CCMIN050107 - Laserfiche WebLink

Stoneridge Drive, they feel the sound walls do not work, they cannot leave their windows open, smell exhaust from vehicles, dust is sooty and gray, homes vibrate with big trucks, the volume of traffic is grossly understated, traffic mitigations never happened or took too long and are not effective. She presented a list of “should’s”; the City should have never allowed so many homes to be built on Stoneridge Drive, should have allowed for two additional lanes with the frontage road and effective sound walls, developers should have disclosed the truth to buyers, previous city planners should have provided reality to those seeking the truth, previous city planners should not have refused those of us who specifically asked to review the General Plan and Stoneridge Drive Specific Plan, telling us instead there was nothing in them because nothing was planned, and all traffic Triangle committee members should have acted with integrity and kept State Route 84 improvements in the priority list. She questioned how one could make 6 lanes from 4 without negative land trade-off’s, wanted to know if bike lanes would be deleted, would road medians be deleted, would landscaping buffers or sidewalks be deleted, or would eminent domain be used even though this has been denied. She wants Pleasanton traffic to be better, wants traffic problems managed, wants the Valley Avenue problems solved, does not believe Stoneridge Drive is the answer and believes regional traffic problems require regional solutions. John Carroll supported removal of the Stoneridge extension from the plan if possible. If not possible, he wanted to see some conditions made. He believes the traffic report should have either an addendum or summary re-write so that the differences of opinion between the two different groups is addressed, felt key details are buried deep and are hard for people to find. The text form did not include the information about the other streets and he encouraged the Council to have something done so they can at least be on the same page and not have to draw from two different diverse areas. Secondly, he felt the Staples Ranch MOU provides for a permanent right-of-way and he disagreed with Mr. Bouschard’s statement that he believes it never can be built. He agreed with Otis Nordstrom on the deposit; the County of Alameda should deposit $3.5 to $7 million in an escrow account and he felt this was the bare minimum condition that the City needs to have in place before discussions on extending Stoneridge are even considered. Lastly, he did not see a referendum or an initiative as a threat but as a promise. Council took a five minute break. The meeting reconvened with all Councilmembers present. Shellie Gianotti discussed comments from former Mayor Tom Pico who could not attend the meeting, and asked her to read them into the record. She said Tom believes that Stoneridge Drive is the last piece of valuable leverage that the City has with regard to regional transportation improvements and that the extension should stay in the General Plan but only with specific conditions tied to regional traffic improvements. He believes that without such conditions, the item would be the subject of a referendum which he would support. She said Tom recognizes that the extension is a divisive issue in the community. In the past, with issues the Council anticipated it would be subject to a referendum such as the 1996 general plan update, the Council chose to take action on the issue, and then placed the issue on the ballot asking the voters to ratify its decision. The Council thought it was reasonable and responsible to ask the residents to weigh in on the Council’s decision and Tom believes it would be appropriate to do that in this situation. Anne Fox read a letter into the record, “On December 17, 1985, the City Council adopted resolution 85-588 modifying the 1984 General Plan and deeming Stoneridge Drive as a City Council Minutes 12 May 1, 2007