Haggerty criticizes mayors for 'private' meeting Haggerty criticizes mayors for 'private' meeting (June 10, 2005)

Suggests possible violation of California's open meetings law

Alameda County Supervisor Scott Haggerty, who championed the formation of the Tri-Valley Triangle Study Committee to seek ways to relieve traffic congestion here, was rebuffed by the three cities he is trying to help move past a dispute involving Pleasanton officials who want to block two major roadway projects.

At the Triangle Committee meeting, Haggerty raised an objection to a secret meeting held by the Tri-Valley mayors, Pleasanton's Jennifer Hosterman, Marshall Kamena of Livermore and Janet Lockhart of Dublin. He said he learned third-hand that the mayors, who are key members of the Triangle Committee, met privately and agreed to take the controversial Pleasanton projects out of their committee's study. That followed a discussion at the Triangle Committee's meeting May 6 when the decision was made to leave them in.

"Not only was this a possible violation of the Brown Act, but a separate meeting like that questions the integrity of the actual formal meetings of the committee," Haggerty said. "It set a precedent that could result in other private meetings without a full on-the-record discussion by this committee, which is why it was formed."

At issue are two longstanding projects to build a freeway interchange at West Las Positas Boulevard and I-680, and whether to extend Stoneridge Drive to El Charro Road and connect to both Livermore and I-580. The Pleasanton City Council, including newly-elected Councilman Jerry Thorne, has stated its unanimous opposition to building those two projects and wants them removed from the city's General Plan when it is updated. Both roadway projects are in the 1996 General Plan which remains in force.

Lockhart said the mayors made no attempt to hide their discussion, but agreed it seemed a prudent and efficient way of resolving the issue. She said the meeting was held after Hosterman and the Pleasanton City Council agreed to study the impact on local traffic if the projects were eliminated from the General Plan. That study, she said will be made available to the Triangle Committee when it is completed, and a duplicate study would be costly and unnecessary.

City Manager Nelson Fialho said the study should be completed this summer, and would be made available to Triangle committee members. But he resisted Haggerty's request that it be made a part of the official committee report when the policy study group completes its work in 2006.

Haggerty said that while his concerns as a county supervisor are regional more than local, he also believes the impact of taking those major roadway improvements out of the Pleasanton General Plan need to be part of the Triangle study.

"I understand Pleasanton's concerns and Mayor Hosterman's determination to keep it out of the Triangle study," Haggerty said. "All three cities feel the same way, that we have to figure out ways to keep commuters on the freeways and off their city streets."

"But Pleasanton also has to take some responsibility for the freeway traffic because it has a very vibrant business park," he added. "If it wants to have these kinds of job centers, the city has to figure out a way to help move traffic there."

Haggerty said his main purpose in forming the Triangle Study Committee was to look at the I-580, I-680 and Highway 84 thoroughfares that form a triangle as they move traffic through the Tri-Valley. With limited highway improvement funds available, and a fund allocation system that favors the more populous West Bay cities, including Oakland, the Triangle study brings together a formidable group of cities with better odds at gaining funds from the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency.

"This planning area population is so small that we get limited funds," Haggerty said. "When we look at projects, Oakland may be getting $4 million and we may receive only $700,000. It's a big discrepancy."

"If we could count all of the people who use our freeways and highways both from here and from San Joaquin and Stanislaus counties, we probably have a greater population than Oakland, but we can't. So we have to find a way in which we are able to have those people who don't pay into our half-cent county sales tax program to help us pay with our transportation improvements."

In the end, the five members of the committee voted 4-1 to back the Pleasanton plan to take Stoneridge-West Las Positas out of its own study.

One way to resolve transportation issues could be through the creation of so-called "HOT lanes," better known as toll lanes that would supplement carpool lanes and charge those who use them a $3 toll or more. Even single-occupant vehicles could use them by paying the fee.

Haggerty said a HOT lane proposal is planned for the Sunol Grade on I-680, but because of job reductions in the Silicon Valley and fewer commuters, it might be better utilized on I-580.

"I believe that because of the downturn in the economy in the Silicon Valley, we need to re-evaluate if we want to put the HOT lane on 680," Haggerty said. "Or do we want to say 'Wait a minute, we need to put it on 580 because, quite frankly, that's where the congestion is now.' I think it makes sense for government to get to a point we can change our position." (Next week: "Fixing I-580") -Jeb Bing

E-mail a friend a link to this story.