CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL 5-19-26

Submitted On:May 17, 2026, 03:18PM PDT City Council Regular Meeting - Submit your written public comment City of Pleasanton Full Name First Name: Todd Last Name: Nelson Email (this entry is disclosable if included)654tnelson@gmail.com Meeting type Regular Meeting - 7 pm Agenda Item Number 3 Comments I understand that you are under pressure to approve this plan today so that you can apply for a grant by the deadline next week. You must have an approved plan on file. This plan is obviously a first draft. There are typos. There are missing sections. Many graphs have no explanation. Are you planning to just rubber- stamp this? The Executive Summary says "Pleasanton aims to make meaningful progress..." But, between 2002 and 2007, Pleasanton averaged 16 bike collisions per year. The 2010 Master Plan had a goal of reducing that by half (8) by 2030. Between 2010 and 2015, Pleasanton averaged 26 bike collisions per year. The 2018 Master Plan had a goal of reducing that by half (13) by 2030. Between 2016 and 2023, Pleasanton averaged 28 bike collisions per year. Per the recent annual collision report, there were 36 bike collisions in 2024 and 37 in 2025. Six months ago, we had a cyclist and a pedestrian fatality within a week of each other. None of this is reflected in the PTSAP at all. Per the February Staff Traffic Committee report, "Fatal accident investigations for three cases are being finalized; notably, no engineering issues were found in those incidents." There is nothing in this plan that asks why Pleasanton spends millions of dollars a year and cannot make meaningful progress. As you know, the update to the Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan is going on in parallel. Which one has priority over the other? PTSAP recommends upgrading the Hopyard corridor bicycle facilities to Class IV protected bike lanes. Yet, during the recent Hopyard restriping project, we couldn't get the City to squeeze a traffic lane by one foot to create a comfortable bike lane. What will be different this time? PTSAP has recommendations for the Foothill, WLP, and Sunol Blvd/680 corridors, yet it makes no mention of the expensive project plans already approved and ongoing. We've already built many of the recommendations. These corridors that we "fixed" are still considered Focused High-Injury Networks. Why is there no analysis discussing how these apparently failed? It takes a decade to build one phase of these corridors. Then we move on without completing the other phases. What will be different this time? Why are we asking for more money to do the same things?