PC 03/24/1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Silva requested that the Planning Commission exclude the Stoneridge Drive Specific Plan area from any contemplated new studies. He stated the that he believes that the planning effort on the balance of the east side, if they choose to do a study, can move on a parallel track. The DeSilva Group would lend its support to that effort and provide information and ideas as requested. Lance Reinke, 3471 Dennis Drive, stated that when he bought his home he knew Stoneridge Drive was going to go through. He advised that it is important to extend Stoneridge Drive to El Charro to alleviate the traffic tie-up on Santa Rita Road. He commented that he believes there are too few access points to I-580 and I-680. Victoria Holt, 3390 Vermont Place, stated that she sympathizes with the residents on Martin Avenue. She advised that she is in favor of the east side study, but the Martin Avenue area should be excluded. She stated that when she purchased her home she received information on the approved 1989 Stoneridge Drive Specific Plan. She commented that she worked on the committee with Chandler Lee on a plan for Stoneridge Drive. She cannot accept that a plan she worked on is now being altered. She commented that there is an approved plan that the City and the people wanted and that this plan will provide tax revenue and a park. In response to a question from Chair Cooper, Ms. Holt stated that she does not want to exclude Staples Ranch from the study because if she excludes it she divides herself from the other residents that aze acting towazd the east side study. What she would like to do is be a representative on the committee and if she knows that the City will accept this already approved plan of 1989, then there is no a reason for Staples to be involved. She does not want to exclude herself now, because she does not know what is going to happen with the new developer. Cazl W. Pretzel, 3633 Glacier Court North, referred to the minutes of the last meeting where Danbury Park residents were upset because of all the traffic on Valley Avenue. He stated that this was caused because Las Positas was not extended to Livermore because of other development. He stated the committee should be about preserving life-long family plans for the residents of the community. He referenced the City's traffic study related to cut-through traffic, noting that he felt that this information must have come from the W. Las Positas study and that this information was not to have been released. He stated that this is what happens when facilitators work on the situation, rather than the residents who aze going to be affected by the decision. He noted that he feels it is important that this committee be controlled by the residents who are going to be living with it from this day forward. He stated that he feels property owners have property rights, but they don't have the property rights to destroy the quality of life of others and the other things that make Pleasanton a livable place. Commissioner Wright stated that the traffic report referred to by Mr. Pretzel was done at the direction of the City Council and that the information included in the report was developed using the computer generated data. He noted that this was not special information for use only by the W. Las Positas Committee. Mr. Pretzel stated that the Committee members were asked not to make a lot of public comments until the information was ready. In response to Commissioner Dove's request for clazification regarding Mr. Pretzel's comment that the City paid Jack Nicklaus $1.5 million, Mr. Pretzel stated that the City gave the Ruby Hill development $1.5 million for a private park. Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 March 24, 1998