wanted to keep the extension in the General Plan, but she is specifically keeping it there for two reasons; she wants to see if regional traffic can stay on regional roadways, and she wants to see if the City can validate the 2030 traffic model that shows you can supposedly have Stoneridge be a local street with minimal cut-through at around 10%. She felt this is what the public is looking for. She also felt the City needs to work with CMA and TVTC to see if we can move up State Route 84 on the priority list. She offered to make a motion with these two items and repeated them for clarification with Councilmembers. Councilmember Cook-Kallio said she preferred to see the motions in parallel rather than tied together, as this is conditioning it. She agrees with the goals, but she wanted them separated. Councilmember Sullivan wanted to vote on the second goal first because his vote on the first one will be dependent on what the Council does for the second one. Mayor Hosterman asked if the Council could incorporate the goals just mentioned. Councilmember Sullivan said the City Manager’s suggestion gets what he needs and suggested it be amended to include Councilmember McGovern’s language. Mayor Hosterman said if the Council has support to approve the Circulation Element tonight with the idea in mind that when the final General Plan is presented to the Council in January, then at that time they will be able to vote to keep the Stoneridge Drive extension as it currently is in the General Plan for years to come but that we are also going to include language that speaks the need for regional improvements. We are also going to craft language that talks about inherent timing and funding issues, which needs to be clear about the issues that need to be considered. If those issues are addressed in such a way that the Council needs to address those issues prior to moving forward with funding, then those considerations must be made unless the General Plan is changed. City Manager Fialho restated his summary of the issue as a first motion, adding Councilmember McGovern’s interests: “That the Council cannot commit to a timeline for construction of Stoneridge Drive at this time, does recognize that the arterial has broad local and regional benefits for the region and for residents such as public safety, mobility, access to various amenities, that the construction cannot occur in the short term or long term without the right conditions existing in the valley; that it is imperative for the valley to work with the City to develop a balanced, strategic approach for regional and local traffic that minimizes cut-through traffic in Pleasanton; that this can be done through a continued City Council Minutes 24 May 1, 2007