CCMIN091801 - Laserfiche WebLink

Other Speakers John Kimber, 3885 Beacon Avenue, Fremont, expressed his dissatisfaction with the Planning Department in processing the application for a modification to the faCade of the Pleasant Plaza Shopping Center on First Street. The owner wishes to modify the facade by a simple painting and modification of the building signage. An architectural finn has been hired to prepare plans. The owners have no desire to destroy the building, displace the existing tenants and rebuild a new facility. The problem is the members of the Planning Department continue to insist that a better approach would be to reconstruct the building and are also inserting their own opinions on color, design, remodeling stages and modification concepts. He requested Council to direct staff to deal with land use matters rather project design and project micromanagement. A design concept had been prepared and presented to Planning Staff. The project would be in three phases: 1) remodel the fagade, 2) address some landscaping modifications in conjunction with the downtown improvements, and 3) address the rear of the building when the City and County arrived at an agreement for use of the former railroad property. He presented a letter to Council explaining all the requirements of staff. Before they do anything further, he asked Council to direct staff to stop micro-designing and to encourage the owners to make modest improvements. He also asked for a waiver of any peer architectural review fees. Robert Hadley, 3895 Northwood Court, expressed his desire to have a cemetery on the Bemal Avenue property. He also complained about the maintenance of the portion of the existing cemetery that is the responsibility of the Odd Fellows. He realized that the City had no control of this area, but asked for assistance in getting some action. Dennis Baker, 3147 Lansdown Court, expressed his opposition to the extension of Stoneridge Drive. The current General Plan shows Stoneridge Drive extending east to E1 Charro. A meeting was scheduled on August 16 and six thousand notices were sent. About a hundred people attended and gave their input. The majority were against the extension. A traffic consultant has been retained to study not only Stoneridge Drive but also a possible extension of Mohr Avenue and E1 Charro south to Stanley. Another meeting was held September 6, at which about two hundred residents attended. The traffic study was not yet completed. It was expected by September 14 and he has still not seen it. Again, the majority of the residents objected to the extension of Stoneridge. He believed extending Stonefidge would invite a tremendous amount of cut-through traffic from those who wish to avoid the intersection ofi-580/I-680. It will relieve congestion in the city for a period of time, however he believed it will increase cut- through traffic, crime, accidents, and congestion in all side streets adjacent to major thoroughfares. He urged Council to oppose the extension. Mayor Pico explained that this process is on-going and there will be ample time for the citizens to express their opinions. Trizia Hill, 2615 Trevor Parkway, also expressed opposition to the extension of Stoneridge Drive to E1 Charro. She said she was at this meeting to bring more attention to this issue, not only of the residents in east Pleasanton, but also those impacted by the Ponderosa/Busch development. She said there are currently 23,000 cars that use the existing Stoneridge Drive as a deadend. If the street is extended there will be an additional 22,000 cars Pleasanton City Council 8 09/18/01 Minutes