CCMIN101105 - Laserfiche WebLink

Judith Geiselman, 2602 Glen Isle Avenue, said she has enjoyed all the discussion and presentations on this matter. She has supported the residential senior development since she first heard of the proposal. However, she was concerned about freeway noise and wanted to make certain there was a buffer for freeway noise as well as airport noise. She would like the developer to talk to officials at the Livermore airport. She loved the idea of putting the park in the middle of the residential and commercial properties. It would be a wonderful way to symbolize where Pleasanton is ending, even though the auto mall is on the Livermore side, but it also would truly be a definite barrier between commercial and residential and a good way to end Stoneridge Drive. It appears from the proposed plan that it is a short step to make Stoneridge Drive a thoroughfare unless it is changed. A park would help do that. She did not want Stoneridge Drive extended. She reminded people that the last traffic model showed that by extending Stoneridge Drive it would alleviate in a minor way traffic issues in some places, but would escalate traffic issues in other areas, so it did not make much difference if Stone ridge Driver were extended. There were no other speakers. Vice Mayor Brozosky asked staff to answer the questions on the EVA and proximity of the houses to existing residences. Mr. Iserson said this is a conceptual plan and Staples Ranch Road is only a suggested option for an EVA. 4. NEXT STEPS AND MATTERS INITIATED BY COUNCIL OR COMMISSION Trish Maas wanted to make certain people do not lose sight of the whole picture of Pleasanton. This development has an effect on the city. She agreed the tax revenue from the Hendrick automotive development was an important consideration and did not want to lose that development. If this is a package, then so be it. When it comes to the Planning Commission it will make whatever changes necessary to make it right for the city. Brian Arkin was concerned about the speed at which the developers want to process this project. This is a major project for the city and should be reviewed carefully. He was also concerned about the amount of staff time it would take. He suggested an additional fee be paid by the developer to hire staff to process the application, so time is not taken away from completing the General Plan. It seems the General Plan update is taking longer and longer. He felt if these units were not included in the housing cap, the issue should be taken to the voters. This looks like an apartment complex and he did not feel it was different than other senior apartments, except for the option of having meals provided and that exists at other places in the city like Ridgeview Commons. He wanted to go to the voters and ask for an extension of the housing cap. He wanted the project configured in such a way that it would not allow Stoneridge Drive to be extended. If not, the whole east side of Pleasanton will fight the project. If that means a little more money is spent to do the EIR is such a way that the Stoneridge extension is removed from the General Plan, so be it. He was concerned that when driving along 1- 580, one would see contiguous structures between Livermore and Pleasanton. That looks more and more like Hayward, Milpitas, etc. He felt that separation made the Tri-Valley special. This proposal appears to be urban sprawl. Mary Roberts indicated the map was the same or similar to one presented in 2004 and the EVA was the same as proposed then. She felt it should be rearranged and she urged the residents not to panic because it would be changed. She liked John Carroll's suggestion of rotating the park. That Joint Workshop City CounciVPlanning Commission 10 10/11/05