CCMIN082906 - Laserfiche WebLink

red lights. Safety Committee issues should not be separate from the General Plan. She urged Council to be aware of the actual facts regarding accidents and noise on Santa Rita. Naomi Jones expressed her opposition to expanding Santa Rita with the three left turn lanes. It will only increase traffic. She believed most of the drivers taking the StanleyNalley Avenue route are coming from or going to Livermore. Commuters take Valley and Santa Rita because there is no other route. If someone in northwestern Pleasanton wants to go to Livermore, they will not take 1-580 during commute hours. Council points to progress in fixing 1-580, 84 and 1-680, but all these solutions are long term and may take more than ten years to implement. She felt the citizens needed solutions now and the freeway solution does not fix the streets of Pleasanton. Commuters on Valley and Santa Rita are making it dangerous for any pedestrian crossing these streets. She said her son has stopped riding his bicycle to Harvest Park School, since he was hit in the crosswalk while coming home from school. She asked Council to find a solution other than adding more traffic to Valley and Santa Rita. She wanted an alternative for commuters that would not bring them deeper into Pleasanton. She asked that Stone ridge Drive be a solution and felt it was in the best interests for Pleasanton rather than in the best interest for those living around Stoneridge. She asked that Council not add the two sets of three left turn lanes on Santa Rita. The residents along Stoneridge Drive were aware of the expansion that could come to that street when they moved there. The plans were already in place for the extension of the road. Valley and Santa Rita were never designated to handle this amount of traffic. The residents in this area were never told when they bought in the area that this was coming. She did not want the Stone ridge extension removed as an option. Mayor Hosterman indicated that is what this meeting is about; sending an alternative to staff to model so there will be hard data to see exactly what the scenarios will be with and without various options. Greg Visscher indicated he supported removing the Stoneridge Drive extension from the General Plan. He expressed sympathy for the people who live near Valley and Santa Rita. However, adding more traffic to Pleasanton is not the solution. He said he could support the extension of Stoneridge if the problems on 1-580 were solved. That is the real problem. He believed having synchronized traffic signals through Pleasanton down Stoneridge is not the solution. It will only give 1-580 commuters an easier way to get through Pleasanton and add more cut through traffic down Kolin and other places. He cited various instances where commuters cut through cities to avoid freeway traffic. Judith Geiselman said she adamantly opposed the extension of Stone ridge Drive. She presented "food for thoughf' relative to making the General Plan detailed versus a policy statement. She felt Council should use whatever method would provide accurate full disclosure so there are no mistakes in interpretation. She believed she was misinformed when she purchased her home. She explained she had worked for Alameda County Social Services, which had State regulations, but there were also policies and procedures that provided the necessary details, which included cross-references to the specific manual regulations. She urged Council to do the best to have the General Plan be accurate and allow the staff to learn what the best way to provide full disclosure. John Carroll expressed his opposition to the Stoneridge Drive extension, although he had sympathy for those in the Santa Rita/Valley Avenue area. He suggested better enforcement regarding speeding. He was believed there were two approaches, one being General Plan Workshop Minutes 11 August 29, 2006